Slashdot Log In
Conservative Sarkozy Wins Presidency of France
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun May 06, 2007 04:01 PM
from the legacy-of-Chirac dept.
from the legacy-of-Chirac dept.
Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Obl. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
The aim of Sarkozy is different :
- increasing debt a lot (both public and private)!
- by favoring the rich people and the big corp.
I had hoped that Slashdot would have definitely forgotten France. Instead of that, this -probably real bad- news is on the first page, one of so few first-page news about France in a year. (sigh).
What is he talking about:
- suppressing inheritance taxes
- easing private borowing of money (i.e. increasing bank profits for short time benefits and lifetime interests for poor people)
- "an ownership society"
- he is glorifying the "France of the Crusades". (discourse in besançon, March 13th 2007)
- "le travail rend libre" (one of the offical videos, first sentence)
- he thought some months ago that "France had been arrogant in 2003" while attempting to stop the Iraq war.
- if he survives two more weeks, he will realise his public lifelong dream: becoming president in place of The President.
- he is a lawyer with a speciality: fiscality. I have not written tax evasion even if you read that.
I love him! I am sure you won't.
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an idealistic attitude, but the unfortunate side effect is that a business owner cannot pass his or her business on to designated heirs without their paying a crippling penalty. This affects small family run businesses like retail stores, and is a major reason why so few survive after the owner's death. It's hard enough to make a living in a small retail business without all the confiscatory taxes and fees sucking every available penny out of the budget, but then to have to have it all taken away on one's deathbed is the final blow.
On a philosophical note, one is also presupposing that the State has the right to confiscate someone's wealth at time of death, a right which is highly debatable. If you believe, as many on the Left would, that wealth is an evil thing that is usually obtained through dishonest means, then inheritance tax is merely justice. If you believe, as most on the Right would, that wealth is the fruits of one's labor (or one's ancestors' labor) and one's heirs have a duty to maintain and grow that wealth, then inheritance tax is merely another form of confiscation.
Parent
Re:Nicolas Sarkozy is not a neoconservative. (Score:5, Insightful)
Japan did it, and so can the French. They just have to give up on socialism.
-jcr
Parent
Neoconservatives, Walls, and 6 Years in Power (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting that you say "liberals" don't know what "neoconservative" actually means, then you say it is a term referring to "Jews in the 1980s." Although several top neocons are Jewish, not all of them are. They didn't just spring up in the 80s, and their story is far more complicated than your reductionist analysis makes it seem. That makes it difficult for anyone (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to figure out exactly what the term means. Here's what Irving Kristol, one of the leading lights of the movement, says about neoconservatism [weeklystandard.com]. Note that he uses the term "neocon" a few times in the article. Maybe he does that because he thinks it makes him sound evil and war-like.
As for the bit about conservatives wanting to build a wall and liberals wanting no border at all, you may want to check in on that more thoroughly. The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy. One of the iron laws of politics is that when you have that degree of power, you use it. Look at the sweeping range of laws the Republican Party enacted over those same six years, covering every aspect of American life. If the party was truly unified in wanting to thwart illegal immigration, it would have done something.
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sarkozy is also undoubtedly the most pro-American French president ever. One of the opposition's favourite nicknames for him is "Sarkozy the American" (a deadly insult, of course!)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Apples and oranges (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I agree the lack of a strong extremist ultra-nationalist politicians (that get elected) in the US is not a unique feature of the culture, it is a unique feature of the political system. Even when such people do get elected, they are deeply marginalized. I don't have any doubt that if the US had a parliamentary style of government you would find the US having just as many (if not more) xenophobic right wing nationalist party.
My larger point is that Europeans some times assume that because the US left is like their right, the US right must be like there extreme right. This isn't the case. The things that define the European right really don't define the American right. The American right is far more concerned with economics and the occasional pet social issues, and give only passing thought to immigration. Right leaning European governments almost always are deeply concerned with immigration nationalist identity. The two are very different from each other and would likely kill each other if left in the same room for too long.
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about France, but here in Germany the equivalent to the Republicans is also called Republicans.
For the benefit of Americans unfamiliar with German politics, this is a dig at the US Republicans, since Die Republikaner are generally considered a crypto-neo-nazi party and enjoy very little electoral support. The major conservative party in Germany are the Christian Democrats (CDU).
Parent
Re:Obl. (Score:5, Insightful)
In almost any country other than the USA, almost everyone think of democrats as a right party. Republicans are considered ultra-right.
Parent
Are you sure ... (Score:4, Interesting)
In all seriousness, Royal deserved to lose after she tried her "if you vote for Sarkozy there will be violence in the streets" rhetoric. That kind of crap just won't ever work
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no ties in warfare.
Of course the terrorists win. That's what you get for agreeing to play a game whose conditions for victory are so horribly skewed in the other guy's favor. We've got to wipe out every single one of them. They just have to wait and shoot into the air every once in a while so everyone knows they didn't forfeit. So of course we're not going to win. We should have tried a lot harder to get them to play a different game.
Parent
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to preserve the French culture isn't necessarily xenophobic. A significant part of what makes a country a good or bad place to live is it's culture.(yes, language is part of a culture) For example both Saudi Arabia and the USA are wealthy countries, but ask your wife or girlfriend which one she would rather live in. There is a difference between
Parent
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/internationa
Parent
Re:Are you sure ... (Score:5, Informative)
In reality, everyone knew since these polls where in, early in the morning, that she'd lose, it's just, they all sorta pretend not to know until it's "official". You see, french law has little influence abroad, so anyone with an internet-connection has been able to read these polls all day. Only in French media are they disallowed.
So, each and every journalist covering the election, and every politician aswell, knew the result (aproximately, but good enough since it wasn't a close race anyway) hours earlier.
In this setting it makes perfect sense to admit defeat at 20:01. It'd have been disrespectful of the law and the voters to do so any earlier, and pointless to wait much longer when the numbers where as obvious as they where.
Parent
Neufs pour les Nerdes! (Score:5, Funny)
Sarkozy on free software (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.
M$/Corporate Lapdog. (Score:5, Informative)
From the link you gave, he's the worst of the lot:
Except for Sarkozy, the candidates also agreed that consumers should have the right to buy a computer without any preloaded software, ... Sarkozy was also the only candidate who responded with obvious hostility, remarking when talking about DADVSI that "I am opposed to the orientations implied by your questions."
He expresses his support for patent law on the grounds that it "encourages enterprises to innovate, it attracts investments, [and] encourages individuals to ... develop new inventions." In addition, Sarkozy supported the concept of intellectual property, and suggested that it was premature to talk about revising DADVSI before the end of 2007, when a review is scheduled. In answer to the question about open standards and free software, he replied that "it is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone." Other replies were so general as to suggest that he either had not considered the matter or was avoiding stating his position. As Frédéric Couchet, a director of APRIL commented, Sarkozy's "was the worst response received."
You can read his response yourself [candidats.fr], but the above is bad news.
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.
If standing up for French companies and citizens by supporting their software freedom is not important, I'm not sure what is. Your computer is your press, your store of important information and your telcom all rolled into one. No modern state can live without them and their security and ownership are tantamount to independence. Does he want CIA planted backdoors in his office?
Parent
And now (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789 ,1062291,00.html(in swedish)
One word (Score:5, Insightful)
French bashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now with that being said, do you know why there are trees on the Champs D'Elysees? So the Germans can march in the shade!
Re:French bashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, people would have to have some awareness of history to know any of this. There's a reason why we teach history in schools. It has numerous benefits: among other things, it helps you to remember who your friends are.
Parent
Re:French bashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it was encouraged from the highest levels of Government. First of all you had Rumsfeld etc al, dismissing France as "old Europe". This was effectively an ad-hominem attack. Rather than dealing with the important issues it raised, France was effectively the subject of name calling. Then you had the "Freedom Fries" escapade in the House Of Representatives where all the menus were changed. France was then routinely accused of anti-Americanism in the media. All of this kept peoples attention away from Frances actual objections to military action, amongst which were that it did not believe there was an imminent danger from WMDs, that invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism and that a war would destabilize the Middle East.
The whole racist tirade against France in the US was/is interesting, especially at a time when there is so much discussion about anti-Americanism. Renaming French Fries to freedom fries is definitely anti-French, but is criticising US actions in Iraq or other foreign policy issues, Anti-American? I think not. It seems to me that currently the concept of anti-Americanism is being used as propaganda. Americans are being encouraged to feel that they themselves are being targeted in some racist way, when it is in fact government policy that is being criticised. The result of this is that people are more likely to rally behind their government when confronted with such criticism. The Russian government uses the same trick when it's policies are criticised. The Russian people are deliberately made to feel that everyone is against them.
When you are angry with a country because of specific military or political issues, you should address those specific issues and argue your case. It's all to easy to be dragged into name calling by government and the media.
Parent
Re:French bashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Good for the economy, at least (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be a good thing for France's economy, which has been sluggish in recent years due to the country's labor policies. It is illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week, which makes it difficult to successfully start a small business. Royal offered a comforting promise that France could keep their old ways in place and still be economically competitive, but France has apparently opted for a tougher kind of love.
Furthermore, just because he's "conservative" by French standards, don't think that means he'd belong to the GOP.
Re:Good for the economy, at least (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Sarkozy, interesting name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pro-software patent, DMCA and voting machines (Score:5, Informative)
Most important for slashdot readers: Nicolas Sarkozy is a lawyer and has a very strong pro-software patent stance and was behind the hardline DADVSI [wikipedia.org] copyright law (our local DMCA). He was also behind the introduction of voting machines without paper trail requirements, and of the "secret" report about their validity (no citizen could get the report.
More in the PDF with his answers to the "candidats.fr" initiative here [candidats.fr]
Hard time for free software in France. There are still the parliament election next month, but last time french voters put the majority behind the president.
Where multicultural tolerance is bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
Some of that is good. There has been some very bad "multiculturalism" case law in the EU recently, where women have been beaten and abused but that was OK because it was supposedly "their" culture and the host country should not interfere. This makes a mockery of the foreign culture as well as allowing injustice. It is right for France, and every other country, to demand respect and offer protection for all of their citizens. Injustice and brutality should not be tolerated anywhere. Doing so in the name of "in my country we put woman in cage" is racism in disguise.
How do you say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French?
Seriously, though, if I'm going to move to France I'm at least going to try and learn French. And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if you want to come and work in America, you might pick up a little English first.
Perhaps making it a demand is what makes it unreasonable? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like it should be that divisive. To me it would be reasonable to expect that those wishing to immigrate would reflect the values and language of their adopted country.
If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite.
Why divisive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?
Cheers,
Dave
Was there ever any doubt? (Score:5, Funny)
I've heard Mme. Royal speak, and to be honest, I'm amazed she got as far as she did.
I'm no fan of Sarko or Bush, but come on people, was this really the best the opposition could do? The Socialists would have been better off kidnapping John Kerry.
He may be a stuffed shirt, but at least the guy knows how to comport himself in public, ferchrissakes. (Besides, I hear he speaks French.) Sego came across as a reactive banshee who would promise anything to get elected -- think of the evil spawn of Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton.
Ew. On second thought, don't. I need to take a shower after that one..
Re:And one of the first statements he made: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And one of the first statements he made: (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarkozy has made a point of highlighting the French love for Coca-Cola, jeans and American movies; concluding from this that he would be inclined to support Dubyah's policies is a stone's throw too far. Sarkozy is neither stupid nor inclined to political suicide. He has promised the USA friendship, but immediately made clear that the Americans would have to accept "that friends can think differently". I think Sarkozy knows very well that the Bush administration is allergic to constructive criticism, but that doesn't matter any more. Sarkozy's real problem is finding common ground with the next American president, and he may well opt for backing the future winner early, instead of associating himself with the loser in office. For example, Sarkozy's position on Iraq is not that far distant from the position the next US president is likely to have, i.e. phased withdrawal.
The French communist party is now a mere shadow of what it used to be.
Royal's problem is not that she is female, but that she is a poor campaigner. Her starting position was not that bad, her selection as the socialist candidate generated some genuine enthusiasm. But then she blew it. She was gaffe-prone throughout the campaign, her political platform was a collection of crowd-pleasers, her statements on policy consisted mostly of baked air, and in the decisive last phase she resorted to blatant scare tactics.
On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?
Parent
Re: Can we be next? (Score:4, Insightful)
The election year attempt to push immigration reform through the Republican Congress was one of several factors leading to that party's recent implosion.
Parent
Re: Can we be next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm depressed...
Parent
It's called a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers,
Dave
Parent
Re:Tant mieux pour la France! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.
Many liberals in France were not conviced by Segolene Royal at all, just like many liberals in the US weren't conviced by John Kerry. They did not vote for a candidate but against someone else. The "lesser of two evil" syndrome that is so familiar in US politics.
Sarkozy won, but just like George W. Bush in 2004, the people that did not vote for him (half of the population) really hate him and what he stands for (pro big corporation, anti-immigration etc.).
He now is president of a deeply divided country... we all saw how well that worked out for the US.
Parent
Re:Tant mieux pour la France! (Score:5, Insightful)
Countries are divided. That's how it is. If voting one way creates a relatively peaceful union where differences are worked out politely and within the system, and voting the other way creates a fractured country full of acrimony and bad feelings, then one side is clearly a bad loser (and that's more dangerous to democracy than you might think, as the essense of democracy is to have the losers accept their loss [jerf.org], not crown the winners).
And if that is the case, the side that is being the poor losers and choosing to tear apart the democracy rather than accept loss is the side that, when they win, produces the relatively peaceful government. The side that, when they win, produces "polarization" is the more democratic side. (Being in a Democracy means your side loses sometimes. That's life.)
Take that as you will. I've deliberately not name names. For one thing, it's never a choice between total chaos or total harmony, but I'd be confident that taken as trends, this point stands.
Parent
Re:Tant mieux pour la France! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am myself a first-generation Muslim immigrant to the US. I absolutely cannot stand Muslims who don't realize that in immigrating to a foreign country, they must put the culture of their new country above the culture of the country which they left. Countries should not change to accommodate the culture of immigrants. That is not to say that countries should not evolve their culture, but rather that the culture of a country should be grown at home, through the established processes of cultural change within that country, not imported wholesale from abroad.
I can understand that the liberal tendencies of some Europeans make them hesitant about promoting their own culture above those of others. However, there is nothing wrong with the idea that France should be the home of French culture. Certainly, Algerians believe that Algerian should be the home of Algerian culture, not culture imported from elsewhere!
Moreover, and this is my personal opinionated view, it is vital that European countries maintain their western culture, for the sake of their future prosperity. I don't have any delusions that western culture is perfect, but as someone with a bit of experience with both, western culture is far preferable to modern Islamic culture. It is honestly distressing to me that many liberal-minded individuals that look down upon the worst elements of American culture (religiosity, contempt for science, narrow-mindedness, philosophical absolutism) have no problem modern Islamic culture, which displays many of the same deleterious elements!
Parent