IT HAS not been a pretty sight watching Nicolas Sarkozy chase the National Front vote ahead of Sunday's second round. Last Thursday I listened to him give a speech at a rally in Le Raincy almost entirely devoted to worries about excessive immigration, Islamist preaching, national identity, the need for secure “borders” (his theme of the moment), and the importance of France's Christian roots.
He was at it again in Toulouse last night, extolling the virtues of frontiers against all these threats to France. He had one particularly bizarre line: “Break down France's borders, and you will see tribes impose the sort of behaviour that we do not want on French soil.”
It is unpleasant and divisive stuff, even if, arithmetically, Mr Sarkozy has nowhere else than the National Front to go for votes. But to jump from this to a comparison with Marshall Pétain, France's collaborationist leader during the second world war, shows just how unrestrained the anti-Sarkozy feeling among some people has become. L'Humanité, a communist daily whose influence is greater than its 51,000 circulation would suggest, last week ran a cover likening Mr Sarkozy to Pétain (pictured above). Jean-Luc Mélenchon has accused Mr Sarkozy of using language “directly taken from the collaboration” with Vichy France.
The recent level of Sarkophobia in the French media is unprecedented. L'Express has compiled a series of anti-Sarkozy front pages that makes this point visually. Among them you can find stories about Mr Sarkozy entitled “The Yob of the Republic”, or “The Shame of the Fifth Republic” (both from Marianne).
Over the years, this has been a hobby not only of the left. As Frédéric Martel recalls, François Bayrou was formerly an enthusiastic practitioner. How to explain this ferocity? After all, at one point, the left used to complain that it was Mr Sarkozy who had an unhealthy stranglehold on the French media, given his friendship with Martin Bouygues (TF1, LCI), Arnaud Lagardère (Europe 1, Paris-Match) and Serge Dassault (a senator from Mr Sarkozy's UMP and owner of the unfailingly Sarkophile Le Figaro).
A few years back, Alain Genestar, a former editor of Paris-Match, blamed manoeuvres by the Elysée for his eviction following the publication of a cover story showing Cécilia Sarkozy, then Mr Sarkozy's wife, and Richard Attias, now her husband.
I think the answer lies beyond the tone of this second-round campaign. It stems partly from Mr Sarkozy's own errors of judgment (Fouquet's, the Bolloré yacht, his swearing at a member of the public at an agricultural show) as well as his tiresome look-at-me showmanship. There is also a degree of unattractive snobbery towards a man whom many within the bien-pensant left-bank Paris elite consider vulgar and uncultivated.
Neither has he helped himself by taking a bullying approach towards unfriendly journalists. At one live televised press conference at the Elysée, for example, I remember Mr Sarkozy mocking Laurent Joffrin, of Libération, for asking a “very stupid” question.
French journalists tend to be left-wing. I've just looked up the election results for the works council at France Télévisions, for instance, and the top place (with 37%) went to the Communist-backed CGT. With Mr Hollande now the strong favourite to win the presidency, the scent of imminent victory may be partly driving a sense of impunity in the left-wing media. If Mr Hollande is elected, it will be interesting to see whether they hold him to the same standards.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Obviously Sarkozy needs the NF voters to win, but he has publicly stated that there has never, and will never be any alliance with the NF. Imagine if the socialists ever made an official declaration that there would never be any alliance with the communists. They would probably have already lost the first round of the elections.
Considering the antisarkozy campaign, the dirt dug up at the very last minute, and the fact that Sarkozy has had nine candidates against him, so far he has done remarkably well. If the debate goes in his favour tomorrow evening, as in principle it should, there's no reason why he shouldn't come through winning the elections. He certainly deserves too.
There were reports today that his speech at the Trocadéro caused considerable emotion. In spite of all the media pressure, there were young listeners with tears in their eyes. Makes you think..
Obviuously Sarkozy won't get crushed by Hollande on sunday (like less than 46%), because he represents one of the major political parties in France. But that doesn't make him a likely winner.
What if the tears were for the incredibly right-wing tirade against immigrants, pro millionaire friends, against the European Union, pro protectionism etc. etc.
I don't vote in France but I'd be crying myself...
There is a problem in France that even Hollande would have to contend with re. immigration, should he be elected. The problem is that border country members of the EU have different standards regarding the problem. Malta, a member country for example, allows around 60% through, whereas Ireland would allow 2.5% through. Naturally the EU should have general laws concerning immigration quotas that all border countries must respect. There would also have to be stricter laws concerning
clandestine immigrants.
You wouldn't know, for example that 'Merah' who escaped from a prison in Afghanistan and was listed as a wanted terrorist, got back into France clandestinely. He was the one that killed the jewish children and their father at point blank range, after murdering three or four Moslem soldiers in the French army.
You wouldn't know that the eminent socialists in France are generally more wealthy than those who are not socialists. In fact Hollande earns more than the President himself. Yet the press have labelled Sarkozy as 'President of the rich'. All phoney, socialist fabrication.
Hollande has at least four properties. One of them is in Mougins. It, and another property he has in Paris are extremely pricey, yet he has undervalued his properties absurdly in order to avoid paying the legal amount of property taxes that should be due.
If you can read French I'll send you the link to the article, ironically published by l'Express, who have since obviously changed their tune, to join the band-wagon of the Sarkozy bashers and Hollande fabricators and promoters.
It's easier and apparently more acceptable to be a very wealthy socialist, than reasonably well off and not socialist.
The region Hollande is the director general of, is the most highly taxed region of France (La Corrèze) for very extravagant reasons. He is a complete imposture who has the support of the majority of left wing media, including French tv (mostly left wing). In fact he has virtually been fabricated by the media and programmed to win, complete with phoney Mitterand gestures learnt especially for the occasion. But you wouldn't know this..
Not fear of De Nagy Bocsa - that puffed-up fake French aristocrat.
The guy's just simply a nit, or perhaps more precisely, a pratt.
His self-view, behaviour and absurd claims to 'knowledge' amply testify to it.
More annoying is his wholly fake claim to ''Christian'' values.
There's nothing vaguely ''Christian'' about him at all.
For a start, a key message is to turn the other cheek, not vituperate aggressively.
Another is to abandon material wealth.
De Nagy Bocsa is by far the wealthiest of the candidates for the presidency - with an obscene showiness about its flaunting.
If he thinks that ''Christianity'' is what the Bishop of Rome claims it to be as the head of a very wealthily propertied institution using Christianity as its logo, then for when the FOURTH (Christian?) wife?
Sounds more appropriate for a Saudi Frangistan to me.
Hollande isn't bad too, but is more discret
We'sll send whoever is losing to campin in Italy
Sorry MC.
Like France, in Italy, general elections are about being 'national', (not about paying taxes!)
The Italian parliament elects the President and Italy has a rather good one, though I suspect his past is too 'Communist' for you.
After all, we're not talking here about has-been prime ministers, French or Italian, are we?
Really, Sarkozy has only himself to blame. If he is desperate to cling to the Elysee enough to aggressively court National Front support, then he deserves no respect from either the left or the right. Sarkozy's greatest love is Sarkozy, not France.
You hyperventilate, Aidan. Hollande is courting the NF votes not less aggressively than Sarko.
A great deal is at stake in France's upcoming Presidential elections.
It isn't about the EU driving Franco-German axis only.
A much wider range of issues need to be addressed within France.
As pointed out in the article the immigration question is far from consensual. Politicians are likely to get pulled in many directions, as they have in the past, looking dejected and haphazard at times. Oddly out of touch or inappropriately populist. The main difficulty being to reach the much harder middle ground.
Fringe parties have made significant inroads time and again and appear particularly vocal in France. This is because politics of moderation has consistently failed to address head-on some of the tougher issues commoners have long waited meaningful answers
to.
It may be too late in the day for Sarkozy to provide some of them but the media showing unchecked dislike for the man is unwarranted and unhealthy.
In democracies where political legitimacy stems from popular majority vote the sitting President deserves respect until eventually voted out at the ballot box. Or messing up so badly that is forced to resign.
Attacking political ideas or showing strong disagreement with policies is one thing. Quite another is for there to be smear campaigns that repeatedly take on an overly ideological taint, worse still, a personal twist.
Who cares? France does not matter anymore. To anyone. If you live there, just immigrate. I am so sorry for you. But don't come here.
I see many commentators are taking issue with the last cover of the Economist. Yet, I recall that Mr Sarkozy was 'The incredible shrinking president' a few years after entering office. I find this is more offending than being called 'rather dangerous'.
It is true that Mr Sarkozy has been a antagonizing figure to say the least. Yet, that does not justify the opprobrium heaped on him. No one dares make a cover with the left of the PS or Mr Mélanchon likened to Stalin or any leader of the former eastern bloc.
To say that french journalists are left leaning is an understatement. Results of alleged straw polls made within newspapers were circulated on twitter. The Mélanchon-Joly-Hollande routinely gathered more than 3/4 of the votes. Mrs Joly, the candidate for the green party, was especially over-represented. The problem is that it is plainly visible in the reporting.
* Of course, liberal ideas are nearly absent from editorials and pieces.
* the green thesis are given favorable reporting. Try finding a piece with a favorable tone on GM crops: it will be difficult, to say the least. Ditto for nuclear power, where every fact that may be favorable to this industry is represented in a dark light, whereas the new renewables (wind and solar) always have favorable articles.
To summarize, the french press, especially the national one, appears more like clones of the Pravda or Izvestia ... Le Figaro doing it for the right wing reporting, the others for the left. No wonder readers tend to desert.
French culture is more statist and collectivist than ever even as money for the great entitlement machine is running out! Cette generation des Francais et Francaise aura un rendez vous malheureux
avec la realite.
Laissez faire is the worst insult in the French intellectual lexicon.
uh, sorry, we aren't anglo-Saxons, and sorry to have had such a History with a french state since Colbert.
It seems that the french way wasn't a bad success !
Colbert kept a ruinous and tyrannical Monarch on the Throne and enabled this 17th century monster to die in bed by assiduously paying all state accounts in Gold or its equivalent without fail.
The far nobler Louis 16th died on the Guillotine largely because
he led France into bankruptcy and complete loss of public credit.
Holland is no Colbert!!!
it's your own appreciation
Hollande is no Colbert, I would most likely agree with that
"Laissez faire is the worst insult in the French intellectual lexicon."
We hardly use it, using instead "la politique du chien crevé au fil de l'eau".
A distinguished linguist like you will have no problem translating.
Oh, I see !! They want cake, but only from Marie Claude, sorry, Antoinette.
Regarding the "tricolore" vs "red flag" I was, notwithstanding remarks by some here, right on the money or spot-on : This is exactly what Sarkozy has just done in his Labour Day Speech (see France-Info:Nicolas Sarkozy aux syndicats : "Posez le drapeau rouge et servez la France"). Let me gloat a bit...
This article doesn't seem to be particularly pro-Sarkozy either, although S.P. is perfectly correct regarding L'Express.
Let's not forget that the anti-Sarkozy campaign has virtually lasted five years. The fabrication and promotion of Hollande, an inexperienced tartuffe who has never even been a minister, and has an inglorious record, has lasted since the fall of DSK, a fall that Hollande as First Secretary did nothing to help his colleague avoid.
It also seems to me that the anti-Sarkozy campaign isn't just limited to France. There is a noxious regurgitation of socialism here and there in Europe that seems to have spurred a following mostly among the eighties' generation. Those who are not aware of the very negative consequences of the Mitterand era and the 30 years plus of what the French call 'ni-ni-isme' (neither one nor the other, middle of the road immobilism). This lasted until the end of the reign of Chirac, who was in fact more left wing than right.
Sarkozy certainly has accomplished more in three years than Chirac ever did in 12 years. The former is probably one the best Presidents France has ever had. It won't be any journalist, whatever his or her political inclination, who would endorse this, but history probably will.
Holland needs a lesson in humility. He will get it whether he is elected or not. Preferably not, because Sarkozy hasn't finished what he started, and he is the only person capable of governing France through what is still a very critical period.
Hollande won't be able to govern effectively because of the demands of the allies he is answerable to, especially those of Melénchon (communist) and naturally the trade unions who, humiliated by Sarkozy are relying on Hollande in order to resuscitate their faded reason of being.
It goes without saying that this isn't the best period for France to go hard left and full in reverse. Even if it's possible it certainly can't be done with impunity. The problem is that the harm won't only be limited to France. What is at stake today is also European. For this reason The Economist is perfectly right to refer to the 'dangers'.
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.fr/2012/04/dutch-nightingale.html
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2012/04/bilan.html
I attentively read both of your articles ... and I have to say I disagree with the bulk of what's written there. I will try to point out what bothered me in your argumentation, by commenting quotations that I found either bizarre or utterly wrong.
"Since Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in 2007, certain media have constantly worked against him, discrediting him and denigrating his considerable efforts and accomplishments during one of the most serious economic crisis in history. One could say that this antisarkozy campaign has been orchestrated systematically in order to promote and program the election of a socialist candidate and government next month {...} One is therefore bound to reach the conclusion that the denigration of Sarkozy and the promotion of Hollande have been energetically programmed by the media."
=> I would to remind you one important thing. During the first two years of his mandate, Sarkozy has literally hogged the French medias. He always strove to grab the journalists' undivided attention and was omnipresent, as far as French medias (press, TV ...) are concerned. His image of a ubiquitous and super-active president appealed to French people at the beginning, but pretty rapidly, they harbored repulsive attitudes at each of his TV interview. Sarkozy was had more the talent of showmanship than anything else.
=> Second, you seem to allege the existence of a media-prompted conspiracy against Sarkozy, seen as a scapegoat and would-be martyr. That's once more preposterous. He's been mollycoddled for years by the French media, hence the complete fallacy to pretend he's bullied by pro-socialist medias. This is pure paranoia. There's no more connivance between the medias and Hollande than there's been with Sarkozy earlier during his mandate.
"Being aware of DSK's inclinations, had he reminded the ex-patron of the IMF of his responsibilities, and warned him of the dire consequences should he continue to go off track, perhaps history would have been different."
So you genuinely believe that this kind of arguments is valid? Hollande isn't responsible for DSK's sexual perversions. The latter is ill, he has a pathology for years and all his close relatives are mute in front of this. Could we blame Hollande for this, albeit he had not even been anointed as the presidential candidate of the socialists yet? Once more, that's ridiculous. You cannot hold him accountable for not having chided a man who lived far afield and didn't give a dime about French politics before May 2011. In the same logic, we could blame Sarkozy for the wrongdoing and misbehaving of a fair battalion of his ministers, many of whom have not been systematically fired.
"like taxing millionaires at the rate of 75%, which is unconstitutional"
=> Just avoid superficial and dogmatic comments on Hollande's measures without really delving into the core of the proposal. That is not going to prompt any tremendous brain drain, nor is it likely to amputate the wealthiest livelihoods by significant proportions. I don't want to develop more on this, so I would only advise you to inform a bit more before criticizing.
"Sarkozy has never been appreciated by the media, probably because he is not influenced by them and is therefore unmanipulatable."
=> Once more this is ridiculous. This scapegoating and martyring strategy is nonsensical. I mean if don't have more compelling arguments but to saddle Sarkozy with invented evils, that's a bit sad.
"Hollande likes to pose as representing the poor (which by extension means that Sarkozy can only represent the rich) he has a number of valuable properties"
And? Must you be poor to represent the have-nots? That's once more an illegitimate argument. This is not aberrant to earn a good living when you graduated from Sciences Po and HEC. I understood you were a diehard meritocrat, so in theory, it should not annoy you. Plus, Hollande has always been a straight and respectable man, unlike his rival.
"whenever they have governed there has never been any notable improvement in 'social justice'"
=> Under Mitterand, the death penalty was abolished, the 5th week of "congés payés" is voted, the RMI and the ISF are created, a minimum wage (SMIC) is also put into place and the liberalization of French mores and social habits gathers momentum. You may find this piffling in comparison to the economic record of Mitterandism. I personally don't.
"Hollande is simply not strong enough and not qualified. He is, as one says here, a Tartuffe. An impostor."
=> check his academic credentials, and you'll see he is ten times as much "qualified" as Sarkozy to run this country. He is not an impostor, or a Tartuffe, but a respectable political figure who will for sure make a good president. Don't think that only because he never held a ministerial office he won't be qualified to govern. Sarkozy was as inexperienced when he took office as president. ;)
" The socialists still like to believe in the mythic mensonge of 'equality'."
=> This is not the kind of barbarous and liberty-innovation-killing egalitarianism that Hollande is up to. It is only more equality of opportunity within the French society. Under Sarkozy, the gini coefficent has actually shot up, evidence that the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has widened, despite the very good position of France beforehand. The most advanced and prosperous societies are those where the level of inequality is the least acute.
"In their bid to bring about equality, (égalité) they will do away with ideas such as rewarding young scholars for good work. In their view it creates 'politically incorrect competivity'. For the sake of mythic equality they will discourage the talented to forge ahead, in order to allow the less talented the chance, in principle, of catching up with them."
=> that's not true. The mythic equality you mention is not what Hollande fights for.
2ND ARTICLE:
"Par exemple, sur les sanctions à la jeunesse délinquante, sur l’immigration incontrôlée, sur l’assistanat excessif, etc. L’intelligentsia parisienne ne lui a jamais pardonné de parler de manière décomplexée de vérités qui ne font pas partie de l’idéologie politiquement correcte."
=> "de manière décomplexée" -> Sarkozy's only stigmatizing targeted parts of the French population and exaggerating problems that do exist, but that encompass a tiny share of the whole population (e.g. the 'assistés' do not account for all the unemployed or low-skilled workers -> in Sarkozy's program, it nevertheless comes as if the whole French working class was plagued by festering 'assistanat')
"d'empêcher les gens fortunés de quitter le pays et d'investir ailleurs, donc d'avoir suffisamment de gens riches en France pour qu'ils y investissent et créent du travail."
=> Rich people, and among them industrialists and manufacturing tycoons, would have left anyway and outsource their activity because France still grapples with low competitiveness. So this argument is flawed, and as I mentioned above, the 75% tax put forward by Hollande won't cause any 'tax panic' that would prod the rich to flee France.
"-La possibilité de recours individuel devant le conseil constitutionnel. Modification de la constitution et Réduction des pouvoirs du Président de la République au profit du Parlement et des citoyens.
-La limitation à deux mandats de cinq ans pour le Président de la République."
=> Sarkozy never didi that ... maybe you've been intoxicated by rightist propaganda, but I swear I never heard that Sarkozy ever passed such reforms. If you can prove it, then I'd appreciate.
" Augmentation de 4% du pouvoir d’achat des Français durant le quinquennat."
=> That's wrong. The purchasing power of French consumers stagnated during his mandate. It would be an egregious lie to argue the opposite.
"Quatre mesures phares en faveur de l’agriculture ont permis aux agriculteurs de dépasser la crise et d’envisager plus sereinement l’avenir"
=> I challenge you to ask the French farmers about what they think of that 'overcoming of the crisis' and serenity thing ;)
" Gestion imaginative et énergique de la crise"
=> ???
"Il a fait preuve d’un grand esprit d’ouverture (comme jamais auparavant) en nommant des
opposants à des postes majeurs comme la présidence du FMI en 2007"
=> What a benevolent and gentle soul ... He propelled DSK to America just to get rid of him, because he knew DSK would overshadow his presidency and cause him great troubles. He just kicked him away. That was no kindness, just electoral strategy.
"A l'occasion des retraites, il a rétabli le fonctionnement de la démocratie grâce à sa fermeté devant des millions de manifestants qui, enfin, replace la légitimité des décisions à sa vraie place : le parlement."
=> So for you, re-establishing democracy is to turn a blind eye to your people? What an eery conception of democracy ... Fundamentally, the protesters were not asking for the abrogation of the reform, but only for the government to make some concessions on the retirement age for crippled workers and workers who've had their first occupation at 18. Sarkozy sashayed with his reform and despised his people. What is more, he conceded later on, when social unrest abated.
"Refus d'augmenter nos impôts"
=> He surreptitiously did it with the increase in the VAT rate, the indirect that hurts the most the working class. But of course Sarkozy promoted social justice and greater equality ...
Read your posts very closely - love them. Not only very nicely informed, but also full of common sense, a very rare animal in blog discussions. Thumbs up for you!
.
"...the 30 years plus of what the French call 'ni-ni-isme' (neither one nor the other, middle of the road immobilism)".
.
This attitude is much older than 30 years - its origins are in post-WW1 exhaustion and became France's chosen one, called "strategic passivism".
I get the impression that even you have been unconsciously influenced by the rife Sarkozy bashing orchestration.
In todays world that demands the maximum of governmental flexibility, trying to rule according sectarian ideologies is completely out of date. The fact that you are trying to defend socialism is in itself, in my humble opinion, a non-argument.
Hollande is a self-proclaimed socialist. He has clearly stated that he would first be a president of the socialists then the French... He advocates égalité.
Ironically he's now pretending to give priority to uniting the French!
My own daughter has suffered from egalitarian methods suddenly introduced into French primary schools. It was in fact this uninspired ideology that persuaded her parents to pull her out of the system which was doing more harm than good. C'est une idéologie complètement irréaliste. Hollande is a convinced egalitarian (for others far more than for himself, naturally).
When Sarkozy makes mistakes, he has enough character and courage to admit it. A socialist can never admit to making mistakes. This is the principle reason why socialist mistakes, similar to history that one never learns from, are constantly repeated.
France has got to face the facts and the stakes of European competivity. The socialists never consider competivity. The word doesn't figure in their vocabulary. Neither do such words as 'quality', 'individuality', 'effort', 'inspiration', 'aspiration', dedication, engagement, etc., etc. The reason for this is that such words imply a commitment that is considered too personal. For intransigent French socialists personal effort and personal success are asocial.
Socialist ideologies such as the 35 hour week and going back to the retirement age of 60, which Hollande intends to reapply, are all part of the idea of sharing a mediocre cake, as well as pulling down the level of education for the sake of mythic equality.
Obviously there are exceptions to the rule regarding the retirement age. Your allusions to Sarkozy's policies seem to be caricatures. He had only increased the retirement age to 62 in any case. In most European countries the retirement age is at least 65.
The increase of VAT represents a choice, and not an obligation as a raise of income tax obviously would be. In this sense a VAT rise on certain products is far more preferable and practical.
To put it briefly, socialism advocates mediocrity. It could be regarded as its synonym. C'est périmé. It belongs to the past and should have died when revealed by Ayn Rand's- 'The Fountainhead', for example.
One of Hollande's lastest declarations is d'être 'le successeur de Mitterand..' Quelle ambition! And he pretends to represent 'le Changement'. Pour le pire c'est certain!
I don't know who is the most biased and indoctrinated between us. But what's absolutely certain is that there has never been any Sarkobasing conspiracy masterminded either by the media or by the Socialists. As I told you, and I think it remained true for the whole duration of Sarkozy's mandate, Sarkozy has had an overexposure and overcoverage in the medias, what induces the French to mockingly label him the omnipresident, or super-Sarko. He's been pampered by the medias you now blame for scheming against him.
I'm not defending socialism at all, I'm currently defending a socialist candidate, François Hollande. I repeated a zillionth time on this forum that the French so-called 'socialists' are far from being hard-core socialists. The Socialist Party morphed into a politico-institutional oddity, encapsulating a motley range of social-democratic, liberal and progressive hues. That's not hardline socialism as the one promoted at the sullen times of Leninism or Stalinism.
I would may be agree with you on Education. It's true that within the public system, pupils are generally disincentivized to toil hard and compete, and that an underlying flavour of defeatism mixed with an absurd mission of 'equalizing' students into the same mould is somehow outdated. Don't forget, though, that a selection still exists, and that what's urgently needed is to promote professional and manual bacs/studies in order to disembed the S – ES – L paradigm that still prevails in French mentalities. Fostering the growth and the appeal of alternative forms of study, where employment is easy and allows for a good living, would seem more palatable.
I am also not a great fan of the 35 hour week, and I would too agree with Sarkozy on the reinforcement of teachers' qualifications and competences. One thing to specify, though. Sarkozy scrapped the IUFM (programs forming future public teachers, the true repository of knowledge and generational transmission in our Republic) last year, thus proving once more the inconsistence in his policies.
The retirement age being pulled back to 60 is ONLY for disabled workers and people who have started working at 18 and paid their contributions ever since. That's surely not a complete overhaul or reversal of Sarkozy's badly needed reform. Just spicing it up with social-justice elements.
Last but not least, you argue that increasing was Sarkozy's choice. Ok. Then we may add 'un-assumed' and disguised choice. He constantly and vehemently repeated that the French would never undergo tax increases during his mandate, that he was firmly opposed to punishing French people with tax hikes, and that he would not budge on this issue. I am not wrong to assume that the VAT is a tax, be it indirect. What I abhor in this logic is the blatant discrepancy between what's been said, announced, clamoured and even trumpeted by Sarkozy for five years, and what's been effectually implemented. Lifting the VAT rate is not condemnable en soi. However, systematic lies and evasion to commitments is.
Thanks for reading the articles.
Re. Your first point. If you live in France I would say that your sense of observation appears to be on the blink. If you don't live in France, then it would seem that you lack information.
It is a fact that would be endorsed generally in France that Sarkozy has been victim of an orchestrated campaign by left-wing media including French tv for at leasy five years of his quinquennat. As far as his ever trying to take advantage of the media, that's false. The media, above all left wing media, dislike Sarkozy because he is unmanipulatable. The Parisian club don't like him because he's an individualist and doesn't speak 'Parisian'.
Sarkozy isn't a showman. He hasn't time for showmanship and he doesn't need to rely on showmanship in any case. There too your observation is our of focus. Hollande is the showman, complete with 'practiced for the occasion' Mitterand gestures. He feels he needs such superficial support to camouflage his transparency, lack of content and consistency. Sarkozy has never been 'mollycoddled' by the media. Never.
Re DSK. I never suggested that Hollande is responsable for DSK's behaviour. You misunderstood the point.
First of all the French socialist party must have known about DSK's shady side, yet they were perfectly happy with the idea of him being their favourite candidate for the presidential. Secondly Hollande was informed of the Banon case but did nothing about it and said nothing about it. Why?
My point is that as the Premier Secrétaire of the socialiste party, surely it was Hollande's responsability to discretely remind his colleague, Stauss Kahn, of how much the party is relying on him for the presidential, to warn him of the dire consequences if he continues to go off track. Hollande chose not to do this. Why? Whatever reply one could come up with, whatever ones political tendency, can never be in Hollande's favour. Eg. To try to hide the Banon case? Or to try to take advantage of an opportunity, should DSK continue on his fatal crash course?
75% tax is unconstitutional in France. When a potential candidate comes up with a project, the least he should do is check whether it doesn't go against the constitution. Also it's a fact that the very wealthy are not likely to stay in a country if they are going to be taxed 75%. It's therefore a demagogic idea to please the frustrated. It would do more harm than good. The very wealthy are already highly taxed. Go over a certain limit and no one benefits any more, except the very wealthy who leave the country to go where they would be more than welcome and taxed less.
continued from my last:
Re. Hollande's posing as representing the poor, naturally it's a tartuffe posture. When the socialists have governed France never has there ever been real social justice. The results of the Mitterand years spell this out clearly, despite whatever he did accomplish. There are also a lot of shady deals and mysteries regarding his reign. One has yet to know why Bérégovoy did away with himself and what secrets of State died with him.
As far as representing the poor is concerned, no one can pretend to be generous without first knowing real poverty in any case. Hollande's priority is Hollande. It has always been. Socialism is the ideal cover if one wants to make money. For the French socialists, and the Trade unions, charity begins at home, and it ends there.
I'm aware of Hollande's academic credentials, but they are meaningless in comparison to the qualities necessary to be a good president. De Villpin and Chirac probably were well educated too, but their record is as fad as Hollande's.
One could write tomes about the terrible consequences of inaction. Massoud, for example, had so much hope in the French when he came to Europe to ask for help against the Taliban in April, 2001. The world is still paying the price for not heeding his call at the right time. Chirac was president at the time.
I don't believe Hollande will ever make a good president. It's not his criterion in any case. He just wants to be president. What happens afterwards is less important for him, providing he always has the support of his clan, which is another question.
Sarkozy was certainly a minister before becoming president. As such he had to contend with Chirac and de Villepin's shabby manoeuvres to try to discredit him, even then, before he was elected.
Do you think Sarkozy would have recommended DSK for the General Direction post of the FMI if he had been informed of his perverse behaviour? Your argument is incoherent. It would have been precisely the FMI post and that experience that would have launched DSK for the presidency. If Sarkozy wanted to avoid having to contend with DSK as an candidate opponent, never would he have recommended him for the post.
I'm not at all convinced by any of your arguments, but I've enjoyed the exchange as such. I suspect however that you are sold on socialism. If so I do commiserate, and feel that it would be pointless continuing, because if this is indeed the case, we are never going to get anywhere..
Thank you for your kind comment. You're probably right about the post WW1 origins of 'ni-ni-isme'.
France is a beautiful country and such a pleasant place to live, and historically it's full of amusing paradoxes, which it shares with the UK, (as well as the USA during the time of the French Révolution).
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2011/02/boston-tea-party.html
Yes I could once more reply but I also think it is pointless. I also enjoyed the exchange, although I feel it led nowhere since you are diehard Sarkozyst and that I am seemingly "sold on Socialism". But I appreciated, albeit our discussion has been a bit polarized on both sides I guess ah ah. And your articles provided an ... interesting slant on the elections.
If Hollande is elected and turns out to be a good president, everyone, perhaps even including Sarkozy, would be delighted. But from here he appears to be the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong remedy.
History however will judge, as it always does.
It's probably finished for Bayrou whatever the outcome. If so it would be just as well.
This article doesn't seem to be particularly pro-Sarkozy either, although S.P. is perfectly correct regarding L'Express.
Let's not forget that the anti-Sarkozy campaign has virtually lasted five years. The fabrication and promotion of Hollande, an inexperienced tartuffe who has never even been a minister, and has an inglorious record, has lasted since the fall of DSK, a fall that Hollande as First Secretary did nothing to
It also seems to me that the anti-Sarkozy campaign isn't just limited to France. There is a noxious regurgitation of socialism here and there in Europe that seems to have spurred a following mostly among the eighties' generation. Those who are not aware of the very negative consequences of the Mitterand era and the 30 years plus of what the French call 'ni-ni-isme' (neither one nor the other, middle of the road immobilism). This lasted until the end of the reign of Chirac, who was more left wing than right.
Sarkozy certainly has accomplished more in three years than Chirac ever did in 10 years. The former is probably one the best Presidents France has ever had. It won't be any journalist, whatever his or her political inclination, who would endorse this, but history probably will.
Holland needs a lesson in humility. He will get it whether he is elected or not. Preferably not, because Sarkozy hasn't finished what he started, and he is the only person capable of governing France through what is still a very critical period.
Hollande won't be able to govern effectively because of the demands of the allies he is answerable to, especially those of Melénchon (communist) and naturally the Trade Unions who, humiliated by Sarkozy are relying on Hollande in order to resuscitate their reason of being.
It goes without saying that this isn't the best period for France to go hard left and full in reverse. Even if it's possible it certainly can't be done with impunity. The problem is that the harm won't only be limited to France. The stakes today are also European. For this reason The Economist is perfectly right to refer to such 'dangers'.
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.fr/2012/04/dutch-nightingale.html
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2012/04/bilan.html
Pffff, yes some french left medias exagerate about Mr Sarkozy...just like TE exagerate about "the rather dangerous Mr Hollande", there is nothing to say about that, it is not new.
About the other french medias, the point is if there were nothing to say about Mr Sarkozy, then nothing were been said about him. This is not the case, and of course this is often for "scandalous" things and Mr Sarkozy is not happy. Normal, moreover when you are doing absolutely everything (good or bad) to be elected. And (I hope) Mr Hollande will be treated exactly in the same manner if he will be elected.
Then ask you the question: are french medias diabolizing Mr Sarkozy? Or is Mr Sarkozy diabolizing french medias?
I am a British citizen and have lived in France for over 40 years. I have no right to vote in national elections in either France or the UK but I do pay tax (in France). I suggest that if the "right" was putting up any candidate other than Sarkozy, he or she would win. As it is it seems probable that Hollande will win thanks to the anti Sarkozy vote but I think there is a strong probability that in the subsequent parliamentary elections the French will elect either a hung parliament or a right wing majority.
I share your problem re disenfranchisement.
It's a complete disgrace in a 'European Union' that preaches 'democratic values' to the world.
Another illustration of how the core value is really nationalism, and nothing to do with 'Europeanness', nor 'Union' - let alone 'democracy'.
I agree with the 18th century, revolutionary Bostonian conception of responsibility.
If you pay taxes, you should have a say in how they are spent.
That is very elementary democracy that the EU members just can't 'get'.
Well, so what can we say about British media?
British media write articles based in its political preferences. Everybody could realize about this reading this newspaper.
they write for their lobbies
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I guess Sarkozi read the nation's pulse all wrong. Too late in the day for damage control, though. Looks to me like there's no stopping Hollande. (Not that I envisage any palpable improvements under him, either..)
"Jean-Luc Mélenchon has accused Mr Sarkozy of using language “directly taken from the collaboration” with Vichy France."
To put things in perspective, Mélenchon sounds off like Whastsisname Marat, Tribune Of The People (TM), from French Revolutionary times.
It's all good ... France has to come to terms with its history, has to exorcise its ghosts ("We WON WW-II!" ?!?), and to evict skeletons from its closets. It may as well do those now.
“Break down France’s borders, and you will see tribes impose the sort of behaviour that we do not want on French soil.”
It's like December 31st 406 AD all over again!
Note: When the Jerries first burst the Frontiers Of Civilization (TM) aka the borders of the Roman Empire. They went on to over-run Gaul, Spain, Portugal, and NW Africa from the present Morroco to Tunisia.
Pétain was a man who wanted all the best for his country, though we can differ as to whether he chose the right route towards that end. Sarkozy wants to rule, no matter what it takes. I don´t think it is doing justice to Pétain to liken Sarkozy with him.
"Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"
What a surprisingly shallow piece to read in the headlines of The Economist.
No perspective is given on the man's unprecedented use of the media to create a personality cult around his own figure, debasing the presidency in the process.
Not only the media didn't appreciate this condescending attempt at manipulation. The French public as a whole found it vulgar, not simply the left bank elites.
A journalist capable of supporting the statement "French journalists tend to be
left-wing" with "I’ve just looked up
the election results for the
works council at France
Télévisions, for instance, and
the top place (with 37%) went
to the Communist-backed
CGT" is well advised to get off his duff behind the screen and encounter the real world, or move on to cricket scores.
Unfortunately I've started to become accustomed to it, at least with respect to coverage of France. My question is whether this pub counter quality of commentary also applies to subjects further afield than one's direct neighbour?
France´s strength in football can be ascribed to it´s population of African descent to a large extent. To talk only of the negative aspects of immigration is at best naive of Mr. Sarkozy, himself an offspring of immigrant parents. I can understand that the mainstream right wing of France can support Monsieur Sarkozy only with a hanging hand.
uh, thanks to the good teaching of the french soccer schools, whose students find places in all the european clubs
My point is that quite a big proportion of the French national football team are of African origins, although they may be second or later generation of immigrants. So it seems that in that most popular sport in every European country, France has an advantage because of the immigrants who have been coming to the country from its former colonies, mainly since sometimes after WWII.
Why why why can't the Economist grasp the simple fact that the French people care greatly about mass immigration, national identity, and the threat that Islam poses to their laïcité? Sarkozy is merely expressing what the vast majority of French people are really concerned about. Would we rather have a well-reasoned discussion about the future of the French economy and the painful sacrifices that will need to be made in order to maintain the quality of life that the French have become accustomed to? Yes. But this is politics. Get over it, Economist.
"Neither has he helped himself by taking a bullying approach towards unfriendly journalists. At one live televised press conference at the Elysée, for example, I remember Mr Sarkozy mocking Laurent Joffrin, of Libération, for asking a “very stupid” question."
He actually wasn't mocking Monsieur Joffrin, he only highlighted that he didn't pose a correct question regarding economics and he should have asked him a more challenging question instead of stumbling through his Q&A time.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFnuDKFH2qI
Sad to watch these European countries make the same mistake they did before: blame their problems on the "other." Same language was used by the fascist dictators before the WWII. It never worked and will never works.
Similarly, in the US, they tried with Mexican immigrants. The problem is given the economic conditions, net immigration is down to zero. Furthermore, many States whose leaders took an anti-immigrant stand now cannot find enough workers for their farms or factories on the low end and there is also a massive brain drain from high end tech companies to Australia, Canada and Asia due to difficulties of obtaining a work visa. In summary, we are only hurting ourselves with racist campaign talk.
So true. But hubris gets in the way of commonsense..
Can't they hire illegals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States