Bonhomie does not a policy make:
Sarkozy’s agenda is “to the left of Kucinich”
One of the reasons I know I’m doing something right on this web site is the fact that I’m lucky enough to have Bernard Chazelle as a frequent reader of and commentator on my postings, be they on matters Middle Eastern or the state of European football. A Princeton computer science professor, Bernard is an unfailingly erudite commentator with spectacularly diverse interests and fascinating insights — check out his personal page — and when I recently waded, rather ignorantly, into the minefield of French politics, he set me straight on a few questions. Now that Nicolas Sarkozy is the new president — and is being claimed in the U.S. media as being as pro-American as Chirac was ostensibly anti- — I invited Bernard to offer us some insights on what we should really expect to change in France as a result of a Sarko presidency. Bernard elegantly shreds the mainstream media picture of “France in decline,” but at the same time skewers the received notion of Sarkozy as an anti-immigrant vigilante or a Gallic Tony Blair.
I’m delighted to welcome Bernard in what I hope will be the first of many guest appearances on Rootless Cosmopolitan
Why Sarkozy Will Disappoint the White House
by Bernard Chazelle
The story has been all over the media: Nicolas Sarkozy might not be an easy man to like but France is the “sick man of Europe” and tough love is what it needs. If its new president’s odes to the liberating power of work
and paeons to “the France that gets up early” grate on the ears of his 35-hour-work-week nation, so be it.
Yeah, yeah, Sarko made few friends in the riot-prone banlieues when he called the locals “scum” and threatened to clean up the projects with a Kärcher power hose (a German brand, no less). But at least he promised them jobs and not more empty socialist rhetoric. Having missed the train of globalization, the French economy is collapsing under the strain of a creaky welfare system and a chronic incapacity to create jobs.
By rejecting the neoliberal creed, France has turned its back on modernity. Aware of its decline, the nation pines for its lost grandeur, a risible notion so quintessentially Gallic English doesn’t even have a word for it. The pro-US, pro-Israel, tax-cutting, union-busting Sarko is France’s best hope for breaking with the gloomy years of the past.
Nice story. Too bad it bears so little connection to reality. France faces serious problems but they are none of the above. Oddly, to get the country all wrong seems a bit of an art form in the U.S. media. On any given day, Tom Friedman can be found berating the French for “trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day.” Friedman’s genius is to suppress in the reader the commonsense reaction—Indian engineers have no life—and improbably redirect the pity toward the French. That takes some skill.
‘French decline’ by the numbers
With the highest birth rate in Europe after Ireland, France contributes 70% of Europe’s natural population growth. GDP per head in France, Germany, Japan, and the UK are nearly identical. Growth over the last 10 years has averaged 2% in france, 2.1% in the U.S., and 2.3% in the UK. In the last quarter, France actually raced ahead of Britain and the U.S. Productivity is higher in France than in both countries (and 50% more so than in Japan). But pity the French: with their 35-hour work week, 5-week paid vacations, and 16-week paid maternity leaves, they work 30% fewer hours than Americans. Maybe that’s why they live longer (81 years vs 78) and infant mortality is lower (4.3 vs 7 per 1000). Unless the reason is France’s health care system: the best in the world, according to the World Health Organization. Or perhaps it’s the narrower inequality gap: child poverty in France is half the British rate and one third the American.
“French decline” experts like to contrast France’s catastrophic unemployment rate of 8.3% (lower than the U.S. rate during the Reagan years) with Britain’s marvellous 5.5%. In the process they miss two points: First,
France created more jobs than the UK in the last 10 years. (The discrepancy comes from the fact that France is younger and has experienced higher labor force growth). Second, virtually all of the job growth in the UK since 2000 has been the result of public spending. The neoliberals who so admire Britain’s recent growth
conveniently forget that it was built on a Keynesian binge through tax increases and a huge public sector expansion: from 37% to 46% of GDP in a mere 6 years. Gordon Brown at the Exchequer has, indeed, looked much the part of a French finance minister with a London office.
José Bové, the Astérix of French politics, has burnished France’s antiglobalisation
image by ransacking McDonald’s outlets wherever he can find enough TV cameras to capture his exploits.
But while France has been noisily scoffing at globalization for decades, it has quietly become one of the most globalized nations on earth. (Reform by stealth is a French disease.)
Some of the evidence:
Britain and Germany;
and its net FDI outflows have been the world’s largest;
figure is 33% for Britain’s and only 10% for the US.
What, then, is wrong with France?
Simply put, the French system serves the interests of two-thirds of the population (the insiders). The outsiders (the young and the old) have been knocking at the door for 40 years. The sons and daughters of North-African immigrants have paid the highest price. While a few might be seeking a new Muslim identity, which their parents shunned, the overwhelming majority of them have no greater desire than to integrate into secular French society. Savor the irony: the only practicing Muslim on the French national soccer team, Franck Ribéry, is a white Christian who converted to Islam. Integration has failed but the battle is not lost.
Half of all immigrant couples are racially mixed and a quarter of all French women of Algerian descent marry non-Muslims. (By comparison, only 2 to 4 percent of African-American women marry outside their race
and 5 percent of Britain’s South-Asian women do so.) The crisis of the projects is France’s biggest challenge in the years ahead. The problem is rooted in the twin evil of racism and the insiders’ fierce defense of the status quo. Sarkozy’s presidency will succeed or fail on his ability to break the door open to let the outsiders in,
and create jobs for the unemployed youths.
Sarkozy is blessed with all the attributes of a successful politician, including a unique gift for being a jerk.
In the back alleys of the banlieues, France’s former top cop comes off as just another white racist thug.
Soccer star Lilian Thuram might well be right that “Sarkozy stirs up people’s latent racism,” but as to being a racist himself the evidence is thin. Sarko actually never used the word “scum.” An exasperated resident of the projects asked him when he would rid them of the racaille (wrongly translated as scum; it means
rabble) and he repeated her plea in the affirmative. Likewise, “I’ll clean up the place with a power hose” were the angry words Sarkozy spoke to the parents of an 11-year old boy who had just been killed in a gang shootout—hardly Hitler addressing the 1927 Nuremberg rally. However, Sarko’s open admiration for the rancid views of my former Ecole Polytechnique colleague, Alain Finkielkraut, makes one wonder. One of the “new philosophers,” he is the French Niall Ferguson, who goes whining to Haaretz that “In France… we no longer teach that the colonial project sought… to bring civilization to the savages.”
On a personal note, I can never forgive Mitterrand for intentionally boosting Le Pen’s fortunes at the ballot box
in a Machiavellian divide-and-rule strategy. On the other hand, as someone who did not vote for Sarko,
I am still grateful to him for dealing Le Pen his biggest electoral blow. I also note that while other politicians regurgitate the same tired “solutions” to the crisis of the banlieues—namely, building more community centers named after great poets—Sarko has suggested somewhat more adventurous ideas,
such as a restructuring of labor relations, a more flexible labor market, hiring incentives, and even that big French bugaboo, affirmative action, all the while reaffirming France’s traditional rejection of communautarisme. But he is a figure of hate among minorities and, unless he can repair his image and build bridges, he will not accomplish much. The issue of ethnic integration towers above all others. The future of France hangs in the balance. Jacques Chirac, the friendliest and most ineffective French president in memory,
spoke endlessly about solidarity but never did a thing about it. Sarkozy has a mandate: 32% of France voted for him; by comparison, only 15% of the U.S. voted for Clinton in ’92. His ideas might well fail but he’s earned the right to try them out. His success on integration will be the ultimate test.
Who is Nicolas Sarkozy?
Unlike Chirac, Sarko is a true man of the right. Being France, of course, that still puts his agenda, though not necessarily his character, to the left of Kucinich. But he faces a French left that, unlike its American version,
lost the battles but won the war. France typically elects rightwing presidents to implement leftwing policies.
The consummate pragmatist, Sarko will not fight his battles on ideological grounds. In anticipation of the social unrest that is sure to greet his reform of labor laws, he intends to use his (likely) new majority in parliament
to pass a minimum service public transportation law to dull the effect of transit strikes. Sarko is the shrewdest French politician of his generation: a coopting master.
Commentators who wrongly see significance in his mixed Hungarian/Greek/Jewish background seem unaware that France is the most ethnically mixed country in Europe: 20% of the population has a foreign parent or grandparent; and the density of foreign-born, the highest in Europe, is similar to that of the United States.
In that regard, Sarko is the textbook French success story. What is highly significant, however, is that
he did not graduate from ENA, the breeding ground of French politicians. This gives him the independent streak to, say, staff half of his cabinet with women, as is his stated intention, without thinking twice about it.
What foreign policy?
His likely selection of Bernard Kouchner as foreign minister is a master stroke. The highly popular founder of the Nobel-prize winning Doctors Without Borders is a former Communist who worked for Mitterrand, campaigned for Ségolène Royal, and, as the chief advocate of the wooly concept of “droit d’ingérence” (right of humanitarian intervention), played Bush’s useful idiot in the run-up to the Iraq war. His selection is a canny way to please, annoy, and confuse everyone all at once.
French foreign policy is framed within a “Gaullist consensus” that has been remarkably consistent over the years. On the European front, Germany will remain France’s only indispensable partner. Merkel’s first foreign trip was to the Elysée Palace. Sarkozy returned the favor on Inauguration Day. London’s hopes for a weakening of the Paris-Berlin axis will once again be frustrated. The axis will put the final nail in the coffin of Turkey’s EU admission, to the chagrin of Britain and the U.S. This will be made all the easier by troublesome new members like Poland, who offer daily reminders to the growing legions of Eurosceptics that the EU is already too big and the last thing it needs is the addition of an impoverished Muslim nation that would soon be its largest member. Sarko and Brown will lower Merkel’s ambition for a new European constitution and they’ll all agree on a referendum-free slimline treaty. True to his faith in industrial policy (which seems to have escaped the eagle eyes of his neoliberal admirers stateside), Sarko will strong-arm the European Central Bank into putting downward pressure on the Euro. He will fail.
Sarkozy’s pious words about changing France’s (shameful) neocolonial position in sub-Saharan Africa will come to naught. France’s chasse guardée will remain well guarded. His proposed Mediterranean union is a different story. France is the strongest power in the Mediterranean rim and it’s a mystery why no Gaullist leader had yet thought of making a move in that direction. Actually, Chirac did: he signed on to the 1995 EU Barcelona Initiative, but the EU’s focus on eastward expansion and the NAFTA-esque imbalances of the project led it to its current vegetative state. Except for Turkey, which will regard Sarko’s Mediterranean initiative as yet another “nail in the coffin” (see above), the reaction in the region will be globally positive. Even Israel might take a shine to it. The U.S. would be wise to support it, but it’s unclear it will.
Regarding Russia, Sarko will follow Merkel’s lead in being firm with Moscow but opposed to an aggressive stand by the U.S. The neocons’ push for a new cold war meant to reverse America’s declining superpower status, which is what the missile shields in Central Europe are all about, will be strongly resisted.
France’s interests in the Levant coincide with America’s. Methods have differed in the past but, after the fiascos of the Iraq and Lebanon wars, they will increasingly converge. Sarko’s take on Syria won’t be as personal as Chirac’s (who never forgave Bashar’s goons for killing his buddy Hariri) but he will work to contain Syrian and Iranian influences. Paris will see eye-to-eye with Washington about Hezbollah and will bark alongside against Iran’s nuclear intentions while opposing military action. The French policy in Iraq? There is none. France has no policy about Dante’s lower rings of hell.
Sarko will initiate a rapprochement with Israel. Given the dysfunctional state of Israeli politics and the 40 years of bad blood between the two countries, he won’t get far. (Hard to believe that France was once Israel’s closest ally.) The contour of French support for a two-state solution around the 1967 lines will not change. Is Sarko pro-Israel? Yes. Does it matter? No. France has the largest Jewish population in Europe and the world’s third biggest (as well as Europe’s largest Muslim population) but there is no “Jewish vote” and no French AIPAC.
Sarko is likely to have done well with Jewish voters (he got an astounding 90% of he absentee ballots in Israel).
But one should not read too much into it. France’s Arab policy might tilt toward Israel ever so slightly but Sarko will quickly discover that his room for manoeuvre is very limited.
Sarko’s Jewish roots are irrelevant. His strong support among Sephardic Jews reflect his tough stance against the antisemitic violence that flared up during the second Intifada. Many Sephardim live near or in the “hottest” banlieues and suffered the brunt of Muslim anti-Jewish hostility. Although this new form of European antisemitism has since declined, it would be tragic to dismiss it. To his credit, Sarkozy did not. Some perspective might be useful, however. Sharon’s attempts to portray France as an antisemitic country
was silly pandering. The 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Survey asked the question: “Do you have a very or somewhat favorable opinion of Jews?” The answer was “yes” for 86% in France, 77% in the US, and 74% in Britain (the figure for that staunch Israeli ally, Turkey, was 15%). More interesting, among Muslim respondents, the answer was “yes” for 71% in France but only 32% in Britain (even though the UK has far fewer Arab Muslims). It would appear, therefore, that the antisemitic violence is hardly representative of French Muslim society as a whole. It must also be pointed out, if there were any need for it, that the most prevalent form of racism in France is not against Jews but Muslims.
Sarko the American?
Washington will have a hard time getting its head around it, but trans-Atlantic relations have ceased to be Europe’s main focus (except in Britain). U.S.-EU relations will improve but the era of a grand common planned destiny is over. Europe will let America’s dreams of liberal hegemony vanish, the idea having outlived its usefulness. The EU has a bigger economy and a larger population than the U.S. With the end of the Cold War and the Iraq war debacle, America’s military umbrella has lost credibility (at least in Western Europe). NATO got its second wind in Kosovo but is now dying a painful death in Afghanistan. (Sarko wants out.)
France’s priorities outside the EU will be on the global South, while it channels its Asian policy through the EU.
On a personal level, Sarko loves America. But so did Chirac; and, to measure the full irrelevance of personal leanings in this matter, consider that the closest Franco-American relations in the last 50 years took place under the most ideologically anti-American president, François Mitterrand. A President Sarkozy in 2003 would have never joined America’s war in Iraq (pace Kouchner). Sarko will be friendly to the White House and kind to Brown and Merkel’s Atlanticist sensitivities. But smiles don’t make policy.
Good luck, Mr President!
Nicolas Sarkozy once confided to a journalist: “I don’t want to be president. I must be president.” Ruling France might prove a good therapy for Sarko. Let’s hope it is good for the French, too—especially
those of a darker skin tone who’ve been left behind. I am full of doubts about Sarko. But I’ll root for his success
and hope he proves me wrong.
Very intriguing perspective. I got to hear the reasoning behind the argument that Sarkozy is to the left of Kucinich because I don’t see it. France’s political balance has clearly been leaning towards the right for the past decade.
Fascinating article. One minor quibble: My favorite French footballer, Nicolas Anelka, is (in addition to Ribery) also a practicing Muslim.
I think this is about right.
France has important economic problems, and I think Sarko can fix them. But they ain’t as big as some say.
As to foreign policy, Germany remains the key partner.
Sarko should be seen as a neo-Gaullist more than anything else.
As to the Kucinich point, I don’t think that’s quite right.
But his economic policies are to the left of Tony Blair’s. He’d fit squarely inside the Democratic Party, in terms of politcal economy.
Wow. Very impressive, and I find it hard to disagree with anything in this article. Perhaps some differences in emphasis.
I think the key to how effective Sarko will be, is not so much just Sarko alone, but rather whom he will manage to assemble as allies. How far will the right support him. Can he peel off some on the left by honestly addressing the issue of disadvantaged youth, especially Arab and black youth. If he can get enough in his corner, he may be able to accomplish quite a bit.
Politically speaking this is supposed to be his honeymoon, yet already there have been missteps. The whole billionaire buddy yacht affair – all of France is expecting that he’ll clamp down on labor flexibility issues, and he sends an entirely wrong signal by seeming to side with “his” people – the priviledged, the upper class, the superrich, as if his loyalties lie with that class, unfeeling toward the pain that he’ll bring with his reforms to ordinary people (as is feared). Couldn’t he see how this would be perceived? Makes me wonder just how deft a politician he really is… can he feel and understand the mood of the people? They don’t seem to trust him, given the response to the affair. And if the people don’t trust him, he won’t accomplish much at all.
Wow. Very impressive, and I find it hard to disagree with anything in this article. Perhaps some differences in emphasis.
I think the key to how effective Sarko will be, is not so much just Sarko alone, but rather whom he will manage to assemble as allies. How far will the right support him. Can he peel off some on the left by honestly addressing the issue of disadvantaged youth, especially Arab and black youth. If he can get enough in his corner, he may be able to accomplish quite a bit.
Politically speaking this is supposed to be his honeymoon, yet already there have been missteps. The whole billionaire buddy yacht affair – all of France is expecting that he’ll clamp down on labor flexibility issues, and he sends an entirely wrong signal by seeming to side with “his” people – the priviledged, the upper class, the superrich, as if his loyalties lie with that class, unfeeling toward the pain that he’ll bring with his reforms to ordinary people (as is feared). Couldn’t he see how this would be perceived? Makes me wonder just how deft a politician he really is… can he feel and understand the mood of the people? They don’t seem to trust him, given the response to the affair. And if the people don’t trust him, he won’t accomplish much at all.
Sorry for the double post, I don’t know how that happened đ
Pingback: A Tiny Revolution
while i like the article, i am convinced that your inclusion of tom friedman is an attack on my and your other readers’ sensibilities.
Re. Kucinich, he’s a leftwing guy at heart (“A Tiny Revolution” knows him well and could weigh in on that) and wants to move the country to the left. Sarko wants to move France to the right. But they’re starting from places that are so far apart. (Sarko doesn’t even want to repeal the 35hour law!)
While some of the economic figures are off from others I’ve read in the FT, most of this analysis is intriguinmg if not provocative. He elides past France’s high birth rate being mostly from the teeming banlieues and other suburbs, if stats I read elsewhere are correct. Lies, damned lies, etc……
France has lacked inspirational leadership for so long—even De Gaulle was widely despised—that I’m afraid his main job will be steering the Titanic away from icebergs.
Laurie: Anelka is back on the French team? (I hadn’t realized.) But yes, he’s another Muslim convert.
Maybe I subconsciously overlooked him because he’s broken a French soccer fan’s heart once too many. I can tell you few tears were shed when he was dropped from the World Cup squads. So much wasted talent. File it in the “I could’ve been a contender” category.
daveinbocca: Actually I get most of my numbers from the FT and The Economist. While on the subject of numbers, let me make a plug for Jerome Guillet’s blogging community at eurotrib.com (often cross-posting on DailyKos) which is a treasure trove of facts about the European scene. Highly recommended.
Very informative article, Mr Chazelle, especially for a Belgian socialist like myself.
However, as a translator, I must object to your assertion that the word “racaille” is wrongly translated as “scum”. It can indeed be translated, quite correctly, as “scum”, but also, as you write, as “rabble”. Other possible translations include: “riffraff”, “trash”, “dregs”, “vermin”, “ragtag” and even “bastards”. Semantics, I guess.
Lenin’s Tomb has a different, slightly redder take on this, don’t know if you follow it at all.
“Trust but verify”. (Didn’t Reagan say that?) I think that Sarkozy probably realizes that France is too poor not to “make nice” with the US. Brilliant move on his part. Afterall, friendship with us is a lucrative deal. But, with Europe moving into a one continent government like many are pushing for a one global government, I prefer to keep both eyes open and someone watching my back!
Sietse Swerts: Sorry but I disagree with you about “racaille.”
For several reasons, scum is completely wrong.
After much prodding, the Guardian finally recognized its mistake, apologized, and stopped using the word ‘scum.’ The US media has been unforgivably ignorant about this.
Rabble is far from perfect but it’s a much better translation.
Hoodlums or just gang would be fine, too. Scum… no way.
Here is why:
1. In English, scum is highly pejorative. No loving parent would call their kids “scum.” Now, my own mother used to call me “petite racaille” (little rascal) when I was a kid! And yes, indeed, rascal is derived from racaille. Same word.
2. In French, racaille is a word of the “hood.” Or in its “verlan” version: “caillera.” It’s the French “gangsta.” And it’s a badge of honor. Not every delinquent in the projects is called “racaille” by his peers. It’s something you have to earn.
3. Used by outsiders, it’s pejorative. Much like in the dual use of the word “nigga” in American-English.
Racaille is a word like homie, dawg, jigga that’s “insider” and, in addition, has a “heroic” quality. The Crips would call themselves “racaille.” So even in its dual meaning (as used by outsiders), the translation scum is completely off.
Totally misses the point of the word, both etymologically and culturally.
Mr Chazelle
Thank you for clarifying. As a Belgian of the Dutch-speaking variety, my knowledge of French is greatly dependent on dictionaries (which I admittedly used quite sloppily in this case, shame on me). Therefore I was unaware of any additional (cultural) connotations.
Perhaps the words “la lie”, “le rebut” and “la raclure” are better translations for “scum”?
Yes, your translations of scum are excellent. Rebut, raclure, Ouch… these words hurt!
M. Chazelle’s excellent piece reports that French productivity rates exceed both Britain’s and the United States’.
France did have greater productivity rates than the United States through most od the decade of the 1990’s. However, all through the 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s, French productivity rates trailed the American.
Beginning in 2001, and each year since, French productivity rates have lagged behind the American productivty rates by ominously large numbers. If the long-term two-generations trend in the disparity between US/French productivity rates continues for one more generation, the average French worker in thirty years will be at an income level below the poverty line of the United States.
I’m not sure where M. Chazelle obtained his statistics; mine are available as public notice by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Sorry, but the author is stating many facts that are not accurate.
US GDP growth over the last 10 years has been much higher than 2.1%.
French productivity, on a gross basis, is much lower than American workers. Period.
I don’t know where the author gets his numbers for % ownership of American and French stocks, but foreign investment, as a percentage of the total equity market on an absolute basis, is far higher in America than France.
The author is playing games with statistics. And lots of them (both games and statistics).
a Duoist and Meg: Sorry but you’re both wrong.
GDP per hour worked: France $47.7,
USA $46.3, (source: OECD, 2004)
Growth figures are from Wall Street Journal, August 19, 1995.
45% of french stocks are in foreign hands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_40
10% of US equity is owned by foreigners
http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/publications/enterprise/enterprise_spring04.pdf
I meant: 1995 –> 2005
I meant Wall Street Journal, August 19, 2005.
(And now that we’ve entered growth recession territory, things are not expected to improve).
I posted this one by Matthew Yglesias, and albeit it is an sideshow of this terrific post, I would be interested in the take of Bernard Chazelle.
Disclaimer: I have zero credential about Jewish culture and thematic in France; I grew up without visible Jewish community around, my first encounter with something hinting at it like a vivid and defining topic (pro as well as contra) was at the age of 20 with some fellow students.
—-
Hi,
If we have to focus on the paragraph dealing with the french relation with the Jews in the terrific post of Bernard Chazelle, I just wanted to add my unqualified grain of salt.
When Bernard Chazelle writes that Sarkozy got a big support among Sephardic Jews, I would underline Sephardic: they overlap much better than the Ashkenaze with two big constituencies for Sarkozy:
– the shopkeeper/small entrepreneur/self-employed business people (82% for Sorkozy accordind to the exit poll)
– The constituency similar to the one in the South-east of France that Sarkozy has taken from Le Pen, which I in my all-around wisdom always interpreted as having a strong component “Pied Noir” which is again overrepresented among Sephardic Jews and is a a remnant of the long-lasting effect of the Algeria war.
I have no datas, and I reckon it is somewhat cliche, but there you have it.
In short: this support has more to do with:
– the anti-leftist (read anti-communism Ă la Berlusconi) stance of Sarkozy
– the anti-Arab stance
than to any position of Sarkozy about Israel or the Jews.
And now a personal rant:
I am unhappy with Sarkozy for his jewish mediterranean roots (Let’s face it, his well publicized Hungarian father leaving early the family did not influence his personal culture).
Why? France is an oddly country with shores on the North Sea – think scandinavian governance – and on the Mediterranee – think Sicilian governance. I despise any french politician with a cultural molding south of the Loire.
Think De Gaulle, Blum, Rocard vs. Mitterrand, Chirac and now Sarkozy.
This line of analysis is a personal fixation of mine, and is somewhat tricky and blurred: Protestant/Catholics of the Temoignage Chretien school -Jospin, Delors – count always as north, some mountain regions are Ok too, With a Parisian you have to look at the roots of the family but it does not always work – MendĂšs France is fine in my book, not Sarkozy so far.
I should probably concede that my classification of a given politician is heavily influenced by my image of him re. networking and
focusing more on the power grabbing or more on the policy.
I see Sarkozy not so much on the Scandinavian side .
And an othe:
“Racaille” is indeed a overloaded word, being away from France and the wrong generation, I have also some difficulties to see through the “Racaille” controversy.
Anyway, I can tell an other anecdote: for me, it was a word you could use playfully like the mother of Bernard did. But 20 years ago I recall having used it so saying during a game ” il n’y a de la chance que pour la racaille”. And my opponent went mad, feeling deeply offended.
I still not understand why. But If I think of the polemic, I believe the analysis of Bernard in the comments is quite on the spot.
Not really sure about this Kucinich chap is but I believe he voted for war in Iraq while Sarkozy opposed it. I think the thing about Sarkozy being seen as “America’s friend” is that he suggested at one stage that Chirac could have been a bit more sophisticated in opposing the war and not alienated America as much. Ironically, Chirac loves America.
Yes Sarkozy, like Chirac, is to the left of Blair.
I don’t know about Bernard’s statistics on productivity but I do know that the American company I worked for in France did its own studies and found that French employees were more productive than Americans doing the same job, despite the 35 hour week, 6 weeks holiday, 35 hour week, and earning comparative dollar/euro salaries.
About French immigration stats, I am surprised that they have the highest number of immigrants of any European country. I know it’s high in France but I suppose it depends on whether you count first and/or second generation immigrants. 12% of people living in Sweden are foreign born for example.
I forgot to add that Sarkozy will not address the issue of the poor marginalised youth on the banlieux. Like Thatcher he will increase inequality so the richest 5 or 10 percent are the ones who will benefit.
U.S. GDP, real growth rates:
1999 = 4.10%
2000 = 5.00%
2001 = 0.30%
2002 = 2.45%
2003 = 3.10%
2004 = 4.40%
2005 = 3.20%
2006 = 3.30%
JM: Wait! You can’t use these numbers.
I meant growth “per capita” so from your numbers (which by the way are higher than the OECD!) you must subtract population growth. That’s how you get 2.1%
I happily stand by every number I’ve given in my post. (Hey, I wouldn’t in my worst nightmare dream of defacing Tony’s blog with bogus numbers).
Why do I use growth per capita? Because that’s the only true measure of an improving economy. Otherwise you get absurd conclusions. A country with a flat economy that never improves will still register 10% annual real growth if its population increases by that much. That’s why impoverished countries can have such high growth and it means nothing.
John: Will Sarko be the new Thatcher? I don’t think so, but one can’t rule that out. In fact, I suspect your pessimism might be warranted…
Yes, but I read somewhere that optimists live much longer and happier lives, and since I plan to guest-post for Tony for the next 100 years, I am trying to be an optimist!
Mea Culpa on the GDP growth stats. I thought I was using figures derived from the BEA, but going back to the BEA site itself, I find that their numbers are indeed lower than my list above, though still marginally higher than the OECD stats. Using the OECD stats exclusively, the most recent 10 yr averge growth (1996-2005) is 2.12% for France and 3.21% for the U.S. I know you prefer to deal in per capita GDP, but I think the resisliance and resurgence of the U.S. economy in light of both the dot.com bust and the catastrophic events of 9/11 is all the more apparent when compared to the rate of growth in France.
The OECD figures I found for GDP per hour worked didn’t match the ones you cited in your comment above, but since I may be (literally) on the wrong page when it comes to converting national currencies, I looked at the growth rate of GDP per hour worked instead. Over the same 1996-2005 decade, the French average is 1.78% vs. the U.S. 2.32%.
In any case, if you could direct me to the per capita stats, I’d really appreciate it, as I made a couple of passes without locating them. Please know that I’m not trying to imply that there’s something wrong with the particular numbers you’ve chosen to highlight (or to nitpick you to death either). In fact, I assume you thought folks might find some of your stats surprising — and as it turns out, you’re right! The obvious next step on my end is simply to take a closer look myself.
JM:
1. Growth: I got the 3 growth numbers I cite from the Wall Street Journal (August 19, 2005). The piece says explicitly “per capita” and, with hindsight, I see now that I should have made that clear in my post, too. I did doublecheck the numbers myself by going to the OECD site for growths and to the CIA World Factbook for pop. growth rates and it roughly matched the Wall Street Journal’s figures so I have no reason to doubt them.
2. Productivity. Output per hour worked may well have improved faster in the US, but that was not my claim. My claim was that productivity has been higher in France than in the US.
In 2004, it was $47.7 in France, $46.3 in the US, $39.6 in the UK, and $32.5 in Japan. I’ll give you the URL
in the next comment.
I am pleased that the numbers I give surprise people because it confirms my view that one gets a slanted view of the European scene from here (in the US).
OECD estimates of labour productivity for 2004
(page 58)
http://www.oecdwash.org/PDFILES/comp_product_indicators.pdf
Article seams to be free of propaganda. Being a French Expat to the US for the past 20+ years I just think that someone should let Sarko know about the overall failure of Affirmative Action.
I does work for a very limited portion of the targeted population. The same people would find the ladder anyhow. I do not believe one can use the US version as the model . The US has too many other problems such as sub-standard and/or failing schools, drugs crime and deteriorated family values.
US France warming. The fact of the matter and knowing both counties and people very very well. i am waiting to se the US being nice to France for once since WWII. The US has had so many Nationally televised and in all press anti-French outburst in the past that i feel the effect every time and i am always puzzled by the US hypocrisy.
The US expect France to be a servant to their Anglo-Saxon style of foreign policy. De Gaulle to Kennedy let them know and that it is why The US has been blaming France for the lack of service.
It is typically American and if they can get away with it they are smiling. It is their way of doing business in general. don’t forget that here the labor laws are still in the law books often refered as the Master and slave relationship.
Sarko in his rupture needs to pulverize the “privileges” agent of stagnation and status quo, lower taxes in general and control immigration. There are other cultures must better suited to French one such as central or south Americans
who yet don’t really know how to immigrate to Europe with America being so close and convenient.
Go my France
Immigration
Thanks so much for the analysis, and particularly of “racaille,” since it coincides so neatly with my own impressions of the word’s usage. The American press needs to get its collective head around the actual current meaning of the word.
An idiot’s question this…why all the talk of per capita GDP and growth and productivity? Why does no one ever point out wealth disparity?
It seems a forgone conclusion that Sarkozy will end up making the French well-to-do, well…wealthier. I believe at this point less than 1% of China’s households control more than 60% of the investable assets of China and some 2% of American households control more than 60% of the publicly traded stock on the NYSE. Will Sarkozy manage to redistribute wealth? Or simply continue the global pattern of making the world safer for the world’s wealthier?
Merci, Bernard, for your incredibly smart take — though maybe it shines so brightly because most of the US media covers France as though it were located on the dark side of the Moon.
Some (maybe) quibbles: First, productivity per hour versus productivity per year can really skew the perspective — in either direction. Second, for fun, compare unemployment + incarceration figures in the US and France. Third, unemployment does not have the same lifestyle ramifications in the US and France. Americans forget this when they use unemployment to measure overall economic happiness and remember it when they’re criticizing French welfare policy.
I don’t think that French Asia policy will be channeled through the EU. I think it will be channeled through Sarko’s good friends at major French multinationals (like Lagardere). I would expect clashes between their approach and Kouchner’s sensibilities, and in fact my read on making Kouchner FM is that he will provide cover for France’s more, euh, “practical” foreign policies.
(more in next comment)
The prospects for Sarko to modify the French-US relationship are intriguing. I would say, though, from the perspective of “an informed reader”:
– When he came to the White House and met with Rice (a couple of years ago), WH aides talked about two things: His outsized security detail and his heavy emphasis on the US approach to integration — NOT some kind of need for rapprochement on foreign policy. Sarko told Rice that France had much to learn from the US model of multiculturalism, and she came away impressed, perhaps naively.
– In late 2002 and early 2003, Chirac did himself a huge favor by telling Bush, in essence, “I’m going to screw you eight ways to Sunday at the UN.” Bush didn’t like it, but he considered that “tres fair play,” as the French say. In response, the Bush Administration played off the incredibly powerful anti-French sentiment pervasive in the United States (a British legacy), even though privately none of the White House top folks bought into it. Franco-US cooperation on counter-terrorism (the largest joint operations center is in France) and especially intelligence (primarily about the Middle East) has been unprecedented and remained unaffected throughout that crisis.
– Where the WH really did dislike Chirac was in his fierce private opposition to the “let’s spread democracy” rhetoric coming out the US. Time and time again, I’ve heard from WH people that Chirac’s private rhetoric on the matter was…colonial, to use a euphemism.
– Finally, and I hope this URL still works, go have a laugh here:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.8396,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Don’t know if it matters but I fixed my screwed up email address. the one attached to this is the correct one.
Ledeen never disappoints. But I’m afraid Italy is his true love. (No place like it to forge documents for the CIA..) Perle has a mansion in the south of France. And I suspect that Wolfowitz is in Cannes right now pressuring Michael Moore to give him another part in his next movie.
(Those neocons… Just can’t get enough of Old Europe.)
Mr. Chazelle’s admirers might appreciate a little perspective on Sarko:http://pouvoiretpsychopathie.hautetfort.com/
Bernard:
Sorry I didn’t get back sooner! If you’re still stopping by, thanks for the info & the PDF, which I’ll explore. When it comes right down to it, I’m really more interested in watching Sarko in re Africa & the MIddle East, rather than looking for specific developments in Franco-US relations.
May I remind everyone that slightly over 2 million Americans are off the radar screen in the national prison system gulag. These people do not vote, are not counted in the roasters of employed/unemployed/on welfare/job-seekingâŠ.thus altering US statistics in several domains. There are aspects of French culture that while having been modified after the Marshall Plan, remain ingrained and fiercely preserved. A certain refined culinary traditionalism has made the French suspicious of GMOs and natural supporters of Italyâs slow food movement making the French âtableâ a leading factor in why France is one of the worldâs leading tourist destinations. The luxury industry too has kept roots within the country, the enlarged EU and not outsourced itself to China. Though much of the world delights in criticizing the high opinion the French have of themselves, some would say that this attribute is simply well developed critical thinking.
John: Kucinich definitely DID NOT vote in favor of the Iraq War resolution.
Bernard: thanks for the analysis. It remains to be seen how France will play its part in the Lebanese soap opera. France still thinks Lebanon is one of its possessions and is not likely to give it up soon, especially with the whiny Siniora goverment still clinging to power, only by virtue of Western backing. Sarkozy’s pro-Israel leanings will certainly instruct his view towards Hizballah. One thing France will certainly do is spew the same flawed rhetoric regarding Israel’s “right to exist”, “right to self-defense”, blah blah blah, while simultaneously ignoring the same inherent rights of Israel’s neighbors, and ingoring Israel’s continued intransigence with regards to the so-called “peace process” as well as its continuing human rights violations and war crimes. But then, this is a Western thing. The smartest thing he could do is realize that France is discredited in the Arab world, and wash his hands of the region to instead focus on France’s internal affairs.
In summary: I don’t have high regards for France’s role in the Middle East of late and fully expect the same idiotic rhetoric to continue under Sarkozy with regards to interference in Lebanons internal affairs .
We shall see.
John: Kucinich definitely DID NOT vote in favor of the Iraq War resolution.
Bernard: thanks for the analysis. It remains to be seen how France will play its part in the Lebanese soap opera. France still thinks Lebanon is one of its possessions and is not likely to give it up soon, especially with the whiny Siniora goverment still clinging to power, only by virtue of Western backing. Sarkozy’s pro-Israel leanings will certainly instruct his view towards Hizballah. One thing France will certainly do is spew the same flawed rhetoric regarding Israel’s “right to exist”, “right to self-defense”, blah blah blah, while simultaneously ignoring the same inherent rights of Israel’s neighbors, and ingoring Israel’s continued intransigence with regards to the so-called “peace process” as well as its continuing human rights violations and war crimes. But then, this is a Western thing. The smartest thing he could do is realize that France is discredited in the Arab world, and wash his hands of the region to instead focus on France’s internal affairs.
In summary: I don’t have high regards for France’s role in the Middle East of late and fully expect the same idiotic rhetoric to continue under Sarkozy with regards to interference in Lebanons internal affairs .
We shall see.
Me too, I am full of doubts about Sarko. As you say, Iâll root for his success and hope he proves me wrong.
For the time being with Sarko as president, it’s so far, so good. But it’s still very early for this presidency. Right now , Sarko is enjoying the spoils of his presidential victory. He is also smart enough not to antagonize leftist and centrist voters ahead of this month legislative elections. The heavy stuff will come right after it’s over. If Sarko wins a legislative majority, – which is most likely – be prepared for a steam-roller.
Of course, this will rejuvenate the opposition. Expect some major public demonstrations in the fall. Social unrest will make it harder for Sarko to stuff his reforms down the throat of the average frenchman. Having won an majority in the National Assembly, but faced with a hardening opposition, Sarko will then tend to resort to some of his natural tendencies – his «pĂ©chĂ©s mignons» so to speak – namely abuse of power, conflict of interest, cronyism…
Of course, I may be wrong. As a matter of fact, I ‘will be delighted to be wrong.
Had the opportunity to attend a Conference at Science Po. in March where the subject was French Foreign Policy in the Middle East . The featured speaker was Le Monde Diplomatiqueâs Oliver Roy. Not without reason, the French view their steadfast opposition to the 2003 pre-planned Iraq War as something akin to a last ditch effort of the âWestâ to save face vis a vis regional Arab Sunni allies. France was the only Western European country to openly oppose the United States in what has since become a shift of power benefiting Shiâite Islam. In opposing the war the French see themselves as stalwart defenders of the regional status quo at that time. Had they sided with the US/British coalition, there would have been no Western nation standing in contradiction to what many in the Arab world then and now view as a Neo-imperialist crusade
32% of France voted for him; by comparison, only 15% of the U.S. voted for Clinton in â92.
—> not correct, I voted for PEROT
William Clinton Democratic 44,909,806 43.01%
George Bush Republican 39,104,550 37.45%
H. Ross Perot Independent 19,743,821 18.91%
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992
Plau: 15% of the US means 15% of the whole population.
44.9/290 = 15 percent!