Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Sarkozy Wins Presidency of France
Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
... that Royal didn't just surrender the election?
... will it?
In all seriousness, Royal deserved to lose after she tried her "if you vote for Sarkozy there will be violence in the streets" rhetoric. That kind of crap just won't ever work
He was the only candidate who doesn't support, or even have a clear stance on free software.
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.
The strange thing was that his wife was not visible. She has already left him the past and it seems it happened again...
The rumour was running recently.
Not one french journalist dared mentionning it (are they all scared ?)...
It is not a problem by itself (it happens) but the strange thing is that french journalist don't talk about it : self-censoship or privacy protection ?
In terms of current political leaders, Sarkozy is most often compared to Tony Blair. Blair in turn modelled himself on Bill Clinton, so I think it's fair to say that the French right is roughly equivalent to the American left. This ignores the complication of Blair's cosying up to Bush, but that is really restricted to foreign policy.
Sarkozy is also undoubtedly the most pro-American French president ever. One of the opposition's favourite nicknames for him is "Sarkozy the American" (a deadly insult, of course!)
Perhaps you meant to say "we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not stolen Louisiana from the Spanish and sold it to us to pay for his war with the Allies."?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This point about "demanding immigrants to learn Western values and the French language" is ... sure, he might have said it, but it's really, really not what people
r oversy
really weird; I've talked about Sarkozy hundreds of time with people both left and right
minded, and well,
have been worried about.
For the actual reasons why not everybody likes him, a really quick look at wikipedia can
help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy#Cont
Also, it kind of implies France has a problem with current immigration - which isn't
really the case, as the bulk of France's "Immigration Problem" is not people coming in
now, but rather 2nd or 3rd generation people who've been kept into practical ghettos by
the french policies, governments and people in general. Sure, we keep calling it
"immigration issues", but that's just because complaining about it are old fascist farts
still living 40 years ago...
Actually, he's really more like Bush, but tries to cater to workers at the same time. And "Sarkozy l'Americain" wasn't such a deadly insult, it appears, since more than 53% of the French voted for him.
It should be pointed out that Europe's far right and America's 'normal' right really only vaguely relate. European far right parties would generally be considered extremely xenophobic by the American right. European far right parties almost always revolve around anti-immigration positions. The American right does hold sometimes hold some limited anti-immigration views, but they are rarely front and center, and they are absolutely nowhere near the extreme of their European counterparts. Comparing the American right to any European political parties is generally a mistake. While the American left has some fairly close European counterparts, the American right is fairly unique in the world.
It takes more than geography to make true countrymen; You must be able to communicate in a common language and expect the same form of government and social norms. If you will not speak French and will not accept liberal secular democracy and the prevailing culture, France will never be your home, nor should it be: guests should be gracious. Those who are not will eventually find less welcome. I wish the French people and those who sincerely want to be adopted by them good luck. Go Sarky!
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
If you're a second-generation Muslim with a foreign accent, something is seriously wrong. If you immigrate to a country, you should raise your children to natively speak the language of that country, end of story.
I am myself a first-generation Muslim immigrant to the US. I absolutely cannot stand Muslims who don't realize that in immigrating to a foreign country, they must put the culture of their new country above the culture of the country which they left. Countries should not change to accommodate the culture of immigrants. That is not to say that countries should not evolve their culture, but rather that the culture of a country should be grown at home, through the established processes of cultural change within that country, not imported wholesale from abroad.
I can understand that the liberal tendencies of some Europeans make them hesitant about promoting their own culture above those of others. However, there is nothing wrong with the idea that France should be the home of French culture. Certainly, Algerians believe that Algerian should be the home of Algerian culture, not culture imported from elsewhere!
Moreover, and this is my personal opinionated view, it is vital that European countries maintain their western culture, for the sake of their future prosperity. I don't have any delusions that western culture is perfect, but as someone with a bit of experience with both, western culture is far preferable to modern Islamic culture. It is honestly distressing to me that many liberal-minded individuals that look down upon the worst elements of American culture (religiosity, contempt for science, narrow-mindedness, philosophical absolutism) have no problem modern Islamic culture, which displays many of the same deleterious elements!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Note that Sarkozy is not a neoconservative in the American sense. In European culture, he may seem very conservative, but in American culture, he is mostly a moderate populist.
Allow me to elaborate. First, he opposes an open-border policy. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. American agribusiness, not just Hispanic groups like La Raza, are the strongest advocates for allowing the importation of desperate foreign labor.
Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.
Second, Sarkozy supports globalization with only other free markets. So, he supports the European Union. However, he opposes fake free trade with non-free markets like India. He realizes that this kind of trade drives down the quality of life in France. He realizes that combining a free market and a non-free market damages the operation of the free market.
By contrast, American neoconservatives favor fake free trade with non-free markets like India.
Nonetheless, Sarkozy will (if the legislative election in June is favorable) will vastly transform France. It will not be the brutal kind (i.e., 14+ hours of work by illegal aliens) of capitalism in America. Rather, France will be a kinder, gentler economic superpower. If he succeeds (and I think that he will), I would likely prefer to live in France instead of America.
The hardships of past generations should not be used to justify hardships in this generation.
Feel free to tell her that. =)
Most of the rest of your comment is completely off-target. Her cooking is distinctly Italian, she regularly attends mass at a Italian-American Roman Catholic church, practices her Italian regularly with other Italian-American friends and with family still overseas... although she's recently had to cut back on her use of vulgar Italian now that my cousins are finally distracting her with grandchildren to dote on. Aside from the idiocies of Mussolini (which she will rant about whenever she feels provoked to, including when people discuss our current President), she's generally proud of her Italian and Italian-American heritage.
As for the "hardships" issue, I believe you imply a false dichotomy. Life is hard, no matter what; it's just a question of how the hardship should be distributed. Either immigrants (such as the estimated ten million or so Mexicans currently in the US, legally and not) must face the short-term hardship of learning the language, face the long-term hardship of being at a linguistic disadvantage, or get the 90%+ monolingual 300 million US citizens to become bilingual.
I don't think mandating English as the "official" language is a good idea, and efforts should be made to help with the transition. But I still think expecting that transition to be made involves the least overall and long-term "hardship". And I think my aunt understands this, understands how painful it is to learn Enlish (she was sixteen when she reached the US, with her entire English vocabulary consisting of "Hello"), but has no sympathy with anyone who thinks that just because it's hard, that that should stop them.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Many actual conservatives - as opposed to Republicans - believe that incredibly silly.
At least in my area, and I will admit it's hard to say because conservatives in California != conservatives at large, the whole freedom fries thing was about two weeks long before it quickly got old.
Really, France is going to be moving on up regardless of who had been elected, when one considers the previous man in office. Much as France's people recognized the distinction between president and people (or so my French friends in college tell me; I'll take their word for it), I recognize that Chirac != France at large.
Especially when you look at the last election. In a series of political errors, the run-off became between Chirac, the devil they knew, and Le Pen, someone who makes Rumsfeld look like a hippie. Couldn't really blame them for sticking with a guy who was just personally corrupt, rather than potentially evil on a global scale.
"Why is learning the language and culture of the country you move to viewed as divisive?"
Why must it be mandatory? Is it not possible to be a law-abiding citizen without having to assimilate? Is it impossible to value democracy and republicanism unless you speak French?
"All of my grandparents came to the U.S. at around 1900 from eastern Europe. None of them expected to be able to continue speaking German or Lithuanian once they got here so they learned English."
Bullshit. A century ago there were any number of communities in states like Wisconsin and Texas where you could go through your day speaking only German (at least). Half a century before that, the number of German newspapers and periodicals in publication in those states rivaled those in English. Even today, it's not all that difficult to buy a Lithuanian newspaper in places like Baltimore.
Now, your family may have felt a desire to become more "American" by demanding their children speak only English, but there are just as many who have taken a different tack and insisted that only their native tongue is spoken in their home. Either way, a naturalized citizen is a naturalized citizen and there should be no distinction between how the two are treated.
Despite what the far right would have us believe, English is more widely spoken in the United States today than it has ever been in the history of the Union.
"My parents, aunts and uncles all spoke English and succeeded in taking part in the "American dream" (house, education, kids went to college if they wanted to, etc.). That wouldn't have happened if they were still acting like they were still in the "old country.""
So all the ethnic neighborhoods in cities across the country with names like "Little Italy" are all falling apart with no opportunity for businesses while only the WASPs and their imitators survive? It's impossible to have a Protestant work ethic without actually being Protestant yourself?
Ever read about the early history of Bank of America?
Republics like France and the United States cannot preach the universality of their ideals while simultaneously demanding conformity to cultural norms to reap the full benefits. If there is to be a conflict between the ideals of the founding documents of both nations and the vague notions of "culture," the former must win; it is for the culture to adapt and change, not the ideals.
'Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed."
The best way to succeed is decided by the market, not by the dictates of politicians.
For those who don't know French, le travail rend libre means the same as Arbeit macht frei, the motto of the Auschwitz concentration camp — i.e. "Work makes one free". It seems that Sarkozy is practising dog-whistle politics.
From what I heard on french-canadian TV (Radio-Canada), Sarkozy used this "dog-whistle politic" to get the vote of the far-right.
DAMN STRAIGHT!
If you don't like it here, then go back to where you came from. Immigrants, especially those here in the U.S., have this idea that everybody should change because they don't want to. It is an extremely self-centered way of thinking and I'm not sure how on Earth they can think that it is OK.
I am sick an tired of those nutjub "Illegal Immigrant-rights" groups saying that people are entering the US because there is no clear path for legal immigration. In reality, there is a clear path: VISA FORM. It even has little boxes that tell you what to put in them.
I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti ILLEGAL immigrant. Why the hell should I let someone who immigrated into this country ILLEGALLY, doesn't bother learning English, and sucks up taxpayer money tell me how to live my life, what views I should hold, and that I should accept them. You wouldn't let a stranger into you house, so why should I let strangers into my country? Coming to the United States is a PRIVILIDGE, yet people are starting to think that because they are poorer than us, and less fortunate than us, that that gives them some kind of right to enter the U.S. and to hell with the laws we enact to keep ourselves safe.
Illegal is Illegal is ILLEGAL. Funny, my family is 100% immigrant, and despite how poor and hungry we were, we still managed to figure out how to fill out visa applications, learn English, and abide by the laws of the United States. Immigrants nowadays have become a selfish, self-centered, rude, obnoxious bunch of punks who think they are entitled to skirt the rules and laws because they are less fortunate than the rest of us. If they don't like having that image, then THEY should work to change it, not us.
HOWEVER, there are some illegals who follow the law, are courteous and freindly, speak English, and have jobs. Still, even all that doesn't make them LEGAL.
If you don't want to follow the law trying to get into the U.S., then stop waving our flag, beause it represents people who did what was necessary to get in here legally.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The difference is that the French aren't usually as easy to appease as the US people. When they don't like something, and it's getting on their nerves sufficiently, heads roll.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So later in the war, Germany decides to double-cross the USSR and invades Russia. You've already heard rhetoric from Stalin that the USSR has its own global-domination plans, and they've already invaded several Eastern European countries. Now, would you be so quick to come to Stalin's aid, or would you rather allow the two evil countries to duke it out and weaken each other for a while first, so that the victor doesn't have the military might to come after you next?
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Of course I am comparing apples to oranges. European governments and the American government are two fairly different systems that result in different parties. Now, I am not saying that Americans don't have their whack-jobs that would look at a European right winger and applaud. That said, they get almost no voice in the US. The US system shoves everyone to the center. A pure anti-immigration platform (like Le Penn's party in France) will get you seats in parliament and potentially a spot in a coalition government. In the US, it is nearly impossible for such people to get elected on a federal level. The lack of a coalition system for government means that even if such a person does get elected, they get little influence over the workings of the government.
So, I agree the lack of a strong extremist ultra-nationalist politicians (that get elected) in the US is not a unique feature of the culture, it is a unique feature of the political system. Even when such people do get elected, they are deeply marginalized. I don't have any doubt that if the US had a parliamentary style of government you would find the US having just as many (if not more) xenophobic right wing nationalist party.
My larger point is that Europeans some times assume that because the US left is like their right, the US right must be like there extreme right. This isn't the case. The things that define the European right really don't define the American right. The American right is far more concerned with economics and the occasional pet social issues, and give only passing thought to immigration. Right leaning European governments almost always are deeply concerned with immigration nationalist identity. The two are very different from each other and would likely kill each other if left in the same room for too long.
My girlfriend is french. She is also a professor of economics. She is extremely happy that this guy won. She is convinced that France's economy has been mismanaged for a long time and is hopeful that this guy can change that. Her parents own a few businesses and are being forced to close some of them due to the exreme socialist burdens France places on small business owners.
Also, she knows far more about economics than you or I know.
My point is that some really smart people wanted to see this guy win.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Yeah, that's the CNN version of events... In real life there's a big-ass metal wall along the border in places where there are abutting communities that wasn't there before. Just long enough to look like they're doing something, and just short enough so that people can go around it.
The currently empowered group calling themselves "republicans" want exactly the same thing that the group calling themselves "democrats" wants. They want to keep divisive issues on the table so they can use them to hold/gain power. You better re-check you 'iron law of politics'. This is a new age. The new law is "if you use it you lose it", so you may as well angle for the fat Washington paycheck and be a whore for the spotlight instead.