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).

10 of 962 comments (clear)

  1. Are you sure ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... that Royal didn't just surrender the election?

    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 ... will it?

    1. Re:Are you sure ... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, that would be as silly as "if you vote for the Democrats, the terrorists win!" rhetoric. It would never convince the savvy masses.

    2. Re:Are you sure ... by ghoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure your wife or girlfriend wants to live in the US but as a man where would You want to live? In a nation where if a girl gets pregnant she has the right to have an abortion even if the man wants the baby but on the other hand if the man doesnt want the baby the woman can go ahead and still have the baby and have to pay child support for the upkeep of the baby which is used by the mom to enjoy a life of leisure and boyfriend hopping while you work your butt off to pay Child Support. Even assets like Retirment saving and health insurance accounts which are protected even in a bankruptcy are not safe from Child Services. This is also a nation where even if the mother has been cheating in a divorce she still gets custody of the child. Further even if she denies the father child visitation rights the father still has to pay child support. Further when the mothers tricks make the man go crazy (after all he is also working a 9 to 5 job unlike the mother who is sitting at home all day on his money and plotting new ways to use his children against him) and he shouts into a phone it becomes a national scandal that a man shouted into a phone raher than a woman used children as a weapon against their father. You may criticize Saudi for being hard on their woman but USA is equally bad in the other direction. So to rephrase your question where would your husband/ biyfriend like to live USA or Saudi?

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  2. Too bad by i_should_be_working · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Obl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!)

  4. Re:Obl. by mehgul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Obl. by Shihar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Tant mieux pour la France! by be-fan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
  7. Re:French bashing? by bgarcia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you know how many people the USSR lost? 27 million. By the time we invaded Normandy, Germany was already collapsing. Do you know why we waited as long as we did? Tit-for-tat revenge: Lenin pulled the newly formed Soviet Union out of WWI as soon as he took power in 1917, leaving us and our allies high and dry. We didn't need to wait as long as we did; Stalin was begging us for reinforcements, and we could have invaded at any time, but we stood our ground, as a kind of "fuck you" to the Russians, who were hemorrhaging soldiers.
    I think you forgot to mention one teensy-weensy little fact about WWII - that Stalin and the USSR entered WWII on the side of the Germans! The two countries signed a pact to split up Eastern Europe between the two, and the USSR went ahead and invaded several Eastern European countries. The USSR was originally allied with the Axis powers, not the Allied powers.


    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.
  8. Re:Apples and oranges by Shihar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.