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).
Not everyone lives in the USA, you insensitive-- Oh! Nevermind...
... 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
Thank all the gods, the Frentch elected a radical instead of a radical.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sarkozy's views on innovation and free software
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.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789 ,1062291,00.html(in swedish)
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Thatcher.
My blog
The issue was not the popularity of their respective genders, but of policy - that's why she lost.
I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues. Frankly it appeared that they were right regarding Iraq. France is certainly one of the greatest allies this country has had, in fact we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not sold us the Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England. If anything we owe them quite a bit and their only crime is that they are just as patriotic to their country as we are to ours.
Now with that being said, do you know why there are trees on the Champs D'Elysees? So the Germans can march in the shade!
The election year attempt to push immigration reform through the Republican Congress was one of several factors leading to that party's recent implosion.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This will be a good thing for France's economy, which has been sluggish in recent years due to the country's labor policies. It is illegal in France to work more than 35 hours a week, which makes it difficult to successfully start a small business. Royal offered a comforting promise that France could keep their old ways in place and still be economically competitive, but France has apparently opted for a tougher kind of love.
Furthermore, just because he's "conservative" by French standards, don't think that means he'd belong to the GOP.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Most important for slashdot readers: Nicolas Sarkozy is a lawyer and has a very strong pro-software patent stance and was behind the hardline DADVSI copyright law (our local DMCA). He was also behind the introduction of voting machines without paper trail requirements, and of the "secret" report about their validity (no citizen could get the report.
More in the PDF with his answers to the "candidats.fr" initiative here
Hard time for free software in France. There are still the parliament election next month, but last time french voters put the majority behind the president.
Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
Some of that is good. There has been some very bad "multiculturalism" case law in the EU recently, where women have been beaten and abused but that was OK because it was supposedly "their" culture and the host country should not interfere. This makes a mockery of the foreign culture as well as allowing injustice. It is right for France, and every other country, to demand respect and offer protection for all of their citizens. Injustice and brutality should not be tolerated anywhere. Doing so in the name of "in my country we put woman in cage" is racism in disguise.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Unlike the two major parties in the US, the various parties in France actually have significantly different political ideas, like you said there's even an active communist party.
Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
How do you say 'Thank you, Diebold' in French?
Seriously, though, if I'm going to move to France I'm at least going to try and learn French. And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if you want to come and work in America, you might pick up a little English first.
Perhaps making it a demand is what makes it unreasonable? I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like it should be that divisive. To me it would be reasonable to expect that those wishing to immigrate would reflect the values and language of their adopted country.
If I moved to Canada I'd say "a-boot" instead of about. It's just polite.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
As a fellow Slashdotter, I also care about technology issues. But at the same time realize they will have to take a back seat while there are active special intrest groups that believe the end (one world Muslim, or one world Communism) justifies the means (violence).
Just because the person you disagree with wins doesn't mean that the system is broken. I don't recall hearing a single complaint about the French electoral system. Maybe the conservative's ideas actually appealed to more voters.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.
Many liberals in France were not conviced by Segolene Royal at all, just like many liberals in the US weren't conviced by John Kerry. They did not vote for a candidate but against someone else. The "lesser of two evil" syndrome that is so familiar in US politics.
Sarkozy won, but just like George W. Bush in 2004, the people that did not vote for him (half of the population) really hate him and what he stands for (pro big corporation, anti-immigration etc.).
He now is president of a deeply divided country... we all saw how well that worked out for the US.
From the link you gave, he's the worst of the lot:
Except for Sarkozy, the candidates also agreed that consumers should have the right to buy a computer without any preloaded software, ... Sarkozy was also the only candidate who responded with obvious hostility, remarking when talking about DADVSI that "I am opposed to the orientations implied by your questions."
He expresses his support for patent law on the grounds that it "encourages enterprises to innovate, it attracts investments, [and] encourages individuals to ... develop new inventions." In addition, Sarkozy supported the concept of intellectual property, and suggested that it was premature to talk about revising DADVSI before the end of 2007, when a review is scheduled. In answer to the question about open standards and free software, he replied that "it is not the purpose of the State, in my concept of freedom, to impose a model on anyone." Other replies were so general as to suggest that he either had not considered the matter or was avoiding stating his position. As Frédéric Couchet, a director of APRIL commented, Sarkozy's "was the worst response received."
You can read his response yourself, but the above is bad news.
Not that that's the most important quality in a president, but it would have been nice.
If standing up for French companies and citizens by supporting their software freedom is not important, I'm not sure what is. Your computer is your press, your store of important information and your telcom all rolled into one. No modern state can live without them and their security and ownership are tantamount to independence. Does he want CIA planted backdoors in his office?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yes, there are other left-wing parties in france, but the communist party is just a ghost of the past now.
You speak as if the politicians are creating the divisions, rather than being the manifestation of them.
Countries are divided. That's how it is. If voting one way creates a relatively peaceful union where differences are worked out politely and within the system, and voting the other way creates a fractured country full of acrimony and bad feelings, then one side is clearly a bad loser (and that's more dangerous to democracy than you might think, as the essense of democracy is to have the losers accept their loss, not crown the winners).
And if that is the case, the side that is being the poor losers and choosing to tear apart the democracy rather than accept loss is the side that, when they win, produces the relatively peaceful government. The side that, when they win, produces "polarization" is the more democratic side. (Being in a Democracy means your side loses sometimes. That's life.)
Take that as you will. I've deliberately not name names. For one thing, it's never a choice between total chaos or total harmony, but I'd be confident that taken as trends, this point stands.
Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Now I'm depressed...
...but not an idiot. Of course he won't help you in Iraq, that's YOUR mess everyone told you to stay out of and now YOU will clean it up or leave with your tail between your legs.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Sarkozy has made a point of highlighting the French love for Coca-Cola, jeans and American movies; concluding from this that he would be inclined to support Dubyah's policies is a stone's throw too far. Sarkozy is neither stupid nor inclined to political suicide. He has promised the USA friendship, but immediately made clear that the Americans would have to accept "that friends can think differently". I think Sarkozy knows very well that the Bush administration is allergic to constructive criticism, but that doesn't matter any more. Sarkozy's real problem is finding common ground with the next American president, and he may well opt for backing the future winner early, instead of associating himself with the loser in office. For example, Sarkozy's position on Iraq is not that far distant from the position the next US president is likely to have, i.e. phased withdrawal.
Something to think about though. You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party and they won't elect a female? So Hillary's chances rank somewhere below slim and none?The French communist party is now a mere shadow of what it used to be.
Royal's problem is not that she is female, but that she is a poor campaigner. Her starting position was not that bad, her selection as the socialist candidate generated some genuine enthusiasm. But then she blew it. She was gaffe-prone throughout the campaign, her political platform was a collection of crowd-pleasers, her statements on policy consisted mostly of baked air, and in the decisive last phase she resorted to blatant scare tactics.
On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?
The immigration problem in France is a world away from the "problems" we have in the US. By and large, our immigrants either end up working hard in the lower runs of society, and many end up leading productive lives in the professional class (doctors, engineers, etc). Many groups in our immigrant population assimilate (most everyone outside of some hispanics) and even the ones that don't do not go out of their way to resist American culture.
In comparison, the French have to deal with huge waves of lower-class immigrants who clog up their social welfare system. Moreover, not only do they not assimilate, but they actively resist and antagonize the native culture.
We have our problems with immigrants sure (like most poor classes, they commit more crimes, etc), but there is no way to compare our problems to those faced by the French. When we have Hispanics rioting en masse in the streets, like Muslims in France are doing, then maybe your sentiments will be valid.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I've heard Mme. Royal speak, and to be honest, I'm amazed she got as far as she did.
I'm no fan of Sarko or Bush, but come on people, was this really the best the opposition could do? The Socialists would have been better off kidnapping John Kerry.
He may be a stuffed shirt, but at least the guy knows how to comport himself in public, ferchrissakes. (Besides, I hear he speaks French.) Sego came across as a reactive banshee who would promise anything to get elected -- think of the evil spawn of Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton.
Ew. On second thought, don't. I need to take a shower after that one..
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Lets be honest here, both parties want cheap labor and cheap votes.
They just have to tailor their rhetoric to the right parts of society.
A blog about stuff.
Let's see here, the conservative wins 53% and the country is polarized but if the socialist were to win with 53% there would be unity and the French version of kum-ba-ya. That is disgusting. I guess in your view that the socialists have to redouble their efforts of "educating" the public.
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. He wants to maximize the wealth for the middle class, not the upper class.
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.
I know nothing of this guy's policies, but asking immigrants to learn the dominant language, and assimilate (at least partially) into the existing culture sounds extraordinarily reasonable to me.
If you want to immigrate somewhere (and by "immigrate" I mean "live there long term"), I would think you'd *want* to learn the local language and customs. I know I sure would...
What do the rioting immigrants expecting from the white French, exactly? It seems to me like they already get far more support than they do in 95% of the countries on Earth, and probably just as much as in the US.
Every OTHER commentary on the recent riots (except yours) hold that the rioters, while not technically immigrants, are not at all assimilated into French culture and nearly all, if not all, were Muslims. The media, in the interest of political correctness, tends to call them "youths." I'd be interested to know what your source is, and why you're saying the opposite of everybody else.
Comment of the year
"Not one french journalist dared mentionning it (are they all scared ?)..."
That, or nobody over there gives a fuck about a politician's love life so long as he does his job. It's the United States where our skewed view of "moral decency" calls for this kind of prying by "journalists" (for whom these "moral" directives don't apply) giving us political appointees who call for abstinence-only education while visiting a brothel.
Although I will say that a divorce is far more notable in France than it is in the home of "the sanctity of marriage."
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
Cho's parents were aware of his erratic behavior. They didn't know what to do with it. How you help your son who's all of a sudden gone weird? Most of us would chalk it up to growing up since most of our kids aren't murderous pathetic narcissistic sociopaths. My parents were asian immigrants who worked 14h days and I came out fine.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"Neoconservative" is a liberal propaganda term. I have never heard anyone describe themself as a "neocon". Conservatives just call themselves conservatives. They've no need to invent a new name for themselves.
And as you correctly observe, the OP is dreck.
Huh?
First off, liberals don't know anymore what "neoconservative" actually means. It referred to Jews in the 1980s who supported Reagan. They use it today in short form, "neocon," because it sounds evil and war-like.
Second, conservatives in America are opposed to illegal immigration and want to build a big wall, while liberals want open borders and no screening.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
I'm pretty solidly in the conservative camp and voted for Bush in 2004 but I have issues with working long hours dumping somebody into the neocon camp. I detest the neocon thinking as it is not conservative. I regret my vote for Dubya.
In my junior year of high school I pulled 60+ hour work weeks while still attending high school. My senior year I pulled 40+ hour work weeks while still attending school and competing in Track. I left the family busines but I'm the only one that has.
My father has clocked up to 106 hours a week at the family business. My brother considers it a day off when he only works 7.5 hours there this time of year. Still works 7 days a week though.
We're not immigrants. My great grandfather floated over here from the Old Country on a boat when he was 4, and at 18 set out as a share cropper. He tilled his first field with a borrowed shovel as he didn't have enough money to buy a damned shovel. He died in 2002 at the age of 86 and I went back to work after his funeral that day because that was how I was raised: You do your job.
Actually, she was too conservative for many socialists to support her as well, and many in her own party didn't agree with her ideas. She wanted to send young offenders to the military, for example, and punish them, and she wanted to be tough on crime. She was socialist in one big way-- spending a lot of money and raising taxes to pay for it.
-- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
Last I knew, the conservatives in America were pretty badly split on this issue -- and I followed it reasonably closely. I believe that the parent is implying that neoconservatives are one subset of the set of conservatives who did not take the position you describe.
That said, I think there are more charitable motivations which could be assigned to the positions in question, so I'm not inclined to give the parent's suggestions presumptive validity.
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....
This guy sounds like Reagan.
That's the problem. Not the illegal immigration part, but the part about him upending prosperity comes to mind- this time, that sizable "minority" has to upend Sarko. If the country sells out to Asia with his effort, then it will be lost like the US and UK. It will have lost its character, the people losing their prosperity, and the country as a whole as the country that stood up to the evils of globalization.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
they'll never even come close to an economic superpower.
Japan did it, and so can the French. They just have to give up on socialism.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
WRONG. Conservatives describe neocons as neocons, because they betray the conservative platform. Neocon is someone who claims to be a conservative, but supports the liberal agenda of globalism, massive spending (e.g. the Bush Administration), massive borrowing, and internationalism. If you want to see a real conservative, check out Congressman Ron Paul, who supports libertarianism, small government, state's rights, non-intervention in foreign affairs and domestic affairs (i.e. people's lives), and an end to the Federal Reserve and income tax.
Actually, the problems in both England and France (the ones bombing the subway, plotting to blow up planes in England and setting cars on fire outside of Paris) are second- or third-generation immigrants. Their parents completely assimilated to the extent that many of their parents didn't practice Islam much at all, and when the disenchanted kids hear a bit more about Islam on a trip home to Pakistan, they fall completely into it and want to bomb their home countries. I have no idea why this is, but it's not a matter of immigrants assimilating because their parents have already assimilated completely in most cases.
-- Save Google Answers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
It's interesting that you say "liberals" don't know what "neoconservative" actually means, then you say it is a term referring to "Jews in the 1980s." Although several top neocons are Jewish, not all of them are. They didn't just spring up in the 80s, and their story is far more complicated than your reductionist analysis makes it seem. That makes it difficult for anyone (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) to figure out exactly what the term means. Here's what Irving Kristol, one of the leading lights of the movement, says about neoconservatism. Note that he uses the term "neocon" a few times in the article. Maybe he does that because he thinks it makes him sound evil and war-like.
As for the bit about conservatives wanting to build a wall and liberals wanting no border at all, you may want to check in on that more thoroughly. The Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for almost six years and didn't change American immigration policy. One of the iron laws of politics is that when you have that degree of power, you use it. Look at the sweeping range of laws the Republican Party enacted over those same six years, covering every aspect of American life. If the party was truly unified in wanting to thwart illegal immigration, it would have done something.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
>10% unemployment in a country that held out until 5/6/2007 is quite a feat, and should not be discounted.
ROTFL... that's rich. Considering the unofficial unemployment rate among young adults is widely considered around twice the official 10%. And that any American President would be out of a job if US unemployment reached anywhere near 10% officially. Face it, the French economy is tied down with the ropes of its "social net". Look at all the trouble GM and Ford are in with overpaying their noncompetitive UAW labor in salaries and benefits, and spread that across a national workforce.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
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.