|
|
Posted on 09/15/2005 6:05:49 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Braced for change, looking for a leader
|
||
|
||
|
|
HOSPITALISED presidents make the French uneasy. Francois Mitterrand hid his cancer behind false medical reports for over a decade until his first operation, in 1992; he died four years later. Georges Pompidou's cancer became public only after his death from it while in office. So the news that President Jacques Chirac was to spend a full week in hospital, after a “small vascular incident” in the brain which affected his vision, prompted much speculation about the 72-year-old's health. If the problem is as minor as officials say, in formal terms nothing should change. But, symbolically, everything has.
Even before his hospitalisation, Mr Chirac had become politically enfeebled after the French rejected the European Union constitution in May. At the same time, his new prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, has been growing in stature. This week, that impression intensified, as Mr de Villepin chaired the weekly cabinet meeting usually presided over by Mr Chirac. More than ever, the Chirac era seems to be drawing to a close. And two of the men competing hardest to offer a fresh alternative are from his own Gaullist political family: Mr de Villepin and Nicolas Sarkozy, an ambitious interior minister, and head of the ruling UMP party.
Since politicians returned from their summer break, the pair have been competing to upstage one another. In a speech last week, Mr de Villepin unveiled a new phase of reforms, including the promise of income-tax cuts in 2007. Mr Sarkozy replied with two separate speeches this week, launching his own raft of proposals, and declaring that “nothing, and nobody, will stop me going all the way”. At the party's summer school, in front of the television cameras, Mr de Villepin kept Mr Sarkozy waiting in a beachside cafe while he jogged along the sand and dived into the ocean. Until recently, it seemed the popular Mr Sarkozy had no credible rival on the right. No longer. One poll this week put Mr de Villepin's popularity as a potential 2007 presidential candidate at 57%, second only to Mr Sarkozy, at 63%.
In political style, the two men could scarcely differ more. Mr de Villepin is aristocratic, polished, a diplomat. Mr Sarkozy is pugnacious, plain-talking, a lawyer. Conventional wisdom has it that their politics are wide apart too. Loyal to the president whom he served for seven years as chief-of-staff, Mr de Villepin is his political heir. But Mr Sarkozy, who backed a rival candidate against Mr Chirac in 1995, has always marked his political distance from the veteran Gaullist. Yet a close look at the two politicians' speeches this week hints at something new: Mr de Villepin has begun to steal some of Mr Sarkozy's clothes.
Breaking taboos in a welfare-cushioned society, the prime minister declared that he wanted to “restore the value of work” and “make work pay”; Mr Sarkozy talked of the need to “make work central” and to reward “the France that gets up early in the morning”. Mr de Villepin vowed to crack down on welfare fraud and to balance welfare “rights and obligations”; Mr Sarkozy insisted that there would be “no rights without equivalent obligations”. Mr de Villepin said he would end heavy taxes that “discourage work and damage the attractiveness of our country”; Mr Sarkozy called for a limit of 50% on combined personal taxes and insurance contributions. Both promised help for the middle class.
To be sure, these similarities are quite differently wrapped. Mr de Villepin says he wants only to “set the French model straight”, whereas Mr Sarkozy intends to “reinvent a new French model”, that “breaks with the past 30 years of traditional political life in this country”. Yet the trend is nonetheless striking. Already, Mr de Villepin has introduced a new, more flexible two-year employment contract for small firms, addressing the problem of labour-market inflexibility that Mr Sarkozy so often bemoans. And he has declared himself against Turkish entry to the EU, another of Mr Sarkozy's pet positions?in line with public opinion but against Mr Chirac's (and hence France's) position.
Why this apparent quest for a radical alternative from within the president's own party? The answer lies partly in the war of succession: after this week, a third term for Mr Chirac must surely be ruled out. But also in the electorate's general disgruntlement, which partly explains the French “no” earlier this year. Unemployment has begun to drop a little, to 9.9%, but remains structurally high. Fears about job losses are undermining confidence at a time when the cost of living, worsened by high oil prices, is already squeezing purses. The economy is expected to grow by only 1.5-2% in 2005. And, after ten years with Mr Chirac in the presidency, there is a sense that it is time for a change.
As always, the difficulty is only partly in agreeing what reforms are needed. The harder question is how to bring them about. In many ways, the mood in contemporary France feels similar to that of Britain in the late 1970s. A political discourse of anti-capitalism has taken hold, accompanied by revolutionary communist and Trotskyite movements reminiscent of Britain's Militant Tendency and other hard-left class warriors in the 1970s.
Populist egalitarianism is preached with little regard for wealth creation. Union leaders are household names, and enjoy an influence disproportionate to their numerical importance in the workforce. (For the French firebrand Jose Bove, think Arthur Scargill, the noisy leader of Britain's miners). Intermittent paralysing strikes and street demos are regarded as normal (a widespread strike has been called for October 4th). Politicians promise “economic patriotism” and fear de-industrialisation. State-owned giants such as EDF, the electric-power utility, are considered national treasures, as British Steel and British Coal once were. A bloated state saps public finances. And the country is infused with a mentality of decline.
Plainly, the parallel is not perfect. France is not facing the financial crisis that forced Britain to borrow from the IMF in 1976. Its private companies are in fine form, which was not the case for corporate Britain at the time. But there are enough similarities to prompt hard questions for France. If there is no crisis to match the one that led the British to elect (and re-elect) Margaret Thatcher, are the French nonetheless prepared for uncomfortable change? After all, much of this civilised, well-kept country, of high-speed trains and sit-down lunches, does not behave like a place on the edge of the precipice. Mr Sarkozy, for one, believes his compatriots are ready. “The French”, he declared, “are not afraid of change; they are hoping, waiting, calling for it.” The question then is: who best incarnates it?
Ping!
Chirac has a brain cloud? ... That explains a lot.
There's something about seeing this in print that emphasizes just how far gone this pathetic country has gone. They surrendered their work ethics and backbones many decades ago....
Sounds like a job for Superbill Clinton.
The headline speaks for a lot. They should be looking for the leader inside themselves. Of course that means taking the biblical word 'citizen' seriously.
Their greatest general was a Corsican and greatest soldier was a 16 year old girl.
De Villepin has been a pleasant surprise. I intensely disliked him for several years, and still do not trust him. However, he intelligent, and he has absorbed the truth of the situation. He is moving towards modifications in the social state that are likely to be acceptable to most French, and that will make things incrementally better for the economy.
Sarkozy has been a solid fellow for a long time. Hard as a rock in illegal immigration. His economic ideals are more radical, and before Dominique (I no longer call him Dominiquette, because in the absence of the old "king", he has proven himself a competent political leader, contrary to my expectations) de Villepin started to embrace economic pragmatism, Sarkozy was the only one who offered any change.
Now there is a choice, moderate, paced change, or more rapid change, in both cases towards lower taxation and some suppleness in labor regulation.
I expect that Villepin's style and his arc of fire will prove more palatable to France than Sarkozy's. I would not have said this even three months ago. I am surprised, pleasantly, at Villepin's capacity to command. But then, this does run din his line, and nature is not completely effaced by time.
So, we shall see.
Months ago, I said that Dominique de Villepin had never been elected to any office, and never would be, that he was the old king's favorite, and that was his only recommendation (given the atrocious advice he gave to the President, which Chirac followed on two occasions). But like the feckless Prince Harry transformed into the puissant Henry V of England, command seems to have brought out the capacities of Villepin.
And this is happy news for France, because it assures that the two most likely competitors for Elysee are also the two most promising in terms of policy.
Villepin has not fully gained my confidence yet, but I must say he has charted a very intelligent course. If he continues on this path he is likely to succeed Chirac.
Sooner would be better.
With all due respect, that's nonsense.
With all due respect, that's total nonsense. I'll be charitable and assume you're joking rather than being ignorant.
Indeed, I will make a prediction for the 2007 Presidentials.
Dominique de Villepin will edge out Nicolas Sarkozy and represent the right in the election. He will handily defeat the candidate of the left and be the next President of the Republique. If Chirac resigns, retires or expires, Villepin will be elevated to the office sooner.
And President Villepin will name Nicolas Sarkozy as Prime Minister. Their relationship will be prickly and difficult, but Villepin needs to keep his enemy close aboard, and Sarkozy requires the reins of power to remain a presidential possible; also to implement as much of his policy as he can get by Villepin.
By contrast, were Sarkozy to win the Elysee, Villepin would not be Premier. But I have made my prediction, here, now, that this will not happen. President de Villepin and Premier Ministre Sarkozy will either be the result of 2007 elections, or sooner should Chirac leave office.
This prediction surprises even me, and I am making it.
I am forced to admit to Villepin's capacities.
And for the sake of everyone, I hope that he continues to emerge from Chirac's shadow as a competent leader, and continues to improve.
Perhaps you'd like to nominate someone else ?
Sure: Turenne, Condé, Joffre spring to mind as generals.
Soldiers: LaHire, Lafayette, Napoleon's marshals.
Hard to distinguish between soldiers and generals. The former tend to be less well-known. Try doing a bit of reading yourself about the subject.
Lafayette (the Marquis) signed up with the Yanks to spite the Brits.
So what?
If he's on you list of standouts, I can see why the list is a short one.
I'm not an expert in French military history, but if I could be bothered to do the research I'd produce a lot longer list. OTOH, I can't think of that many notable American soldiers offhand either. U.S. Grant, perhaps? Eisenhower. Er...
Another short list, you're right.
The only Corsican I know of was Napoleon. Not a bad general, but prone to strategic errors and sloppy tactics.
Can't remember the admiral's name. Bit of a shameful act on Churchill's part, but couldn't be helped. Why would he be on a roll of honour, though?
De Gaulle led the French armoured division in 1940, and BTW it was the French who captured Paris in '44, albeit on American sufferance. LeClerc, I think.
Good French soldiers, not generals: the Old Guard, Chasseurs d'Afrique. Any FFL officer. Captain Danjou. The French army of 1914. The French in the Crimea. Juin's corps in Italy in '44. Sebastian Vauban. Ferdinand Lasalle.
Good American soldiers: Sgt.York, Audie Murphy. Joshua Chamberlain.
Good generals: Sherman, Sheridan (but no Confederates - all surrender monkeys...!).
Benedict Arnold (till he changed sides).
Norman Schwarzkopf. Colin Powell. That's just off the top of my head.
>Ignorant ? No...Arrogant ? Sure<
Not all Americans are ignorant, I readily admit. Their arrogance is something we don't really like, however sometimes reality takes them down a peg or two. But we in Europe shouldn't laugh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.