The French Make Law in the Streets, Here Congress Does It

Quinnipiac University ^ | April 11, 2006 | Peter Brown

[RWR8189]

During the Iraq war, much was made about how different France and the United States had become. There is no better example than the recent political eruptions in the two nations.

In France, they apparently are able to make law in the streets.

Here in the United States, it's still done in the halls of Congress.

That's the only conclusion available after the French political system caved to political pressure from massive demonstrations and shelved a plan to attack the nation's 20-plus percent youth unemployment rate.

Meanwhile, as advocates for immigration changes here that would legalize and perhaps grant citizenship to illegal immigrants continue to flood the streets, U.S. lawmakers - at least for now -- have been unwilling to bend to their will.

French President Jacques Chirac Monday said he would scrap the law that made it easier for employers to hire young people by giving firms the flexibility to fire those workers without cause for two years.

By caving to the protests, Chirac bowed to pressure to retain the French system of worker protections that has made double digit unemployment overall a way of life there.

The flexibility the change would have given French employers in dealing with workers age 26 or less would still have been less freedom than employers have in the United States - where the unemployment rate is 4.7 percent - to hire and fire.

The drive to give employers more flexibility was proposed to make the French better able to compete in a global economy. But the Chirac reversal means that once again, much like its brethren on the Continent, the French have opted to put a premium on their domestic desire to avoid change even at the prospect of future economic woes.

Meanwhile, as advocates for immigrants in America have assembled impressive numbers of people at their marches, the U.S. Senate last week went home unable to agree on what to do about immigration reform.

Now, one reason for the different reactions in Paris and Washington to the protests is the two nations' different political cultures. Labor unions, who fought the effort to give employers more flexibility, carry much greater clout there than here.

Historically, European demonstrators have been much more successful in quickly changing governmental policies than in the United States. Witness the inability of street demonstrators to stop the U.S. invasion of Iraq, or to force a pullout.

Even during Vietnam, the golden age of U.S. protests, it took almost a decade to force a pullout. Remember, George McGovern, the candidate of the demonstrators, was the biggest loser in U.S. presidential history.

Moreover, polls show the French people are much more committed to a government-regulated society that supplies a guaranteed social safety net but produces lower living standards for its people than enjoyed in the United States.

And, in fact, polls showed the French public agreed with the demonstrators that the change in the employment law was harmful to the status quo they cherish.

Public opinion in the United States on immigration, however, appears to be much less supportive of the street demonstrators. Americans do back stopping the flow of illegal immigrants across the border, and there is a consensus for such steps in Congress.

But the breakdown in efforts to legislate the changes sought by the demonstrators on U.S. streets - legalization and perhaps eventual citizenship for those here illegally - reflects a lack of consensus in the American electorate.

And that is the point the politicians in the United States well understand.

Demonstrating in America has been the province of those unhappy with the status quo, but lawmakers remember what Richard Nixon once called "the silent majority," who don't demonstrate but do vote.

It is unclear how many of those marching in U.S. streets are registered to vote - much less legally eligible to do so. As Congress begins its recess this week, you can be sure its members will be taking the temperature of those who do.

That is how laws are made and changed in the United States.

 

Peter A. Brown is assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. He can be reached at peter.brown@quinnipiac.edu

[OpusatFR]

Not so fast.

What we are witnessing with the demonstrations this week is old fashioned Euro-style socialism at work that our Congresscritters, INS and Administration have ALLOWED to happen by refusing to enforce our borders and immigration law for decades.

I can only believe that our leaders want mob-democracy in the US to end our Republic.

As far as I am concerned (and as a US citizen, taxpayer and voter, I count for nothing), I do believe in that "d@8m piece of paper" still.

[wolfcreek]

Our Congress is pandering for the WRONG votes while, We're losing the country We once knew.

[DustyMoment]

Here in the United States, it's still done in the halls of Congress.

I'm guessing this "reporter" hasn't been following the "protest" marches in the streets of America by illegal aliens. Despite repetitive polls showing that taxpaying, voting, Americans want the borders closed, the illegals booted out, and no amnesty of guest worker plans discussed until the first two situaations are resolved, Congress is hell-bent on defying the will of the majority. We used to be a land where the majority ruled. Now, like France, we are a nation where the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

For those in Rio Linda who don't recognize it, Congress is giving the taxpaying, voting Americans the finger!!

[pravknight]

These morons cost my noble French ancestor to lose his head in the 1790s because he was 1)a Catholic bishop and 2)was a nobleman.

Same mentality, except the only thing missing is guillotine.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"Americans do back stopping the flow of illegal immigrants across the border, and there is a consensus for such steps in Congress."

Huh? Consensus? The US Senate refuses to stop the illegal immigration. The US Government has refused to enforce current law to stop the illegal invasion for two decades. There's consensus among the American People for this, but their elected Representatives sure as heck aren't on board.

[Colonel Batguano]

"our Congresscritters, INS and Administration have ALLOWED to happen by refusing to enforce our borders and immigration law for decades."


The behavior of the US Senate (and President Bush for that matter) regarding illegal immigration shows that there are two kinds of governments in the world: The first kind, fortunately there aren't as many as there used to be, oppress their people. This is a fool's errand, and such governments fail sooner or later. The SECOND kind is smarter; this kind of government does not oppress its people, it merely IGNORES them, and largely does the bidding of elites and certain interest groups. This is what we have in the USA today--a representative republic that doesn't represent. You see it in illegal immigration policy, outsourcing, health insurance, even the war in Iraq. There is a cartoon "happy bunny" popular with young people who says insensitive things for a laugh. One of his catchphrases is "I know how you feel, I just don't care." This is the attitude of the US government (all 3 branches) and the American elite toward the population at large

[Colonel Batguano]

"reflects a lack of consensus in the American electorate"

That is is rubbish. Polls consistently indicate that the American public in general supports harsh, punitive measures against illegals; things like a wall, cutting off aid, deportation etc. It is social and economic elites, combined with renegade Hispanic "advocacy" groups (all together a small minority of the US population) which are fighting the will of the American people. In a representative republic, the legislature functions as a transmission belt between the majority of the people and government. I am loathe to praise France for anything these days, but the "transmission belt" in Paris seems more responsive than the one in D.C.

[chainsaw]

For those in Rio Linda who don't recognize it, Congress is giving the taxpaying, voting Americans the finger!!

Right!
Illegal, is still Illegal, but the politicians and the MSM just call them immigrants not illegal immigrants

[NonValueAdded]

or the court system.

[Adder]

"Here in the United States, it's still done in the halls of Congress."

That remains to be seen. It appears the Senate can't wait to cave to the demands of criminals....

[G.Mason]

Mr. Peter Brown is either misinformed or chooses to ignor several points.

1) ... Laws that are unenforced are more than useless, they indicate we are no longer a nation of laws.

2) ... His assumption that it is ... "unclear how many of those marching in U.S. streets are registered to vote - much less legally eligible to do so" ... would be laughable, were it not so serious.

Anyone who reads understands that voter fraud is rampant and that many states have little if any way to stop it, never mind the will to do so.

We are, I'm afraid, heading down the same dark and dismal road as Europe.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Unfortunately politicians no longer fear their constituent s's votes. Most incumbencies are re-elected. The power of money is too strong once a politician reaches a high point. He can buy his way either with other people's money or with pork or plumb jobs handed out.

Also, politicians know that the number of voters is getting smaller. Only about one third of the qualified voters vote even in a presidential election. Congressional races attract even fewer. Why is a job in congress a lifetime job?

Let's analyze a typical congressional district. My figures are not meant to be accurate but will do for an example.

Say there are 25 thousand qualified voters in a district. About one half, or approximately 12 thousand are registered to vote. Often as few as 10 to 20 percent turn out to vote, that's about 2400, using the higher figure. over one half or 1200 will predictably vote in a bloc.

Our incumbent congressman must then reach out to a mere few hundred to vote with his friends, relatives and those to whom he has given satisfactory constituent services to again win office. If he is a Democrat, add a few tombstones and a few hundred illegal aliens, and he's in.

Don't be fooled. Candidates of both parties pray for a low voter turnout, knowing that their particular hard core will vote. That hard core keeps him in office term after term. Term limits, where are you?

[dfwgator]

Hey France, how did that mob rule thing work out for you back in the French Revolution?