From what I see here, we would benefit greatly if the same kind of free-form debate were used in the US - our presidential debate format, while facilitating the use of slogans, bromides & banal generalities, makes it practically impossible to contrast between the candidates, let alone nail them down on the issues in any detail.
our presidential debate format, while facilitating the use of slogans, bromides & banal generalities, makes it practically impossible to contrast between the candidates
I’m French speaking, but have spent a fair bit of time in the US, and I find this sort of comment really interesting because it illustrates some really big differences between what the French and Americans look for in their leaders.
Not to say that they don’t look for the same things overall - it’s more a question of what’s more important and what’s less important.
The French *need* this free-form debate - the nuances that come across and the candidate’s ability to adjust on the fly without losing eloquence, subtlety, class or style are considered - in French - to be indicators of other things, such as intelligence, depth of thinking, considered opinions and general leadership ability.
I’m not sure I can be as clear about what’s important in America, but I would venture as far as to suggest that in much of the Americas, individuals care little for well-formed phrases (coastal cities perhaps being the exception) and care more about certain key policies such as the treatment of the Mexican border in Texas, or the party line on abortion in some other states.
In France, people come to very personal judgements about their leaders attributes (while drawing a clear line between their political persona and their private lives, the latter being considered .. well... private, and up to a point, irrelevant).
In this debate, those that cared only about the protection of state employees and the preservation of the 35-hour week sided with Royal. The reason Sarko did so well is that he didn’t come across as an extremist, he knew where he stood on his issues, he didn’t let himself get pushed away from his core positions and he came across as a statesman. If you’re going to represent one of the five most powerful countries in the world, hysterics just don’t do the job.
I’m glad he won - it’s a shame he as protectionist tendencies - they clash ideologically (to my mind) with his free-market policies in the labour markets.
My 2 euro-cents, anyway.