French Presidential Election

Post Reply New Topic

Why do you only provide 2 options? What if the choice was neither?

I didn't make the original post, but I'm assuming its because now that the first round of voting has concluded the choice is between those two.

Yeah, he probably doesn't scare the rest of us because the French right-wing is not that close to the American right so Sarkozy is closer to the center of American politics than Royal.

Ok, fine, I will admit that Le Pen scares me but not the leader of the major center-right French conservative party.

Socialists tend to be all in favour of nationalism when it's espoused by powerless groups like the Quebecois, the Irish or the Palestinians, but never when it's espoused by the likes of the French or the British.

If Quebec becomes established as a sovereign state, after a few years socialists will start demanding they open their doors to the entire Third World so they can become like every other "white" nation on earth.

So what's the point?

Btw, out of the two I'd go for Sarkozy. He's the least worst.

When France was under the socialist Mitterrand, they got along better with the United States (ironically with Ronald Reagan) then at any time in the post-war period. This isn't to say it was like the special relationship the US and Britain traditionally have had, however there was more partnership in re: to NATO against the Soviet Union. Sarkozy's Union pour un Mouvement Populaire is a descendent of de Gaulle's party and it traditionally more nationalist (as certainly can be seen under Jacques Chirac). Sarkozy has expressed admiration for the United States and has even been called "Sarko the American" although I would be careful to take that to assume too much about what his policies would ultimately be.

I'd vote Le Pen if he were still in the running, and if I were French.

I don't think many countries approach the American right-wing. In fact, it doesn't seem like the US really has a left-wing. They have liberals, the Democrats, which is a right-wing ideology and conservatives, the Republicans, which is also a right-wing ideology. What amuses me is the Americans who say, oh Democrats and Republicans, they're both bad. And then they turn out to be libertarian, which is yet another right-wing ideology.

And Codarac, fascism is just not cool.

I do not not agree but I hear this comment often.

ADDENDUM: I would say the Democratic party of today is somewhat behind Europe, but you can definitely see similarities between changes how the Western European left moved and the American left followed some time later.

The two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, have distinct general differences on economic, social issues, and foreign policy (right now foreign policy would seem to be the starkest difference).

ADDENDUM II: The two parties have not been this far apart, and have not voted in such blocs, in a rather long time. It must be at least since before the Second World War and could be since the beginning of the 20th century. The parties reached their closest, ideologically, from the late-50s to the mid-60s (before the Democrats split apart because of the Vietnam war)

ADDENDUM III(! !!): There was a similarity in the early twentieth century with both parties breaking into conservative and progressive blocs. However, the progressive blocs worked differently in the two parties. Theodore Roosevelt, and his successor William Howard Taft were representatives of the Republican progressives as were both advocates as more aggressive foreign policy, while many Democrats such as William Jennngs Bryan, and almost Woodrow Wilson's entire cabinet held essentially pacifist beliefs. The area of progressive action was shared in economics such as the income tax, shorter work days, ect...Wilson was, in a way, a prototype of a modern liberal, believing in a less then literal interpretation of the constitution and laws by the courts, although he never acted upon his own suggest as a university professor to make the Presidency more like the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Former Theodore Roosevelt ran as a Progressive (or Bull Moose) candidate in 1912, against the more conservative William Howard Taft, assuring Woodrow Wilson of victory. In 1924, former Senator Robert La Foullete ran but only could carry his own state against a Calvin Coolidge landslide when he assumed the that ticket on that title. Later, a rather different campaign was run on that name by former Vice President Henry Wallace against President Harry Truman and Governor Thomas Dewey of New York. The communist-supported (although he was not one himself) candidate did very poorly.

Last edited by jimservo on 23 Apr 2007, 5:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Well, the American left wing might simply be to the right of everyone else's. The democrats are more left wing than their opponents and just are to the right of other nations in some regards. I really do not see it that amusing though, if our center is right wing then the people who do not like the conventional parties are likely to pick another party and that party can often be a right wing party as well which emphasizes a different approach. Really though, Americans would likely claim that Europeans are too left wing and that European parties all peddle left wing philosophies with only the occasional fringe group. Heck, I consider Chirac too left wing for my taste and Sarko as merely a good first step but not the ideal.

Le Pen, as I have already stated, scares me.

Awesomelyglorious,

I think pretty much the opposite politically, i.e., that the British and American governments are too right-wing, etc. I do suspect, though, that people's political preferences are strongly influenced by the institutions they already have. For example, I think a lot of Americans would look at their institutions and observe that they don't really do what they're supposed to, they cost a lot, etc. and would therefore take the right-wing position. As an Australian, I tend to look at our institutions and think that they do a pretty good job, but not as good as they used to since the right-wing came to power and cut tax, etc. and so I take the left-wing position. (Australia has a long history of government directly providing services and we continue to expect that for the most part.)

So she wants to ruin relations between France and Canada?

Right, and that goes back to political belief, a lefty and righty will tend towards strong disagreement on issues of ideology even though both might be highly intelligent and capable. I wouldn't say institutes so much as culture. I do not think that America is right wing solely because our government sucks, although that is a major contributing factor, but rather because it is in our societal ethic and as such strongly defines us. There is a relationship between that and institutes I suppose but still I think that the US has tended towards economic individualism and social authoritarianism to some extent for a good period of time.

Sarkozy is frighteningly right-wing...having studied in Paris briefly, I found that I, (and most of the people I liked and respected) tended to favor Royal. Americal political thought tends to shy away from socialism...but french culture generally supports it.

Beyond that, we should learn from Harry Potter...people with evil sounding names are clearly not to be trusted. (Snape is simply the exception that proves the rule^.^) I mean, say Sarkozy a couple of times out loud, then compare with Royal. Which sounds less evil? ^.^

(This is what my poli sci degree is doing for me. Sad, really)

The thing I have heard from him is the comment calling the immigrants to be scum, which is not something I favor, however, I think that Sarkozy is the person who can reform elements of the economic system to make it work better. French labor markets are not doing that great from what I can see, and french economic controls go way too far. French culture may support socialism, however, I do not think that socialist culture supports economic rationalism. I would say that it is sort of unfortunate that the logic of the pricing system is a harder system to truly grasp.

Well, obviously. Socialism and economic rationalism are mutually incompatible. Not every buys into economic rationalism, you know.