This “unashamed mash note”:http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bill_emmott/2007/04/not_decline_but_rupture_with_t.html from Bill Emmott, former editor of the _Economist_ presents a class of a triple-distilled tincture of the prevailing globollocks on Sarkozy’s victory in France. You don’t need to read the actual column to get the gist; just the Pavlovian dinner-bell talking points that it strings together.
France … paralyzed by powerful interest groups … political elite … beholden … or … afraid … takes a brave outsider … precisely Sarkozy’s appeal … Reagan or a Thatcher … A “rupture” is what France needs … showing that his country is not doomed to decline … cadres of highly globalized managers … etc … etc
I don’t see the words “tough,” “clear-headed,” or “reform” anywhere, so it isn’t quite the full bob major, but it’s close. But is Sarkozy really the pro-globalization reformer that people like Emmott thinks he is? Two alternative points of view. First, “Martin Wolf”:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/40e3b612-fd8d-11db-8d62-000b5df10621.html (behind the FT subscription wall), who’s strongly pro-globalization, but isn’t (at least in my opinion) a purveyor of globollocks.
For a modern politician of the right, such as Mr Sarkozy, it is [nationalism and the dominance of the state] that are most important. It leads him, both instinctively and as a matter of political expediency, in the direction of Colbertian mercantilism … If one adds to Colbertian mercantilism the need to gain power in a country with closely interwoven populist and Bonapartist traditions, a Mr Sarkozy emerges. … determined to inject dynamism into an ossified French domestic economy, while protecting industry against “unfair” foreign competition … Mr Sarkozy … wants a … Europe … in which his dirigiste approach is translated to the European level: an ECB under political control; a European industrial policy; and EU preference, by which he means greater protection against disruptive foreigners.
Even more interesting is this “article”:http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2521658.ece on the sources of Sarkozy’s electoral support, via “Max”:http://www.maxspeak.org/mt/.
M. Sarkozy owes his victory to a “wrinkly” landslide with an overwhelming triumph among French voters in their sixties (61 per cent of the vote) and a jackpot among the over-seventies (68 per cent) … M. Sarkozy … picked up his largest scores – up to 68 per cent of the vote – in the former far-right bastions of Alsace and the Côte d’Azur. “Sarkoland” covers two thirds of France but its heartlands are the permanently reactionary and “grumpy” départements along France’s eastern borders. … M. Sarkozy won among private-sector employees, small businessmen, professionals, farmers and the managerial classes. He won an absolute landslide – 82 per cent – among shop-keepers and small tradespeople.
This strongly suggests that Sarkozy’s political coalition is one that “we’ve seen before in France”:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poujadisme, and one that, to put it mildly, wasn’t associated with any great appetite for widescale and sweeping changes to French economy and society. My objections to Sarkozy aren’t primarily to the threat that he’ll ‘reform’ France (I agree with the Emmotts of the commentariat that there are many things about the French polity and economy that could do with some reforming, although I obviously disagree about the ultimate direction in which these reforms should go). They’re to his barely concealed appeals to racism. This seems, however to dovetail neatly with a kind of neo-Poujadism, which would soften its objections to big business in favour of emphasizing the threats posed by the EU, international competition, Asians, folks from Algeria, Turkey, and other foreign parts taking your precious jobs and so on.
I’m not an academic expert on French politics, but from what I do know, I don’t see any good reason to believe that Sarkozy is a pro-globalizing reformer, or anything like it. On the contrary, I see plenty of reason to believe that Wolf is right; Sarkozy will likely seek to lower domestic taxes (especially on business), but do all he can to erect barriers against the outside world, to protect his constituents (small business in particular) against forms of deregulation that might hurt them, and to add a dollop of old-style xenophobia for good measure. This isn’t good news for the globollocks merchants, but it isn’t exactly great news for the rest of us either.
{ 24 comments }
Richard 05.11.07 at 9:39 pm
So if I may summarise, he appeals to grumpy conservatives and the petit-bourgeoisie, he’s running on a racist platform and he promises to protect the nation’s jobs?
That does sound awfully familiar. I guess it’s a good thing Le Pen is around to draw flak.
P O'Neill 05.11.07 at 9:50 pm
Popping over to the Emmott link one sees
Admittedly, France has what sometimes seems to be as full a set of checks and balances as America does.
That’s a very strange version of America in the last 7 years. It’s hard to think of a more striking failure of checks and balances than is unfolding now, as the executive orders troops into combat while trying to stampede the legislature into providing the funding for it. Could that happen in France? It certainly couldn’t happen in a parliamentary system.
John 05.12.07 at 5:01 am
It’s hard to think of a more striking failure of checks and balances than is unfolding now, as the executive orders troops into combat while trying to stampede the legislature into providing the funding for it. Could that happen in France? It certainly couldn’t happen in a parliamentary system.
I’m fairly certain that Britain still has troops in Iraq…
a 05.12.07 at 5:17 am
I think Sarkozy got the support of shopkeepers not because of any promises, explicit or implicit, about protectionism, but because he promised help on the 35 hours legislation, which pretty much all small businessmen are against.
I’m not sure also what the cheering is about vs globalization. Sure, Sarkozy is French and will continue the French tradition of ensuring that the French control more than their fair share. Already he has said that the Italian Unicredito will only be allowed to buy the French Societe Generale if the headquarters of the combined bank is in Paris. But, when I think of the ill effects of globalization, I’m not thinking about big companies tending to be run from big cities in the developed world. I’m thinking of inequality – the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer – and Sarkozy looks hellbent on achieving that in France.
I think there are two ways to think of Sarkozy. One is that he’s a democratic fascist. Work. Authority. Nation.
The other is that he’s an American neoconservative, in the sense that on economic matters he will support the rich, but garner the support of enough of the majority by using social issues.
With that said, Sarkozy has some positives. He didn’t go to ENA or any other grandes ecoles. Yet he is still in the tradition of the “brilliant” French politician, the technocrat who is able to wade into complex issues and find solutions.
yabonn 05.12.07 at 9:06 am
Very Econmist-y.
The WSJ or the FT, for example, are just shuffling the decay codewords, and presto, they got you an article about France.
But the Economist way is another thing entirely. First you shuffle the decay codewords. BUT ! you begin your article with a slightly contrarian take (not in complete decay after all!). AFTER, you end it end with a merciful, hopeful proposition (the Wrexham Eagle is hopeful France will prove it can be likeable to the Wrexham Eagle!11!)
This way it’s the same usual AND you’re so very clever indeed. Get it WSJ? Get it FT?
More seriously I find Emmott’s post rather less annoying than the usual piece about France. No wise ponderings about the essentially lazy/feminised french, nothing on the explaining power of The Decay(tm) about its policies on Iraq, etc, etc.
novakant 05.12.07 at 10:44 am
Could anybody shed a little more light on the 35 hour week and to whom it applies? I was under the impression that it only applies to unionized workers in medium-sized and big companies, not so much to small businesses or shopkeepers.
a 05.12.07 at 11:46 am
#6: The 35 hour law applies to all workers, not just to unionized workers. It has been brought into application in stages, with full application to businesses having less than 20 employees only starting in 2009.
otto 05.12.07 at 1:41 pm
A few points:
1. If you looked at Thatcher’s electoral coalition in 1979, one would not have predicted the economic deregulation that the Tories inflicted on their supporters. So the Poujadist coalition may not get Poujadist policies.
2. Protecting small businesses against policies that might hurt them is a perennial activity of all governments. It’s certainly a permanent feature of the US political scene. It’s a question of what sort of protection will be offered.
3. There’s just no support whatever in France for eventually admitting Turkey to the EU or for otherwise increasing the amount of migration to France from elsewhere. French policy is either going to reflect that demand or votes will continually shift to parties that will reflect it. Sarkozy has chosen to reflect it and its probably better than the alternative.
4. The test of Sarkozy will be in labour market policies, not taxation. Those small shop owners backing Sarkozy will be willing to stick it to both the rioting suburban youth and the rioting student insider, so the coalitional support for a shift in policy may be there.
chris y 05.12.07 at 1:53 pm
I’m fairly certain that Britain still has troops in Iraq…
But if the leadership of the party with a parliamentary majority wanted them out, they would be withdrawn, because that leadership would constitute the executive. QED.
novakant 05.12.07 at 2:31 pm
thanks
Jon Kay 05.12.07 at 4:16 pm
It looks to me like Sarkozy won because of Royal’s weaknesses. Royal’s plans would seem to’ve been a tad incoherent. The older parts of the vote would’ve been particularly disturbed by that, and’s what you saw in the election.
It’s hard to think of a more striking failure of checks and balances than is unfolding now, as the executive orders troops into combat while trying to stampede the legislature into providing the funding for it.
You’re not thinking very hard. Recently, the UK Parliament came strikingly close to passing a bill that would’ve obsoletin itself. Yep, a Blair for dictator bill. THAT would’ve been a striking failure of checks and balances.
nick s 05.12.07 at 4:57 pm
The older parts of the vote would’ve been particularly disturbed by that, and’s what you saw in the election.
Or, alternatively, the older parts of the vote were never going to vote for a woman, regardless of her policies. That was certainly the case among farmers, who on the face of it would have benefitted more from voting for her.
dave heasman 05.12.07 at 6:53 pm
“Protecting small businesses against policies that might hurt them is a perennial activity of all governments. ”
Except in England. The government crawls on its belly to big business, seems to want to close all small businesses.
MQ 05.13.07 at 4:36 am
Wrong, Henry, this IS great news for the rest of us. In France, being xenophobic and protecting small merchants means subsidizing and preserving the countryside, the cheeses, the wines, the small food merchants…everything that makes France tourist heaven. What do I gain when France goes global? I have plenty of McDonalds and strip malls over here in the U.S.
Glorious Godfrey 05.13.07 at 6:03 pm
It may sound banal, but it´s too early to tell how Sarkozy´s presidency will turn out. He´s indeed at the head of a coalition with a strong “traditionalist” slant, the components of which are certainly not averse to interventions of the state in the economy, if they stand to benefit from them.
At the same time, the mood in France is not unlike that in the US when Reagan came to power: large sections of the population are convinced that the state´s services benefit other people (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) that obviously don´t deserve them. The success of Sarkozy´s thinly-veiled racism, his denunciations of the “fléau” or political correctness or the crap about the “élitisme” of the left and the need to “liquider l´héritage de mai 68” are expressions of this mood.
It´s hard to envision him as Maggie´s French counterpart yet, but he could well implement significant labour market reforms and substantial reductions of social programs. I personally regard the former with far less scepticism than the latter.
Glorious Godfrey 05.13.07 at 6:09 pm
Wolf´s characterization of Sarkozy´s protectionist streak is not off the mark. There are many historical examples of states that are (literally) lean and mean in the services they provide and that erect protectionist barriers. The notion of “free” markets has always allowed much wiggle room for spurious idiosyncrasies, after all.
His choice of words is cringe-worthy, though. Colbertian? WTF?
Glorious Godfrey 05.13.07 at 6:12 pm
On another note, the English-speaking punditariat will have its work cut out spinning Sarko´s foreign policy. He knows full well that it was not Chirac´s opposition to the Iraq war that made him unpopular. There will be more “warmth” in the Franco-American relationship, but not many substantial changes.
Glorious Godfrey 05.13.07 at 6:33 pm
Let´s bash the stalwarts of the Economist a bit, now. Come on, you know you want to.
Less jaundiced souls than mine (like yabonn at #5) may be right in stating that that Emmott chap is a tad more clevah and less annoying than the average WSJ columnist. His musings remain just as redundant and predictable as those of his peers, though.
He does endear himself to his readership when he mentions Koizumi, Thatcher and Reagan in the same breath (and I found the specification of their respective countries particularly helpful, truth be told). The “Koizumi is Japan´s Reagan” soundbite has bounced a bit around the media (not least in Japan), but given that in spite of all reforms Japan´s economy will remain distinctly Japanese (and rightly so, all things considered), it´safe to say that it´s bollocks.
Of course, Mr. Emmott would argue that he´s only stressing the “brave outsider” bit. The implied link is clear, though. And calling a president that was as closely chaperoned as Ronnie an “outsider” is just priceless. So bollocks, it is.
Fluffy waste of everybody´s time, if you ask me.
Glorious Godfrey 05.13.07 at 6:36 pm
…the “fléau” OF political correctness…
Chris Stiles 05.14.07 at 2:37 pm
But then France is a country with all of America’s vices and none of its virtues, and vice versa.
Pete Bogs 05.14.07 at 4:12 pm
wishful thinking among the Freedom Fries set here…
G Green 05.14.07 at 4:21 pm
“Slick soundbites don’t fix real problems.” – Graham H Green
C. L. Ball 05.14.07 at 5:00 pm
The real question for Sarkozy is what will happen in the parliamentary elections next month. Without a legislative majority, he’s stuck, and that is by no means guaranteed, though I have not seen recent polls.
Re #8, Thatcher — or rather, her party — had roughly the same vote share as Sarkozy got in the 1st round, but due to the French TRS, Sarkozy gets majority affirimation in the 2nd round.
Z 05.15.07 at 6:48 am
Without a legislative majority, he’s stuck, and that is by no means guaranteed, though I have not seen recent polls.
That Sarkozy would fail to get a legislative majority, and in fact a rather comfortable one, would be extremely surprising: he has been elected with a clear majority of the electorate and a high turn-out. Him failing to get a majority would mean that there are milions of voters who like him better than Royal but prefer the PS to the UMP (for sure, there is the new centrist party, but the voting method used almost guarantees that it cannot get many seats). That sounds wildly implausible.
Comments on this entry are closed.