July 13, 2004

BEST OF A BAD LOT?:

Nicolas Sarkozy: Could this wily, dynamic rival of Chirac's ever win the French presidency? (Tim King, July 2004, Prospect uk)

At the moment, the public loves him because he gets things done. He has prodigious energy and seems to understand what is going on in France. Most French ministers stay in their ministries, ruminating on policy, if necessary summoning their partenaires sociaux (trade unions and employers) in a ritual dance of consultation. When Sarkozy became minister of the interior, the refugee holding centre at Sangatte near Calais was a real problem to both French and British governments, but no French minister had bothered to go there. Sarkozy went, saw and sorted it out. He worked with similar directness over security: he went round the country listening to ordinary policemen and women, imbuing them with importance, giving them medals and offering bonuses for increased "productivity." It may not get to the root of street violence, any more than closing a refugee centre will solve the immigration issue, but the public has the impression that the leaky ship is being patched up.

He is an inspired orator, and there are few things he loves as much as working up a live audience. He is also a skilled television debater - he has twice taken part in a live programme in which for 100 minutes he confronts a series of opponents whose sole aim is to wear him down and destroy him in front of millions. The first time he faced Jean-Guy Talamoni, a Corsican nationalist politician, Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of France's racist Front National, and Elizabeth Guigou, former minister of justice. Thoroughly prepared, able to quote figures on apparently any subject without notes, he ran rings round all of them. At one point the elegant Guigou declared that police officers in a particular police station were racist. "I'll go there," said Sarkozy, with typical directness, "tomorrow at 8am. See you there?" Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

He is a clever strategist, frequently wrong-footing his opponents by passing laws that were proposed in their manifestos. When minister of the interior he achieved two things which the socialists had been promising for years: establishing a national committee to co-ordinate the different Islamic factions, and ending "double punishment," the system whereby foreigners convicted of a crime first served a prison sentence then, on release, were repatriated. Now certain categories of foreigners ("de facto Frenchmen") may be spared repatriation. "He's on the right, but he doesn't want to become locked into the contradictions of ideology. He wants his laws to be balanced and fair," Thierry Saussez, a political consultant who has worked with Sarkozy for 20 years, told me. When he gets something wrong, he has the much-appreciated humility to go on television and say that it's his fault. He also has personal courage. In 1993, a man took 21 schoolchildren hostage in Neuilly, threatening to blow them up. Sarkozy was budget minister in Paris at the time, but as mayor of Neuilly he drove straight to the school and remained there, negotiating the release of some of the children and offering to exchange himself for the rest. The minister of the interior and prime minister stayed in their offices.

Whatever he does, he makes sure the public sees him doing it. Every day he is on the news in connection with some positive thing he is fighting for. He knows that to achieve the reforms essential to make France work better the public has to be involved.

If Sarkozy were a character in a work of fiction, he would strain credibility - except perhaps as a Shakespearean villain. Indeed his ruthlessness, energy and strength recall Machiavelli's vertù, that essential quality for a politician. Sarkozy's father, Pal Nagy Bosca y Sarközy, a dispossessed Hungarian aristocrat, joined the French foreign legion to escape Stalin. He made his way to Paris, there married a young law student whose family was Jewish and Greek. He sired three children with her and left. Nicolas, abandoned by his father, spent most of his childhood in front of the television. In May 1968, 13-year-old Nicolas, already on the right, marched with those supporting De Gaulle. Having thrown up his studies in political science in his second year, his first choice of career was to be a journalist, but in fact he became a barrister. He was 20 when he addressed a rally of young conservatives in Nice and caught Prime Minister Chirac's attention. But given his background and lack of diplomas, success in politics would be hard. In 1983, aged 28, he took the first of the bold decisions that established him as a front-rank politician, making him implacable enemies on the way. He was a councillor in Neuilly, a staid suburb of Paris, and had worked his way into the entourage of Charles Pasqua, senator and a leader of the party, when the mayor of Neuilly died unexpectedly. The obvious replacement was Pasqua, but he had just gone into hospital for a minor operation, so Sarkozy proposed himself, even though he was in Pasqua's team. By the time the mighty senator woke from his anaesthetic, Sarkozy had charmed enough burghers of Neuilly to be elected. Pasqua, the first to be stung by Sarkozy's treachery, was furious, while his partner at the top of the RPR, the equally treacherous Jacques Chirac, laughed: "Everyone betrays everyone else in this job" - and he took Sarkozy into his heart.

Latching on to a father figure, using him and then betraying him has become a Sarkozy hallmark.


What a loathsome people.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 13, 2004 9:21 AM
Comments

Yes,

But this guy seems to be smart enough to "get" the problem, and therefore may turn out to be good for France (the French deserve to live better lives too, in spite of their character)

Such is politics, and you'll find such "treachery" in most of our favorite politicians here.

...war by other means

Posted by: BB at July 13, 2004 10:00 AM

Why? Why should a people of such debased character survive?

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2004 10:06 AM

Hmmm,

Maybe for the same reason Sodom was spared for the sake of one good man.

I agree with you re: their faults and lack of character. I also rejoice when their worldview is exposed and their plans destroyed.

But they are Human after all. The French too have access to God's Grace. Do they not?

Posted by: BB at July 13, 2004 10:28 AM

Where's Sodom today? The French needn't be annihilated, they're killing themselves.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2004 11:11 AM

OJ: Marx (who loved the French) said the same thing about the Slavs. The French are pretty much a strategic enemy right now but Marx was wrong and you are wrong.

It's vile and immoral to talk of a people, any people, not surviving. Also remember that the French gave us Bastiat and the people who started England.

Posted by: EO at July 13, 2004 11:30 AM

"It's vile and immoral to talk of a people, any people, not surviving."

oj has already damned his own people as unworthy,why should he care about the French?

Posted by: at July 13, 2004 11:31 AM

EO--

Vile perhaps, but the French (and Italians, whom I really adore, and Germans, and Spaniards) are dying out. That's a fact. What will change it?

Posted by: Brian (MN) at July 13, 2004 11:33 AM

EO:

The French were Christians then. The Slavs are toast too.

Posted by: oj at July 13, 2004 11:40 AM

In ancient times various tribes and nationalities were extinguished with great regularity. Particulary those that confronted the Roman Empire-say whatever happened to those Phoenicians anyway-they made such lovely pots.

What makes the possible extinction of France and its disfunctional culture in anyway more tragic than the Baal worshiping Phoenicians? We make better wine than they do throughout the Anglosphere.

I would miss an occassional authentic French meal but really Italian is a preferable everyday cuisine anyway.

Have the French demostrated any substantial cultural innovations that benefit the remainder of Western Civilization in the last two or three hundred years? Given their secular beliefs are they really a part of the west anymore?

We've hauled their incompetent asses out of three successive events that would have resulted in France being subsumed within Germany (twice) and within the Soviet sphere immediately thereafter.

Colonel McCormick of the Tribune and the midwest isolationists were right. Why the hell did we go over there to fight anyway? Who cares if they're obliged to bow to Mecca?

Posted by: Ray Clutts at July 13, 2004 11:49 AM

Colonel McCormick once tried to get the star of a state removed from the U.S. flag because he was mad at the state.

If the French eradicate themselves, that's fine. I don't advocate going to the mat for them the next time, either. But there is a big difference between getting "extinguished" and "dying off."

Posted by: EO at July 13, 2004 11:58 AM

From the 'Nothing Ever Changes Files'

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals.
Apart from these drawbacks, it is a fine cuntry."

-- Mark Twain

Posted by: Uncle Bill at July 13, 2004 1:03 PM

In my youth I read the novels of Guy de Maupassant. He was every bit as treacherous and callous as modern French politicians, and so too were his heros; and it didn't hurt his reputation in France. Read Bel Ami for a hero who climbs to the top of French society by finding mentors and betraying them as soon as a better one comes along - the twist: he gets into the favor of his mentors by seducing their wives.

Posted by: pj at July 13, 2004 2:48 PM
« SUFFICIENT, BUT NEVER THE PRIMARY REASON: | Main | A THUG BY ANY OTHER NAME: »