September 14, 2004
CARRION FIGHTING OVER WELL-SUCKED BONES:
The Nicolas v Jacques show (The Economist, Sep 9th 2004)
The deal between the veteran Gaullist president and his brazen young finance minister was finally tied up quietly last week, as the country was distracted by the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq. Under the pact, Mr Chirac agreed not to block Mr Sarkozy's candidature to be head of the ruling party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). In return, Mr Sarkozy agreed to leave the government.For Mr Chirac, this was a much-needed reassertion of his authority. In July he declared firmly that he would fire any minister who became the party head, since this would undermine the prime minister's authority. Although Mr Sarkozy at first hoped that he could flout such a rule, in the end he agreed to go.
Yet the greater victory, symbolically and substantively, has gone to Mr Sarkozy. Symbolically, the upstart outsider has grabbed hold of the president's personal war machine (other minor candidates may stay in the race, but the result of the party members' vote in November is now a foregone conclusion). This party, after all, is the direct descendant of the one that Mr Chirac founded in 1976. In its most recent incarnation, as the UMP, it was designed solely to elect a centre-right government and then become a platform for Mr Chirac's chosen successor, Alain Juppé.
When, instead, Mr Juppé had to quit politics after being convicted of political corruption in January, la chiraquie, the president's circle, stepped up efforts to keep the party out of Mr Sarkozy's hands. “Tout sauf Sarkozy” (Anyone but Sarkozy) was its mantra, as it sought to marginalise the man whom the president has distrusted ever since he backed a rival presidential candidate, Edouard Balladur, in 1995. Yet a few months on, Mr Chirac has proved powerless to stop the party falling into Mr Sarkozy's hands.
Why would a French politician call himself a Gaullist? You never hear a Republican call himself a Hooverist or a Democrat a Carterist. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 14, 2004 11:02 PM
Although The Economist styles Sarkozy as attempting to flout the rules, in fact Chirac himself was both a minister and head of the UMP at the same time, (as posted here on BrosJudd), so Chirac's ban on such behavior is transparently self-serving.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 15, 2004 1:44 AMShould they call themselves Bonapartists, since that is what the Gaullists are essentially ?
Posted by: Peter at September 15, 2004 3:28 AMWhy, the unmitigated deGaulle of that man!
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
Posted by: Mike Morley at September 15, 2004 5:53 AMdeGaulle lost their Civil War, and abandoned the southern half of Metropolitan France. I don't think Jefferson Davis was quite this bad on balance.
Posted by: Ripper at September 15, 2004 8:38 AMDavis didn't flee to Britain.
Posted by: oj at September 15, 2004 9:53 AMWell, Kerry has tried to portray himself as a JFKist, because for too many people (the kind who are proud of their ignorance of history), he was the last good President.
Strange that the southern half of metropolitan France was also the northern part of Algeria, and had never culturally been part of France except for the colonial era. DeGaulle was smart to abandon it.
DeGaulle obviously had some strange ideas on balancing themselves between their ally (us) versus their enemy (USSR), but he was the only French man brave enough to fight the Nazis, even if it meant running away at first. France could have done much worse.
Still, it is intriguing to imagine how things could have turned differently. What would a LeKlerkist have been like?
Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 15, 2004 12:18 PM