By Robert Murphy
Monday, May 7, 2007
The last week of April was one for the record books, as they say. The Treasury Department announced that April 24th was the single-day record for collection of personal income taxes, at $48.7 billion. On top of that, on both Wednesday and Thursday the Dow Industrials closed at back-to-back record highs. It seems that the Bush tax cuts might not have been so reckless after all.
Even though we now have an entire industry of professional doomsayers—whether it’s the ozone hole, carbon emissions, subprime loans, or outsourcing—the simple fact is that the current U.S. economy is the wealthiest and most productive that has ever existed in the history of mankind. People one hundred years ago weren’t worried about rolling over in an SUV, they were worried about getting stomped by a horse.
Looking at human progress over the last few centuries, many people attribute the steady increase in standards of living to new inventions. But that simply begs the question: What type of economic system needs to be in place in order for those inventions to do any good? After all, there were plenty of clever tinkerers in ancient Greece and China, yet they didn’t spearhead the Industrial Revolution. And even in our own times, there are places on the globe that are poorer now than they were a decade ago.
The reason “the West” grew rich at precisely the historical time that it did is that these countries respected the private property rights of their citizens. They weren’t (and aren’t) perfect, of course, but the idea that a man’s home was his castle, and that even the king couldn’t trespass on it, was peculiar to Western Europe.
Nowadays we call this system capitalism. Ironically, the term was originally a Marxist smear, meant to convey that capitalism only served the interests of the few capitalists. (In contrast, socialism supposedly served all of society.) Even so, the term is a good one, for under the capitalist system individuals have the freedom and incentive to save and invest (i.e. accumulate capital), providing a growing stock of tools and machinery for each succeeding generation. Today the average worker’s labor is far more physically productive than was the case 100 years ago, and it’s not simply that today we rely on advances in physics in chemistry, but also because we have far more sophisticated equipment and infrastructure put in place by our forefathers.
To repeat, this steady improvement is not automatic. People will only save and invest when the government allows them to keep a portion of the returns. The stock market’s success—not only this past week, but over the past few years—is largely due to President Bush’s tax cuts. It is a simple matter of accounting that when the after-tax flow of income to an asset increases, its present market value will increase. As the stock market is the arena to buy and sell ownership in some of America’s largest companies, it is an excellent indicator of the financial condition of the country. Corporate profits have been at record highs lately, and thus it’s not surprising that the stock market has been doing so well.
Of course, the cynic could retort that this is just what the Marxists were talking about—the system is rigged for the wealthy few, while the little guy gets the shaft. But it helps everyone, not just Donald Trump, when the stock market rallies. If you’ve got a pension, chances are a large chunk of it is invested in the market. The endowments of universities and other recipients of donations are also tied to the market.
And finally, I’d ask those who lament our “horrible” economy: Do you really want to go back to the 1970s before the Reagan Revolution, when (in real terms) the stock market had been sliding for years, and unemployment and inflation were both in the double digits?
Monday, May 7, 2007
French Lessons for Conservatives
By Michael Medved
Monday, May 07, 2007
The election of Nicolas Sarkozy represents good news for France, for America, and for the world. It also offers needed encouragement for US conservatives who ought to feel energized, inspired and reassured by this decisive triumph.
Most obviously, the Sarkozy election should help explode two cherished leftist myths about the current direction of world affairs –
First, that all nations and all peoples feel deep visceral hatred for America and Americans and,
Second, that a powerful tectonic shift in global politics is moving the whole world to the left.
On the first point, no Presidential candidate in French history had ever been so closely tied to the U.S. as President-elect Sarkozy. His political opponents gave him the derisive title “Sarko l’Americaine” (“Sarko The American”) and warned that if he won election he’d become Bush’s “French Poodle.” (to go along with the long-standing charge that Tony Blair – soon to leave office—has been a “poodle” or “lap dog” to President Bush). In any event, Sarkozy responded to the charges against him by traveling to Washington for a warm, enthusiastic meeting with George W. Bush, then returning home and speaking frankly and courageously against “reflexive anti-Americanism” by his countrymen. After the Bush White House meeting, aides said that no world leader since Japan’s ex-PM Junichiro Koizumi had impressed the President more, or hit it off as well with W. Relatively early in tonight’s electoral victory (by a margin of some 6% points), President Bush became one of the first world leaders to phone his congratulations to his new best friend. In his victory statement, Sarko even mentioned friendship with the U.S. and promised to “stand beside” America in the struggle against Islamic terrorism.
His election may not signal a change of heart from a nation where the intelligentsia and the elite have long harbored contemptuous attitudes toward American culture and policy, but it does show that even in Europe’s most famously ant-American society, a politician can win with a more pro-US attitude. In other words, the leftist conviction that “the whole world hates us” is obviously exaggerated. By the way, in addition to pledging a much closer French-US relationship, Sarko also promised much stronger French support for Israel – a pointed contrast to his hapless opponent, Segolene Royal, whose clumsy visit to the Middle East left French voters confused about her policy priorities.
The second aspect of the Sarkozy victory that ought to cheer conservatives and give pause to liberals involves the common claim that the whole world is turning to the left – opting for higher taxes, tighter regulation, more redistribution of wealth, a bigger welfare state. According to that theory, the U.S. would inevitably follow suit after the recent center-left victories in Italy and Spain (where the Prime Ministers of both countries openly endorsed Sarko’s opponent), and the outright leftist triumphs in Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
In this context, Sarko’s big win may indicate an international change of direction – with his promises for less regulation, a less rigid welfare system, more freedom for business, and a determined effort to “rupture” and “shake up” the calcified, Paleolithic French socialist state. The Sarkozy victory should remind us of other recent significant successes for candidates of the center-right – in Germany, Canada, Sweden and even Mexico. Though each of those electoral margins was painfully thin, Sarkozy earned a decisive win. With two of the European Big Three (Germany and France) now in the hands of conservative reformers, and the other member of the trio (Great Britain) run by “New Labour” leadership that specifically accepts Thatcherite reforms, there’s little sign of a leftist wave in Europe. Flat-taxers and anti-bureaucratic reformers already wield powerful influence in Eastern Europe, and this new development could help conservative, free-market ideas develop continent wide (and world-wide) momentum.
Finally, the Sarkozy victory shows that female candidates aren’t always magic when it comes to winning serious elections. Segolene Royal repeatedly identified herself with Hillary Clinton and suggested how much she’d enjoy working with the first female US President. Unlike Hillary, “Sego” possessed meaningful governmental experience (as a regional official and cabinet posts), plus luminous beauty and undeniable charisma, but her gaffes and flashes of unpredictable temperament helped undo her campaign. The collapse of the Royal candidacy should remind Americans that eagerness for a female leader doesn’t necessarily bring victories to all female candidates; gender identity need not trump common sense, or policy preferences – even among women voters. Even among her most fanatical followers, Hillary’s 2008 victory must look a bit less inevitable after Sego’s clear-cut defeat.
All in all, a good night for worried Republicans and conservatives – providing a fine excuse to lift a glass of properly aged French wine (yes, we can drop all attempts at boycotts now) to toast our new friend across the ocean, “Sarko the American.”
Monday, May 07, 2007
The election of Nicolas Sarkozy represents good news for France, for America, and for the world. It also offers needed encouragement for US conservatives who ought to feel energized, inspired and reassured by this decisive triumph.
Most obviously, the Sarkozy election should help explode two cherished leftist myths about the current direction of world affairs –
First, that all nations and all peoples feel deep visceral hatred for America and Americans and,
Second, that a powerful tectonic shift in global politics is moving the whole world to the left.
On the first point, no Presidential candidate in French history had ever been so closely tied to the U.S. as President-elect Sarkozy. His political opponents gave him the derisive title “Sarko l’Americaine” (“Sarko The American”) and warned that if he won election he’d become Bush’s “French Poodle.” (to go along with the long-standing charge that Tony Blair – soon to leave office—has been a “poodle” or “lap dog” to President Bush). In any event, Sarkozy responded to the charges against him by traveling to Washington for a warm, enthusiastic meeting with George W. Bush, then returning home and speaking frankly and courageously against “reflexive anti-Americanism” by his countrymen. After the Bush White House meeting, aides said that no world leader since Japan’s ex-PM Junichiro Koizumi had impressed the President more, or hit it off as well with W. Relatively early in tonight’s electoral victory (by a margin of some 6% points), President Bush became one of the first world leaders to phone his congratulations to his new best friend. In his victory statement, Sarko even mentioned friendship with the U.S. and promised to “stand beside” America in the struggle against Islamic terrorism.
His election may not signal a change of heart from a nation where the intelligentsia and the elite have long harbored contemptuous attitudes toward American culture and policy, but it does show that even in Europe’s most famously ant-American society, a politician can win with a more pro-US attitude. In other words, the leftist conviction that “the whole world hates us” is obviously exaggerated. By the way, in addition to pledging a much closer French-US relationship, Sarko also promised much stronger French support for Israel – a pointed contrast to his hapless opponent, Segolene Royal, whose clumsy visit to the Middle East left French voters confused about her policy priorities.
The second aspect of the Sarkozy victory that ought to cheer conservatives and give pause to liberals involves the common claim that the whole world is turning to the left – opting for higher taxes, tighter regulation, more redistribution of wealth, a bigger welfare state. According to that theory, the U.S. would inevitably follow suit after the recent center-left victories in Italy and Spain (where the Prime Ministers of both countries openly endorsed Sarko’s opponent), and the outright leftist triumphs in Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
In this context, Sarko’s big win may indicate an international change of direction – with his promises for less regulation, a less rigid welfare system, more freedom for business, and a determined effort to “rupture” and “shake up” the calcified, Paleolithic French socialist state. The Sarkozy victory should remind us of other recent significant successes for candidates of the center-right – in Germany, Canada, Sweden and even Mexico. Though each of those electoral margins was painfully thin, Sarkozy earned a decisive win. With two of the European Big Three (Germany and France) now in the hands of conservative reformers, and the other member of the trio (Great Britain) run by “New Labour” leadership that specifically accepts Thatcherite reforms, there’s little sign of a leftist wave in Europe. Flat-taxers and anti-bureaucratic reformers already wield powerful influence in Eastern Europe, and this new development could help conservative, free-market ideas develop continent wide (and world-wide) momentum.
Finally, the Sarkozy victory shows that female candidates aren’t always magic when it comes to winning serious elections. Segolene Royal repeatedly identified herself with Hillary Clinton and suggested how much she’d enjoy working with the first female US President. Unlike Hillary, “Sego” possessed meaningful governmental experience (as a regional official and cabinet posts), plus luminous beauty and undeniable charisma, but her gaffes and flashes of unpredictable temperament helped undo her campaign. The collapse of the Royal candidacy should remind Americans that eagerness for a female leader doesn’t necessarily bring victories to all female candidates; gender identity need not trump common sense, or policy preferences – even among women voters. Even among her most fanatical followers, Hillary’s 2008 victory must look a bit less inevitable after Sego’s clear-cut defeat.
All in all, a good night for worried Republicans and conservatives – providing a fine excuse to lift a glass of properly aged French wine (yes, we can drop all attempts at boycotts now) to toast our new friend across the ocean, “Sarko the American.”
L'Adulte
Can Sarkozy reform France?
By John Fund
Monday, May 7, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Conservative Nikolas Sarkozy's comfortable victory over Socialist Ségolène Royal in France's presidential race may indicate that Europe's slowest-growing major economy is finally ready for some change.
Long derided as a "center of social rest" for its cradle-to-grave welfare state, mandatory 35-hour work week, public-sector strikes and ossified employment rules, France has voted for a new president who claims he wants to shake things up. "France does not fear change," Mr. Sarkozy told his supporters as the vote progressed yesterday, "France hopes for it."
That's unclear. It's certainly true that Mr. Sarkozy styled himself as a reformer who wants to arrest the pessimism gripping a country where polls show 70% of voters think their country is in decline. He advocated tax cuts, allowing overtime, and shrinking the central government's bloated bureaucracy by filling only half of the slots opened up by retirement. "The best social model is one that gives work to everyone," he would tell audiences in calling for more dynamism in the economy. "That is no longer ours."
But at the same time the former interior and finance minister has shown a willingness to bail out failing French companies and to embrace greater protectionism. Mr. Sarkozy is certainly no heir to Margaret Thatcher or even Tony Blair, but he is someone that free-market advocates can at least do business with.
So too can Americans. Mr.Sarkozy was willing to take a lot of heat back home from his visit to America last September on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While in the U.S., he made it clear that although France's foreign policy will often be opposed to America's, he puts great importance on improving relations. "He's very admiring of the dynamism of the American people, and of their capacity to give an opportunity to everyone," says Michel Barnier, a former foreign minister who is advising Mr. Sarkozy.
By French standards Mr. Sarkozy is positively effusive about the need for the two countries to emphasize their points of agreement. "My dedication to our relationship with America if well known and has earned me substantial criticism in France," he said. "But let me tell you something, I'm not a coward. I embrace that friendship. I'm proud of the friendship . . . and I proclaim it proudly." He then went on to say that France's foreign policy had often suffered from an arrogant and insensitive approach, a clear reference to the haughty attitudes of retiring president Jacques Chirac and his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin.
But the clearest break that Mr. Sarkozy represents from leaders like Mr. Chirac is in his background. The son of a Hungarian immigrant, he has always been viewed as an outsider by French elites. He failed to attend the prestigious National School of Administration, where almost every leading figure in French politics, including purported populist Ségolène Royal, went.
It is difficult for Americans to appreciate just how removed from the French people the nation's bureaucratic elite is. Its arrogance is mind-boggling. One of Mr. Chirac's ministers privately compared the public's repudiation of the EU Constitution in 2005 to a temper tantrum. Listen to former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the prime architect of the now-rejected 448-article European Constitution, when he was asked to respond to complaints that voters would have trouble understanding the dense document: "The text is easily read and quite well phrased, which I can say all the more easily since I wrote it myself."
Even Jean Michel Fourgous, a parliamentary member of Mr. Chirac's own Union for a Popular Movement, bemoans his party's refusal to adopt more-transparent and -consultative government. He told Time magazine that the country has "been hijacked by an intellectually brilliant elite that's dangerously ignorant about the economy." He notes that while the current government is made up largely of people who call themselves conservative, 80% of ministers have never worked at all in the private sector. The few who have "are tolerated, but shoved into subaltern posts."
Mr. Sarkozy acknowledges he is now part of the elites of French society, but he pledges he will govern in a way that is beyond their interests. "If I'm elected," he told reporters before yesterday's balloting, "it won't be the press, the polls, the elites who chose me. It will have been the people." His clearest break with much of French elite opinion came last week when he made a dramatic speech about a "moral crisis" the nation entered in 1968, when the "moral and intellectual relativism" embodied by the 1968 student revolt that helped topple President Charles de Gaulle from power the next year. Today, many philosophers and media commentators routinely pay homage to "the élan of 1968" and lament that the revolutionary spirit of the time did not succeed in transforming bourgeois French society more than it did.
Mr. Sarkozy took on that '60s nostalgia. He labelled Ms. Royal and her supporters the descendants of the nihilists of 1968, and even appealed to France's "silent majority" to repudiate the false lessons of that period. He claimed that too many Royal backers continue to hesitate in reacting against riots by "thugs, troublemakers and fraudsters." He declared this Sunday's election would settle the "question of whether the heritage of May '68 should be perpetuated or if it should be liquidated once and for all."
It appears that Mr. Sarkozy may have found the ultimate "wedge" issue in France, judging by the solid margin he won many traditional working-class neighborhoods that normally support Socialist candidates. Mr. Sarkozy's triumph provides at least a chance that there will be a real debate on the role of the state in France's economy and, yes, even some discussion of whether France should be in perpetual conflict with America.
With the victory last year of Angela Merkel, the pro-U.S. leader of Germany, and the impending changeover in power in Britain from pro-American Tony Blair to equally pro-American Labor leader Gordon Brown, there is also at least a chance that Europe will begin to address its problems straight on and avoid needless scapegoating of the U.S. With Mr. Sarkozy's victory, France's government looks like it will finally have some energetic adult supervision.
By John Fund
Monday, May 7, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Conservative Nikolas Sarkozy's comfortable victory over Socialist Ségolène Royal in France's presidential race may indicate that Europe's slowest-growing major economy is finally ready for some change.
Long derided as a "center of social rest" for its cradle-to-grave welfare state, mandatory 35-hour work week, public-sector strikes and ossified employment rules, France has voted for a new president who claims he wants to shake things up. "France does not fear change," Mr. Sarkozy told his supporters as the vote progressed yesterday, "France hopes for it."
That's unclear. It's certainly true that Mr. Sarkozy styled himself as a reformer who wants to arrest the pessimism gripping a country where polls show 70% of voters think their country is in decline. He advocated tax cuts, allowing overtime, and shrinking the central government's bloated bureaucracy by filling only half of the slots opened up by retirement. "The best social model is one that gives work to everyone," he would tell audiences in calling for more dynamism in the economy. "That is no longer ours."
But at the same time the former interior and finance minister has shown a willingness to bail out failing French companies and to embrace greater protectionism. Mr. Sarkozy is certainly no heir to Margaret Thatcher or even Tony Blair, but he is someone that free-market advocates can at least do business with.
So too can Americans. Mr.Sarkozy was willing to take a lot of heat back home from his visit to America last September on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While in the U.S., he made it clear that although France's foreign policy will often be opposed to America's, he puts great importance on improving relations. "He's very admiring of the dynamism of the American people, and of their capacity to give an opportunity to everyone," says Michel Barnier, a former foreign minister who is advising Mr. Sarkozy.
By French standards Mr. Sarkozy is positively effusive about the need for the two countries to emphasize their points of agreement. "My dedication to our relationship with America if well known and has earned me substantial criticism in France," he said. "But let me tell you something, I'm not a coward. I embrace that friendship. I'm proud of the friendship . . . and I proclaim it proudly." He then went on to say that France's foreign policy had often suffered from an arrogant and insensitive approach, a clear reference to the haughty attitudes of retiring president Jacques Chirac and his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin.
But the clearest break that Mr. Sarkozy represents from leaders like Mr. Chirac is in his background. The son of a Hungarian immigrant, he has always been viewed as an outsider by French elites. He failed to attend the prestigious National School of Administration, where almost every leading figure in French politics, including purported populist Ségolène Royal, went.
It is difficult for Americans to appreciate just how removed from the French people the nation's bureaucratic elite is. Its arrogance is mind-boggling. One of Mr. Chirac's ministers privately compared the public's repudiation of the EU Constitution in 2005 to a temper tantrum. Listen to former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the prime architect of the now-rejected 448-article European Constitution, when he was asked to respond to complaints that voters would have trouble understanding the dense document: "The text is easily read and quite well phrased, which I can say all the more easily since I wrote it myself."
Even Jean Michel Fourgous, a parliamentary member of Mr. Chirac's own Union for a Popular Movement, bemoans his party's refusal to adopt more-transparent and -consultative government. He told Time magazine that the country has "been hijacked by an intellectually brilliant elite that's dangerously ignorant about the economy." He notes that while the current government is made up largely of people who call themselves conservative, 80% of ministers have never worked at all in the private sector. The few who have "are tolerated, but shoved into subaltern posts."
Mr. Sarkozy acknowledges he is now part of the elites of French society, but he pledges he will govern in a way that is beyond their interests. "If I'm elected," he told reporters before yesterday's balloting, "it won't be the press, the polls, the elites who chose me. It will have been the people." His clearest break with much of French elite opinion came last week when he made a dramatic speech about a "moral crisis" the nation entered in 1968, when the "moral and intellectual relativism" embodied by the 1968 student revolt that helped topple President Charles de Gaulle from power the next year. Today, many philosophers and media commentators routinely pay homage to "the élan of 1968" and lament that the revolutionary spirit of the time did not succeed in transforming bourgeois French society more than it did.
Mr. Sarkozy took on that '60s nostalgia. He labelled Ms. Royal and her supporters the descendants of the nihilists of 1968, and even appealed to France's "silent majority" to repudiate the false lessons of that period. He claimed that too many Royal backers continue to hesitate in reacting against riots by "thugs, troublemakers and fraudsters." He declared this Sunday's election would settle the "question of whether the heritage of May '68 should be perpetuated or if it should be liquidated once and for all."
It appears that Mr. Sarkozy may have found the ultimate "wedge" issue in France, judging by the solid margin he won many traditional working-class neighborhoods that normally support Socialist candidates. Mr. Sarkozy's triumph provides at least a chance that there will be a real debate on the role of the state in France's economy and, yes, even some discussion of whether France should be in perpetual conflict with America.
With the victory last year of Angela Merkel, the pro-U.S. leader of Germany, and the impending changeover in power in Britain from pro-American Tony Blair to equally pro-American Labor leader Gordon Brown, there is also at least a chance that Europe will begin to address its problems straight on and avoid needless scapegoating of the U.S. With Mr. Sarkozy's victory, France's government looks like it will finally have some energetic adult supervision.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Back from France
In honor of my return from a vacation in France, the first two posts are loosely related to today's runoff election in France. It was big news while I was there and could have a major impact across the pond.
The first article is about the right-of-center candidate, Sarkozy, and is from the beginning of the year. The second is a more recent piece from the Wall Street Journal.
Cheers.
The first article is about the right-of-center candidate, Sarkozy, and is from the beginning of the year. The second is a more recent piece from the Wall Street Journal.
Cheers.
Bush finds new ally in French candidate
By Tom Hundley
Published January 14, 2007
PARIS -- Improbable as it sounds today, by the time President Bush is rounding out his final term in office, his closest European ally and new best friend could be the president of France.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who on Sunday will clinch the ruling center-right party's nomination for the presidency, is an unabashed admirer of America. If Sarkozy can hold off Socialist Party candidate Segolene Royal in what is expected to be a tight contest this spring, the sour relations between the U.S. and France will undoubtedly sweeten.
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has paid a heavy price in the opinion polls for his chumminess with Bush, already has declared that this will be his final year in office. Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer and Blair's all-but-certain successor, has said he will maintain Britain's "special relationship" with the U.S., but on a personal level the dour Scot is likely to keep his distance from Bush.
"New best friend" might be overstating it a bit, but David Martinon, Sarkozy's foreign policy adviser, says his boss' affection for the U.S. is genuine.
"I see a lot of American diplomats, politicians and journalists these days and I am telling them, yes, Nicolas Sarkozy is a friend of America. He admires American culture. He has no problem with money or success or working hard," Martinon said.
"He likes the idea of a second chance. In France, if you fail once, you are dead. In America, you have a second, third or fourth chance. You have a culture of taking risks that doesn't exist in France."
'Good meeting'
Last September, Sarkozy made a trip to the U.S. timed to coincide with the Sept. 11 commemorations. Along the way he met with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, among others.
"With George Bush, it was a very good meeting--straight in the eye and direct," said Martinon. "And he very much liked Barack Obama. They talked about Darfur [Sudan], Iraq and immigration policy."
The ease with which Sarkozy has apparently established a comfort zone with a wide spectrum of American political leaders gives him a leg up on Royal, who has been committing one faux pas after another as she travels from the Middle East to China in a bid to bolster her thin foreign-policy resume.
While Royal's emergence as a serious presidential candidate has been as sudden as it is surprising, Sarkozy has been wearing his presidential ambitions on his sleeve for years. A television reporter once asked him whether he thought about the presidential palace when he shaved in the morning. "Not just when I shave," he replied.
On Sunday, Sarko, as he is known in France, takes a major step toward achieving that ambition when he officially becomes the presidential candidate of Union for a Popular Movement. The UMP conducted a two-week online primary to select its candidate, and the results will be announced at Sunday's party conference. Sarkozy was the only candidate.
Though Sarkozy was once a protege of President Jacques Chirac, the two are barely on speaking terms now. Chirac, 74, has refused to endorse Sarkozy, 51, and he has done nothing to quell chatter that he may yet attempt to spoil Sarkozy's chances by jumping into the race and seeking a third term as an independent. Political professionals believe the chances of this are nil--Chirac, they say, has no chance of beating Sarkozy, and the humiliation of losing would only further diminish his sagging legacy.
With Chirac a deeply unpopular figure in France these days, the falling out between the two men probably helps Sarkozy more than it hurts. On the campaign trail Sarkozy has spoken repeatedly of the need for a "rupture" with the past; Chirac embodies that past.
According to Sarkozy, the old way of doing business in France, aimed mainly at protecting its well-cushioned social welfare state, has left the country with a sclerotic economy, high unemployment and bleak prospects for the future.
Eric Besson, a member of the National Assembly from the Socialist Party, last month characterized Sarkozy as "an American neo-conservative with a French passport."
Sarkozy says there is nothing wrong with wanting to trim welfare benefits or encouraging people to work longer hours. He says he admires the flexibility of the American and British economic models, and wants to import some of their ideas.
The French are not so sure.
"I think French society wants to vote for a rupture, but they don't really want to have one. They are afraid, and that is why Sarkozy has been much more ambiguous about his economic proposals over the last few months," said Bruno Jeanbart, a political analyst with Opinion Way, a French polling institute.
Antithesis of Chirac
The son of a Hungarian refugee, Sarkozy always has seen himself as an outsider.
Short, aggressive and quick to take offense, Sarkozy is the antithesis of the tall, suave Chirac. He once told an interviewer that the slights he suffered in childhood shaped his personality.
As interior minister in the present government, Sarkozy made his name with a tough crackdown on crime and violence in the mainly African and Arab suburbs that surround France's major urban centers. He also has called for strict immigration quotas.
But many felt he was pandering to the far right when he referred to the young men who were setting cars ablaze in November 2005 as racaille--a harsh word that means scum or dregs--and threatened to deport them, even though most were French citizens.
The most recent polls show Royal with a slim lead over Sarkozy. A CSA/Le Parisien poll had Royal with 34 percent of the likely vote, Sarkozy with 32 percent and perennial far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen with 15 percent.
If no candidate gets 50 percent in the first round, the top two finishers will face each other in a May 6 runoff.
Published January 14, 2007
PARIS -- Improbable as it sounds today, by the time President Bush is rounding out his final term in office, his closest European ally and new best friend could be the president of France.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who on Sunday will clinch the ruling center-right party's nomination for the presidency, is an unabashed admirer of America. If Sarkozy can hold off Socialist Party candidate Segolene Royal in what is expected to be a tight contest this spring, the sour relations between the U.S. and France will undoubtedly sweeten.
Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has paid a heavy price in the opinion polls for his chumminess with Bush, already has declared that this will be his final year in office. Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer and Blair's all-but-certain successor, has said he will maintain Britain's "special relationship" with the U.S., but on a personal level the dour Scot is likely to keep his distance from Bush.
"New best friend" might be overstating it a bit, but David Martinon, Sarkozy's foreign policy adviser, says his boss' affection for the U.S. is genuine.
"I see a lot of American diplomats, politicians and journalists these days and I am telling them, yes, Nicolas Sarkozy is a friend of America. He admires American culture. He has no problem with money or success or working hard," Martinon said.
"He likes the idea of a second chance. In France, if you fail once, you are dead. In America, you have a second, third or fourth chance. You have a culture of taking risks that doesn't exist in France."
'Good meeting'
Last September, Sarkozy made a trip to the U.S. timed to coincide with the Sept. 11 commemorations. Along the way he met with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, among others.
"With George Bush, it was a very good meeting--straight in the eye and direct," said Martinon. "And he very much liked Barack Obama. They talked about Darfur [Sudan], Iraq and immigration policy."
The ease with which Sarkozy has apparently established a comfort zone with a wide spectrum of American political leaders gives him a leg up on Royal, who has been committing one faux pas after another as she travels from the Middle East to China in a bid to bolster her thin foreign-policy resume.
While Royal's emergence as a serious presidential candidate has been as sudden as it is surprising, Sarkozy has been wearing his presidential ambitions on his sleeve for years. A television reporter once asked him whether he thought about the presidential palace when he shaved in the morning. "Not just when I shave," he replied.
On Sunday, Sarko, as he is known in France, takes a major step toward achieving that ambition when he officially becomes the presidential candidate of Union for a Popular Movement. The UMP conducted a two-week online primary to select its candidate, and the results will be announced at Sunday's party conference. Sarkozy was the only candidate.
Though Sarkozy was once a protege of President Jacques Chirac, the two are barely on speaking terms now. Chirac, 74, has refused to endorse Sarkozy, 51, and he has done nothing to quell chatter that he may yet attempt to spoil Sarkozy's chances by jumping into the race and seeking a third term as an independent. Political professionals believe the chances of this are nil--Chirac, they say, has no chance of beating Sarkozy, and the humiliation of losing would only further diminish his sagging legacy.
With Chirac a deeply unpopular figure in France these days, the falling out between the two men probably helps Sarkozy more than it hurts. On the campaign trail Sarkozy has spoken repeatedly of the need for a "rupture" with the past; Chirac embodies that past.
According to Sarkozy, the old way of doing business in France, aimed mainly at protecting its well-cushioned social welfare state, has left the country with a sclerotic economy, high unemployment and bleak prospects for the future.
Eric Besson, a member of the National Assembly from the Socialist Party, last month characterized Sarkozy as "an American neo-conservative with a French passport."
Sarkozy says there is nothing wrong with wanting to trim welfare benefits or encouraging people to work longer hours. He says he admires the flexibility of the American and British economic models, and wants to import some of their ideas.
The French are not so sure.
"I think French society wants to vote for a rupture, but they don't really want to have one. They are afraid, and that is why Sarkozy has been much more ambiguous about his economic proposals over the last few months," said Bruno Jeanbart, a political analyst with Opinion Way, a French polling institute.
Antithesis of Chirac
The son of a Hungarian refugee, Sarkozy always has seen himself as an outsider.
Short, aggressive and quick to take offense, Sarkozy is the antithesis of the tall, suave Chirac. He once told an interviewer that the slights he suffered in childhood shaped his personality.
As interior minister in the present government, Sarkozy made his name with a tough crackdown on crime and violence in the mainly African and Arab suburbs that surround France's major urban centers. He also has called for strict immigration quotas.
But many felt he was pandering to the far right when he referred to the young men who were setting cars ablaze in November 2005 as racaille--a harsh word that means scum or dregs--and threatened to deport them, even though most were French citizens.
The most recent polls show Royal with a slim lead over Sarkozy. A CSA/Le Parisien poll had Royal with 34 percent of the likely vote, Sarkozy with 32 percent and perennial far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen with 15 percent.
If no candidate gets 50 percent in the first round, the top two finishers will face each other in a May 6 runoff.
The New Europeans
Can an election change France?
Wall Street Journal
Saturday, May 5, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The changing of the guard in Europe's biggest countries is a chance for the Continent to renew itself. That's the good news. Here's the other kind: This fresh crop of leaders doesn't look well-placed to pull it off.
New political management will be in place by summer. Whomever the French elect tomorrow, the next President is going to be a younger face. Tony Blair plans to set a date next week to give the keys to 10 Downing Street to Chancellor Gordon Brown. Germany and Italy chose new leaders in the past 18 months. All are different, and Britain is the one economic standout, but this foursome sets the pace in Europe.
France is a good test case. Its socioeconomic troubles are nothing unusual for Old Europe--from stagnant growth to a debt-ridden welfare state to restive, underemployed young Muslims. But the political barriers to tackling these problems are highest in France. The presidential election, pitting center-right Nicolas Sarkozy against Socialist Ségolène Royal, might provide a mandate for change. According to an Ipsos survey on the day of the first round of voting April 22, the three main issues were unemployment, purchasing power and economic insecurity.
In the runoff, Ségo and Sarko have proposed very different solutions. Ms. Royal would bump up the minimum wage, already the highest in the OECD, by 20% and spend lavishly on social programs. She wants to make life easier for business, but the bulk of her program is old school Socialism. If Ms. Royal is the vision of a reassuring but untenable past, Mr. Sarkozy promises an uncertain, tumultuous, possibly brighter future. He mixes free markets and protectionism, yet emphasizes "action" and "rupture." The man wants to shake France out of its doldrums, the woman to softly nudge.
Even France may be ready at last to abandon statist orthodoxy. Mr. Sarkozy got 31% in the first round, the highest score for a right-wing candidate since 1974, and heads into the runoff with a nine-point lead in the polls. French voters are saying something must truly change. But will it?
Germany gives a half-reassuring answer. The "sick man of Europe" a few years back, a nickname today applied to France, the world's third-largest economy notched a recent high of 2.7% growth in 2006 and saw joblessness last month fall to its lowest level in five years. The previous government's limited welfare reforms helped, but the real credit goes to Germany's private sector.
Global competition, free capital flows and the single European currency have forced Deutschland AG to go around the politicians and get its act together. German companies restructured, outsourced aggressively and won wage concessions from unions. Now the world's biggest exporter can take better advantage of globalization. Last year, exports grew 13% and investment 8%, driving the revival, since consumption was up only 0.9%. Likewise in Italy, the private sector bypassed a shambolic state to pull the country out of recession; look at the turnaround at Fiat.
Europe's last watershed election was Margaret Thatcher's in 1979. Thanks to her and the Reagan Revolution, as well as globalization, politicians today matter less. In spite of Mr. Brown's penchant for stealth taxes and regulations, New Labour's commitment to leave Thatcherite reforms in place means that investors have little to fear from the change of leadership in an economically vibrant Britain. The Nordics, Ireland and Spain are all doing well after opening up their economies in recent years.
Alas, in the "Big Three" the pols have a central role to play--mainly to undo the policy mistakes of the past. Whether for lack of conviction or political will, they're falling short. Content with high approval ratings, Chancellor Angela Merkel has shelved her promises of flat taxes, the easing of firing restrictions and an overhaul of the health system. Her one big move was a three-point increase in the VAT this year, showing that Continental politicians can still do plenty of damage. Retail sales are down 9% in the first quarter. Italy's Prime Minister Romano Prodi pushed through some deregulation but also a big tax increase.
France's next President inherits an arguably tougher situation. Exports and market share abroad are falling and the French outsource less than Germans or Italians. France lags Germany on labor and welfare liberalization, which along with regulation and high taxes stifles innovation and economic growth. Capital and skilled workers are moving out of France.
The campaign may have culminated in a clear left-right split, but with little room for free-market ideas. In a telling moment in Wednesday night's presidential debate, Mr. Sarkozy declared in his concluding statement that his priority was "to protect France from delocalisation," or outsourcing. He didn't provide details along the lines of Ms. Royal's tax on companies that move operations overseas. In France, both left and right have pushed statism as well as market reforms when convenient, but neither has yet embraced anything even resembling a Thatcherite agenda.
Until a political consensus emerges in the Big Three that competition is the surest route to job creation, lower prices and higher wages, don't hold your breath for a genuine European economic renaissance.
Wall Street Journal
Saturday, May 5, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The changing of the guard in Europe's biggest countries is a chance for the Continent to renew itself. That's the good news. Here's the other kind: This fresh crop of leaders doesn't look well-placed to pull it off.
New political management will be in place by summer. Whomever the French elect tomorrow, the next President is going to be a younger face. Tony Blair plans to set a date next week to give the keys to 10 Downing Street to Chancellor Gordon Brown. Germany and Italy chose new leaders in the past 18 months. All are different, and Britain is the one economic standout, but this foursome sets the pace in Europe.
France is a good test case. Its socioeconomic troubles are nothing unusual for Old Europe--from stagnant growth to a debt-ridden welfare state to restive, underemployed young Muslims. But the political barriers to tackling these problems are highest in France. The presidential election, pitting center-right Nicolas Sarkozy against Socialist Ségolène Royal, might provide a mandate for change. According to an Ipsos survey on the day of the first round of voting April 22, the three main issues were unemployment, purchasing power and economic insecurity.
In the runoff, Ségo and Sarko have proposed very different solutions. Ms. Royal would bump up the minimum wage, already the highest in the OECD, by 20% and spend lavishly on social programs. She wants to make life easier for business, but the bulk of her program is old school Socialism. If Ms. Royal is the vision of a reassuring but untenable past, Mr. Sarkozy promises an uncertain, tumultuous, possibly brighter future. He mixes free markets and protectionism, yet emphasizes "action" and "rupture." The man wants to shake France out of its doldrums, the woman to softly nudge.
Even France may be ready at last to abandon statist orthodoxy. Mr. Sarkozy got 31% in the first round, the highest score for a right-wing candidate since 1974, and heads into the runoff with a nine-point lead in the polls. French voters are saying something must truly change. But will it?
Germany gives a half-reassuring answer. The "sick man of Europe" a few years back, a nickname today applied to France, the world's third-largest economy notched a recent high of 2.7% growth in 2006 and saw joblessness last month fall to its lowest level in five years. The previous government's limited welfare reforms helped, but the real credit goes to Germany's private sector.
Global competition, free capital flows and the single European currency have forced Deutschland AG to go around the politicians and get its act together. German companies restructured, outsourced aggressively and won wage concessions from unions. Now the world's biggest exporter can take better advantage of globalization. Last year, exports grew 13% and investment 8%, driving the revival, since consumption was up only 0.9%. Likewise in Italy, the private sector bypassed a shambolic state to pull the country out of recession; look at the turnaround at Fiat.
Europe's last watershed election was Margaret Thatcher's in 1979. Thanks to her and the Reagan Revolution, as well as globalization, politicians today matter less. In spite of Mr. Brown's penchant for stealth taxes and regulations, New Labour's commitment to leave Thatcherite reforms in place means that investors have little to fear from the change of leadership in an economically vibrant Britain. The Nordics, Ireland and Spain are all doing well after opening up their economies in recent years.
Alas, in the "Big Three" the pols have a central role to play--mainly to undo the policy mistakes of the past. Whether for lack of conviction or political will, they're falling short. Content with high approval ratings, Chancellor Angela Merkel has shelved her promises of flat taxes, the easing of firing restrictions and an overhaul of the health system. Her one big move was a three-point increase in the VAT this year, showing that Continental politicians can still do plenty of damage. Retail sales are down 9% in the first quarter. Italy's Prime Minister Romano Prodi pushed through some deregulation but also a big tax increase.
France's next President inherits an arguably tougher situation. Exports and market share abroad are falling and the French outsource less than Germans or Italians. France lags Germany on labor and welfare liberalization, which along with regulation and high taxes stifles innovation and economic growth. Capital and skilled workers are moving out of France.
The campaign may have culminated in a clear left-right split, but with little room for free-market ideas. In a telling moment in Wednesday night's presidential debate, Mr. Sarkozy declared in his concluding statement that his priority was "to protect France from delocalisation," or outsourcing. He didn't provide details along the lines of Ms. Royal's tax on companies that move operations overseas. In France, both left and right have pushed statism as well as market reforms when convenient, but neither has yet embraced anything even resembling a Thatcherite agenda.
Until a political consensus emerges in the Big Three that competition is the surest route to job creation, lower prices and higher wages, don't hold your breath for a genuine European economic renaissance.
Banal Outrage
By Kathleen Parker
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Veteran political columnist David Broder set off a firestorm recently when he called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid an ``embarrassment'' for declaring the Iraq War ``lost.''
From the assault subsequently directed at Broder -- from other journalists, political operatives, left-wing bloggers and even the entire 50-member Senate Democratic Caucus -- you'd have thought Broder had had an intimate encounter with an intern.
Or, in the spirit of bipartisanship, had broken into Democratic National Committee headquarters.
Broder committed no such dastardly deed, but merely did what he has done for the past 35 years. He called it as he saw it -- just as Reid claims to have done, and that his defenders seem to find so refreshing.
Nevertheless, the 50 Democratic senators felt compelled to respond. Doesn't the U.S. Senate have more important matters to attend to than David Broder?
In a letter to The Washington Post that had the unmistakable whiff of a powder room manifesto, otherwise known as a hissy fit -- as opposed to a ``bed-wetting tantrum,'' as Paul Begala described Broder's column -- the senators asserted that their leader is a ``good listener,'' who has an ``amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together,'' and who also demonstrates a ``mastery of procedure.''
It is perhaps admirable, and certainly reassuring to Reid, that his fellow senators came to his defense. But this kind of overreaction to a columnist is rare, if not unprecedented, and betrays a disturbing hostility to legitimate criticism.
Though Broder is a great political writer, he is not the president of the United States. He doesn't command an army or meet routinely with heads of state to negotiate planetary alignment or even global heating and cooling. He's a commentator.
And what, exactly, is a commentator supposed to do if not comment? When he or she makes a point -- from the perspective of an observer with more than 50 years' experience in Broder's case -- does disagreement necessitate a movement?
Outrage has become such a predictable response to any difference of opinion that it's lost its heat. When everything is outrageous, nothing is.
In fact, what Broder said was not remotely outrageous. It's hardly crazy to think it inappropriate when the leader of the most powerful governing body in the world declares in the midst of a war that the war is lost.
Broder's point, provocative but hardly incendiary, was that American lives are on the line and that Reid's remark didn't help matters. Rather than provide encouragement to our enemies, Broder suggested that the Senate leader might do better to heed the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report and seek common ground toward both military and political solutions.
Broder needs no one to defend him. His record, which includes at least equal numbers of columns criticizing Republicans as Democrats, speaks for itself. But the Reid-Broder dust-up reveals the degraded state of public debate today. People don't disagree; they brawl. Punditry has become a free-for-all -- and mutual respect is locked in the attic with Aunt Sadie.
Part of this devolution in discourse has been brought about, no doubt, by the volcanic explosion of the blogosphere, which has democratized free speech in a way that is not always positive or pretty. Everybody can type, but not everyone can write. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone comes equipped with the same skills and experience.
The disinhibiting effect of anonymity, meanwhile, has unleashed something dark in the human spirit that seems to have infected the broader culture. It isn't enough to say that Broder is all wet; instead he's ``foaming at the mouth,'' a ``gasbag" and a ``venomous'' bloviator,'' borrowing again from Begala.
Begala, who came to punditry via the Clinton White House, isn't anonymous, of course. But many other lesser-knowns have taken Broder to task in what has become the typical blog-inspired pile-on.
One wonders where these same thin-skins were when Broder was leveling his sights at the Bush administration. Was Broder a gasbag when previously he lambasted the Bush budget deficit, the tax cuts for the rich and the mess in Iraq?
A fair treatment of Broder's recent column would consider the broader context of his body of work, but fairness is missing from this debate. Also is respect for those, like the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broder, who have toiled long in the fields to earn the kind of forum others merely feel entitled to.
The absence of fairness and respectful dissension -- and the decline of civility wrought by our nation's unhinged narcissism -- now there's something worthy of outrage.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Veteran political columnist David Broder set off a firestorm recently when he called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid an ``embarrassment'' for declaring the Iraq War ``lost.''
From the assault subsequently directed at Broder -- from other journalists, political operatives, left-wing bloggers and even the entire 50-member Senate Democratic Caucus -- you'd have thought Broder had had an intimate encounter with an intern.
Or, in the spirit of bipartisanship, had broken into Democratic National Committee headquarters.
Broder committed no such dastardly deed, but merely did what he has done for the past 35 years. He called it as he saw it -- just as Reid claims to have done, and that his defenders seem to find so refreshing.
Nevertheless, the 50 Democratic senators felt compelled to respond. Doesn't the U.S. Senate have more important matters to attend to than David Broder?
In a letter to The Washington Post that had the unmistakable whiff of a powder room manifesto, otherwise known as a hissy fit -- as opposed to a ``bed-wetting tantrum,'' as Paul Begala described Broder's column -- the senators asserted that their leader is a ``good listener,'' who has an ``amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together,'' and who also demonstrates a ``mastery of procedure.''
It is perhaps admirable, and certainly reassuring to Reid, that his fellow senators came to his defense. But this kind of overreaction to a columnist is rare, if not unprecedented, and betrays a disturbing hostility to legitimate criticism.
Though Broder is a great political writer, he is not the president of the United States. He doesn't command an army or meet routinely with heads of state to negotiate planetary alignment or even global heating and cooling. He's a commentator.
And what, exactly, is a commentator supposed to do if not comment? When he or she makes a point -- from the perspective of an observer with more than 50 years' experience in Broder's case -- does disagreement necessitate a movement?
Outrage has become such a predictable response to any difference of opinion that it's lost its heat. When everything is outrageous, nothing is.
In fact, what Broder said was not remotely outrageous. It's hardly crazy to think it inappropriate when the leader of the most powerful governing body in the world declares in the midst of a war that the war is lost.
Broder's point, provocative but hardly incendiary, was that American lives are on the line and that Reid's remark didn't help matters. Rather than provide encouragement to our enemies, Broder suggested that the Senate leader might do better to heed the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report and seek common ground toward both military and political solutions.
Broder needs no one to defend him. His record, which includes at least equal numbers of columns criticizing Republicans as Democrats, speaks for itself. But the Reid-Broder dust-up reveals the degraded state of public debate today. People don't disagree; they brawl. Punditry has become a free-for-all -- and mutual respect is locked in the attic with Aunt Sadie.
Part of this devolution in discourse has been brought about, no doubt, by the volcanic explosion of the blogosphere, which has democratized free speech in a way that is not always positive or pretty. Everybody can type, but not everyone can write. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone comes equipped with the same skills and experience.
The disinhibiting effect of anonymity, meanwhile, has unleashed something dark in the human spirit that seems to have infected the broader culture. It isn't enough to say that Broder is all wet; instead he's ``foaming at the mouth,'' a ``gasbag" and a ``venomous'' bloviator,'' borrowing again from Begala.
Begala, who came to punditry via the Clinton White House, isn't anonymous, of course. But many other lesser-knowns have taken Broder to task in what has become the typical blog-inspired pile-on.
One wonders where these same thin-skins were when Broder was leveling his sights at the Bush administration. Was Broder a gasbag when previously he lambasted the Bush budget deficit, the tax cuts for the rich and the mess in Iraq?
A fair treatment of Broder's recent column would consider the broader context of his body of work, but fairness is missing from this debate. Also is respect for those, like the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broder, who have toiled long in the fields to earn the kind of forum others merely feel entitled to.
The absence of fairness and respectful dissension -- and the decline of civility wrought by our nation's unhinged narcissism -- now there's something worthy of outrage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)