France 2012: the official thread

[Antonio the Sixth]

When you get new poll results, I'd be grateful if you could publish them in these thread as soon as possible. It is understandable that you need time to write a full analysis to post on your blog, but here you'd only need to give us the rough numbers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Probably not Porte d'Eau materiel.

GAME CHANGER

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, if you are unlucky enough to hear the french news, you'll learn how or Interior Minister said that "all civilizations aren't worth the same", or how Sarko announced he would call referendums on unemployment's indemnization and on immigration rights. He is desperate, and he thinks that by looking like a xenophobe he will reconquer the FN's electorate and reproduce his 2007 exploit. I don't know if one should laugh at so much stupidity or cry at so much lack of principles.

Bottom line : it is impossible for any sound person not to loath such a pathetic, petty, shameless politician. Any right-winger with a minimum of principles should seriously start consider other voting options in 2007.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bottom line : it is impossible for any sound person not to loath such a pathetic, petty, shameless politician. Any right-winger with a minimum of principles should seriously start consider other voting options in 2007.

Oh, I hear about that even here. I'm following French politics, you know.
And, I know a French right-centrist which is considering other options since a while.

I was refering to a certain French right-winger who often posts in this thread.


And yeah, also part of his strategy is blocking any right-wing/center-right candidate from running. Hence pressures on Borloo supporters when he was considering a run, buying back all of Morin's former supporters, and now this pandering to Boutin. He is obsessed with his 1st round results, probably thinking he will get some momentum from a good performance, and forgets that the real problem is his inability to attract moderates in general (which means that former Borloo voters have flown to Bayrou and even Hollande rather than him).

[Antonio the Sixth]

The older I grow, the more Catholic I am.
I'm really disgusted by the leftist paradigm of medias and of teachers. I deeply believe that this modern or post-modern left, having destroyed the old 3rd Republic school, is the best ally of this mass-consumption capitalism which is only looking for stupid consumers.
I deeply believe that we are already in a society of genetic manipulations, of merchandization of the human body, of "good old" euthanasia like the 1930s Sweden, that we'll soon be forbidden to keep our children at home.
I deeply believe that all these so-called social advances are only the other face of our deep moral decline due to mass capitalism. It's only two sides of materialism.

OK, let me be as short as I can :

I. Don't. Get it.

So you blame the left (and the medias, which are indeed very left-wing ; fortunately we have Le Figaro which is the last bastion of objectivity !) for destroying the republican education system. Are you serious ? I'm not questioning the fact left-wing governments (and - as sad as it makes me to admit it - Jospin in first place) have a fair share of responsibility for the wrecking of our educational system. But, on this matter, I honestly have difficulties to see differences with the action of right-wing government. The new educational policies began with Giscard and have been pursued, in different fashions, by every or almost every government since. An the right's action is just as catastrophic as the left, if not more. Do you think the educational system is better today than it was in 2002 ? Come on, stop fooling yourself.

(And, just a little digression on the topic, it's pretty funny to see a catho-conservative being so attached to the 3rd Republic's school system. I don't need to remind you which social force was the most bitter enemy of 3rd Republic and how the institutions the 3rd Rep established were aimed at freeing people's mind from the influence of said institution.)

Now let's move on. For the second time, you are claiming that the "new left" (whatever this might be) is the main driving force to the merchandization of society. Please let me laugh. And how so exactly ? I'm still trying to understand how legalizing gay marriage will make the society more consumerist... You are bringing back a good old talking point of the pseudo-"social right", which basically blames every bad aspect of modern society on the development of permissivenes, moral relativism bla bla bla... and ends up with nostalgia of the good old time when people were good and not greedy and believed in God and worked at the countryside and everything was simple and good. This is the most irrational, reactionary and dangerous rhetoric that has even existed in the political discourse. What you are doing here is assimilating progress and development with its negative consequences, which, of course, are part of it, but can be corrected if people look for practical solutions instead of praising the good old time.

These solutions are those social-democracy has been implementing since the end of WW2. It's redistribution, aimed at making everybody free from basic needs, allowing people to follow their own way, without being predisposed by their social background and creating ties between individuals which are not based on common beliefs like in traditional societies, or on research of private interest like in deregulated capitalism, but on solidarity and human dignity. It's regulation, when private businesses are allowed to seek profits as long as their research doesn't go against general interest by causing negative externalities. It's public services, which treat everybody equally and perform tasks profitable to everybody regardless of whether they are profitable to themselves. Social democracy works, where it has been correctly implemented. It has taken million of people out of poverty, has shaped middle-class societies and made people happier, freer, smarter and more civilized. In one word : more human.

So, you think modern left caused the boom of unregulated, deshumanized, financial capitalism ? Well, let's see. Which political force has, since the 1980s, constantly worked at dismantling the welfare state ? Which political force has, since the 1980s, imposed the idea that "there is no society, but only individuals" ? Which political force has, since the 1980s, stressed on the fact private, profit-oriented investment does everything better than public services ? Which political force has, since the 1980s, abolished every single rule that could prevent finance from growing excessively to the point when it has become a threat to the world's stability ? Which political force has, since the 1980s, made sure individuals would be alone to face the market, with nothing to sustain them or to keep the market on check ? It is, of course, the neoliberal right. The neoliberal is the most regressive force humanity has seen since the counter-revolution in the XIXth century. The left has its share of responsibility (in particular its third-way fashion), but only for letting neoliberalism do. For withdrawing from the ideological fight.

So that's why I don't get it. From what I gather, your stances are a succession of non-sequiturs and pretexts. They are ludicrous even when taken in detail. "genetic manipulations" ? Yeah, sure, thank neoliberals for deregulating agrobusiness and allow monsters like Monsanto to sell whatever they want without even knowing what their potential effect will be. "merchandization of the human body" ? Wait, wasn't your friend Boutin who wanted to reopen brothels ? "euthanasia like the 1930s Sweden" ? Sure, allowing someone to commit suicide is the same as killing him. "we'll soon be forbidden to keep our children at home" ? Hum, yeah, sure. The examples could be multiplied infinitely.

Well, I gave you the longer version. This is why I don't f-ing get it. So, for God's (yeah, that annoying fellow) sake, I hope you'll have the courage to read though all this and enlighten me if there's something I haven't understood. Since I know you, I know you are an intelligent fellow, yet the way you think, when it comes to ideology, is just... absurd. Utterly absurd. I'd really be thankful if you could give me some more explanations.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But I wouldn't have expected you to get much of it...

Why, if I may ask ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's an attack on a specific and rather new subspecies of moderate leftism that you very much help epitomize?

I think nobody in the political mainstream (outside France and maybe the scandinavians) would call me a moderate. And I also consider myself to be a pretty old-styled leftist.

Now please tell me in which way my political views lead to the demise of the educational system and the trumph of consumerist capitalism. Also, you might address my long answer if you prefer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right, having been called out by several people has made it hard for me to reply in time, but here is it, for Iannis, Fabien and Al.

State-interventionist approach to people needs, basically poor people, is a failure, especially in big not efficient  countries, basicaly everywhere but small scandinavian countries

Why would it work in the scandinavians and fail elsewhere ? Considering the philosophical argument you develop later, the size of a country should be irrelevant to its functioning.

Of course, the reason why it works better in the scandinavians is because these countries are the only ones that have followed social-democratic principles to their full extent, while other countries had their welfare systems impeded by old corporatist/familialist structures, by lack of civism or by an ideological hegemony of classical liberalism.

It is also ludicrous to say welfare state has "failed" outside the scandinavians. Of course it hasn't worked as well as in Sweden or Norway, but it's not a case if the golden age of welfare-state (1945-1975) was also the age of economic prosperity. It's not a case if poverty was almost eradicated in those countries at that time. Nor it is a case if the countries with the highest level of social protection have lower poverty rates, more middle classes, better living conditions, better perceptions of well-being.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Welfare State obviously doesn't weaken social connections. To the contrary, where do you find broken social links ? Where people are left to their own devices. How will families be "responsabilized" if lone mothers aren't even able to feed their own children ? The idea that any social issue could be fixed only by individual action simply doesn't stand to facts. As for NGOs, come on : seriously ? Isn't it obvious that NGOs intervene where there's something wrong in a society to begin with ? They don't fix the problem, simply do their possible to alleviate its gravest symptoms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, of course you can't ask every civil servant to be perfectly knowledgeable about a particular situation, or as compassionate as you would like him to be. On the other hand, "associations" and "neighbours" are unable to take the problem at its root. Yes, they'll give an occasional help in the most desperate situations, and then what ? Is that sufficient for a no-income unemployed to find his job and get back a normal life ? It just doesn't work that way, as a quick look at history and/or geography would immediately tells you. "Associations" and "neighbours" don't change the society, they can't attack the mechanisms that originate poverty at their core.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, well, of course. Because continental Europe doesn't need charities as much as America does, due to the inability of its State to solve the structural problem of poverty. See above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes, some people think education and health are public goods which should be kept outside of the market's realm. Some people think health and education are human rights, whose access shouldn't be limited by income. Some people realize that the pursuit of private interests just isn't acceptable when things as important as health and education are at stake. As for the "inefficiency" of government and the superiority of private sector, facts deny it everyday. Just take a look at the awful mess of America's health system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, in an universalistic welfare state health and education are free, regardless of your income. Income-testing denaturates the welfare State, as it makes it a residual system aimed at correcting the worst effects of market rather than a process of social transformation. If, instead, the same rights are given to anybody, not only everybody, poor comprised, benefits more from them, but they are also more popular because the middle-classes are also included.

As for it being unequal, of course it isn't as long as it is funded on progressive taxation. Unfortunately, the neoliberal right has kept pushing for tax cut and managed to impose their anti-tax ideology, making us forget the fundamental truth that taxes are nothing but the instrument to build a fair society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it is so good when poor people know the real cost of education - because they can't afford it. As for the rich, they're rich enough not to care about this cost anyways. So yeah, let's "educate" people at the toughness and unfairness of life, rather than making life less tough and fairer !

Meanwhile, not having to care for education or health allows middle classes to spare more, to invest more, thus helping them climbing the social ladder if they are motivated enough. And cheap studies means that not only those whose parents are rich can afford a high quality education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big companies are the "only possible source of productivity" ? How weird. I'd always thought that the only possible source of productivity were, you know, people who actually produce. Corporation of course contribute to production, but it is absurd to say they are the producers.

What I do find tragic, is the silly neoliberal dogma, the idea that everything goes fine when there are no taxes and businesses are free to do whatever they want. This has been proven wrong thousands of times in the history of humanity, yet people still buy in the "laisser faire" rhetoric and worship the Great Self-Regulatory Market.


And anyways all this is besides the point, so please let me come back on my argument with Fabien.

Anyway, just one thing: I make a difference between leftist governments and leftist ideas. On education, even Peyrefitte in 1968-69 (yes, this Peyrefitte) and of course VGE in 74-81 had leftist ideas. So, that's not just a question of political parties (on education, I prefer Chevènement than Chatel, without any doubt).

Why exactly would you call this policies left-wing ? I personally don't see what's so inherently leftist about spurning the "culture générale", making the school a mere preparation to professional career, disemphasizing the teaching of civism, etc. If your issue is instead about stuff like having uniforms, hitting bad pupils with rulers etc, then we of course disagree.

And anyways, if the left and right have the same policies on this topic, why prefering one over another ? What do you fear so much about Hollande's next education minister which would be worse than Chatel's policies ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK. I don't really have a precise idea on this issue (because indeed, it's something pretty new and which doesn't have yet taken important proportion) but I would tend to share your concerns. As a left-winger, I tend to think regulation is necessary in order to avoid derives. So, again, I don't see what you fear so much about the left on these issues. Do they have made of genetic selection a crucial campaign theme so far ? If it's the case, I must have missed it...

The points when left-wing progressivism and "catho-tradis" disagree (apart from the complex issue of abortion) are those where the catholic position defies any rationality, like gay marriage or stem cell research.

And I also consider myself to be a pretty old-styled leftist.

Really?

Yes, really. I'm not exactly a fan of Third Way politics and one of my main concern is restoring the Welfare State as it was in its glory days, the 1960-70s. My adhesion to social-democracy and rejection of socialism has nothing to do with the "new left" rhetoric, because the "new left" is far to the right of real social-democracy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Doesn't Giscard lost that year?

I think that's what Gaël was implying.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here are the graphs based on Fabien's tracker, if someone still cares.





If Sarkozy can't get above 45% within one month, he's most probably screwed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And I also consider myself to be a pretty old-styled leftist.

Really?

Yes, really. I'm not exactly a fan of Third Way politics and one of my main concern is restoring the Welfare State as it was in its glory days, the 1960-70s. My adhesion to social-democracy and rejection of socialism has nothing to do with the "new left" rhetoric, because the "new left" is far to the right of real social-democracy.

Aren't you conflating two different movements here? The historical New Left and the Third-Way/"modernisers" that've co-opted European social democratic/labour parties?

But beyond that, I didn't find much to disagree with in your post.

Good to see Melenchon returning slowly to a respectable number.

I think I might have used the term "new left" improperly, in that case. I was still refered to the "Third-Way/Neue Mitte/Modernizer" stream.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Make your own France Forte poster

Awesome tool.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[Antonio the Sixth]

A last one :

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is this a reference to something ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is this a reference to something ?

It's part of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer%27s_Apprentice

Oh, I see. Good one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can't see it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hah ! Un grand classique, pour la France éternelle.

[Antonio the Sixth]

LOL@Sarko. He will end up as the only candidate of the right, get a half-decent score but have no room to grow on second round.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sarkozy will be re-elected.

I hope this post will be quoted in your sig after may 6. If it's not, I'll take care of it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I hope Hollande wins, given Sarkozy's a creep and turning France into the next Italy might finally achieve some success in discrediting leftist economics over there.

Hollande probably won't govern particularly from the left. I can't imagine him being in any sort of position to unyoke the Franco-German arrangement.

Given that his whole platform is based on reversing (and beyond) all of Sarkozy's cuts at the same time as France is being downgraded, France would risk default upon his election (assuming he's being honest about his platform).

Reversing (and beyond) Sarkozy's inane tax cuts which benefit the wealthier and do nothing for the economy at the same time as France is being downgraded seems a pretty sound policy to me.

Unfortunately, it's doubtful Hollande will go as far. One can still hope, though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

LOL, Le Pen was even more despicable than I expected. And Mélenchon was k**king brilliant, if only I agreed with him on policies I'd be enthused to vote for him.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sarkozy will be re-elected.

I hope this post will be quoted in your sig after may 6. If it's not, I'll take care of it.

Never doubt the incompetence of the PS. If they wanted to win, they should have nominated Montebourg not Hollande. Yes Hollande is still the favorite, but he is a much less appealing candidate.

In an election which will be determined by moderates (and in particular traditionally center-right voters who loathe Sarkozy), nominating Montebourg was probably the last thing to do. There might have been a case for Aubry (I personally considered her more "solid"), but Hollande has nonetheless proven to be a strong candidate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is no evidence suggesting that polls are underestimating Le Pen support. It is doubtful that people are ashamed of admitting their support for the FN as it was in the past, and even then pollster are still apllying some corrections. While nobody can say how this will end up, there's no reasons to assume polls are wrong.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is no evidence suggesting that polls are underestimating Le Pen support. It is doubtful that people are ashamed of admitting their support for the FN as it was in the past, and even then pollster are still apllying some corrections. While nobody can say how this will end up, there's no reasons to assume polls are wrong.

that's not the essential point of my tentative of analysis :tongue:

So you assume Le Pen will gain traction in the last stages of the campaign ?