American/French partisan affiliation

[Antonio the Sixth]

I recently heard the remark that "In America Sarkozy would be a liberal democrat". I personally strongly disagree with this statement, but I understood that the only way to know if it is or isn't true is to see how forum users identify with French parties comparing that with their american partisan affiliation. Everyone can vote, but I would prefer that those who know very few about french politics ask someone before voting.

[Mint]

I recently heard the remark that "In America Sarkozy would be a liberal democrat". I personally strongly disagree with this statement

Only because the european 'center' is so much further left than here. Sarkozy is on record as being for a (limited) welfare state, secularism, universal healthcare, ban on the death penalty, etc. So presumably, he'd be at least a moderate Democrat here. More likely than not a liberal one though.

[Franzl]

Democrat/UMP

[Hash]

Only because the european 'center' is so much further left than here. Sarkozy is on record as being for a (limited) welfare state, secularism, universal healthcare, ban on the death penalty, etc. So presumably, he'd be at least a moderate Democrat here. More likely than not a liberal one though.

Welfare state, healthcare, ban on death penalty, and obviously secularism are all non-issues in France. The only ones who oppose the death penalty are the fascists and some on the (far-)right of the UMP. All mainstream politicians support those things.

Secularism is an entrenched Republican value and anybody who puts it into question in France is politically dead or irrelevant. And Sarkozy is one of the most anti-secular major politician out there, though that's by French standards.

As for this poll, I find it pretty basic. France is not a two-party system, and while I understand that this is a push poll to force leaners into one category, I still think it's wrong to include just two French parties. I personally can't vote.

[Mint]

Only because the european 'center' is so much further left than here. Sarkozy is on record as being for a (limited) welfare state, secularism, universal healthcare, ban on the death penalty, etc. So presumably, he'd be at least a moderate Democrat here. More likely than not a liberal one though.

Welfare state, healthcare, ban on death penalty, and obviously secularism are all non-issues in France. The only ones who oppose the death penalty are the fascists and some on the (far-)right of the UMP. All mainstream politicians support those things.

That was sort of my point. Hence the 'the center is much further left' comment.

[Verily]

Democratic/MoDem. UMP of those, I suppose, but I don't like the UMP at all.

[Hash]

Only because the european 'center' is so much further left than here. Sarkozy is on record as being for a (limited) welfare state, secularism, universal healthcare, ban on the death penalty, etc. So presumably, he'd be at least a moderate Democrat here. More likely than not a liberal one though.

Welfare state, healthcare, ban on death penalty, and obviously secularism are all non-issues in France. The only ones who oppose the death penalty are the fascists and some on the (far-)right of the UMP. All mainstream politicians support those things.

That was sort of my point. Hence the 'the center is much further left' comment.

European politics, especially French politics, are not comparable to American politics. And the reverse is also true.

[Mint]

European politics, especially French politics, are not comparable to American politics. And the reverse is also true.

I suppose, but he certainly wouldn't be a Republican here.

[Hash]

European politics, especially French politics, are not comparable to American politics. And the reverse is also true.

I suppose, but he certainly wouldn't be a Republican here.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mainstream European politician in the Republican Party of today.

[Frodo]

Democrat/UMP

[The Mikado]

Democrat/deeply, deeply unwilling.  No offense, Antonio, but your people have a pretty horrid collection of political parties.

[Platypus]

Democratic/MoDem. UMP of those, I suppose, but I don't like the UMP at all.

This. UMP over PS because the PS is a joke.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Republican/UMP I guess.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's evident that french political center is more at left than USA's one. However, I think this difference is strongly overestimated.

Sarkozy is for a limited welfare state, that's true. But please don't rely on what he say during his speeches. Since he is president, his main target is to destroy the most possible of french welfare state. Even the french health care isn't more free today. Certainly that's not ( yet ) the american system, but the only reason is that he prefers to reform it gradually.

In my opinion, France ( and Europe in general ) is much more leftist than USA on social issues, more than on economical ones. You're right about secularism, that is one of the greatest things of French system. However, Sarkozy is one of the most anti-secular politicians. His "laicité positive" is a non-secularism. He openly endorsed radical islamist in the CFCM ( french council of muslim cult ), and his speeches in the Vatican and in Ryad are clear : he strongly believes that religion has a social and political role to play. And that's enough for me to hate him as I loathe american religious right.

[big bad fab]

European politics, especially French politics, are not comparable to American politics. And the reverse is also true.

I suppose, but he certainly wouldn't be a Republican here.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mainstream European politician in the Republican Party of today.

Mariano Rajoy ?
Silvio Berlusconi.
Kaczynski Bros.

[Antonio the Sixth]

European politics, especially French politics, are not comparable to American politics. And the reverse is also true.

I suppose, but he certainly wouldn't be a Republican here.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mainstream European politician in the Republican Party of today.

Mariano Rajoy ?
Silvio Berlusconi.
Kaczynski Bros.

Sarko and Berlusca are great friends. For me, a franco-italian leftist who hates both, that looks like a malediction.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I personally think that the guy Sarkozy has the psychology of an American Republican, but as he remains president of France, he can't do what he wants, and Hashemite well pointed out how a lot of point are non-issues here as much as they are so integrated in the French psychology. Add to this that Sarkozy was far more pleased with Bush than with Obama.

Actually, I also think that French and American policy tend to be out of comparison. France remains a very particular state, and to qualify it I think that the best adjective is "gaulliste" (reference to De Gaulle), a gaullist state.

France tried the adventure of Sarkozy, that consisted to stop the more or less economical statu-quo and the hypocrisy toward global economy and US, but I think it won't last, the fact that he seems more interested by the fame of his results than by some actual results would help in it.

That said, I disagree with Hashemite on the fact that France isn't a two-parties-state. Our parliament forces our country to only be a two-parties-state.

[Hash]

That said, I disagree with Hashemite on the fact that France isn't a two-parties-state. Our parliament forces our country to only be a two-parties-state.

No.

It is undeniable that there is rising polarization in France since the right united in a common party and the PS started killing off the Communist Party. But I believe the EU elections will indicate that smaller parties remain strong. But anyways, polarization ≠ two-party system.

Spain, the United States, Ghana, Australia, Jamaica are all two-party systems. France is nowhere near those countries.

[Mint]

It's evident that french political center is more at left than USA's one. However, I think this difference is strongly overestimated.

Perhaps, the analogy isn't perfect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not from what I can tell. As soon as the financial meltdown hit he started adding state subsidized jobs at a rapid pace and railed against all of the 'anarchy' under Chirac. Obviously he has deregulated some what in areas like overtime, prices, etc. but lately that too has been abandoned. Overall the beginning of his career seems to paint him as a 'liberal conservative' at best (again, just plain liberal here ), and lately just your run of the mill french politician. Maybe he had more radical plans in mind, but he's certainly not following through on them now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's entirely rhetorical though. There's a huge difference between suggesting religion plays a role in consensus values and maybe government as a result (what I understand from his comments anyway) and using religion to push ridiculous restrictions on sex, birth control, etc., censorship, faculty led prayer in schools, creationism, or any of the garbage the RR does here. They're not on the same level, it's sort of like comparing a BB to a shotgun. Now of course he may be toning down his views significantly but as far as I can tell he's still more secular than even a lot of Democrats here (unfortunately).

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

IMO Mint well got the separation between Sarkozy and the US right.

But once again, to really get France, I think we have to consider the fact it built itself from time now like an universal model, such as US built themselves.

And so, this universal model have things we can't really touch, what we call the "modèle républicain" (literally translate to: "republican model"), our strong secularity, an enough state-directed economy, a very strong egalitarian culture.

In that way I call France a gaullist state because that's De Gaulle when France was more down than ever who permit the continuation of this History that gave us all these principles. First just after WW2 by avoiding a civil war with communists (and to be honest communist leaders helped to avoid that war), and by his come back when the 4th republic was seriously swinging during the war of Algeria.

Since he called from England the French to stand up against occupation, he has been in charge of giving back its dignity to France, and of the continuity of its History and so of the universal model France wanted to be. And if I think French used to miss of gratitude toward Allies, I also like the fact that France can represent an other kind of voice in the West.

So, De Gaulle made the 5th republic and by this gave a strong base to France to ensure this continuity of the heritage of this universal model based on the principles I've cited above.

That's why France and US are hard to compare, we compare two basically different models on some points, each one with universalistic claims.

That said, if I like we can represent an other kind of voice in the West, I think we have to seriously evolute to something else (for French guys here, I don't share all judgments of Eric Zemmour, a famous French political journalist, one of quality, but if I agree on most of his analyses of the current world, the hell, his solutions are cool for the 19th century!). That said, personally, I no more think in the squares of the current nations when I think to evolutions...

That said, I disagree with Hashemite on the fact that France isn't a two-parties-state. Our parliament forces our country to only be a two-parties-state.

No.

It is undeniable that there is rising polarization in France since the right united in a common party and the PS started killing off the Communist Party. But I believe the EU elections will indicate that smaller parties remain strong. But anyways, polarization ≠ two-party system.

Spain, the United States, Ghana, Australia, Jamaica are all two-party systems. France is nowhere near those countries.

Well, if you mean that a polarization is 2 major parties that monopolize the debates, when the other ones are presents in debates, in others elections, but quasi non-represented, well, I agree, we're just polarized.

What would be the difference with a two party system? I mean, in terms of representation, of people elected? Outside of the alliances that make that some NC, MPF, or PCF, are present in the assembly I don't see. Because even if they are presents they haven't some cards in the hand, the major parties manage it to keep them in their hands.

The only differences I would see are for locals.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

European politics, especially French politics, are not comparable to American politics. And the reverse is also true.

I suppose, but he certainly wouldn't be a Republican here.

You'd be hard pressed to find a mainstream European politician in the Republican Party of today.

Its getting harder to find a mainstream American politician in the Republican Party of today, since they are all getting thrown out as "RINOs"

OK, I'll shut up now

[Antonio the Sixth]

IMO Mint well got the separation between Sarkozy and the US right.

But once again, to really get France, I think we have to consider the fact it built itself from time now like an universal model, such as US built themselves.

And so, this universal model have things we can't really touch, what we call the "modèle républicain" (literally translate to: "republican model"), our strong secularity, an enough state-directed economy, a very strong egalitarian culture.

In that way I call France a gaullist state because that's De Gaulle when France was more down than ever who permit the continuation of this History that gave us all these principles. First just after WW2 by avoiding a civil war with communists (and to be honest communist leaders helped to avoid that war), and by its come back when the 4th republic was seriously swinging during the war of Algeria.

Since he called from England the French to stand up against occupation, he has been in charge of giving back its dignity to France, and of the continuity of its History and of the universal model France wanted to be. And if I think French used to miss of gratitude toward Allies, I also like the fact France can represent an other kind of voice in the West.

So, De Gaulle made the 5th republic and by this gave a strong base to France to ensure this continuity of the heritage of this universal model based on the principles I've cited above.

That's why France and US are hard to compare, we compare two basically different models on some points, each one with universalistic claims.

I agree with everything you said...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...except that. I didn't hear a lot of Zemmour, but the few I heard was enough to definitively disgust me. A man who says that races exist can't not to be an idiot.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...except that. I didn't hear a lot of Zemmour, but the few I heard was enough to definitively disgust me. A man who says that races exist can't not to be an idiot.

My bad, I introduced Zemmour here where it's not exactly the place to debate about him. So:

[about Eric Zemmour]
Well, as I said I agree with most of his analyses. I heard him speaking about races, I think it's one of the time he's been stupid, and I wouldn't totally follow him on the racial question, in that sens that the guy see that question as something which can't evolute, blacks will always run the faster, whites will always be more intellectual, white civilizations have only to give to others ones and not to take, stuffs like that, that's anyway how I tend to get his message on races, and I don't go in his sens, at all. Actually I think the guy is relevant on a lot of points but he remains damn stupid on some ones. Sometimes I tend to think he just does that to provoke.
[/about Eric Zemmour]

[Hash]

That said, I disagree with Hashemite on the fact that France isn't a two-parties-state. Our parliament forces our country to only be a two-parties-state.

No.

It is undeniable that there is rising polarization in France since the right united in a common party and the PS started killing off the Communist Party. But I believe the EU elections will indicate that smaller parties remain strong. But anyways, polarization ≠ two-party system.

Spain, the United States, Ghana, Australia, Jamaica are all two-party systems. France is nowhere near those countries.

Well, if you mean that a polarization is 2 major parties that monopolize the debates, when the other ones are presents in debates, in others elections, but quasi non-represented, well, I agree, we're just polarized.

What would be the difference with a two party system? I mean, in terms of representation, of people elected? Outside of the alliances that make that some NC, MPF, or PCF, are present in the assembly I don't see. Because even if they are presents they haven't some cards in the hand, the major parties manage it to keep them in their hands.

The only differences I would see are for locals.

Stop defining two-party systems in terms of numbers of seats in legislatures and electoral systems. The French electoral system favours big parties and leads to fewer and fewer minor parties represented. However, the number of seats in the legislature doesn't mean that France is a two-party system, far from it. If we were a two-party system, the first and second place parties in the EU elections would both poll over 40% (see the Spanish EU elections in 2004) or at the very least in the high 30s. The PS didn't even win 30% of the vote in its 2004 landslide.

Two-party systems are not defined on the sole basis of the representation of parties in national legislatures. Other factors must be taken into consideration, or else you're ing up the definition.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Stop defining two-party systems in terms of numbers of seats in legislatures and electoral systems. The French electoral system favours big parties and leads to fewer and fewer minor parties represented. However, the number of seats in the legislature doesn't mean that France is a two-party system, far from it. If we were a two-party system, the first and second place parties in the EU elections would both poll over 40% (see the Spanish EU elections in 2004) or at the very least in the high 30s. The PS didn't even win 30% of the vote in its 2004 landslide.

Two-party systems are not defined on the sole basis of the representation of parties in national legislatures. Other factors must be taken into consideration, or else you're ing up the definition.

So, apparently it misses a clear definition of both polarization and 2-party system.

What would be the other things to take in count? That could be what I already said here:

Well, if you mean that a polarization is 2 major parties that monopolize the debates, when the other ones are presents in debates, in others elections, but quasi non-represented, well, I agree, we're just polarized.

Or am I missing something?