I found myself smiling today about the results of the French election.
I can’t say that a couple of years ago I ever thought I’d type that particular sentence. But Sarkozy’s ascendance to the Presidency of France has accomplished the unforeseen. And that’s despite the fact that—yes, Virginia, it’s true: he’s not perfect. But he signifies a sea-change in France that could be of major importance.
Part of my smile is due to the factor of surprise. I know, of course, that the polls all predicted this victory, and they were even quite accurate about the margin by which Sarkozy won. But two years ago, for example, although Sarkozy was a popular man in France, it just didn’t seem as though the populace would ever elect a man of the Right—or what passes for the Right in France, which would be the middle here—or especially such an unabashed Americaphile.
Sometimes it has seemed as though the relationship between France and the US had come to resemble that of a bitter divorcing couple, fighting over the custody of Europe—a Europe that wasn’t necessarily interested in living with either one of them. But the mouthpieces we were hearing, the French media and the French government, apparently didn’t tell anywhere near the whole picture.
Of course, it may be that people voted for Sarkozy in spite of his pro-American ways, not because of them. Evidence points to the fact that for many French people, it was a rehash of Clinton’s 1992 “it’s the economy, stupid” (plus, in the case of France, “it’s the immigrants, stupid”).
Who voted for Sarkozy? For starters, take a look at the map:
Just as in the US election, the results were far from geographically random. Royal did well in the west of France and especially the southwest, which are traditional strongholds of Leftist and Socialist power dating back at least a century. No surprise there. In urban areas, the breakdown was a class one: the poorer went for Royal, the richer for Sarkozy. Again, not really much of a surprise.
The NY Times reports on a survey by an international polling company called Ipsos, revealing that Sarkozy got the majority of the women’s vote (52%) against the female Royal. The very young (ages 18 to 24) favored Royal, and Sarkozy’s strongest support was from those over sixty, but he also received a strong majority (57%) of those from 25 to 34. The urban areas were mixed and the rural ones went for Sarko.
The Times reports that Sarkozy was “widely criticized in France” for his pro-American views, and that in his speech he sought to distance himself somewhat; clearly, he has no desire to be called, like Blair, Bush’s poodle—in this case, his French poodle.
My guess is that there is more sneaking admiration in France for at least some aspects of the American way than the NY Times—or for that matter the French press—is willing to admit or share. Sarkozy’s support among the over-60 crowd may represent, not just that group’s naturally more conservative bent with age, but a memory of World War II and a time when the US was instrumental in saving France.
And here, for old times’ (and oldtimer’s) sake, is a photo of the days when the French welcomed the American liberators:
And speaking of World War II, the Sarkozy-haters have been quick to make another comparison, one that further allies Sarkozy with Bush. The Times reports that, in a post-election protest, “The base of the Bastille column in the square was left scrawled with graffiti, including, ‘Sarko 2007 = Hitler 1933.’”
Yes, of course. Exactly so.
[ADDENDUM: Sarkozy apparently did better than expected among the traditionally Socialist-leaning working class.]
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely 
May 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
hello neoneo-con
It is well and good that this Sarko has taken the prize over the Sego (these nicknames are too cute by half).
Let’s remember, however, that Jacques Chirac, like Sargo, was considered a “man of the right” when he was first elected, and look where he took his country.
The history of French Anti-US feelings is hardly new. I’m not sure if you’ve been able to read, `The American Enemy’, by French professor Philippe Roger, and published in English in 2005. It shows that Fr. anti-Americanism goes back, at least to the eighteenth century.
It will probably last two hundred more years, as well…
thanks
Roundhead
May 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
So Neo, you’re saying that with this map, it shows that the left voted for Sego? I see.
Reminds me of the demographics voting of Germany. The Entire Western half voted for Christian Democrat. While the freaking East, commun[i]st, voted social[i]st. Absolutely amazing.
In reply to Round, I tend to think anti-Ami sentiment is predominantly class based. The rich and the aristocrats can’t stand to see a republic that actually rewards merit and doesn’t look on the downtrodden as a tool and resource to be exploited.
Since they control the air waves and the media and the chatterboxes, we basically hear them all the time. Just as the rest of the world hears from Hollywood 90% compared to words and stories about the United States Marine Corps.
Two US Marines scared off a youth gang of 15 ithugs, who had a man on the ground after they sucker punched him. You think the world might have a more positive view of the US had they kept hearing news of such instead of watching Hollywood crap? And reading American newspapers?
So the rich and powerful have indeed always attempted to destroy our fragile republic. They’re still trying to do it. Because they’re democracies, where the will of the people only means how much money the aristocracy can funnel into buy the votes of the masses. Aristocrats have always tried to keep the slaves and serfs in line. They did it with oppression before, now a days they just use bribes and addictions. But regardless, the French elite just as the American elites like Soros, Baldwin, PillowC, Reid, Gore, and Co live off of the productivity of the working class.
But the fundamental prospect is that the elites cannot protect the working classes, they cannot produce wealth or security or new ideas.
The only elite segment of society that ever did this were Americans. Who had themselves started at a bottom rung. Sure, some people get appointed because of family connections or favors, you can’t change that, but how he will do will then be based upon merit. An aristocracy becomes more decadent as family connections replace merit and nobility. A republic becomes stronger the more population there is, and therefore the more geniuses, competent leaders, and etc are born and realized.
Europe is intensely top heavy, to use a military term. They have too many chiefs, not enough warriors.
Regardless of the individual distinctions and exemptions on the US side of the Atlantic, there was one single thing that British folks that came to the US noticed, even in these times. That The US is not a system based upon class, while the British are. Class? In the 21st century? Indeed.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Is Hillary paying attention?
May 7th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2007/05/frances-new-dawn.html
Sala’s take on the situation was pretty humorous and interesting.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Excellent analysis! I need more data, though, to really get a handle on the impact of Sarkozy’s policies or his gender in relation to his win. Fifty-two percent of women voted for the right-wing candidate, and mostly these were older women, perhaps with memories of earlier hard-times and failed leftist policies (known in France as the “hollow years,” especially the 1930s). What about men? What do the polls say about those men who will absolutely not vote for a women? Did an anti-female vote kill Royal’s chances. The Washington post did a poll (of American voters) a couple of months back finding 7 percent of respondents (both men and women, I think, but I’d have to go back and check the survey) saying they would in no circumstances vote for a women. So, that’s my line of questioning, although I do think that there was a rekindling of the spirit of la patrie and elan associated with the Sarkozy victory. Again, great post!
http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com
May 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Sarko=Hitler. If we put that one through the hysteria-scrubber, a core of truth comes out. Sarko took what LePen had been saying for decades about immigration and made it respectable. So in a sense people voted for LePen light. I would have too.
I think this gut feeling of La Patrie en Danger! trumped in their minds Sarko’s economic views, which don’t particularly line up with theirs. He supports extension of Brussles’ supernational authority and the EU constitution, which both French and Dutch voters soundly rejected two years ago. Somebody ought to compare the high and unelected Brussles bureaucracy with the parasitic and costly nobility of Versailles, but that’s another subject.
Under Sarko, American French relations may well get rocky, and it could be on the subject of Turkey. For our own reasons, which involve finding a safe stable country through which to run natural gas pipelines from the Caspian region, we have been pressuring the EU to admit Turkey. Understandably, the EU countries are not very keen about giving 70 million+ more muslims free range throughout Europe.
But Europe needs energy too, and may find a way out of that dilemma in getting huggy with Putin. Who’s to say they’re wrong? We may have a early sign here in the unanimous lack of support on the part of EU/NATO for Estonia against Russia’s meddling and threats in the recent riots over the Soviet War statue.
All in all, it’s a very interesting time to be an American.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am
hello Ymarsakar -
My analysis is much consonant with yours I believe. It is the situation here in Canada, where faux champions of the working class such as Pierre Trudeau (and now, his two sons) gained / gain power through anti-American, anti-freedom propaganda.
thanks
May 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Speaking as a (British) European, I’d say it make more sense to ‘get huggy’, as Armchair Pessimist puts it, with Turkey than Russia to help secure our energy needs. Most Russians seem to have no real attachment to or understanding of liberal democracy; all they care about is restoring what they regard as their lost greatness on the international stage. The Turks, by contrast, have no real interest in reviving the Ottoman Empire; and even those who are hostile to the West can probably be won over by a slow process of assimilation. Clearly the rewards from that process - particularly as regards perceptions of the west in the Muslim world, with Turkey acting as the trailblazer - would be incalculable.
We in the EU can’t avoid doing business with Russia. But, unlike the Turkish case, there is next to no possibility of forging a true partnership with them for the forseeable future.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Interesting map. California also divides geographically: the populous coast votes liberal, while the valleys and mountains vote conservative (and lose). Proves again that few people base their vote on a clear analysis of philosophy, but are most heavily influenced by the people around them and the perceptions fostered by local media.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
London Lit:
If I was dealt your cards, I’d give Russia a try before Turkey. You need Russia’s energy; Russia needs a friend, and a sizable one at that, to support it against its growing neighbors, China and Islam. If Europe’s suave diplomats can get Russia to stop brooding long enough to consider its longterm interests, it will see the advantages.
Besides, Turkey is none to safe a bet at the moment, and even if it was, I’d say the prospects are for the moslims to assimiliate you rather than you them. You can’t even tame the ones you have now.
Perhaps Mr Sarkozy will prove me wrong here. Perhaps not.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Armchair Pessimist:
I agree that both Europeans and Russians have problems with Islam. The trouble is that the Russians, unlike us (and even more so, Americans) don’t have much of an ideology to lure people away from hardline Islamism. So it’s hard to form a meaningful alliance with them in this regard apart from intelligence-sharing and other technical stuff. As for the Chinese, I see no special reason to help the Russians deal with them, especially at the moment. At least they (the Chinese) aren’t running around trying to intimidate half of Europe.
If Russia needs a friend in the EU, it’s got a funny way of showing it. Look at what happened in Estonia with that war memorial. From the way the Russians and the ethnic Russians in Estonia reacted, you’d have thought the Estonian govt had decided to melt it down for scrap. In fact they just moved it to another spot and within days it was reconsecrated, if that’s the right word, with full honours, along with the war dead. Now Poland’s spooked about what to do with its own Soviet war memorials, which it was planning to take down. What with ethnic Russians living all over the Baltic, not to mention the Stans and other places, future possibilities for mischief-making by the Kremlin are endless.
It’s true we have a huge job in ‘taming’ Islam, as you put it. And yes, there will be some two-way traffic; to try to pretend otherwise would be as pointless as, say, pretending that you could halt any further Hispanic influence on US culture. But the answer to that is not to give up and try to create a ‘fortress Europe’, which is anyway impractical. Rather, we have to follow the US example and keep working to create a culture capable of assimilating people from all over the world, one based on an idea rather than ethnicity.
To get back to the Russians, the point about them is that - unlike millions of Turks - they’re simply not interested in all this. As long as their country can continue to pump itself up through exploitation of its natural resources, my impression is that the vast majority of its citizens - and I include the political classes - couldn’t care less about liberal democratic values. So where’s the basis for a meaningful alliance with the west?
May 9th, 2007 at 4:37 am
The vast majority of Russian “Muslims” has been thouroughly assimilated hundreds years ago. They are as secular as you can wish. Only small fraction in the North Caucasia are not, but the Islamist influence there is largely wiped out after quelling Chechen mutiny, and almost nobody here wants to repeat this failed endevour. This is not true for Turkey, where Islamist influence constantly grow all the last 4 decades, and simple demographic calculation shows that it will only grow in foreseeable future.
As for anti-western trends in Russia, this is only Kremlin-driven phenomenon, it lacks popular support and will die out with older generation. The youth is westernized almost completely, and this only a question of time when this will translate into official policy.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:28 am
So where’s the basis for a meaningful alliance with the west?
Common enemies.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
[…] red/blue map finds its way to France (a NYT graphic via this new [to me] blog that I […]
May 9th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Sergey:
‘The youth is westernized almost completely, and this only a question of time when this will translate into official policy.’
How does that square with Putin’s Nashi group, and the habitual intimidation of diplomats from countries in conflict with Russia? It seems to me there is a huge number of young people in Russia who are quite relaxed about using violence and intimidation to further what they see as the national interest.
From a western point of view, there is little difference between such people and Islamic militants; neither group has any interest in liberal democratic values.
As for Turkey, if it can continue to move in the right direction it will prove a far more attractive partner to the EU than Russia in its present state. I dispute that the growth of Islamism in Turkey is somehow pre-ordained by demography. Recent events there have shown that thankfully things are far more complex than that.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:17 am
It is very easy for a Westerner to confuse Kremlin propaganda show with reality. The technique of so called “Potemkin villages” is elaborate and was polished to perfection in course of centures. “Nashi” is one of many comedians’ groups employed by Putin administration to create a semblance of popular support in young generation. It has no more relation to anything real than mass scenes in “Spartak” or “Kleopatra”: Kremlin producers have as much money as Hollywood ones, and 300 000 Moscow students living on $50 monthly embrass any opportunity to get some pocket money.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:58 am
xxx links…
neo-neocon…