Comments on: Ségolène and Hillary in the same boat (or should that be submarine?) http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/segolene-and-hillary-in-the-same-boat/ Tim King on French politics Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:59:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: stephen miller http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/segolene-and-hillary-in-the-same-boat/#comment-5310 Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:19:02 +0000 http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/segolene-and-hillary-in-the-same-boat/#comment-5310 I was aghast a few times in the last months with Sego's gaffes on security and foreign policy (the taliban, the one nuclear attack sub, etc). But I'm still hoping she wins, because I find Sarko a little scary, with his connections to the neo-cons and the AEI, but also because of his obvious effort to be kind of all over the place- talking up entreprenurial culture, and the wonders of cowboy capitalism, then a photo-op at a home for battered women, then exhorting the french to work longer hours and accept financial insecurity so that the connected are unchained in their eternal quest for MORE; all this while being so ill at ease, like he doesn't fit in his coat, he looks like someone who's driving the bicycle fast so as not to fall over. Put this all together and he seems like a version of Nixon and Bush 2000 combined.  Somehow though I can't imagine, faced with the choice of Segolene or Sarkozy, that the French would choose him. Remember that Mitterand was trailing Giscard in the first round, but beat him in the final. It seems to me that far more than in America, the French president is more than the top executive, more like the 'head of state', even with a REGAL echo from history; and all the french presidents since WW2  have had that subtle regal presence- DeGaulle of course, but also Mitterand, Chirac, Giscard, and even Pompidou, in his own way. Segolene has it for sure. (And of course there's the name!) Sarkozy has none of this. Not only is he not regal, Sarko has the body language of the ambitious usurper, trying so hard to please you are afraid he'll crack and lose his temper and lash out. It's not that I dislike Sarko; in fact since his conversion to 'caring person' (thanks to his once-wayward wife), he evokes some sympathy for his efforts to humanize himself. Nevertheless, as an expat who loves France, I can also say that in all honesty, the election of Sego would make me love France all the more; while the election of Sarko would bring some  sense of unease.  I was aghast a few times in the last months with Sego’s gaffes on security and foreign policy (the taliban, the one nuclear attack sub, etc). But I’m still hoping she wins, because I find Sarko a little scary, with his connections to the neo-cons and the AEI, but also because of his obvious effort to be kind of all over the place- talking up entreprenurial culture, and the wonders of cowboy capitalism, then a photo-op at a home for battered women, then exhorting the french to work longer hours and accept financial insecurity so that the connected are unchained in their eternal quest for MORE; all this while being so ill at ease, like he doesn’t fit in his coat, he looks like someone who’s driving the bicycle fast so as not to fall over. Put this all together and he seems like a version of Nixon and Bush 2000 combined. 

Somehow though I can’t imagine, faced with the choice of Segolene or Sarkozy, that the French would choose him.
Remember that Mitterand was trailing Giscard in the first round, but beat him in the final.
It seems to me that far more than in America, the French president is more than the top executive, more like the ‘head of state’, even with a REGAL echo from history; and all the french presidents since WW2  have had that subtle regal presence- DeGaulle of course, but also Mitterand, Chirac, Giscard, and even Pompidou, in his own way.
Segolene has it for sure. (And of course there’s the name!) Sarkozy has none of this. Not only is he not regal, Sarko has the body language of the ambitious usurper, trying so hard to please you are afraid he’ll crack and lose his temper and lash out.
It’s not that I dislike Sarko; in fact since his conversion to ‘caring person’ (thanks to his once-wayward wife), he evokes some sympathy for his efforts to humanize himself. Nevertheless, as an expat who loves France, I can also say that in all honesty, the election of Sego would make me love France all the more; while the election of Sarko would bring some  sense of unease. 

]]> by: Wint Discontent http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/segolene-and-hillary-in-the-same-boat/#comment-32 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:06:19 +0000 http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/segolene-and-hillary-in-the-same-boat/#comment-32 I'm not very convinced by this comparison. Hillary is intelligent, in many ways more than Bill, has an inner knowledge of politics, and has contributed, to some extent, to important US policies. Sego is superficial if not foolish, and in spite of her being a former adviser to Mitterand, an ephemeral minister of * primary* schools and a president of Charentes-Poitou, it is quite clear that she has little knowledge of politics and of a number of basic facts, as the anecdote that you tell reveals. Sego has won the socialist "primaries" because people expected her to have more chances to win than older politicians, like Jospin, but most of all Fabius and Strauss Kahn, who know their business and are competent, but lack her sex appeal. Now that it is revealed that the Sego box is empty, it may well be that her potential electorate runs away. My favorite comparison, even though it's less attractive, would be Segolène/ George W. Both are incompetent, owe their election ( for Sego at least here choice in the socialist "primaries") to a collapse of democratic values and the soft dictatorship of the media culture. Both, if elected, would make or have made big blunders, which more traditional politicians would not make. Both, because of their sheer incompetence, and because their role is merely to serve as icons ( of America's desire for Moral Order in the case of Bush, of a nostalgia of the time when France did not need Europe for Sego) are just puppets in the hands of others (of Dick Cheney for George W, of Jean Louis Bianco, of François Hollande and team members who write their speeches, collect informations on websites and keep a permanent eye on polls). As soon as they are left alone, they reveal their stupidity. Both need earphones and various clues during interviews in order that their sheer incapacity is not too crudely revealed. Could we find relief in the idea that today politics is a matter not of individuals, be they good or not, but of teams which work behind the scenes, and that it does not really matter who is the candidate, and more who are the main advisers, main future ministers and members of cabinets? I don't think so. Today's cars have a lot of electronics on board, but it's still the driver who drives the car. Sego and G.W. make me think of this character in one of Henry James' short stories, The Private Life, who exists only in public, but who, as soon as he finds himself alone, literally vanishes. A lady vanishes. I’m not very convinced by this comparison. Hillary is intelligent, in many ways more than Bill, has an inner knowledge of politics, and has contributed, to some extent, to important US policies. Sego is superficial if not foolish, and in spite of her being a former adviser to Mitterand, an ephemeral minister of * primary* schools and a president of Charentes-Poitou, it is quite clear that she has little knowledge of politics and of a number of basic facts, as the anecdote that you tell reveals. Sego has won the socialist “primaries” because people expected her to have more chances to win than older politicians, like Jospin, but most of all Fabius and Strauss Kahn, who know their business and are competent, but lack her sex appeal. Now that it is revealed that the Sego box is empty, it may well be that her potential electorate runs away.

My favorite comparison, even though it’s less attractive, would be Segolène/ George W. Both are incompetent, owe their election ( for Sego at least here choice in the socialist “primaries”) to a collapse of democratic values and the soft dictatorship of the media culture. Both, if elected, would make or have made big blunders, which more traditional politicians would not make. Both, because of their sheer incompetence, and because their role is merely to serve as icons ( of America’s desire for Moral Order in the case of Bush, of a nostalgia of the time when France did not need Europe for Sego) are just puppets in the hands of others (of Dick Cheney for George W, of Jean Louis Bianco, of François Hollande and team members who write their speeches, collect informations on websites and keep a permanent eye on polls). As soon as they are left alone, they reveal their stupidity. Both need earphones and various clues during interviews in order that their sheer incapacity is not too crudely revealed. Could we find relief in the idea that today politics is a matter not of individuals, be they good or not, but of teams which work behind the scenes, and that it does not really matter who is the candidate, and more who are the main advisers, main future ministers and members of cabinets? I don’t think so. Today’s cars have a lot of electronics on board, but it’s still the driver who drives the car. Sego and G.W. make me think of this character in one of Henry James’ short stories, The Private Life, who exists only in public, but who, as soon as he finds himself alone, literally vanishes. A lady vanishes.

]]>