To hear many in the US media tell it, France’s newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy is the anti-Chirac— fiscally conservative, more America-friendly, and not one to hold truck with much of the socialist nanny-state mentality of his predecessors. Conservatives are often giddy at the idea of a French president they don't have to hate, and liberals are openly cautious about a new French president who can't be assumed to hate his US counterpart.
In his latest article, George Will raises some intriguing points about how Sarkozy came to be elected and how (if at all) he is likely to differ from Chirac and other previous presidents with regard to his social and fiscal policies. Will has written about Sarkozy’s less-than-conservative realities in the past, and usual, Will says eloquently in this new article what I would butcher, were I try to attempt to convey something similar.
As Will states:
“Sarkozy has. . . said ‘I don't wake up every morning asking what Hayek or Adam Smith would have done.’ That is, unfortunately, obvious. A fountain of suspiciously opaque formulations (he advocates ‘regulated liberalism’ and ‘humane globalization), he is pleased that "the word 'protection' is no longer taboo.’ (When was it ever taboo in France?) He is committed to continuing protections of the most cosseted French faction, the farmers. When calling for a ‘genuine European industrial policy, he asks: ‘Competition as an ideology, as a dogma, what has it done for Europe?’ Worse, he wants to curtail the independence of — that is, politicize — the one institution that can save France from itself, the European Central Bank, which can restrain France's ruinous preferences for a loose monetary policy and inflation as slow-motion repudiation of debt.”
Given these, Sarkozy’s own words about what he believes and proposes, are we still to believe his billing as a regular neo-conservative capitalist who actually understands Western market economics and is willing to let his people know that he believes in what he knows.
Perhaps the best of Will’s observations about Sarkozy and his ascension to the French presidency is this: “Sarkozy's socialist opponent, Segolene Royal, a princess of vagueness, won 47 percent of the vote for, essentially, "resistance." Remarkably, she defeated Sarkozy among voters ages 18 to 59 — the working population. It does not bode well for reform that he won by winning huge majorities among those most dependent on the welfare state — 61 percent among those 60 to 69, and 68 percent among those over 70.”
Elected by his overwhelming popularity among those dependent upon France’s welfare policies, a proponent of “regulated liberalism,” and one clearly disdains the uncertainties of competition, Sarkozy is certainly less easily labeled “conservative” and “America-friendly” as the press might have us believe.
In his latest article, George Will raises some intriguing points about how Sarkozy came to be elected and how (if at all) he is likely to differ from Chirac and other previous presidents with regard to his social and fiscal policies. Will has written about Sarkozy’s less-than-conservative realities in the past, and usual, Will says eloquently in this new article what I would butcher, were I try to attempt to convey something similar.
As Will states:
“Sarkozy has. . . said ‘I don't wake up every morning asking what Hayek or Adam Smith would have done.’ That is, unfortunately, obvious. A fountain of suspiciously opaque formulations (he advocates ‘regulated liberalism’ and ‘humane globalization), he is pleased that "the word 'protection' is no longer taboo.’ (When was it ever taboo in France?) He is committed to continuing protections of the most cosseted French faction, the farmers. When calling for a ‘genuine European industrial policy, he asks: ‘Competition as an ideology, as a dogma, what has it done for Europe?’ Worse, he wants to curtail the independence of — that is, politicize — the one institution that can save France from itself, the European Central Bank, which can restrain France's ruinous preferences for a loose monetary policy and inflation as slow-motion repudiation of debt.”
Given these, Sarkozy’s own words about what he believes and proposes, are we still to believe his billing as a regular neo-conservative capitalist who actually understands Western market economics and is willing to let his people know that he believes in what he knows.
Perhaps the best of Will’s observations about Sarkozy and his ascension to the French presidency is this: “Sarkozy's socialist opponent, Segolene Royal, a princess of vagueness, won 47 percent of the vote for, essentially, "resistance." Remarkably, she defeated Sarkozy among voters ages 18 to 59 — the working population. It does not bode well for reform that he won by winning huge majorities among those most dependent on the welfare state — 61 percent among those 60 to 69, and 68 percent among those over 70.”
Elected by his overwhelming popularity among those dependent upon France’s welfare policies, a proponent of “regulated liberalism,” and one clearly disdains the uncertainties of competition, Sarkozy is certainly less easily labeled “conservative” and “America-friendly” as the press might have us believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment