...the worst right in the world...

Some years ago, a right-wing politician wrote a book called "La droite la plus bete du monde" - the most stupid right in the world. I think I remember his idea was that France was essentially conservative, and somehow the right still managed to lose elections. I can't remember what his solution was, does not matter either. My point is: the right we have now in France, or at least the President and his cabinet, are really among the worst in the world. Granted, they still have Berlusconi to look down to, but soon they won't even have Bush.

I keep fighting against this French disease of misusing and abusing this beautiful word: "liberal" (often additioned with "neo"). I argue with good friends saying Sarkozy is "(neo)liberal". I mean, seriously, people? Even in the French meaning of "supporter of free markets": Sarkozy is more statist than the Socialists, he wants a French sovereign funds to hold "golden shares" in key industrial companies! His few free market proposals are usually withdrawn as soon as anyone screams against who could damage his prospects, say taxi drivers in Paris, even though there are NO TAXIS there at night, on Saturdays etc. Let's not liberalize, it could cost votes. So he is a liberal?

Well, surely he is no political liberal. Even though the cabinet in the meantime backed down and criticized the district attorney who ordered the raid (remember, the cabinet appoints district attorneys in France), the police two days ago raided a high school and went with dogs in classrooms to, apparently, look for marijuana (seems they found nothing of notice). They searched kids, rather brutally. Scared the hell out of them. Just read.
Or the hunt for illegal immigrants, including kids at school. Or the proposed reform whereby 12 years old could now be imprisoned. Or the proposal to lock up psychiatric hospitals completely, as if these were not enough hard for their patients. I mean, liberal? Do words have a meaning?

So if he is no liberal and not even a free-marketeer, what is he? An early 19th century "reactionnaire" (not even a conservative), this is what. Decrease taxes for the rich. Beat the hell out of the poor. Lock up foreigners and expel them, even the children, they are filthy. Scare the "bourgeois" and keep their votes.

Sarkozy is not France. He won (massively) only the "over 60s", and Segolene Royal (narrowly) won all the other age groups. He represents fear. Reaction. Brutal and unjust order. And, yes, sometimes he does do a couple of reforms which make sense (more autonomy for universities, which have less in France than in any other country with a decent higher education system - or a bit less red tape here and there), but this is on a really dark background.

Now, actually voters seem to think that socialists are better at running things, and they elected them massively at the local level. But why do they always run an identity-based campaign, talking only to their own frightened old "petits bourgeois"?

Segolene actually had some good points in her campaign, including not leaving "law and order" to the right, but at the same time talking to the immigrants' children. But she was a lousy campaigner and debater, and is far too much showing her arrogance (all politicians are arrogant - it is a question of showing it), and she does say a lot of nonsense too. Delanoe would have been good - but claiming the liberal heritage sunk him - can you imagine this? several centuries of progress, you just can't claim them as yours! How stupid are these people? Oh, when will we get open primaries?

Political spectrum

"Obama is a socialist" -
now that he has been elected (and he has picked his economic team), we could laugh about this statement. But let's rather pick it apart:

(1) it means that "socialist" is an insult - interesting from Europe where pretty much every country is or has been governed in recent years by a socialist or social-democratic party...

(2) it means that, for many, any attempt at having the State provide some sort of health coverage for all and/or some kind of redistribution is "socialism" - which just indicates a very wide understanding of words indeed

(3) it illustrates the difficulty of communicating political debates across the Atlantic - some of the issues:

• the Republican party is now so far "right" that many of its members would not even be accepted in "mainstream" extreme-right/neo-fascist parties in Europe - they would have to go to the "lunatic fringe" of the splitter-microparties. Say, Sarah Palin. Why? because no one remotely electable in Europe would stand for creationism - put in another way: no one would vote for a creationist!
• the political discourse in the US is still defined at least in part by "fear of the reds", even though 1917 and the Cold War are long past - the only other country where I can think of something partly similar (on the right only) is Italy (but obviously with very different roots)
• at the same time, the US sees, and has seen, massive State intervention in the economy, and everyone wants more, or nearly everyone!

Now, Obama probably would sit somewhere on the centre-right in most European countries, simply because the political field is in a different place altogether. But, lest you think this means you can just say Europe is more to the "left" or America to the "right" - where do you expect the next Prime Minister or President to be black???

[and, a wink to despairing French leftists, where do you get real primaries to choose your leader?]

But this leads us neatly to the car industry, I guess?