You make good points, Jo-Ann. But let's not forget that Sarkozy (the guy from the right) is still way to the left of Clinton (the woman from the left).

In fact, Sarkozy is to the left of Nader by almost any conceivable measure.

The so-called European Right isn't-- in American terms most of it is about as moderate as the DLC here. Outside of Russia and Serbia there simply isn't anything of any significance in Europe like America's malignant rightwing. There's no Religious Right at all (even the Roman Catholic Church is pretty liberal on issues not involvong sex) and only on immigration, which ia very different matter in Europe, do Europe's "rightwingers" sound a non-moderate tone.
As for Latin America the problem there si that the partieso f the Left have been running some pretty looney candidates, HugoChavez clones who frighten enough voters into voting right. Where there hasn't been the case-- Brazil for example,-- progressive parties still win.

~

The question: What Can the Socialist Loss in France Teach the American Liberal/Left?

That there is a difference between oranges, grapefruits, and lemons?

~OGD~

Conditions in France or the US are so profoundly different that I don't think this election can be taken to teach anybody in France anything important about the American model; nor can it be taken to teach anybody in America much of anything about the French model.

I would hypothesize that if Jacques Chirac had just spent five years fighting a ruinous, strategically disastrous and colossally expensive war, then maybe, just maybe, the Socialists would have won this year.

On the other hand, if there were no Iraq war, and the 2006 US election had been preceded by, let's say, several violent and destructive Mexican immigrant riots in some major US cities, then I think maybe, just maybe, the Republicans would have won the US election in 2006.

I would also speculate that when a country's economic and social policies drift far to the right over a two-decade period, culminating in a quasi-authoritarian, religiously fanatic executive branch junta, then it is reasonable to expect that a correction will come in the form of a move back to the left. On the other hand, when a country's economic policies are dominated by social democracy on the basic model of the French left, then economic sluggishness and disquiet are likely to produce a move to the right.

This election means nothing for us.

~

The following has been perfectly stated:

To be fair, it might show that a clearheaded approach, even if unpopular in some specifics, can beat a muddleheaded approach which avoids taking any clear stands in order to prevent any backlash.

84% !!! What do opinion polls tell us are the majority positions of U.S. citizens on Iraq, health care, women's choice and on and on? What the French election can teach us is how a democracy works.

Few nations on earth are more liberal in the traditional sense of the word, than France.

Eh? In the "traditional sense of the word", a "liberal" is someone who believes in the free market, rather than statist or regulated control of the economy. See Mills. Few nations among the Western liberal democracies are less liberal, in the traditional sense of the word, than France.

Accumulating Peripherals

Very little.

The Socialists in France are relatively weaker than the Democratic Party is here; they have seen only one of theirs - Mitterand - elected President in the last 50 years, and in the previous election their candidate finished third (behind two right-wing candidates in Chirac and Le Pen).

Chris Patton - a former Thatcherite Minister in Britain - has encapsulated the differences between Europe and America succinctly in his terrific memoire ("Not Quite the Diplomat" - in it, he suggests we should call ourselves the Disunited States of America)... he characterizes Europe as having economic growth that would be unacceptable in America, and America as having a level of inequality that would be unacceptable in Europe.

So what there is to learn from France is perhaps that like Sarkozy, the Democrats need to speak in direct terms to the electorate about economic issues that concern them. And stop worrying about coming across as divisive. It didn't bother Sarkozy, and he ended up winning comfortably.

Another thing is not to pay attention to the hype about "winds of change in Europe". Some European countries (Germany, Sweden) have moved from center-left to center-right. Other European countries (Spain, Italy) have moved from center-right to center-left. Britain might be moving from center-left to center-right, but partly because the conservatives are triangulating on traditional center-left policy strongholds. France has moved from center-right to another shade of center-right; indeed a Royal win would have marked a more profound political shift. So whatever winds of change are blowing, they vary quite significantly from country to country, and are surely largely dependent on local factors (and not changing attitudes towards America, as some right-wing commentators are wont to believe).

One final thing to say is that Chirac, though not loved in France, did not drive his country into a ditch. He is also not an especially polarizing figure; few think he's been a great president, but most do recognize he got a couple of big decisions (e.g. Iraq 2003) right. The same can obviously not be said for Bush, so the "legacy" backdrop to the election next year will be quite different in that respect too.

Re: Corporate Socialism which is the dominant political philosophy pushed by the American Plutocracy which has strong camps in both national political parties is not a left wing movement it is Fascism

Oh, nonsense! Too many people sling the word "fascism" around without knowing beans about it. Whatever the American Right (we probably need a new word for it) may be, it is certainly not fascist. Fascism is at its core powerfully, fanatically nationalist, and that includes economic nationalism. A Fascist would never tolerate outsourcing, an out-of-control national debt funded by foreigners, or the loss of our manufacturing base.

Re: Bill Clinton was no Liberal, he just talked like one, if he had been I would have voted for him

Sorry, but I liked Clinton and thought the 90s were a good time for America. If Gore had become president in 2000, can you really imagine things would be in mess they are today?

The socialist loss in France could mean that switching to paperless electronic voting machines that use privately owned software - is a really bad idea.

Now there is a friend of George Bush in office in France - big surprise???

It is interesting how many people need to deny the obvious. There is no doubt that the center of politics in Europe is to the left of those in America. Thus a traditional liberal like the Bill Clinton is denounced by people who aren't liberal at all, but to the left of liberalism, liberalism biggest problem in the United States.

In Europe the state welfare system is under siege. The problem is largely a shrinking and aging population. What is often missed in these discussions is the need for someone to work to provide the taxes for all these services. In Europe the lack of native workers has been made up by immigrants, often Muslims who are not welcome to become citizens. This creates all sorts of social tensions.

Additionally, dividing up a shrinking economic pie is a painful and often dangerous process. The only way to avoid this is to stop worry so much about redistribution of wealth and more about its creation. Europe needs to encourage more economic growth in order to expand their tax base to continue their welfare state programs.

As the Irish examples shows removing the shackles and getting help from fellow Europeans can produce a boom. The Irish, according the yesterday's Times, are busily buying real estate in New York. One thing the U.S. might take away from Europe is that an a follow on to NAFTA the U.S. and Canada ought to help Mexico build up its infrastructure in order to allow greater wealth creation within Mexico.

The real take-away for America is the Depression has been over for 70 years. WWII has been over 62 years. To advocate policies as if we are still in the middle of the 1930s is likely to help elect Republicans and anyone else who will appeal to most Americans who have jobs are concerned not about poverty but how they can enjoy a middle class life.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

"But a lot of the same issues that plague European social democracy also plague what we call liberalism in America." That sounds like yet another platitude of, by, and for the Washington insiders who fear anything shaking up their failed image of the center. To me, it seems plain dumb. I can't name one such issue. 

Europeans have enormous social benefits, from a vast safety net and universal health care to shorter work weeks and work years. There's some concern that this raises unemployment, although reports here say that the French wouldn't easily give up those benefits. Here we've none of that, and a rapacious right-wing elite is profiting while Americans feel vulnerable economically. So what is the parallel? 

Europeans may vote for the right when they feel they have an immigrant problem, but they think of it as a threat to their secular society or as potential for violence. Here we've fears of immigrants taking jobs instead, and it's the right who despise any hint of a secular society. So what is the parallel? 

Europeans of all parties distanced themselves from Bush's war. So what's the parallel?

Europeans signed the Kyoto treaty. So what's the parallel?

Europeans have an adversarial press that would see right through the lies and smears that enable the right. So what's the parallel?

I could go on all day, but honestly, what's the point of these Beltway platitudes other than to get insiders jobs?

http://www.haberarts.com/

The real take-away for America is the Depression has been over for 70 years. WWII has been over 62 years. To advocate policies as if we are still in the middle of the 1930s is likely to help elect Republicans and anyone else who will appeal to most Americans who have jobs are concerned not about poverty but how they can enjoy a middle class life.

Dear Daniel A. Greenbaum,
1. I beleive that your depection of Europe is too pessimistic. The Economist recently ran a special on France and Germany and the European corporation. Things are reforming along quite nicely and the European firm is adjusting to the Chinese challenge. Italy is the big exception, it faces ruin if the central government does not smarten up but interestingly this is a cultural problem not a left right problem as Burlesconi achieved nothing with 8 years at the helm.

2. Ireland is an outlier. If America could be subsidiesed by the EU while we drop our corporate taxes we too could scoop up a huge share of the international business investment out there. The real success stories are Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark which have changed their tax systems to tax capital less and consumption more. They have all achieved high productivity and growth in a high taxation high welfare service environment. Go figure.

3. To attack the cornerstone programs of the New Deal such as social security and Medicare, at a time when world economic conditions have made job security and income risk more volitile then ever is dangerous. We need to smooth out the risks to the American middle class not aggrivate them.

Corvid

Not to get too far off the subject, but the observation that the supposedly conservative Sarkozy is still far to the left of any American pol (worth reflecting on) reminds me of another thing.
.
The American coverage of the French elections, such as it was, lazily bought into all sorts of false assumptions. Let's have some truth here. Did you know that French unemployment is scarcely any higher than ours if we included our vast prison population and long-term unemployed? Did you know that French workers--even with their reviled but immensely popular 35-hour workweek--are more productive than American workers? Did you know that the French live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate and are reproducing themselves at something close to a rate that would sustain the population (even excluding the huge and problematic Muslim community)? And their per capita carbon footprint is far, far smaller than ours.
.
And did you know that the French have less poverty AND more upward income mobility than we have here in the phony land of opportunity? (This is largely because of public spending that keeps the poorest French from being totally crushed by economic ill winds.)
.
So what is it, exactly, that the French have to learn from the Anglo-American model? I'd say pretty much nothing. And while I agree with Jo-Ann that we can profitably learn from this French election, I'd say we have far more to learn about the fundamentals of building a basically decent society.

We may not be ruled by - but I'm beginning to have my doubts - political royalists, but we are ruled by economic royalists. Political royalists are in the service of a monarch. Economic royalists are in the service of wealth.

Whatever the American Right (we probably need a new word for it) may be, it is certainly not fascist.

My vote is for neo-feudalist.

Noel wrote a song "Why must the show go on?" Why must there be any

I think that running from the left is somewhat hard if the social system (welfare, education, pensions etc.) runs quite well and the right wing is on the record of accepting that system more or less as it is. Then issues like what to do with rioting immigrants can come to the fore.

The French have the additional luxury in knowing that would the right wing government veer toward Thatcherism, riots of the middle class will put stop to it. (As I see it, part of the French problem is that the poor immigrants absorb the French ways only too well.)

The lesson that I can read from Jo-Ann is:

1. Do not be overly vague.

2. Being a "fresh face" is good, but do not rely on it.

3. By all that is sacred and pure, do not stumble on the campaign trail!

Good news seems to be that the most wishy-washy Democratic candidate in sight would still offer a resolute contrast to any of GOP candidates. More good news: Reagan's magic seems to be waning, the issues of fear of shaggy-headed terrorism and gays raping our daughters (by marrying without them) recede in importance in key states lik PA, OH, and perhaps the rest of Mid-West, as well as in Mountain states that may become new battleground.

I have a graduate degree in Political Science and I know something about political philosophies the terms used to represent them and the etiology of such terms. You may not like what I have to say,which is your right, but it most definitely is not nonsense nor even slightly farfetched.

The new breed of corporate Socialist (See the WWII Itallian dictator's {father of Fascism} definition of Fascism) see the bonding of the state and corporations across national borders otherwise their ends are pretty much the same even if the rhetoric varies a bit; calling a stinkweed a rose doesn’t change it’s smell.

Fascism, at its basis is a political philosophy in which the Group (which in Western history has meant the Nation State, or at least the Nation State as an expression of The People/Race) is considered to be the One True Reality, and as such its concerns and demands absolutely trump all other claims and concerns. That is, the individual has no rights in a fascist state-- but neither does a business, a corportation or any other lesser entity. They all exist solely to the serve the Omnipotent State, and not the other way around.
Any political "science" which does not grasp that much about the basis of fascism is quite frankly the equivalent of "Creation science" and not worth the tuition silent studying it. The American Right as such is not fascist, and that adjective should be dropped as it represents a severe misunderstanding of what is going in this country. I think the other reply to my comment had it closer, that the Right is neo-feudalist-- except that feudal societies tend to be deeply traditional societies, strongly resistant to change, and that does not describe the American Right either, which is radical rather than conservative. We really do have a very new sort of political phenomenon here and trying to shoehorn it into political models past is a vain exercize. It needs to be seen and comprehended as something new and unprecedented, lest the disease be misdiagnosed and the wrong remedy prescribed.

I know... from the tone of these "Lessons from France," arguments you'd think that I have a 35 hour work week, a guaranteed pension and publically funded healthcare.

But I don't have any of that, unless you consider Social Security to be a guaranteed pension (and nobody does).

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The Roman Catholic Church was not considered a corporation. You need to reread your 1920-30's Italian History.

One supposes you have never seen anything like the following from:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Capitalism_Fascism_WW2.html

Capitalism, Fascism and World War 2 by Gary Sudborough

September 22, 2002

IconoclastGS@aol.com

The relationship of fascism and capitalism as illustrated by the events of World War 2

Most Americans know enough about the Nazi holocaust to thoroughly despise the horrible events that occurred- the torture, executions, concentration camps, forced starvation, gas chambers and the attempted extermination of the Jews. I wonder what Americans would think if they knew that the part of this Nazi terror apparatus which operated on the Russian front was incorporated into the CIA after World War 2. The Nazi SS officer was Reinhard Gehlen, and he and his group were employed by the CIA for their knowledge of the Soviet Union. The SS death squads that followed the German advance into the Soviet Union were very brutal, killing any communists and Jews they found. The CIA used Nazi war criminals like Klaus Barbie, Walter Rauff, Otto Skorzeny and others in South America to impart their knowledge of torture techniques and concentration camps to the police and militaries there. Klaus Barbie was involved in the 1980 Bolivian coup known as the "cocaine coup" that is described in former DEA agent Michael Levine's book The Big White Lie.

There is a close and often ignored relationship between fascism and capitalism. German corporations financed Hitler's rise to power and were rewarded by slave labor. Krupp, I.G. Farben and other corporations used Jewish and Slavic slave labor. Alfred Krupp called girl babies born to his slaves "useless feeders" because they were not as strong a potential worker as were boy babies. These girl babies were gassed.
American corporations invested heavily in Nazi Germany, and many like General Motors and Ford had factories there, which also used slave labor and produced war materials for the Nazis. US corporate investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power. Investment increased 48.5% between 1929 and 1940, while declining in the rest of continental Europe. American bombers deliberately avoided hitting these US factories, and they received compensation from the American taxpayer for any damage after the war. US oil companies sold oil to the Nazis and oil on credit to the fascists in Spain.

Many American capitalists were openly sympathetic to the Nazis. Henry Ford wrote a book called The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, and he is mentioned in Mein Kampf. James Mooney, the General Motors executive in charge of European operations, was awarded the Order of Merit of the Golden Eagle by Adolph Hitler. There were op-ed pieces by Nazis like Hermann Goehring in Hearst newspapers in the United States.

The Nazis broke unions, lowered wages, abolished overtime pay, decreased business taxes and increased business subsidies. Their program bears a strong resemblance to the Republican agenda in this country.

The CIA was very concerned about the survival of capitalism in Europe after World War 2 because the anti-Nazi resistance movements in many countries like France, Italy and Greece were led by communists and socialists. Therefore, many bankers, industrialists, judges, lawyers, educators, etc. who were fascists were put back in power because they were the most virulently anti-Communist. Britain even invaded Greece to fight the Greek communists, who had driven the Nazis from their country, and the United States later took over with massive military aid to Greek fascists and former Nazi collaborators. The Italian Communist Party was poised to win postwar elections in Italy. Consequently, the CIA mounted a huge disinformation campaign there and gave millions of dollars to opposition parties.

I have a theory that World War 2 in Europe was at least in part the second attempt to destroy socialism in the Soviet Union. After the Bolshevik revolution, every capitalist nation on Earth invaded Russia in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy this alternative to capitalism. Then, there was a wave of repression against leftists in the capitalist countries. In the United States the IWW was destroyed, socialists like Eugene Debs were imprisoned, and anarchists like Emma Goldman were arrested and deported. Other anarchists like Sacco and Vanzetti were framed and executed.

Although the Nazis attacked other capitalist countries, the focus of their military onslaught was the Soviet Union. Over 80% of German casualties took place on the Russian front, and the vast majority of their military forces were located there. The Nazis lost 300,000 men at Stalingrad alone. The United States stayed out of the war for three long years as Russia bore the brunt of the fascist attack and only entered as Russian forces were driving the Germans rapidly back toward Berlin. American policymakers had to be worried that all of Europe would go communist.

Mussolini said that fascism is corporatism, but I think that is much too mild a description. Fascism is essentially corporate power coming down with a vengeance on the heads of working people, although fascists often mask their real agenda with some populist rhetoric and even call their parties things like National Socialist, etc. I maintain that what we have in most countries of the world today is really fascism, but fascism cloaked in a facade of democracy and supported by an extremely efficient propaganda system. Bertram Gross wrote a book called Friendly Fascism, but I think with George W. Bush in power, it is getting less friendly by the minute.

The ideas I have expressed in this article are so startling to most Americans that I need to give references: The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester, Understanding the F-Word by David McGowan, The Splendid Blond Beast by Christopher Simpson and Turning the Tide by Noam Chomsky.

I thought not...well the web is full of references say much the same sort of things as are the nations libraries, and I am damned sure not going to make an endless list of them for you. And now sir, I have had enough of your historical revisionism.

Ah yes... apples and oranges? Between France and the US, yes...

But actually, a better analogy to our own current upcoming election cycle here in the US, as I commented upthread, may be oranges, grapefruits, and lemons ... (and read the short sub-thread that follows for the context)

~OGD~

Good grief, I do not deny that the Italian upper classes supported the Fascisti (for the most part), just as the German elite supported the Nazis. In both cases the rightwing movements were seen as a defense against the Reds. And in both cases they got a master who rode them hard, with spurs and whip. Well, they no doubt deserved it so no pity need be wasted.
By the way, you are in error about the meaning of "corporatism" here. It does not refer to coporations in the modern-day American English sense of the word (beware false cognates), but rather to a sort of mystical sense that society composes a "body" (see: Latin corpus, the root of the word) and individuals are nothing but cells in this body.

Re: Although the Nazis attacked other capitalist countries, the focus of their military onslaught was the Soviet Union.

Well, also, France, as revenge for WWI. But the Nazi's Drang nach Osten was more than revenge; it arose from a social Darwinist belief that the Slavs were inferior beings who should be exterminated and replaced by the Aryan race. That Russia had embraced Communism (a Jewish philosophy in Nazi thought) was seen as evidence of their inferiority, but the Nazis would have sought Lebensraum to the east even had Russia been ruled by Tsar Alexei I and the heirs of the old Muscovite boyars.

I do not know how Sarkozy will play out. But France is a DIFFERENT COUNTRY. For example, the entire French Parliament was REQUIRED, I said REQUIRED, to watch Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth -- even before it won an Academy Award.

They also have a metro in Paris and one of the best passenger rail systems in the world. They also make extensive use of nuclear power. And they have lots of very teeny cars. And Croissants.

Tiny cars can be practical when the occupants are lubricated with the butter from the croissants.
--
Howard

A Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is to computing what a McDonalds Certified Food Specialist is to fine cuisine.

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." [HL Mencken]

~OGD~

Or in today's world, what do you make of George Soros, the billionaire enemy of all things Bush?

You mean the guy that just bought 65 Million dollars worth of Halliburton stock? :) From where I set he looks just like the Neo-liberal side of Mr. Nader's duopoly.

I'm afraid no one can sell me on the Clintons. I respect President Clinton’s intelligence and loved to listen to his speeches he nearly had me believing him every time (now if had just walked as he talked...) but I believe the man was totally sold out to corporate America and its globalist ideas that really amount to Nineteenth Century economic imperialism with out the colonial façade. Even in his Arkansas days the man was a corporate tool so too is Hillary; neither of the Clintons in my estimation even approach being a Liberal.

Further, corporate America (Ike’s MIC) run Bush and his corrupt Neo-conservatives who are nothing more or less than a pack of Fascists. Most astute political scientists will tell you Neo-cons and Neo-Liberals are very similar animals varying mostly in their mateing calls. Nader just shortened describing that situation down to stating a duopoly party system runs the nation’s government for the same class of economic elitists, and I believe in that he was correct. The man could produce sound evidence for that position for hours on end.

I also believe our huge multinational corporations are by nature the enemy of democratic governments and subvert them at will. I think its time for another trust busting Teddy Roosevelt to bust them into hundreds of smaller companies to preserve open and free markets and get their penurious influence out of our government. But that is going to be hard this time around because they are better organized politically than a hundred years ago. They have a strangle hold on the electoral process by what amounts to bribery called campaign financing, They have a lock on the Media/free press All these things the old trust busters did not have to contend with. Especially the press who were then independent entities competing to sell papers and not part of some multi-layered corporation with pet politicians to promote.

I further suspect you and I will never see these matters the same.

I'm afraid no one can sell me on the Clintons

I fault the Clintons for failing to fight for health care reform-- they just stuck their plan out there and let it sink like a lead balloon (but did pay a price: the loss of Congress in 94)

But other than that I thought the 90s were a great decade. The country was propserous, even the poor were making headway, and we were largely at peace. What's not to like?