After the results of the French election came in, a friend of mine
wrote me a note in which she called Sarkozy "George W. Bush with
brains". I am sure she meant to indicate that Sarkozy will now lead
France down the sort of corrupt, selfish, chaotic, inhumane, and
militaristic path that Bush has led the US down, but still, that
phrase, "George W. Bush with brains". There's something about it that
just seems impossible. If George W. Bush had brains (as opposed to,
say, a form of low cunning that is more akin to a survival instinct
than reason) he wouldn't be George W. Bush.
Lots of people know more about France than I do, and no doubt Sarkozy
doesn't mind some shocks to the system in the classic capitalist
tradition (meaning stacking the deck with threats, guns, and/or
bombers so the corporatists can have what they want), and I do think
it would be too bad if France took up a kind of belated Blairism. Life
is way better in France than it is in England, shame on the Brits.
Even so, I am inclined to give Sarkozy a chance. The first thing he
did was ask Bush to "take the lead on global warming", the very thing
that Bush is least inclined to do. He has, therefore, set a condition
for his relationship to the US. Surely he knows that Bush resents
suggestions from others--in order for him to want to do something, he
has to think it's his own idea. And now old Sarko has challenged him
on something that is at the very heart of what Bush wants to protect,
the oil industry. Sarko has given us an indicator--if he keeps
pressing Bush on global warming, we'll know he's got actual brains and
isn't the suck-up that Tony Blair is. If he lets global warming go,
then we'll know that he's failed in his official capacity as the
president of FRANCE, and become Bush's French poodle.
As Bush's French poodle, of course, one of his first duties would be
to support the war in Iraq, and, even, perhaps, send French troops.
This is another indicator, and even, from the point of view of
Washington, a litmus test. "Coalition" troops in Iraq are fading away
like the snows of Kilimanjaro. If Sarko decides to buck French policy
and send some troops, that would be another sign that a Sarkozy
government will haul water for the Bushies. In honor of the Triple
Crown, I'll give you 10 to 1 against French troops heading to Iraq.
What people object to about Sarkozy is his hotheaded and outspoken
pugnacity and the fact that he would like to dismantle, or at least
modify, the French welfare state. Some 54% of French voters seem not
to mind the idea of slightly modifying the French welfare state, and I
would say that that is their business rather than mine, but I like
that pugnacity. One of the demoralizing things about Tony Blair is
that he has never shown any pugnacity towards Bush at all. "Fawnng" is
the word that springs to mind. Or "creepy". Or "smarmy, slimey,
wormlike, crawling, spineless, unprincipled". Maybe if he had been a
little more hot-tempered, he would have shown some character. But
Sarkozy's irritability is another indicator. Does he only call Muslim
rioters "scum", or is he willing to call Dick Cheney "scum", too?
Sarkozy has been a bureaucrat for many years, and some of his
policies have been effective. Bush was just an oil man. Nothing he
ever did was ever meant to serve the public good or even to consider
it. He came into office with no experience except that of lining his
own pockets and having his ass saved by his daddy's friends. What I am
watching for in Sarkozy are signs that he is a tool of the world-wide
uberclass of war profiteers, oil profiteers, and finance profiteers.
Mere conservatism is not the same thing.
And then there's this, the 85% turnout. If 85% of the voters go to
the polls, that means to me (correct me if you think I am wrong, which
I know you will) that French voters aren't asleep at the wheel the way
American voters are. If Sarko goes too far down the Bush path, I'll
give you 5 to 1 that French voters will kick him out. It's a great
thing, democracy.