vendredi 5 octobre 2007

American heat





There's something that doesn't fail to surprise me when reading the American newspapers or the numerous blogs that American citizens devote to the domestic politics: the ferocity each side seems to have in store for the opposite camp.

Whaow! Looks like there's no lost love between the Dems and the Republicans.

One may think it's quite normal that on this particular field when points of view diverge there's some heat to be expected but really, to this point of antagonism...

Of course, as a Frenchman what do I know about American politics? But if I try to compare with the traditional opposition between right and left in Europe, only far leftists would be so vindictive against far rightist, and conversely.

But these two extremes amount to about 10% of the voters in France whereas Democrats and Republicans make about, say, 90% of the voters in the US.

Is this virulence a good and faithful image of the American national mentality when it comes to debating and exchanging ideas? Or more simply is the pattern of thoughts so different that no comparison can be made between the way Europeans and Americans deal with their respective domestic concerns?


3 commentaires:

L'Amerloque a dit…

Hello Flocon !

/*/ …/… But if I try to compare with the traditional opposition between right and left in Europe, only far leftists would be so vindicative against far rightist, and conversely.
…/…
Is this virulence a good and faithful image of the American national mentality when it comes to debatting and exchanging ideas? Or more simply is the pattern of thoughts so different that no comparison can be made beween the way Europeans and Americans deal with their respective domestic concerns? …/… /*/

One trait that jumped out at Amerloque in the 1970s (as soon as his French was up to snuff) was the willingness of French politicians to compromise their principles for the sake of a) remaining elected and b) appearing to "govern", since some would have it that "gouverner, c'est prévoir" in France.

Note that when Amerloque says "compromise" he does not mean the French word "compromis" but rather "compromission". (grin)

Amerloque personally has nothing but contempt fot the majority of politicians in France: they couldn't care less about "the people", in his humble view. One has only to look at the suicidal measures currently being proposed (and passed !) in the French National Assembly, or the establishment of a "Turkish Chair" at Sciences Po, so as to convince the masses and their next ruling class that "Turkey is European and has its place in Europe". One can look, too, at the demonstrably corrupt politicians being returned to office by (some) French voters, who apparently have no moral principles whatsoever.

In Ameloque's view, the "Take No Prisoners" antagonism apparently so prevalent in the USA dates from the 1960s, of course, and the Vietnam War. Both sides (i.e., the "left" and the "right") felt screwed and hardened their stances considerably (at least seen from over here, Amerloque having esstablished himself in France well before 1970).

Amerloque has been 'par mots et par vaux' recently and so has not had time enough to devote to his own blog, let alone others (grin).

Best,
L'Amerloque

Flocon a dit…

Bonjour l'amerloque

Amerloque personally has nothing but contempt fot the majority of politicians in France
Not many French people would disagree with you here l'Amerloque.
Generally speaking I don't think of many democracies where politicians are held in relative high estim by their fellow citizens save in the Scandinavian countries maybe.

Regarding the willingness of French politicians to compromise, doesn't that willingness come from experience? Politicians know that if they show too much stuborness in their choice, the people who disagree will let them know in no uncertain terms how far they're ready to go to prevent them to implement their decision.

Left or right.
Remember the "marche pour l'école libre" in 1984? Or the near total paralysis of the French infrastructure when Juppé (sigh) tried to unilaterally modify the pension system?
And so many examples in the History of France (1907, 1934 etc.). Politicians have learned their lesson.
Flexibility has to be the key word.

You know better than me than since the days of the 1789 Revolution French people don't consider their leaders as powerful icons beyond any criticism reach.

But you introduce an interesting point here: The difference between French and Anglo/American approach of the law and its representants.
Civil unrest seems to be next to unheard of in protestant countries, not exactly the same in catholic countries, particularly France.

Le rapport au Pouvoir et à ses représentants est foncièrement différent entre nos deux cultures.

I understand how unacceptable such a disruptive view of the law can appear to an Anglo/American but... That's the way the cookie crumbles.

the demonstrably corrupt politicians being returned to office by (some) French voters, who apparently have no moral principles whatsoever.
Alas, yes. Balkany, Jacques Médecin, Arrencxs (spe?) Juppé, Chirac, and so many others...

The flexibility politicians have to resort to makes for the lake of thereof from the electorate which once on one side (left or right) will nearly never shift to the other side.
I have a feeling there are more probabilities a Dem could occasionaly vote for a Rep and conversely than a Socialist for someone from the right in France. Except when there's a de Gaulle on the stage. This happens once a century...

As for French politicians making a career out of politics and not caring about the common people, I have to agree here.

Thanks for stopping by

L'Amerloque a dit…

Hi Flocon !


/*/ …/… Regarding the willingness of French politicians to compromise, doesn't that willingness come from experience? Politicians know that if they show too much stuborness in their choice, the people who disagree will let them know in no uncertain terms how far they're ready to go to prevent them to implement their decision. …/… /*/


This could indicate a basic difference in how democracy in perceived. (grin) A politician is (theoretically) elected to represent a point of view. The "point of view" cannot be everlastingly changeable … or can it ?


Of course, the politicians who choose to "abstain" from a vote are the most contemptible of all. That's not representing the people: that's betraying them. It's a though they were unrepresented !


/*/ …/.. Flexibility has to be the key word. …/… /*/


Perhaps a major difference between France and the US. What the French might call "flexibility", the Americans might call "treason". (sigh) This would go a long way to explaining " … this virulence …/… when it comes to debatting and exchanging ideas …" (sigh)


/*/ …/… Le rapport au Pouvoir et à ses représentants est foncièrement différent entre nos deux cultures. …/… /*./


Yes. (grin)


/*/ …/… the demonstrably corrupt politicians being returned to office by (some) French voters, who apparently have no moral principles whatsoever.


Alas, yes. Balkany, Jacques Médecin, Arrencxs (spe?) Juppé, Chirac, and so many others... …/… /*/


Er, um … one must not forget some of the other politicians on the other side of the fence (i.e., the "leftists"), starting with Emmanuelli and Cresson … (grin)


Best,
L'Amerloque