About the only things that I know about Harry Truman are the circumstances of his election and the fact that he was kept out of the picture regarding the A bomb. Other than that, the English Wiki tells me "he was one of the most unpopular men to leave the White House", something that I didn't know.
I haven't done any research to learn what his ranking is among the former U.S prez 60 years after he left office but apparently it looks like an unassuming and inexperienced shirt seller from Missouri could seat in the White House and deal with uncle Joe.
So the first round of the French presidential elections was held yesterday and the socialist candidate (so to say, he's not exactly a trotskyist) may well succeed N.S at the Élysée palace in Paris (nothing's done yet). If Truman could get elected and re-elected in the U.S, why couldn't F. Hollande in France then?
Self satisfaction about how great is the parliamentary system in the West is the key word in our media which have been propagating the notion the world over for about 150 years now. Yes and yet I'm growing more and more sceptical about this.
There's nothing new here but any honest observer with a modicum dose of good faith cannot but notice what an outrageous show of intellectual dishonesty and indecent display of immorality any popular election is - and has to be because addressing the masses is a process which essentially (in its essence) calls for lies, crass vulgarity and vileness.
Things being what they are, let's accept the premises that this lecture of "democracy" is the ultimate achievement of political thought and practise (cough, cough...).
Now, what I find interesting about Truman (for the very little I know about this man) is what seems to have been his motto: The bucks stops here. How much did he stick to this concept of political accountability, I haven't the faintest clue but what I can affirm with both hands on the Koran and the Bible is that N. Sarkozy is the living antithesis of Truman's personal pledge.
The agitated (let's put it that way) pathological liar who's been ruling France for the past five years has to be the world champion of the "It's not me" trump card. This man has brought the practise of lying through his teeth when addressing the electorate to an unprecedented level of professionalism in France. Only with a knife under his throat could he 'possibly' admit that 'perhaps' he may have a tiny portion of responsibility if something somehow went wrong somewhere.
When Operation Eagle Claw turned into a disaster, Jimmy Carter took all responsibility on him for the fiasco which of course was the honourable thing to do for the leader he was. I suppose that was another version of The bucks stops here made real.
Nothing of that sort with Sarko who will make it his personal triumph of any peccadilloes he will have deemed worth taking credit for (with the assistance of the media he has hold on, basically over 80% of the French TV's audience) but will systematically put the blame on others for anything negative that he could be held responsible for.
This walking neurosis is the embodiment of greed and lust for power being allowed to get to the top of the State because "democracy" permits it, all the more so with the help of the constitution De Gaulle devised for France 55 years ago. Thanks for the gift Charlie!
François Hollande certainly seems not fit for the job, probably like Truman in his time but at least absolutely nobody questions his morality or his personal record. If he were to succeed Sarkozy, nothing much will change in the country save, save that there will be much less immorality with the person sitting in the Élysée palace.
Should he eventually not make it, it would be another popular blessing for immorality and depravity. But rest assured that would still be "democratic"!
What a relief!