Segolene Royal's Economic and Sociopolitical Ignorance is Showing
France will choose its new president next year, and one of the major candidates, Socialist Party's Segolene Royal, has begun to show her true colors.
The Old Segolene
[Thanks to blog-hrc.typepad.com for this pic.]
The New Segolene
[Thanks to direland.typepad.com for this one.]
In a recent speech before the Socialist Party congress in Porto, Ms. Royal said [my translation]:
"It is no longer up to Mr. Trichet [president of the European Central Bank] to command the future of our economies, it is up to the leaders who have been chosen by the people. [In other words, me hopefully.]" [Words put in her mouth by the blogger.]
Ms. Royal obviously doesn't see the benefits from having an independent central bank, nor does she see the dangers from not having such independence -- a big faux-pas.
She profits from this speech opportunity to campaign just a little for the folks back home. (What politician in their right mind wouldn't?) She wants to construct "the Europe of those people who succeed in combatting unemployment, elevated prices and all other forms of social insecurity ... but we must also construct the Europe of the top minds, intelligence, qualifications, the Europe of research, environment, and the post-petroleum era."
Whoa, hold your horses, Segolene. What ever happened to the government of the people, for the people, and *by the people*, not just by some Ivy-League elite? Yes, I know you've given lip service to your party voters by making gestures towards some future "dialogue with the people" on everything from the price of a stamp to relations with Iran (yes, that's pretty much one of her platforms), but what's this other stuff?
As to the "dialogue with the people", the Dutch pretend they successfully exploit such a formula -- they have something they call the Polder Model (Go to the article of 7/6/2004 called Third Way, No Way by Hans LaBohm). But the Dutch are not the French (they hide their emotions and their politics better [joke, for you PC police]), and anyway, Holland's economy is not living up to expectations. Read this 2003 article, old but still relevant.)
Ms. Royal, you obviously don't believe in republican democracy; you believe in "dirigisme," or state planning. "But of cawse", you reply, "zat's ze definition of socialisme." But don't you see the inherent hypocrisy? You talk about a France of the People, but you don't *believe* in a France of the People; you believe in a France of the Pied Piper with yourself and your elite colleagues in the leading role.
I call you "La Gauche Caviar" -- the Caviar Left. We've got'em here, too.
Oh well. That was Robespierre's great weakness back in the 18th century. Even these modern European "cerveaux" (brainy ones) don't seem to have caught onto it yet.
The Old Segolene
[Thanks to blog-hrc.typepad.com for this pic.]
The New Segolene
[Thanks to direland.typepad.com for this one.]
In a recent speech before the Socialist Party congress in Porto, Ms. Royal said [my translation]:
"It is no longer up to Mr. Trichet [president of the European Central Bank] to command the future of our economies, it is up to the leaders who have been chosen by the people. [In other words, me hopefully.]" [Words put in her mouth by the blogger.]
Ms. Royal obviously doesn't see the benefits from having an independent central bank, nor does she see the dangers from not having such independence -- a big faux-pas.
She profits from this speech opportunity to campaign just a little for the folks back home. (What politician in their right mind wouldn't?) She wants to construct "the Europe of those people who succeed in combatting unemployment, elevated prices and all other forms of social insecurity ... but we must also construct the Europe of the top minds, intelligence, qualifications, the Europe of research, environment, and the post-petroleum era."
Whoa, hold your horses, Segolene. What ever happened to the government of the people, for the people, and *by the people*, not just by some Ivy-League elite? Yes, I know you've given lip service to your party voters by making gestures towards some future "dialogue with the people" on everything from the price of a stamp to relations with Iran (yes, that's pretty much one of her platforms), but what's this other stuff?
As to the "dialogue with the people", the Dutch pretend they successfully exploit such a formula -- they have something they call the Polder Model (Go to the article of 7/6/2004 called Third Way, No Way by Hans LaBohm). But the Dutch are not the French (they hide their emotions and their politics better [joke, for you PC police]), and anyway, Holland's economy is not living up to expectations. Read this 2003 article, old but still relevant.)
Ms. Royal, you obviously don't believe in republican democracy; you believe in "dirigisme," or state planning. "But of cawse", you reply, "zat's ze definition of socialisme." But don't you see the inherent hypocrisy? You talk about a France of the People, but you don't *believe* in a France of the People; you believe in a France of the Pied Piper with yourself and your elite colleagues in the leading role.
I call you "La Gauche Caviar" -- the Caviar Left. We've got'em here, too.
Oh well. That was Robespierre's great weakness back in the 18th century. Even these modern European "cerveaux" (brainy ones) don't seem to have caught onto it yet.
posted by Katy Delay at 10:10 AM
3 Comments:
I'm curious why you intepret contructing a Europe of "the top minds" as implying a continuation of elite rule, and not a pledge to create to invest in education for European society as a whole.
French Election 2007
Because "matiere grise" and "intelligence" per se cannot be created through schooling.
On the other hand, "qualifications" could be referring to education, I'll hand you that; but your interpretation seems out of place in the context of the whole sentence.
I suppose either of us could be right, we're not in her head; which brings me to another of the objections I have with her statements in general (and those of most politicians, in fact.) They are too vague and open to subjectivity, i.e. they can mean whatever the audience prefers to hear.
Her statements definitely aren't concrete, I would absolutely agree with that. I'm afraid its a consequence of trying to be everyone to everybody. And ironically, some of the only times when she does take a stance, like with regard to Iran, she gets in hot water.
Post a Comment
<< Home