The Veil of French Politics

New York Times Blog: By Judith Warner

[Ségolène Royal] justified this unusual incursion into her private life on the grounds that it advanced “the cause of women.” She also posed at home with Hollande and their children to showcase the kind of “organization” that was necessary to balance high-level government work with the needs of a large family...

...[A]ll this exposure isn’t necessarily shocking from an American perspective. Royal’s penchant for making the personal political can even be seen as an admirable form of public expression for a woman who has consistently spoken out on behalf of working women and their families since escaping from the home of her domineering, authoritarian father in the 1970s. But it’s been a major style shift for France, where the separation between public and private life has traditionally been so absolute – and protected so assiduously by the judicial system, politicians and the inner court of Parisian journalists who cover (and sometimes sleep with) them – that Francois Mitterrand was for decades able to maintain, at taxpayer expense, an illegitimate daughter and a mistress without the knowledge of the broader electorate.

This secrecy, we might say, is self-serving and elitist. But it has also led to a somewhat higher level of political discourse than Monkey Business and Monicagate.

At base, the French would say (they said it to me, in fact, incessantly, when I was there covering politics at the time of the Clinton impeachment scandal), it’s emblematic of a profound philosophical difference that sets them apart from Americans: the fact that the French don’t subscribe to the idea of “transparency.” “Transparency,” in this context, is the notion that a person’s innermost soul is revealed in each and every one of his or her acts. To believe in that kind of transparency is naïve, the French believe; it’s more realistic to recognize that human behavior is murky and messy and, in the case of politicians in particular, often highly compartmentalized. So it’s pointless to make sweeping judgments about a person’s political valor by his or her private life – and it’s none of the public’s business, anyway.

That attitude, apparently, is now changing...

Democracy, Politics and the Press

New York Times: By A. A. Gill

Mr. Blair has flung a final whingeing, Parthian speech over his shoulder, blaming the press for everything, calling it “a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits.” The famously beastly Brit press has predictably bitten back, pointing out that, in retrospect, they should have been a deal more beastly about the run-up to the Iraq war.

Blaming journalists for the mood of nations is a futile venture. Enoch Powell, an especially reviled statesman, dryly pointed out that for a politician to complain about the press was like sailors complaining about the sea. Newspapers may like to imagine they have power, but none of them can afford to travel far from the prejudices of their readers. Politicians blame the messenger because the alternative is to blame the public. And the annoying corollary of democracy is that the public is always right.

Is that a necessary corollary?
For bloggers, or just for politicians?

The Veil of French Politics

The New York Times Blog:By Judith Warner

Ségolène Royal was the first woman from a major political party to run for President of France. She was the first French cabinet minister to give birth while in office. And now she has become the first French political figure to break up with her boyfriend – Socialist party head Francois Hollande, her concubin, according to French law, and the father of her four children – on the public airwaves.

“I’ve proposed to Francois Hollande that he live his life on his own, and he has accepted..."

Oddly, this story was juxtaposed on the NY Times Blog page with a piece by Dick Cavett, entitled "Virginity, Lost."

And with that, I'll leave off an overfull morning of blogging.

French President Names New Cabinet

From The New York Times:

PARIS (AP) -- President Nicolas Sarkozy named his first Cabinet on Friday, radically revamping the government, with nearly as many women as men and humanitarian crusader Bernard Kouchner as France's new foreign minister....

Perhaps the biggest surprise in the conservative-led government was left-wing Kouchner, a co-founder of the Nobel Prize-winning Doctors Without Borders medical charity. Sarkozy reached over the political divide also in selecting Herve Morin, of a rival center-right party, as defense minister.

And in a related NYT story:

Sarkozy Chooses Campaign Aide as New French Premier to Help Smooth Way for Reform Plan:

Mr. Fillon [Sarkozy's choice for Prime Minister] said he would govern “in a spirit of outreach.”

What an instructive contrast with W after his designation as President by a closely-divided Supreme Court in 2000.

Royal reflections

Link to Slate Magazine for cartoon.

The End of Socialism in Europe?

The Blog | Jeremi Suri, The Huffington Post:

Sunday's election of Nicolas Sarkozy as the new president of France marks the end of socialism as a viable political ideology in Europe. ...
Some may dance on the graves of socialism in Europe; some may shed tears. All of us, however, should use this moment to begin thinking creatively about new political alternatives. Democratic systems function best when there is a serious and substantive debate between opposing viewpoints. Politics should be about principles, not just preaching to the converted. The death of socialism in Europe must become the birth of something new, not just a race to conformity. Americans can help if they encourage innovative thinking -- something almost nonexistent right now -- in their own political system.

The Politics of High Principle

Israel’s Foreign Minister Says Olmert Should Go - From The New York Times:

Ms. Livni, 48, is a popular but austere figure, and her statement was hardly a clarion call to rebellion against Mr. Olmert. He must make his own decision, she said, but her defection was the biggest blow so far to Mr. Olmert’s chances of hanging on to office, and it lays a clear marker down that she will fight to replace him inside the party.

But Mr. Olmert insisted that he would not quit, and his aides suggested that Ms. Livni had violated the principle of collective government and should herself resign. Some suggested that Mr. Olmert would fire her, but others said that might only make her more popular. One Olmert aide said that Ms. Livni had hoped he would fire her, but that instead he would “leave her out to dry.”

Herzl anticipated Jewish cops rounding up Jewish prostitutes on the streets of Tel Aviv, but could he have imagined this level of machination, incompetence, and corruption in Israel's political leadership? (It does, I suppose, beat tribal sheikhs.)

With all the human talent in Israeli society, how can one explain, or understand, its political failings? Democracy gone wild?

A ‘First Spouse’ in France? Not Any Time Soon

From The New York Times
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, April 26 — No matter who wins the presidency of France on May 6, life in the grand, presidential Élysée Palace is destined to change.

Pretty fascinating commentary on the differences in political culture in the two societies.
I've mostly tended to think America's over-fascination with the personalities and family lives of our Presidents (and Presidential candidates), relative to their ideas and political competence, reflected our barely sublimated desire for a royal family. I was one of the very, very few who thought discussion of a Reagan-Ford ticket for President and Prime Minister (was that 1976?) was sort of interesting (structurally, not in terms of those particular leaders, neither of whom commanded my respect or admiration at the time). I'm still inclined to think a very large share of abiding American affection for Reagan reflects more on his royal/grandfatherly image than on his policies.
The French example complicates that simple explanation. But maybe the French are more interested in casting a cinematic bedroom farce than a government. It still beats whatever we have done the past two elections.

Barack's rock -- Profile of Michelle Obama

Barack's rock | from The Chicago Tribune:

Michelle Obama, 43, has a reputation for telling it like she thinks it is... And though she's lighthearted in her critiques, she never plays the role of the deferential political wife.

'He's a gifted man,' she tells the audience, 'but, in the end, he's just a man.'

The fact that the crowd responds with laughter and a long, warm ovation is a good sign for the Obama team....

More than just a spokeswoman, she's a crucial part of the Obama package itself, complementing and shaping her husband in ways that are both politically and personally significant.

The daughter of a tight-knit nuclear family, she's an anchor for a spouse who grew up all over the world and barely knew his own father. Her background, deeply rooted in a working-class South Side neighborhood, lends credibility to her husband, who has consistently battled questions from some African-Americans about whether the son of an African father and a white American mother is authentically black....

I heard that growing up, 'You talk like a white girl,' " Obama told the Tribune on Friday in her first solo interview since her husband announced his candidacy for president in February. "There isn't one black person who doesn't understand that dynamic. That debate is about the pain that we still struggle with in this country, and Barack knows that more than anyone.

"One of the things I hope happens through our involvement in this campaign is that this country and this world sees yet another image of what it means to be black."

Her ability to speak with authority on such tough issues is one reason the campaign thinks she will be a potent weapon in its arsenal.

Obama Addresses Question of Experience

From The New York Times:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wooing black voters while tackling questions about his experience, Democrat Barack Obama said Saturday that his years as a community organizer and accomplishments in the Illinois state Senate have prepared him well for the presidency....

He met later in the day with leaders of the Iowa Citizen Action Network, a liberal group of community organizers, and touted his own experience as a community organizer.

''I can relate,'' said Obama as he opened a two-day visit to Iowa. ''I, too, was a community organizer. Community organizers generally look at the world a little bit differently.''

Obama's first job was working for a coalition of churches on Chicago's south side, seeking to help rescue a troubled neighborhood.

''It was that education that was seared into my brain,'' Obama said. ''It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.''

[Reverend Al] Sharpton, who ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004, has also openly questioned Obama's credentials for the job. Obama, running to be the first black president, acknowledged those concerns. He also assured the largely black audience he did not believe he was automatically entitled to their support....A spokeswoman said Sharpton was not expected to endorse a candidate soon.

So, do African-Americans really need Al Sharpton to tell them whom to support in this race?

HELLUVA JOB, BUSHIE.

From The New York Times:

The White House said Thursday that Mr. Gonzales retained President Bush’s “full confidence,” adding that Mr. Bush “was pleased with his testimony.”

Lest we forget: Gonzales, Rumsfeld, "Brownie", Alito, etc. are, in the first and most important instance, the responsibility of George W. Bush.

And ultimately, it should be added, of those who (s)elected him, and who continue to support him.

Sen. Robert Byrd: The President's Veto Threat Does Not Dictate the Law of Our Land

From The Huffington Post:

Members of Congress are elected to make laws based on sound public policy, not to capitulate to presidential threats. The Senate must never become a rubberstamp for any president. Certainly, the Congress should carefully consider the announced reasons for a presidential veto, but the Congress has a duty, if the president's reasons are not credible or do not reflect the will of the people, to overturn presidential vetoes. The vote on the override is a healthy public opportunity for Members of Congress to consider the reasons offered by the president for his veto. Just as the president is held accountable for his veto, Senators are held accountable for their votes on bills that are sent to the president, and, if applicable, a subsequent veto override vote.

So let us hear no more about measures that the president has threatened to veto being not worthy of the Senate's consideration. Let the president issue his veto threats, but also let the Congress dutifully represent the will of the people.

Breaking News on Iraq

Defense Secretary Gates has just mandated extended tours of duty for army soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, on grounds of military necessity.
A similar announcement extending the tour of duty for the Bush-Cheney Administration is expected imminently.
Former NYC Mayor and Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has expressed his understanding and support.
Corresponding time will be taken off the terms of the Congressional leadership.
Other citizens were instructed to take out tax-refund anticipation loans and redouble their shopping activities. Under an Executive Order, malls and big box stores will be required to stay open until midnight.