Politics Bullet Pointz
Monday, May 7, 2007
I’m not sure why it is that Nicolas Sarkozy seems to have been anointed as the front-runner by all the commentary I’ve read, but they were right about dude, as he won a pretty commanding victory, 53% to 47%. I think a lot of the positive coverage has to do with commentary peeps simply being tired of Chirac and his administration’s predictably boring obstinacy. Still, for all the press, I think the following are true:
1. You might see France stop automatically siding vocally with Russia and China at the Security Council like they have in the past few years, but that’s about it for change. Sarko is an admirer of the U.S., but what really is going to be different for French action on the world stage? He’s hardly going to jump into the Iraq debacle now, much less even express support for it. And nobody’s going to risk Bush contamination: hell, America is 68% against the man at this point, much less the French public.
2. Still, Franco-American relations will likely improve, and it’s about time. We need the two nations to come together for the sake of the global Spaghetti-Os community.
I’m also annoyed with everyone tip-toeing around the identity of the rioters. Were they angry Muslim banlieu residents, or were they disaffected left-wing students? Maybe a blend? With French rioting, you really never know, so let’s quit the vagaries and get some 5Ws up in this piece.
- Tony Blair = Lyndon Johnson. Think about it: both rode large waves of popular support for a domestic agenda that had so much promise to shift the political culture of the nation, only to be dragged down by what they saw as strategically and politically necessary involvement in a misguided foreign war when, in reality, a strong stand by either one could have averted the ensuing chaos. Both watched as their efforts slowly crumbled, but each was forced to wear a positive face, even as it was obvious that underneath, each knew just how badly things were going. (This is where the Bush / LBJ parallel ends.) Both left before their time, and ultimately endured a downtrodden exit from the world stage.
Who says history doesn’t mean anything?
- If he cares at all about the developmental mission of the World Bank—that may be debatable—Paul Wolfowitz should step down. What he did wasn’t illegal, but it was certainly in poor judgment for the head of the organization, and it’s causing fallout.
That said, I don’t think Wolfowitz will resign. The Bush people are in full turtling-up mode—see Gonzales taking a beating lately to understand this—, and I think that extends to Wolfowitz as well. Euros, you can offer all the tasty deals you want, but you’re just setting yourself up for yet another public snub, because the real issue here is admission of failure. The last six years have proven that that is just not going to happen with any facet of our executive branch. They’re weathering the storm, but as a result, so is the rest of the world.