Essay on Populism in France and the U.S.

"Populism" has been on the rise in the last few months. Anti-establishment rhetoric has been particularly in vogue with the current economic crisis.
The situations in France and the U.S. may have similarities in that both leaders try to channel people's anger at the financial world - see Sarkozy's extreme rhetoric in Davos and Obama's more moderate attack on bankers in Washington.
But populism in France or the US also take different forms - Sarkozy's burqa issue vs. Obama's budget freeze . Of course, populism is not limited to world leaders - the opposition has been riding the wave of anger using its extreme form to reap political benefits. Besançenot and his New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA), or George Frêche in France and of course Sarah Palin or Tea Party movement in the U.S.
In other words, everyone their own.....

What's much more interesting is how the word "populism" takes on different meanings and connotations in France and the US.
A French magazine rightly wrote this week "In the US, populism is not a dirty word" ("Aux USA, le populisme n'est pas un gros mot"). If anything, the American usage of the term is ambivalent at best whereas in France, and the rest of Europe, it is used only in the demagogic sense. Why is that?

The American exception has to do with its history of course and possibly with a linguistic confusion between "popular" and "populism".
As David Brooks remind his NYT reader, populism has been very popular with the elite, but I disagree with him that the U.S. has been built by anti-populists. For every Hamilton or Lincoln, you also have an Andrew Jackson (nicknamed King Mob for obvious reasons) or a Ronald Reagan.
In fact, I would argue that the United-States was built if not by populists, certainly by populist ideas - the rejection of the establishment of Old Europe, and an anti-intellectual religious fervor wary of contemporary education and continental Enlightenment which was feared to subvert belief and faith.
In the American consciousness, the ideal American has become not a man who thinks, not a man from the ruling class but a common man who is a builder - from the taming of the wild west to today's small business - a man who solely depends on his practical ingenuity and not on his intellectual or academic achievement.
Very tellingly, the Populist Movement of the late 19th century was started by small farmers and at the core of William Jenning Bryan - the famous American populist of the eraly 20th century - was his religious beliefs. Those movements are always doomed to fail but they impact the political culture.
I always argue that reality is less important than perception. A politician viewed as an illiterate incompetent can be elected to the highest office, while those associated with Ivy League Schools and the East Coast establishment can easily lose elections, if they don't downplay their background.

The reason why, contrary to America, "populism" is only used as a negative term in Europe probably also has to do with its history. I would think that the impact of fascism in the 1930s has made the Europeans extremely cautious of "populist" movement. "Populism" is indeed today usually associated in France with extreme right-wing movements such as Poujadism and the National Front.
The French Revolution was different in nature from the American Revolution.It was driven by the intellectual elite of the Enlightenment, and education has been perceived as a liberating force and has since become a tenet of the French Republic. Culturally the French have always looked up to their intellectual elite to make sense of the world around them.
At the same time, and somewhat paradoxically, the French have always had a fascination for strong lpolitical eaders (from Napoleon to De Gaulle or Sarkozy) with quasi-monarchical powers, and for the elite. Indeed French society remains very hierarchical as do businesses. It is also very centralized which makes strong leaders necessary.
The French educational system is also very elitist which is culturally accepted because the ideal is that everyone may eventually become the elite. (This has become one of the Republican Myths). The reality may be very different but the perception is that every French person can have his son or daughter be some day part of the elite (hence the concours to become a civil servants). In other words, in France, you don't so much want to get rid of the elite, as you want to be part of it.

Two Continents, Too Populist.

This week's news from the heart of Europe is yet another example of the rise of political extremism in the West these days.

There is a clear pattern here, it be in Denmark (with the Danish People's Party), in Italy (with the Northern League), in Austria (with the Freedom Party), in Belgium (with the Flemish Block)in Switzerland (with the Swiss People's Party) or even in Sweden and Germany, where Angela Merkel declared the "failure of multiculturalism".

Just like the Tea-Party in the United-States, European right-wing populism is defined not by constructive proposals but by what it is against - immigration and the establishment. Of course, this general movement takes different forms, according to local particularities.
One interesting comparison, (and one I'm familiar to) is between the United-States and France. It is all the more interesting that both national extremist rhetorics claim to make a revolution, albeit a different one, both use the myth of the revolution to give historical credibility to their anti-establishment agenda.

The Establishment.
For the Tea-Party supporters, the establishment is the 'liberal' media and government, whereas for the French would-be revolutionaries, it is the capitalist system (the banks, Wall Street, and "les patrons", i.e. the bosses) and 'Brussels' (i.e. the European Union political elite).

Last week, a French former soccer star called for a new kind of revolution by urging people to withdraw all their money from the banks on Tuesday.

"We must go to the bank. In this case there would be a real revolution. It's not complicated. Instead of going on the streets you simply go to the bank in your country and withdraw your money, and if there are a lot of people withdrawing their money the system collapses." (The Guardian)

Of course, Cantona's call is so ridiculous that it is unlikely to have any impact but it is nonetheless very telling, especially if you consider that the bailout of banks by the Bush and Obama administration is one of the reasons for the rise of the Tea-Party movement.
Another interesting point is that even though Sarkozy himself is very unpopular, there is no anger towards the French government (i.e. l'état) because France has a Jacobinist culture (i.e. with the centralized government seen as a guarantee of égalité, fraternité and even liberté). But there is nonetheless anti-political establishment rhetoric as well, only it is set against the European Union :
According to a recent poll, 50% of the French see the EU with fear rather than hope (compared to 29% in 2003).

'Brussels' is usually accused of being at best "out of touch" and at worst having a hidden agenda. Reminds our American audience of anything?

Anti-immigration.

In both France and the US, anti-immigration is most visible on the right end of the political spectrum. Because of the differences in political culture, it has different shapes in either country - in the U.S. it is mostly seen at the local (towns or counties) or state level (such as Arizona's infamousSB 1070 law) while in France, it is used by national leaders, even the French president (such as with the Roma expulsion last summer) to channel and capitalize on the anger of the white majority. In Europe, it is also fueled by the fear of Islam, while in the U.S. it is the fear of drug-related gang violence, and the abuse of public funds. (although anti-Muslim sentiment is becoming prevalent)

In both cases, the political elite (Washington in one case, and Brussels in the other) is accused by local politicians of not doing enough. In both cases, the rhetoric is anti-illegal immigrants when in fact, it smacks of racism under the disguise of legality.

Of course, this sort of things should probably be expected in an economic crisis like this one, and how much more popular will this anti-establishment xenophobic nationalistic populism be probably depends on how much longer and deeper the hard times will go. The news about American unemployment yesterday does not bode well for the immediate future.

Nationalist Populism in France and the U.S.

One common trend I see these days in both France (or Europe at large) and the U.S. is how politicians use fear and nationalist populism at the expense of freedom for quick political gain and how the media play along to make an extra buck.

In France, it is not only the success of the right-wing 'Front National' (a party which has advocated sending African immigrants back to the continent) in the regional elections, it is also the government itself which has pandered to anti-immigrant sentiment to try to divert attention from problems they can't solve (the economic crisis) and to woo their most extreme right-wing voters. They initiated an unnecessary debate on French identity (which eventually back-lashed) and are now ready to vote a law to ban the full-body veil (which really concerns a mere 2,000 women in the whole country at the most). Meanwhile people are struggling with trying to find a job or making ends meet when they have one, and most worry more about the national debt than about the full-body veil or their national identity.

In the U.S. there seems to be similar tendency towards strong anti illegal immigration. Of course, illegal immigration causes serious problems and the current violence across the border in Mexican cities makes people very nervous, but this does not explain why Arizona Governor Jan Brewer claims her state has been under "terrorist attack" by illegal immigrants:

It blows my mind that the new anti-illegal immigration law was even voted. It requires the police “when practicable” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization. It also allows the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents. And it allows residents to sue cities if they believe the law is not being enforced.

Obviously, there is no way one can spot an illegal immigrant from a regular immigrant or from an American citizen of Hispanic decent - a fact acknowledged by the governor herself, whose discomfort at the question is pretty obvious :

She nonetheless signed the bill - who cares if it's unenforceable. The same could be said about the full veil ban in France.

I am amazed how easily political leaders can do away with constitutional principles. There is a backlash of course and some people will oppose them but it still means that enough people are okay with those laws so that they can be passed. Where is the tea-party movement who claims that there's too much interference of government in their lives? Their silence is evidence of their political bias.

As a side note, it must be added that while in France, you are supposed to carry some form of ID with you, it is also illegal to ask anyone for their identification in the streets without probable cause (see here in French).

Cheesy Political use of Brie.

Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, Tim Pawlently, the outgoing governor of Minnesota politicized cheese and wine:

“When you listen to the elites and the pundits talk about the tea party movement, when they talk about us conservatives, they may not always say it explicitly, but implicit in their comments is, ‘Maybe they’re not as sophisticated because a lot of them didn’t go to the Ivy league schools,’” he said. “'They’re from places like the heartland. They don’t hang out at chablis drinking, brie eating parties in San Francisco. They’re a little rough around the edges. They don’t dress like us. They actually enjoy shopping at Wal-Mart and Target. Sam’s Club Republicans.’”
(The Spectator)

Of course, bashing education and foreign food is one of the traditional tenets of right-wing populism but it seems that Pawlently is a bit behind - like 20 years behind - for now brie and Chablis are both available in Wal-Mart. (granted, not in a very appealing form as you can see and probably tasting different from the original French Brie)
Even conservative commentators thought Pawlently's speech was passé ('Scuse my French) and cheesy!


Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor wrote a great piece on as to what it is about the American right and French cheese :

It was, I believe, the writer of The Simpsons who invented the sobriquet "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" for the French, but it was enthusiastically taken up by Republicans.
Tasty cheese, runny, smelly, even blue, is often used as a symbol of a revoltingly decadent taste, something far from the common people. That's rather the opposite of its image in France where this simple pleasure unites peasants and elite in both connoisseurship and dreams of a common rural idyll
One wouldn't have thought that the robust individuals of the conservative movement would wilt before strong flavours. They don't sneer at BBQ beef or chilli peppers, after all.
I have always suspected it has become a symbol of the alien and the foreign simply out of embarrassment. Americans have many skills, but cheese making doesn't appear among them, as anyone who attempts to chew on rubbery orange cheddar can attest.
But I've just finished reading The Cheese Nun, a chapter in a delightful compendium of food writing from the New Yorker, entitled Secret Ingredients.
It profiles an American nun who became an expert in microbiology to make better cheese. It contends that Americans make fantastic cheese, which - it argues - can only be made like moonshine, in secret, and sold under the counter, because of ridiculously tight food regulations.
A ripe case for small government conservatives, I would have thought. The Tea Party is all very well, but what about the Cheese and Wine Party?

How Special Interests are Killing American Democracy.

Populism may be a threat to democratic systems both in France and in the U.S. but I wonder if the United-States is not under the threat of an even bigger more insidious even greater problem to the American democratic system money spent in political campaign - a problem that has clearly worsened in this campaign for the midterms elections.

Not only is there more money than ever spent by special interest groups on the political campaign (see NBC News or Wash Post), but the identity of the donors can actually remains disclosed as 'nonprofit corporation' -501 (c)4- whose primary purpose is not political can remain anonymous. A first since Watergate!

(The DISCLOSE Act should have been passed by this Congress but of course, it was blocked by Republicans in the Senate, Huffington, The Hill)

Of course, special interests are nothing new in American politics, but these are the first elections since the Supreme Court decided (in Citizens United Vs. FEC) to remove most of the legal limits to special interest spending on political ads in the name of "free speech" in the 1st Amendment, supporting the (crooked) view that corporations are legal persons.

The result is that these is not only that this is the most expensive midterm election in history, but the Democrats are outspent by the Republicans by 3 to 1, according to FEC records (NYTimes) and possibly by 5 to 1, if we are to believe Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (CSMonitor).

In any case, the visible effect is more negative ads with misinformation, distortions and falsehoods. In the front-line is ads funded by the U.S. Chamber and Karl Rove's groups (Wash Post, The Hill).
(Even Forbes Magazine acknowledges that "The Billionaires are Bankrolling the Right".)

Of course, the Democrats may have lose the elections regardless of those ads, and maybe - just maybe - there will be a backlash and people will actually backlash and put public pressure but right now this is not only worrisome, it is also morally wrong and a real threat to democracy.

THIS WEEK: bin Laden, Le Pen, Mother's Day, Climate Change, Game of Thrones and David Barton.

I would like to try a new feature on this blog - smaller comments on more topics. I'll call call it, my Miniposts series. :

THIS WEEK'S MINIPOSTS : 

THE DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN (spelled ben Laden in French!) was definitely the big news this week, and not just in the U.S. It was also all over the news and talk shows in Europe.

My first reaction was relief (and a sense that the demonstrative cheering was too much – making his death look like football victory trivializes the whole thing).

My second reaction was great satisfaction that it happened under President Obama’s leadership because now many of his Republican critics who claimed he was more a “professor-in-chief and not a commander in-chief” (cf. or Sarah Palin or Bill Kristol) ought to be eating their words, even if they won’t. (And yes, Obama was right not to release the picture – conspiracy theorist will still believe it is fabricated anyway.)

The Republicans have pathetically tried to seize the moment by putting torture on a pedestal again and thus claiming that this no Obama’s victory but that it is G. W. Bush’s of course, even though evidence suggests it does not work see the NYTimes or Huffington Post)

This should actually be a great opportunity to pause and reflect on the bin Laden effect, how Osama bin Laden has changed America. The once open and trusting America seems long gone and the new America “keeps looking over its shoulder”, as The Economist puts it. It has become less tolerant, more intrusive and willing to compromise on some of its founding principles. Let’s hope more Americans will reclaim their soul soon. 

UPDATE: Here's another example of the bin Laden Effect! 
UPDATE 2: Good article on a linguistic explanation of why people get OBama and OSama mixed up! 

INTOLERANT FRANCE - Unfortunately, it is not only the US that has become less tolerant. The France of 1998 used her national soccer team that won the World Cup as a potent symbol of integration (nicknamed the "black-blanc-beur", i.e.black-white-Arab squad.), whereas the France of 2011 has its soccer federation discussing capping the number of 12- and 13-year-old black and Arab hopefuls at sports academies to 30%. in a secret recording. A major scandal that's been all over the news France.

An isolated incident of a few bigots?I doubt it.

The far-right National Front Party is so high in the polls since Marine Le Pen changed the National Front into a 'kindler gentler' party (NYTimes) that it may very well repeat its success of the 2002 elections and "secure a place in the run-off at next year’s presidential election." (The Economist). Marine may have put a nicer face on the party but her platform still smacks of xenophobia and nasty populism (based on anti-immigrant feeling,  Euroscepticism, disillusion with the elite). She may prove more dangerous than her father as her ideas are becoming more acceptable. 

It is about time that France admits it too has a problem with race.

MOTHER'S DAY is celebrated today (Second Sunday of May), whereas in France la Fête des Mères is on the last Sunday of May. Interestingly, it started as "a  a pacifist reaction to the carnage of the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War. (Wikipedia). There's plenty irony about this - it became an official holiday in 1914 in the US. and was popularized in France by American WWI soldiers who sent  mail back to their country for Mother's Day  . In France Mother's Day was also popularized by the Vichy government who used it to promote its natalist policy. Since then, it has become widely commercial both in France and the U.S

CLIMATE CHANGE. A record number of Super tornadoes, severe floods, and huge wildfires, in the U.S; record temperatures (with this April the hottest month in 300 years in both Germany and Britain), drought in France (I had not heard of water restriction in April before) and wildfires in Western Europe.... 

I am no scientist and maybe this is just the effect of globalized news, but sill, it is hard to believe that some of that is not related to global warming.

Personally, I find the change in the weather pattern a lot scarier than Osama bin Laden or any Al Qaeda terrorist attack ever was. And I'm just amazed that the news don't report this much more than they do. I am particularly upset at the French media who keep saying how great it is for the tourist industry and ice-cream sellers. It is like driving a car 200 miles an hour to a wall and rejoice about the manufacturer! 

TV SERIES: This is indirectly related to climate change... The new HBO fiction GAME OF THRONES may have had too much hype and the bloody violence and the sex may also be too much dejà vu and unnecessary to the story, but still, it is one of the best shows on TV these days and I love watching it.  

It has plenty to offer : great political intrigue, good psychology, and sleek visual design - not unlike "The Tudors" or "The Bordias". It is sort of a a sexied up version of "Lord of the Rings". One of the most intriguing idea is that seasons in this world seems to last years. ("summers span decades and winters can last a lifetime,) and the characters seem to brace for the coming winter which may last for years. I can't wait to see what it's going to be like.

UPDATE: Apparently Game of Thrones has already produced "a messianic fervor among viewers". Good - it means there will be more seasons to come (HBO has already announced a second season)

STUPID COMMENT OF THE WEEK: By David Barton (the self-taught historian / social conservative activist who wants to turn the US into a theocracy) during a conversation with Jon Stewart on whether the U.S. is a Christian nation :
Jon Stewart : "Through the founders' wisdom we have kept that [Christianity] from becoming a state religion so that their vision of all people created equal could flourish..."
David Barton : "And that's a biblical vision by the way - that all men are created equal. You don't get that from a secular world. France didn't believe that."
Or how to say something incredibly stupid with a lot of authority.
The whole show is definitely worth seeing to understand the minds of conservative evangelical Christians.

French Pension Strikes in U.S. Media.

It is always interesting to see how the media from other countries treat your domestic news.

The other night Brian Williams mentioned the strikes and protests in France and said "the issue here, a plan to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62".

Then the reporter in France showed youth setting up blockades, clashing with riot police and burning cars, and then strikers and protesters.

A note of clarity for our American readers: Whatever one might think of the reform, it is not as simple as Brian Williams might lead you to think.

Yes, retirement age will raise from 60 to 62, but so will the years of social security contributions (called "cotisations") from 40.5 years to 41.5 years (and eventually at 42), and the pension age at which you can have full benefit (which is 50% of your average wages in the private sector, and 75% in the public sector) will go from 65 to 67; otherwise, there will be deductions (called "décotes").

In other words, if you start working late (say at about 25), you won't be able to retire with your full pension before 67.This will also be the case in other countries such as Germany which has a similar system, but the change will be more gradual and it is only in 2029 that the Germans will have to be 67 for full benefit (70% of the average net income).

This may not seem like a big deal to Americans, (you can probably detect Brian William's smirk) but it is in France simply because it is a major change fairly quickly. It is true that the French have been pampered and maybe even spoiled, but it is always harder to go from good to worse, even if worse is better than in many other countries.

Now another quick note on the youth violence. Yes, there is some violence but it is limited to a few areas and has only happened in the last few days. It may look very impressive but it is also part of the French myth about the Revolution and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, the French have a very romantic view of anything resembling a revolution, and my theory is that actually love re-enacting it every so often. It gives them a sense of empowerment.

That being said, it shows a typically French confusion between la rue (the street) and le Peuple (the people), as Arthur Goldhammer rightly puts it.

But if the youths take the streets, it is not really (despite what they may claim) because of the pension reform but rather because of all sorts of anxieties from high unemployment to growing tensions with the police (particularly in low-income areas), often accused of overreaching and in some cases, sheer racism. So anything can pretty much spark a fire, and unfortunately the Sarkozy government has done nothing to help.

One last note of a more political nature. Strangely enough, I find some commonality between the French left and the American right (hijacked by the so-called 'Tea-Party' movement) these days.
In both cases, there is a lot of anger, the threat that the street should take over the government, that the "real "people are angry (as opposed to anyone else, who is either not 'real 'or not 'people' enough) and even more remarkably, both question the legitimacy of the government, as if being voted was not good enough. In fact, it is a denial of letting the other side win.
This is not only populism it is also a clear undermining of the very basis of our democratic systems. This is no surprise, as once again, extremes often meet.
It is just unfortunate that politicians add fuel to the fire for their own political agenda, it be Sarah Palin's or Segolène Royal's.

NOTE: Last night, the NBC Evening News chose once again to show only the violence of the youth. I suppose the pictures are impressive enough but it is unfortunate that they do not underline that this is only a partial (and somewhat biased) view of what is going.

The Politics of Fear.

Should I feel ashamed of my country because my government does shameful things?

That's a question that both French and Americans can ask at different times. G. W. Bush gave a bad name to the U.S. just like Sarkozy is giving a bad name to France these days:

Following a riot of a few "Gypsies" against French gendarmes in the south of France, French president Nicolas Sarkozy decided not only to "severely punish" the rioters but also to expel all the (illegal) Romani gypsies from France.
The French government gave assurances that no ethnic group was singled out - which would be illegal under European law and a breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But a leaked instruction from the Interior Minister to the Police showed that the "Romani" were indeed actually specifically targeted.
So it appears that France has actually violated a document which (oh the irony....!)President Nicolas Sarkozy pressured others (like Ireland or Poland) to sign up to the Lisbon treaty.
Faced with a wave of criticisms in Europe - which may even take the form of legal action against France by the European Commission - France's official position has remained defiant, thanks to Sarkozy's inflated ego. Condemnation was not limited to Europe, it went from the Pope to the United Nations, and marches against "hate and xenophobia" were organized throughout France (here).
The French president did not back down and his quick temper even turned the summit meeting of E.U. leaders that followed into a circus of mud-slinging and division.
This comes in a context of a French president weakened by one of the lowest presidential approval rates in the last 50 years - a mere 32% (not even close to Obama's at 42%) so he has been trying to revive his popularity by cracking down on crime and illegal immigrants which made him popular with his electorate in the past.

The interesting point is that just like the American right these days (i.e. the Tea Party), the French government has been using fear to regain popularity and votes. This politics of fear is nothing new but with it seems to be working really well with older white folks.
In the last few months, French Minister of the Interior Brice Hortefeux who smacks of racism has been keen on playing this dirty trick, blaming the immigrants, the Romani (and confusing Romanians with Romanis) or even the Judges (here) when new figures show the Sarkozy's crackdown on crime doesn't work (it has doubled in the last decade).

“Nationality should be stripped from anyone of foreign origin who deliberately endangers the life of a police officer, a soldier or a gendarme, or anyone else holding public office. We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of insufficiently regulated immigration which has led to a failure of integration,” said Sarkozy.

In addition, this government has been making all sorts of populist moves as attempts at diverting the French from recent political scandals and a bad economy. Examples abound : the ban on the full Muslim veil, the two-year jail sentences for the parents of minors convicted of crime, an unnecessary debate over national identity (with the implied idea that foreigners may be a threat to the French identity) a number of tough security laws, including laws to restrict the Internet (called Loppsi 2 which may potentially undermine freedom of expression), and the alleged attempt to stifle freedom of the press.

While comparing France's removal of Romani the plight of Gypsies during WWII and France to a fascist state is ridiculous.

Yes, like most French people I am sensitive to France's image in the world because it has repercussions on me when I travel or when I meet foreigners and no one likes to be given a bad name, but more importantly, there is a question of collective responsibility as I am associated with Sarkozy even if I didn't vote for him, but what can a citizen do? Vote him out, I guess, but takes another election... and the agreement of a few other million people.

As much as I may disagree with the right over the economy, there is room for discussion (I also disagree with the left), but what is unforgivable and non-negotiable is the tactic of fear and populism to get elected. Unfortunately, it seems that this is something very easy to do these days that the right both in France and in the U.S. is very good at. That tactic may take different forms, but it is basically the same strategy. Not only is it a morally wrong, it is also dangerous. One the best is out and has been fed, there may be no way to control it!

On Why Roads are Worse in the US than in Europe.

This summer, while in the United-States I did something I hardly ever do: I biked. I’m always biking in Europe but never in the United-States, but since I was in a small town in America’s heartland, I decided to give it a try.  Duluth, MN is not such a fun place for biking because it is so hilly.

But what bothered me the most was not that terrain but the pavement quality. Biking is a great way to have a better sense of the quality of the road pavement and it was a great reminder of something I’ve experienced over the years – that roads are in worse shape in the United States than in France or even Europe. Only you feel it more on your bike (and in your butt) than when you’re driving. And it can even get dangerous when you are taking speed downhill, especially if you can’t see the crevices because of bad public lighting (but that’s a whole new topic I’m not even going to get into).  

And for once, the regional differences in the US do not really matter, whether on the west or the east coast, in the north, in the south or in the middle, it is all pretty bad and certainly worse than in Western Europe. I have always wondered why that was.

Whenever I asked, people would tell me it was because of more extreme weather (in the Midwest) or earthquakes (in California). For some reason I was not entirely satisfied with those answers. If I can see why earthquakes may affect the road, and California may have more of them than anywhere in Western Europe; the weather excuse did not seem to be enough. After all, the French Alps can get very hot and very cold, yet the roads there are still in better shape.

Then I was reminded of an article I read a few months ago in the Economist : it showed that American traffic congestion is worse than western Europe’s and that the road fatality rate is 60% above the OECD average, but even more interestingly, it also showed that “total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure”.

There is no secret: it is a question of how much money you’re ready to put in infrastructure, and it is also about whether you want a quick fix or long term investment. Americans spend more money building new roads but less maintaining them.

By doing a little bit more research, I found out that the building material used for roads also make a huge difference. According to this professional site:

European pavement construction stresses high-quality design, material, and construction, in contrast to the U.S. objectives of lower first cost and shorter construction time.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

France, like the rest of Europe, has over the past few decades made a concerted effort to build roads with an eye to the long haul-to spend early to avoid spending more later. 
They mix their asphalt with additives-rubber, carbon, polyethylene-to a far greater extent than Americans do. And they make wide use of new technologies like Novophalt, a polymer-modified asphalt binder that gives cement more flexibility and thus increases the pavement's service life. Novophalt, which Europeans began using enthusiastically in 1976, costs between 4 and 8 percent more than traditional asphalt, but it lengthens the pavement's life between 50-100 percent. Does this daring approach work? Don't take our word for it. 
Last year, visitors to Europe from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reported, "The extreme forms of distress that are evident in many parts of the United States-rutting, raveling, cracking, and potholes-were, simply, rarely seen.". (article here)

(Here’s a more technical report on the warm-mixed asphalt used in Europe if you’re interested in details.)

Not only do European countries invest more of their public money, but also “get the private sector to carry part of the weight”. More importantly, stricter regulations are enforced: “contractors in virtually all European countries must guarantee their work for up to five years after completion. When they screw it up, they fix it up-a concept positively foreign to the builders of American roads”.

The best contractor is not always the cheapest one, but unfortunately, to get U.S. federal money to build new roads, a state must by law choose the lowest bidder.

This road pavement issue is significant beyond the topic of infrastructure. It shows what is wrong with politics in America – a reliance on cheap quick ‘popular’ solutions and a lack of vision and guts of its political leaders. Unfortunately, as the debt ceiling debate has recently shown, the rise of populism is only going to make the situation worse. It is not any time soon that warm-mixed asphalt will be used in the US. If anything, you can only expect American roads to get worse since no investment in in infrastructure seems to be in the air these days. 

Ordinary Heroes in SOTU Addresses.

Heroes have always played a central role in American culture, starting with the pioneer, or the cowboy of the Frontier, extending to national political heroic figures like the Founding Fathers, George Washington (like in this statue of Washington as Zeus in the National Museum of American History) or Abraham Lincoln.
If the Greek hero was a demigod with both extraordinary powers and human flaws (think of Hercules, Perseus, or Achilles), a bit like today's fictitious Superheroes, the American hero is typically an ordinary person who distinguishes himself or herself not by his powers but by his or her character.
One of the roles of national leaders is to honor national heroes, and this is not specifically American. Plato and Thomas Hobbes already noted that one of the functions of republics was to reward those who serve them and are conductive to good citizenship.
American presidents have thus always referred to heroes from the nation's past, including their predecessors. U.S. presidents have also liked to project themselves as "hero-presidents", from Andrew Jackson to Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and G. W Bush (as when he landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln aboard an S-3B Viking jet, emerged from the aircraft in full flight gear before announcing "Mission Accomplished)... to name the most obvious ones.

But not everyone can be a George Washington, an Abraham Lincoln a Martin Luther King, or even a George W Bush. This is something that Ronald Reagan understood well when he broke the tradition of just naming heroes of the past and started introducing ordinary citizens in his speeches to Congress.
This began in his State of the Union address in 1982, when he named, Lenny Skulnik, a Federal Government employee who dove into the icy Potomac River after the crash of a plane to save a woman. According to Reagan, this ordinary citizen embodied "the spirit of American heroism at its finest." One of the goals was to democratize heroes, and the president made it very clear:

We don't have to turn to our history books for heroes. They're all around us. 

It was such a defining moment that every other president has continued and extended this tradition ever since, and the term "Lenny Skutniks" has been used to refer to individuals invited to sit in the gallery, and often cited by the President, during the speech

Barack Obama's state of the Union two weeks ago was no exception. In fact, it may have been the only rhetorically and emotionally powerful bit of his speech, in what was otherwise a more substantive than poetic address. At this point, two questions may arise: What sort of heroes do these citizens represent? And, if we assume that the mention of individuals serves a rhetorical and political function what political role do they play?

UNSUNG HEROES
Initially, when Reagan cited Skutnik, there did not seem to be much more political meaning other emphasizing individual moral responsibility. Skunik belongs to the "rescuer" type of heroes, if we consider Professor of Political Science Gerald Pomper's typology of heroes (in Ordinary Heroes and American Democracy).
This citation is meant to be uplifting by associating ordinary citizens (and thus the entire nation) to extraordinary deeds as well as giving a role model of good citizenship. As a result, even the most common person in menial occupations can become heroes.
This is what Reagan said in his 1984 SOTU:

 And then there are unsung heroes: single parents, couples, church and civic volunteers. Their hearts carry without complaint the pains of family and community problems. They soothe our sorrow, heal our wounds, calm our fears, and share our joy.

Eventually, Reagan's heroes evolved into other types, such as the 'champions over adversity', especially the "entrepreneurs who had pulled themselves up through their own enterprise or who carried out projects on behalf of the poor or downtrodden that governments might otherwise have to shoulder."
(See Vile, John; Presidents as Commenders in Chief- Recognitions of Citizen Heroes from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush, Congress & the Presidency, Vol. 34, N°1, spring 2007), who are also the champions over adversity types.

This enabled Reagan to recognize successful minorities and immigrants, while illustrating the great opportunities of American capitalism, making government help seem unnecessary.

HUMAN FACES ON POLICIES
The practice of naming ordinary Americans in state of the Union addresses continued with G. H Bush and began to include war heroes that fit the category of "martyrs", giving a moral and emotional accent to the rational of the wars in Panama and Iraq.
In 1993 for instance, G. H Bush quoted the widow of a war heroes who died in Iraq, as saying that she would one day be able to tell her children "that their father went away to war because it was the right thing to do."
But it is Bill Clinton who used this rhetorical device the most. He cited more ordinary Americans in his speeches than any other president and went even further than his predecessors in making direct connection between them and his policies - particularly his welfare reforms ("the real heroes of the welfare revolution") or gun control bills.
In 1996, president Clinton mentioned a federal worker, Richard Dean, who had saved people after the Oklahoma City bombing, but had been subsequently forced out of his office when the Government shut down, as a way to blame the Republicans:

On behalf of Richard Dean and his family, and all the other people who are out there working every day doing a good job for the American people, I challenge all of you in this Chamber: Let's never, ever shut the Federal Government down again. (Bill Clinton, SOTU, 1996)

The mention of a number of minorities may have helped him with the Hispanic or Asian communities but it also put a human face to a number of reforms. What better face than Rosa Parks, the "perfect activist" in Clinton's own words to get support for his "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" and his "Hate Crimes Prevention Act,”?

Just like some of Clinton, G W Bush used ordinary Americans to illustrate his political agenda, starting with his tax-cuts or faith-based initiatives. But following 9/11, and the subsequent wars, G. W Bush mentioned more war heroes and martyrs than other presidents. Like all national war heroes those martyrs illustrated "the honor of serving and dying for (their) country", thus giving legitimacy to the war, but their sacrifice took more universal significance, as they died for freedom itself:

Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sgt. Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood. (G.W Bush, 2005).

BUSINESS AS THE TRUE HERO

Similarly, Barack Obama linked his 'heroes' to his policies regarding the economy, green energy, healthcare, or more recently, to voting reform and gun control. He also chose heroes who emphasize his narrative on the American Dream, especially in the context of the economic crisis. Somewhat unexpectedly for a Democrat, the true hero of the story can be the business itself:

a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant."

In this case, the "single mom" is a "champion over adversity" but the company (Siemens) is also heroic as it is the actual rescuer. In a similar fashion, a private company is literally the true hero of this story:

Center Rock manufactured the drill bits and other equipment used to find and rescue 33 trapped Chilean miners in October 2010. (Obama, SOTU, 2011)

REPUBLICAN VS. DEMOCRATIC HEROES?
The only major differences between democratic and republican presidents - for as much as our 30-year sample is of any significance - stems from their political agenda and their view of government, with greater emphasis of Clinton and Obama on the positive role of government and on communities, whereas Bush I & II were more strictly interested in individual successes, with more mention of war heroes in the case of G. W Bush, linked to the war on terror.

CONCLUSION

By looking at the different types of heroes cited in State of the Union addresses in the last 30 years, we can make a few other observations:

• Citing an ordinary American as a role model for his or her action, or his moral qualities has been on the increase, with a peak in the Clinton years, and has become a requirement.
• These heroes are carefully chosen to illustrate a policy and are highly dependent on the political context. 
• They serve different functions: 
• they put a human face on policies that may be complicated to explain,
• they reinforce the belief in the exceptionalism of the nation, 
• they make citizens feel good about themselves by proxy and association, 
• they legitimate the actions of the president, 
• they make heroism more democratic, including minorities that were not part of the classical all-male, all-white pantheon of American heroes. 

On the other hand, flattering "the people", and using basic emotions instead of relational arguments seem more like populism. Another potential problem is that the very mention of too many heroic figures linked to policies may be counterproductive by making them look banal or insincere. If anyone can be a hero, then heroes lose their meaning. If the ordinary citizens-as-heroes are to be credible, they will have to be farther and fewer between, and their link to policies will have to be more subtle.