'The Rumble 2012': The Other Presidential Debate.

A good and fun way to learn about American politics and the ideological cleavage between Republicans and Democrats, but also between Europeans and Americans is to watch last week-end's debate between Bill O'Reilly, and Jon Stewart, two major influential figures of cable television.

"The Rumble in the Air-conditioned Auditorium" was not only a fun joust, éas the name suggests, it was also an exchange of substance. At the core of the political divide is the role of government, which happens to be a central difference between France and the United States, and also more generally between Europeans and Americans. 
 (A reminder to our European audience: 'government' in the United states is usually understood loosely and often includes local forms of government, and it is not just L'Etat). 

The right (O'Reilly) thinks for instance that government spending should go mostly to military and national defense, whereas the left (Stewart) thinks it should, for instance also go to health care and social programs. No wonder why Europeans tend to feel closer to the Democrats, especially if you consider the healthcare question which probably holds the greater consensus across the board in Western Europe. 

O'Reilly uses two main arguments traditionally held by American conservatives:

- the first is the 'efficiency argument': that government is bad at running most things, (except for defense and the military) and the private sector (like private insurances) will do a better job at it, thanks to competition. 

The problem with this argument is that health is not a mere product you can do without. A system based on profit implies that only those who are profitable will be covered. If, as O'Reilly suggests, government should impose mandates on not being able to deny people coverage (which most conservatives do not agree to do), then premiums and cost will soar even more. 
 Despite O'Reilly's poor experience with the National Healthcare system in Britain, statistics show that  countries with socialized medicine in Europe do better than the United States, both in terms of cost and  life expectancy (see figures here). (It would be nice if O'Reilly confronted his own personal experience to larger numbers so he'd get a real picture of the whole situation). 
More importantly, even conservatives in Britain support socialized medicine which shows that the system must not be so bad after all. 

The mainstream of the British Conservative party supports a model in which health and other services are funded by taxation, even if they inveigh against “dependency culture” and bemoan inefficiences and unfairnesses.  (Time)

And in case, things might not be clear enough, here's what Conservative Prime Minister Cameron said:

“This is the party of the NHS [Britain's free-at-the-point-of-delivery National Health Service] and that’s the way it’s going to stay,” (Time)

-the second argument is 'the moral argument': government spending creates an entitlement nation and encourages laziness.
This may ring true when you look at Western Europeans (and the French in particular have developed a great sense of being entitled to certain rights, as you can see in their many demonstrations). But, as Jon Stewart pointed out, the United States may very well be an entitlement nation in its own way:
"We are a people that went to another country, saw other people on it and said 'Yeah, we want that'". 
And of course, this even truer when you think of Social Security,  Medicare or the bailout of Wall Street during the recent financial crash.
(I would ad that the way U.S. foreign policy has been conducted in the Latin America or in the Middle East for instance furthers this impression outside the United States that Americans have a strong sense of entitlement.).
The best counter-argument came from Stewart when he said: 
“Why is it that if you take advantage of a tax break, you’re a smart businessman, but if you take advantage of something you need to not go hungry, you’re a moocher?”
No wonder this got him the biggest applause of the evening. 

What is interesting is that while most Americans seem in agreement with the conservatives' rhetoric of "less government "and "less taxation" in principle, it becomes another story when it takes a concrete form. I have always been bewildered by people who are against government and yet want to benefit from Medicare, but the contradiction seems to escape them.
One person's right, is another person's entitlement, I suppose. 
It would be nice though if the Republicans remembered one of the great assets of the American character: pragmatism. Look at what works and do it. The Darwinian principle of 'survival of the fittest' on which competition is based is fine when it comes to your smart phone or cable TV but  not so much when it comes to life and death. We are not wild animals. 

And if you start opening up to what happens in the rest of the world, you'll see this is an area where the United States can learn from other countries. It takes a bit of humility and a slight bent to American Exceptionalism but it is worth it. 

Jon Stewart is right: not only is O'Reilly"completely full of shit", but that he is even "the mayor of Bullshit Mountain,” an “alternate universe” in which history’s greatest villain is Bill Moyers and Big Bird the biggest moocher of all. 

That being said, I must say that, even though I disagree with just about anything Bill O'Reilly may say, I have a growing respect for him for at least debating with Jon Stewart and engaging him, which he has done repeatedly in the last few years. It is good to see that two people on two sides of the ideological spectrum can hold a (more or less) normal conversation. 

American Civility vs. French Lack-thereof.

From looking at the presidential political campaign outside the United States one might be under the impression not only that the country is highly divided and even that it is almost on the verge of community breakdown. Then if you add the news-clips showing gun violence, religious extremism and offensive rhetoric, you may have a pretty negative picture of American society today possibly re-inforced by the magnifying effect of the the Internet and short Youtube videos that go viral.

This, however, is very far from the reality of day-to-day life of ordinary Americans.

One common reaction of many French people when they first visit the United States is how incredibly kind, smily and courteous Americans are towards them. It is so unusual to the French that they may even find it a little suspicious and wonder if there must be some ulterior motives (and they sometimes point to service jobs where people's smile may be proportionate to the expected tip, or to the abuse of the term "friend" for someone you just met).
They may be some hypocrites of course - there always are - but it is true that essentially Americans are a very generous and helpful people.

In this week's Economist, Lexington also found that civility in the United States endures:

To a visitor, America remains a strikingly courteous place, where strangers may expect to be helped and asked for help, and good manners are prized. Neighbourhoods remain neighbourly. 

This is right. Even in the midst of political tensions between France and the U.S. governments over the war in Iraq in 2003, I, as a French person, have always felt as welcome as ever and was never treated differently - I never saw "freedom fries" outside the House of Representatives cafeteria.

Statistics (see here) also seem to indicate that Americans have on of the highest levels of pro-social behaviors of all OECD countries, almost twice as much as the French (who are below OECD average). Here pro-social behavior is measured by whether the respondent has volunteered time, donated money to a charity and helped a stranger in the last month. It is hard to drawn any definite conclusion from these statistics as to why there is a such a gap between the French and the Americans, but one can make hypotheses:

In France people are more likely to rely on the government when it comes to helping the needy, which in turn makes it more acceptable to pay higher taxes, whereas in the United States, charity is more the job of private individuals. (And by the way, the major role of the State in France has nothing to do with socialism, as it is often misunderstood by Americans. It dates back way before socialism was even an idea - to at least the 17th century and Louis XIV notably when the French State unified the country around certain cultural and linguistic norms, which became the model eventually followed by the French  Republic.)

As far as helping strangers, the Economist had another suggestion for American civility:

In a big and mobile country, being a stranger is common: feeling able to trust other strangers is an economic and civic boon.

This could not be more different from the French may be the least mobile people in Europe. France is the only country that never had massive waves of emigration to North America, not even to Canada, which was founded by a relative small amount of people. This may be because the French culture grew out of rural communities whose basic unit was traditionally held by the family.

It may also be that Americans can differentiate politics from the people they meet but also that Americans tend to be less political than the French who always love a good heated debate. In my experience Americans like to keep their political views more private than the French. Moerover, a  lot of Americans may be more immune to political differences because they have tended to cluster in communities of sameness, with people with similar political beliefs (see for instance, The Big Sort, by Bill Bishop).

Whatever the explanation, it remains that social relations in America are extremely pleasant and relaxed, and one can only wish for a little more civility in the rest of the world, and particularly in France. In the end, this may be the main reason why I always need to recharge my batteries and come to the U.S. after a few months in France.

Ideology in the U.S. Presidential Campaign.

What makes gaffes interesting in politics is that that they usually happen in those too rare moments of unscripted and uncontrolled communication by a politician. As such, they are refreshing but they also reveal plenty, not only about the teller of the gaffe but also about his opponent, and more importantly about what they perceive their voters want to hear.

Let's take President Obama's "you didn't build that" gaffe. Obama wanted to make the point that no one succeeds in modern society without the help of other people, or infrastructures, but he put it very poorly:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Here of course, the problem is first and foremost grammatical: "THAT" instead of "THOSE" which stand for "roads and bridges" but it can have dire consequences in a presidential campaign, and sure enough, the other side took advantage of it.

Jon Stewart had a good take on it:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Clearly, deep down, Romney agrees with what Obama meant to say. As Jon Stewart pointed out: he pretty much said the same thing about athletes at the Olympic Games.

Beyond the hypocrisy of using a sentence out of context, the whole controversy reveals plenty about American values, and American politics.

INDIVIDUALISM
As Michael Foley has shown in his excellent book American Credo: The Place of Ideas in American Politics, Americans tend to see failure or success in highly personalized terms. Just like American heroes, (the self-reliant pioneer, the lonesome cowboy, the outlaw, the super-hero, the crusading lawyer, etc), American entrepreneurs are seen as heroic individuals engaged in individualized projects. As a result, in the United States succes or failure is  assigned to the person rather than to the structure or conditions, contrary to Europe. Hence the importance of personal virtue for political leaders, especially for the commander-in-chief.
This is also why there is greater tolerance for extreme poverty and extrem wealth, and for economic 'inequality' in the U.S. than in Europe. In France in particular, the word "individualism" tends to carry negative connotations akin to selfishness.

That being said, the pendulum swings even more towards individualism for conservatives than for liberals. In this respect, president Obama has a typical liberal view that stresses the importance of the community, (and this is not surprising, after all Obama used to be a community organizer) whereas Republicans give primacy to the individual and the protection of personal liberties.

FREEDOM
Associated with individualism is of core the core notion of 'freedom' which lies at the heart of American identity, but here too, the meaning attributed to the concept in policies and politics varies in Democratic or Republican circles.

Generally speaking the word 'government' and 'Washington' are viewed negatively.

But it gets even more complicated when you realize that the same voters respond differently to the ideological appeal of 'freedom' and to the policy consequences of less government. The same people may want smaller government but better government services, less taxation but better infrastructures (roads, bridges, water pipes, power grid, etc...), or they may be set against healthcare may but praise Medicare and Medicaid.
This is akin to a schizoid split between abstract ideology and concrete operational use.

IDEOLOGY
And sometimes when a presidential candidate is trying so hard to embody ideology that he changes reality to fit his ideology.
The irony of Mitt Romney praising free enterprise for the economic success of Poland Vs. the "false promise of a government-dominated economy" has not escaped the Europeans who know - apparently better than he does - how E.U. subsidies have helped the Polish economy grow substantially:

In the EU’s 2007-2013 budget, the subsidies for Poland amounted to nearly EUR 68 bln, the highest sum among the EU funding beneficiaries. (source here)

And we're not even talking about the fact that total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP was about 44 percent last year — compared to 41 percent in the United States. (CBS)

Then, when during his stop in Israel, Romney also praised the Israeli economy while people there set themselves on fire in a desperate action of protest against their harsh economic situation. (CNN, ENews).
And it gets teven better when, he lauded the Israeli health care system, which is managed care, universal coverage, and has even more government control than the Obama health law Romney so strenuously faults. (Boston Globe). In effect, he's endorsed President Obama.

Well, Mitt Romney is probably smart enough to know all that, and this all tactical politics.

After all, what do most (conservative) Americans know about Poland, Israel or the Olympic Games for that matter. This message is for them and nobody cares as long as the message reinforces pre-conceived ideas about values and principles. And who cares if the conservative ideology has no applicability, the only thing that matters is to get to the highest office, then you'll deal with issues when they get there. 

This may be why Romney has be so evasive about his program and concrete ideas.

What American fiction Says About America: The Newsroom.

One of the most powerful elements of American fiction is its ability to deal with current social and political issues.

For obvious reasons, TV series prove particularly reactive to the news and a great medium to reflect the talk and anxieties of the nation. Think of police procedural crime dramas like Law and Order, (read my posts here and here), or even sci-fi series like Galactica or V, or of course political shows like Aaron Sorkin's highly praised The West Wing. 
Now Sorkin has a new show on cable television called The Newsroom, and after watching the first 3 episodes, I am amazed at  how much he has furthered his ability to use fiction to talk about important yet controversial issues in the United States. 

The Newsroom is about a fictional  cable news network (Atlantis Cable News, ACN) and its news program  "News Night", whose anchorman Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) and staff decide to transform by prioritizing the truth over ratings. 

Charlie, (Sam Waterston) who heads the news division, declares that he wants "news for the center. ... We don't pretend that certain facts are in dispute [just] to give the appearance of ‘fairness' to people who don't believe them. ‘Balance' is irrelevant to me. It doesn't have anything to do with truth, logic, or reality." (source)

The words "fair" and "balance" are clearly a direct hit at Foxnews (which is anything bu, as Jon Stewart has shown many times). 

As you might expect given the pitch, it is a show about journalism, corporate power and politics. But what is most impressive is its mix of fiction and reality, including the criticism of actual politicians. 


The last episode (Episode 3, "The 112th Congress") is particularly amazing - it is supposed to take place during the 2010 mid-term elections. Will McAvoy who claims to be a Republican, wants to take on the Tea Party for driving his old-time party to the right. He tells his boss, Charlie that he initially understood the initial impulse of the Tea Party as a grass root movement but that it's been co-opted by corporate interests, specifically the Koch brothers. 
This is interesting because the Koch Brothers are REAL very powerful American industrialists who are also political activists. They have been financing the Tea Party and right wing issues through organisations such as Freedomworks, or Americans For Prosperity (see my posts here or read this NYTimes article) and have influence up to the Supreme Court. 
It goes even further by portraying the owner of the cable news network that broadcasts News Night, Leona Lansing, threatening to fire Will for going after the Koch brothers. It is not that she cares about ratings because the cable channel accounts for less than 3% of her corporation’s profits, but rather it was her other business ventures, unnamed, that were potentially in peril."  I have business before this Congress,”, she ends up saying (source). 

The irony is that Leona Lansing is (very convincingly) played by Jane Fonda, who is known for her liberal views,(she is continuously called 'Hanoi Jane' by FoxNews) but also the former wife of CNN founder Ted Turner. 

Clearly the show has it flaws: it has been (probably rightfully) criticized for its somewhat sexist depiction of its female characters (here and here), for being too preachy (which it is) and unrealistic (which remains to be proven... but who cares... this is fiction after all!) (here), or for its middl-school soap opera tone at times (which is true - and annoying-  but not unlike many American shows). It also smacks of nostalgia, (especially in Episode 1), as if the time of Edward R. Murrow ever was this perfect time when the United States was "the greatest nation" on earth.

Despite its flaws, the show works for me because it has balls and tackles current issues heads on. It is precisely what makes American fiction far superior to any other. No other country in the world, not even in Europe, and certainly not in France would have the guts to use reality in fiction to such an extreme. even though Senator Mike Lee has taken on HBO over the newsroom allegation, it gives me hope that freedom of expression is not dead in the United States.
After all, whether you agree with its political bias, which is clearly to the left, (and granted that most conservatives must be turned off after episode 3), this show has the potential to make people think about the broken state of media and politics, and its incestuous relationship in today's America. In fact, it is not about a news channel, it is about America itself.

The Significance of President Obama's Metaphors in His State of the Union 2012.

A State of the Union address is often about urging Congress to pass proposed legislation, but in the last year of a presidential term, it is naturally mostly about building a case for re-election, especially when facing an opposition-controlled Congress.

Because this is the only presidential speech required by the constitution, the State of the Union Address is formal and ritualistic, and as its name suggests, it also aims at reinforcing unity through the celebrations of national identity, community and values. As such it is an interesting object for anyone interested in studying American identity in political discourse.

Research shows that one of the greatest linguistic tools of political persuasion is the metaphor (Charteris-Black, Lakoff, Lakoff & Johnson). By transferring meaning from a complex domain of politics to a simpler one, the metaphor enables the politician to exploit an existing shared system of beliefs and values in order to advance a particular policy (Beasley). Thus studying metaphors in American political discourse should tell us more about the way Americans view themselves and the world.

Last week, President Obama laid down some of his basic themes for his campaign. He presented himself as a strong commander-in-chief, a unifier, and a defender of American prosperity for all, at the core of which is what could be called his fairness doctrine.

In order to persuade his audience, the President used four essential metaphors:

1. The War metaphor ('the Army is the Nation'),
2. The Construction or Building metaphor ('the Economy/The Nation is a Building'),
3. The Game metaphor ('Life is a Game'),
4. The Journey metaphor ('Life is a Journey').

These metaphors illustrate very well the speech’s main themes:  the need for unity, the need for regulation and the existence of a strong national leader.

The choice of those particular metaphors are meaningful as they are meant to establish common ground with the voting public by referring to familiar domains of personal experience and social activity only relevant in an American context.


THE WAR METAPHOR
As Jon Stewart noted, President Obama introduced his speech by praising the troops and claiming victory over bin Laden and al Qaeda. It is a classic tale of heroes (“this generation of heroes ; heroes returned home from combat”) winning over villains (“bin Laden; Al Qaida's top lieutenants”).

But contrary to his predecessor, Obama did not dwell on the evil nature of the enemy but rather on the heroic nature of the troops who symbolize the American values of courage, selflessness, and teamwork. As always with the American hero, it is the hero’s character that makes him or her a hero, not his powerful tools.

The troops are role models and the president makes this very clear (“Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.”). At the end of his speech, he compares America with the SEALs who captured bin Laden.

This is of course a powerful metaphor for illustrating the need for unity and collaborative effort. It also emphasizes the role of the president as a strong and decisive commander-in-chief and is likely to appeal to more conservative Americans.

As Lexington noted in the Economist this week: “This is the fantasy of many a president. They deploy untold power and enjoy total obedience as commanders-in-chief, but in the civilian domain are checked and balanced at every turn by a fractious polity.”.
In other words, it negates the democratic nature of the nation as America's Armed Forces are presented as a substitute for the democratic institutions (“At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down”.). The anti-democratic natureof the American superheroic tale is something worth exploiting (see Jewett).

This war metaphor also shows that the rhetoric violence in discourse is something Americans are probably familiar and comfortable with and if the president uses it as a tool of persuasion, it is because it is viewed positively by a large part of the audience (“from the blows we've dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.”). Combat is even seen as a right for citizenship for illegal aliens (“the chance to earn their citizenship.”).

Finally, the war metaphor evokes an underlying religious discourse of American Exceptionalism (“The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe.”), thanks also to the ambiguity of the word “mission” (“in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard”) which carries a religious connotation.


THE CONSTRUCTION METAPHOR is another metaphor prevalent throughout the president’s speech.  The words ‘build’, ‘built’, or ‘building’ are used 20 times and refer either to the economy  (“lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last”, “an economy built to last”) or to the nation itself (“So much of America needs to be rebuilt.”, “That's an America built to last”). The construction metaphor is quite common in American political discourse (Charteris-Black): it emphasizes an essential theme of American mythology of creation (Marienstras) as it is related to the Frontier myth of building a civilisation out of the wilderness.

Just like the war metaphor, it is also a great way to illustrate the need for collaborative work – building requires a team of hard working people led by an architect (the president) who lays out the blueprint. Obama makes it abundantly clear: “No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together.”. It can also be opposed to bad constructions: “the house of cards (that) collapsed.” or to Washington that is “broken”.

Finally, the ‘blueprint’ used for construction means you also need to follow certain rules and have a plan.


The GAME METAPHOR also implies some form of collaboration - you usually play with other people – but it is even more useful to illustrate positively the need for rules, or, in economic terms, ‘regulations’.
This metaphor allows for the presentation of a moral dichotomy between discriminatory rules (“Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules.”) and common rules (“everyone plays by the same set of rules”.), or between ‘good bets’ when “We bet on American workers (…) on American ingenuity.” and ‘bad bets’ when banks “make huge (….) risky bets”. But risk can also be good when it’s “every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.”, and more importantly when people or institutions are held accountable.

The game metaphor is also a common metaphor used for justice through the idea of ‘fair play’ (“the American values of fair play”, “if the playing field is level”) at the center of the concept of the American Dream (“where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share”) in which “Americans work hard and play by the rules every day”.

The idea of balance is central to the way Americans envision relationships, and it is closely linked to the idea of exchange. This latter notion has religious and legal significance in its earlier form of the Covenant that promises rewards in exchange for certain actions (“promise”; “to keep that promise alive.”; “In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility”; “let's offer schools a deal.”, “And in return…”; “But in return”).

The game metaphor also reflects another traditionally American view of the world of economics by giving a positive evaluation of competition (“my education reform offers more competition”), more precisely illustrated by the “Life is a Race” metaphor (“Don't let other countries win the race for the future.”).


The last major metaphor used in this speech is that of the JOURNEY METAPHOR: “as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong”. It enables the audience to understand time in spatial terms, (“too far to turn back now.”). It is a powerful metaphor in politics because it presents policies as a purposeful activity (you travel to a destination) which requires time and patience, while it also evokes freedom (of movement), including the potential obstacles on the path – in this case Congress (“to fight obstruction with action,”).

Just like the construction metaphor requires an architect, the journey metaphor gives the president the role of a guide, which is illustrated in the rhetorical change from “WE will not go back” to “I will not walk away” and “I will not back down from”.

The journey metaphor has a particular resounding meaning in American political discourse because it is rooted in the American historical experience of people undertaking voyages across the sea and then by people undertaking overland journeys westward. (Charteris-Black).

CONCLUSION

President Obama’s speech may not have been his most inspiring, visionary or transformational discourse but it is politically efficient. It uses familiar cultural domains of concepts: war, construction, game and journey to make a case for somewhat controversial ideas such as or the need for more regulations - something that can easily spook Americans - or the need for the rich to pay more taxes. President Obama’s theme of war is likely to appeal to more conservative voters and certainly to the American sense of patriotism and nationalism. It is also successful because it meets one of the requirements of the State of the Union genre  (Campbell & Jamieson) by linking past and future and by addressing questions of continuity and change.

France (bashing?) in American Politics.

Political campaigns seem much more brutal in the U.S. than in France, even presidential primaries. One of the distinct features of American politics is negative campaigning - mostly TV ads showing the opponent in a negative light, something unheard of in France.

Despite the feeling that every year, lobbyists reach new lows, negative campaigns have always been part of American politics - since the Founding Fathers.  (Adams vs. Jefferson was so bad so bad that it almost “tore the Republic apart”, says one historian - see here too)

All sorts of themes can be exploited, including surprising ones.

In 2004, for instance, John Kerry, the Democratic candidate running against George W. Bush was portrayed as “being too French”.

(John Kerry) is said to betray a dubious fondness for things French, even the language. A recent comment from Commerce Secretary Don Evans that the Massachusetts Democrat is "of a different political stripe and looks French" was only the latest of several jibes, mainly from conservative talk-show hosts and columnists, that have included allusions to "Monsieur Kerry" and "Jean Chéri." (NYTimes)

France-bashing has often been a favorite of some Americans, usually Republicans, and its popularity took a new hit among pro-war conservatives in the months following 2003 when France opposed the war in Iraq at the UN Security Council. (Remember "freedom fries"?).

To the Republicans, France embodies everything they hate about Europe:
-a penchant for conciliatory resolutions,
-a centralized government,
-high taxation,
-elitism and intellectualism and,
-a more collective mentality.

But this year, the irony is that the two most serious contenders for the GOP presidential candidacy have had some unique exposition to French culture:

• Newt Gingrich - the favorite in the poll at this point - was partly raised in France, where his step-father was stationed. Gingrich had a sort of epiphany when he visited Verdun. (here and here) and he has compared himself to... De Gaulle in the past. He also likes to present himself as a professor of history (which he has been, despite his surprising comments on international affairs sometimes). Not exactly you’re anti-intellectual Republican. 

• As for Mitt Romney, (2nd in the polls), he not only spent time in France as a Mormon missionary,  - and not exactly the kind of frugal life he has tried to present. (see here or here) - but he even speaks French and has not tried to hide it. This, however, has not prevented him from making ridiculous statement on France such as the notion that marriage in France can be “contracted in renewable seven-year terms”. Unheard of in France!

Romney’s French connection was not missed on a pro-Obama SuperPAC (political action committee) called AmericanLP who produced this video to be aired on running on MSNBC, CNBC, and Bloomberg TV.
The clip shows Romney welcoming francophone volunteers to the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and it is mock-subtitled with past comments of his that show he kept changing his mind (Romney is often accused of being a flip-flop).



According to the press release, it is “payback for Republicans mocking John Kerry for his French-speaking abilities in ads”.

“So our goal here is to remind GOP primary and caucus voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that Mitt Romney is a left wing radical who has, in all likelihood, hung out with socialistic, atheistic cheese-eaters like Jean Paul Sartre.” (here)

I personally think it is rather funny. If anything, it makes fun of France-bashing in some Republican circles.

To be fair, France can be the butt of jokes outside Republican circles:

• Comedians Conan O'Brian, Jay Leno, or David Letterman have often made a number of French jokes.

"A lot of folks are still demanding more evidence before they actually consider Iraq a threat. For example, France wants more evidence. And you know I'm thinking, the last time France wanted more evidence they rolled right through Paris with the German flag." —David Letterman

"American tourists in Paris are reported to being yelled at, spit upon, and attacked by the French. Thank God things are getting back to normal." —Jay Leno 

• The brand Subway in 2005 ran this campaign linking the French to chickens (a symbol of cowardice):

• or the derogatory term "cheese eating surrender monkeys",  coined by the writers of Simpson and later used by journalists and pundits. 

A number of reasons why France and the French are often the butt of jokes have been given over the years:

•  the power explanation: some say it's because there is no French lobby in the U.S. because French immigration to North America was more or less insignificant. (cf. Justin Vaisse)

• the Universalist explanation: others point out to the fact that both countries were born of revolutions, and claim for universalism (Bourdieu)

• the British explanation: as a follow up to the Romney ad last week, Slate had an article on where France-bashing may come from, and it may be mostly from the British. The title of their article is, however greatly misleading, I think: "Why do Americans Hate the French" is immensely exaggerated.

I believe the explanations are numerous and complex and they are based on cross-cultural differences which are both subtle and deeply embedded in our views of the world and ourselves. It is the ongoing exploration of these differences which has motivated this blog.  It is fascinating when current events give us an opportunity to reflect on these differences and misunderstandings.

That being said, the whole topic of "France bashing" should probably not be taken too seriously. As a French man who has been to the U.S. many times over the last 25 years, I have never personally experienced negative bias for being French, and I have always been very welcome. If anything, being French has helped me a great deal. 

The paradox is that the French may be the stinky Pepe Le Pew to some, yet, French perfume and clothing are among the most popular; France may be a socialist country, but a lot of Americans dream of visiting Paris (and a lot of them do). These apparent paradoxes and my own experience makes me believe that there is no  much harm done, and I strongly disagree with that "Americans hate the French".

Last, but not least, some comedians are also great defenders of France :

Civil Rights - New York won, France 0!

It would have been hard to miss the news about New York becoming the 6th US state to allow same-sex marriage in the U.S. (after Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont).
The vote in NY was historic:

• New York – the 3rd most populous state after California and Texas - is the largest and most influential state to grant legal recognition to same-sex weddings (California’s law was overturned by Prop 8 last year),
• It was passed by a Republican held senate after being rejected by a Democratic senate 2 years ago. This time, the 29 Democratic senators were joined by four Republicans, one more than the minimum needed to get the bill approved.

CHANGE IN PUBLIC OPINION

This is another sign that our society is changing in this issue. In New York, in 2004, only 37% of the state’s residents supported allowing same-sex couples to wed, and now 58% of them do. (NYTimes). Even in the United-States as a whole, polls show that now a majority of Americans are now in favor of same-sex marriage.(Gallup, CNN, ABC, Pew all show similar trends)

In France, where there is already civil union for gay couples, this number is even higher – 63% support same-sex marriage (only 48% did in 1996) (TF1; Ouest France). However, France has now fallen behind the curve as its parliament rejected a same-sex bill only two weeks ago even though similar laws have now been adopted in Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and even in very catholic countries such as Spain and Portugal.

OPPOSITION

As in the United-States, it is the right wing of the conservative party that’s the most vocal opponent of same-sex marriage in France as well: from the far-right National Front to the old Catholic guard. A conservative member of parliament went as far as talking of “abérration ethnologique” (an ethnological aberration) (Le Figaro) while another said “why not marriage with animals too”. These are the extremes but the very fact that they belong to the ruling party in France and can get away with such nonsensical statement is a sign that there is still a long way to go.

In both France and the US, opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religious or moral grounds.

Of course, in the U.S. many religious groups believe that marriage should be defined according to their interpretation of what God says and that it is not the government’s business. But even in secular France, some conservative Christians (the catholic lobby is personified by right-wing member of Parliament Christine Boutin) have been staunch opponents to same-sex marriage, but because the religious rhetoric has fallen out of favor in France, they usually play on other types of fear, such as a threat to our civilization or the decay of society.

FAMILY VALUES

And this is the second objection to same-sex marriage – the decay of public morality and the defense of family values.
This is a very strange argument. You’d think that supporters of family values would want to expand their “traditional” family lifestyle to the rest of society and encourage homosexuals to lead a “normal” life, away from gay ghettos and lifestyles. Of course, I can see why they'd raise concerns about children, but the reality of today’s world is that already many gays and lesbians have children. In many states and in France, a single person can adopt, while other gay couples have children of their own.
So wouldn’t it be better for those families to be given more stable homes with all the legal and social protections covered by marriage?

RELIGION Vs. CIVIL RIGHTS

The religious argument is also a moot one since we – French and Americans alike – live in Republics whose founding principle is separation between church and state. And this is a good thing unless you think countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia are your ideal forms of government. Granted that since in the United-States, marriage can be legally performed by churches, it should be their right to deny marriage on religious ground. That is exactly how New York went around it 6 by voting an amendment that protects religious organizations from lawsuits.
(As a side note: you may be a Christian and support same-sex marriage - some denominations do and there are theological arguments for it)

As it has been stated on this blog before, gay marriage is a civil right issue; not a religious or a personal one. It does not take away anyone's freedom. It gives more freedom to more people. It is the extension of a right that already exists. In this sense, it is hard to see how it may constitute a threat to society.
It is not like it is not going to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals; it is only going to make the lives of those that are homosexuals a little bit more “normal”, which is again something that conservatives should welcome.

WHAT CONSERVATIVES THINK

Of course, conservatives, be they French or American have one thing in common – they usually don’t like change, that’s why they are called “conservatives”.
But there is more to it. Many conservatives are more comfortable with clear cut moral views. They tend to believe in absolutes – there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong, and not much in between. In the same way, they believe in clear gender differences with recognizable societal roles. Anything that does not fit those categories of absolute becomes a threat to their view of the world and even to their identity.

That being said, even conservatives can change their minds once they really study a topic. Some can even make a leap of faith into the unknown.

If anyone embodies this hope in change, it is certainly Republican NY senator Mark Grisanti who gave a remarkable speech on Friday night on the senate floor. It is a a testimony of his integrity, especially because he knows he may have committed political suicide to support something he now believes in :

I have struggled with this immensely. I’ve read numerous documents, independent studies, talked with a lot of people on both sides of this issue. As a catholic I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m not here however as a senator who’s just catholic, I’m also here with the background as an attorney though which I look at things and I apply reason. I know that with this decision, many people who voted for me will question my integrity a short time ago (…)

I have studied this issue. For those that know me, they know I have struggled with it, To those who support I may lose, please that in the past what I was telling you and what I believed at that time was the truth. But by doing the research, and ultimately doing what I believe to be the right thing to me shows integrity. I would not respect myself if I didn’t do the research, have an open mind and make a decision, an informed decision based on the information before me. A man can be wiser today than yesterday but they’ll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work. I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage. Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife whom I love and have the 1300 plus rights that I share with her?

To end this on a cheerful note, Saturday’s Gay Pride Parade in Paris seems to 
have been embolden by the decision of New York’s legislature – a great way to advance America’s image in France and in the world.

French View of Welfare Shifts towards America.

The controversy in France this week was the criticism of France’s welfare system by the Minister for European Affairs who called the excesses of French “assistanat” [a derogatory term which can be loosely translated as “nanny state”] the “cancer” of French society (France 24) – a provocative statement if any in a country where social policy has been more or less a national consensus.

In practical term, the young Minister, Laurent Wauquiez (who is seen as a moderate in the Sarkozy government) proposes to force welfare recipients to do community work in compensation for the checks.

First a note of cultural background – while this criticism of welfare may not be such a provocative statement for the conservatives in the U.S, it is something unheard of in France. It has actually created division even in the ruling conservative party (UMP) and the young Minister was strongly criticized by the Prime Minister.

That being said, it has also been suggested that the “nanny state” (l’assistanat”) could be one of Sarkozy’s themes of choice for his reelection campaign in 2012 (Le Figaro).

This leads me to think that we may be in for some serious cultural change in France.

Since World War II, “social solidarity” has been considered a universal service which guarantees a minimal level of well-being and social support for all French citizens. It is not without fault and it is very costly. For better or for worse, the notion of “solidarity” is not simply part of the French Social Protection system; it is also part of its national identity (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité) - very much like ‘freedom’ (including economic freedom) is part of the US identity. 

First let’s look at the obvious differences between Europe and the U.S. :

• the European governments redistribute income on a much larger scale than the
• European social programs are more generous and reach a larger part of the
• The European tax systems are more progressive.
• European regulation is more intrusive, including in the labor market and in the protection of the poor.

There are various tentative explanations for these differences. As this paper by the Harvard Institute of Economic research suggests, some of those differences may derive from differences in ways of thinking and in ideologies. In other words, they may have been shaped by culture and history :

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE "POOR": 

According to the World Value Survey:

• 29% of Americans think that the poor are trapped in poverty;
• 60%of Europeans believe the same.
• 60% of Americans believe that the poor are lazy
• 26% of Europeans share that view.

You might think this is because the United-States has more social mobility. But as the Harvard paper explains, there is no evidence that shows America to be a significantly more mobile society than Europe. (something we have already discussed on this blog) so either Americans overestimate social mobility in their country or Europeans underestimate it. 

HISTORICAL DIFFERENCES

Another possible explanations (not favored by the Harvard paper but one I like) is that two World Wars destroyed so much of European societies that the Socialist and Communist parties were able to take hold and influence policies (even if they didn’t rule), especially after right-wing governments lost their appeal after the defeat of fascist governments throughout Europe. At the same time, in this context of ample destruction,  only governments could manage the national efforts necessary to rebuild and help the millions who lost everything. 

Besides, America had a vast ‘open’ land which allowed many workers to go west for economic opportunities instead of revolting or striking. This historical context may have made welfare and strong social policies more acceptable and necessary in Europe than in the United-States. 

The Harvard Paper has two other explanations: 

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION: 

One lies in a difference in political institutions: Contrary to Europe America has hardly any type of proportional representation which tends to empower the left, and has more checks and balances with the explicit goal of limiting political extremism and expropriation of private property by the state.

RACE

The other, according to the paper is American racial heterogeneity given than in more homogeneous societies it is easier for the relatively well-off to see the poor as themselves, and less so in a society with racial cleavages.

The paper finally evokes other possible explanations such as a culture of risk and individual success transmitted by immigrants to America or the Protestant Calvinistic views that tend to see success as God’s blessing. 

POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

These are interesting explanations that make sense to me. But within the different cultural tendencies in Europe or the U.S. , there are also political patterns that remain along the lines of right vs. left, and in any given country, conservatives have a harsher view of the poor than progressives.

In the US it is the Republicans who are trying to trim welfare again, in France it is the conservative parties and the far-right. It is the old Victorian idea of the “undeserving poor”, and it is shared not only by rich people but also by the working poor.

At the core of this, there is the view that enough poor are taking advantage of the system and do not want to work that it is worth screening the worthy ones and make it harder for all of them. I do not deny there are bad apples, but the question is whether you believe the bad apples are numerous enough that it is worth stigmatizing an entire category of people.  Call me naïve if you wish, but  I do not subscribe to the view that most people on welfare like it this way. It is not just that a question of money but also of personal worth. 

Unfortunately, it is clear that this view is becoming increasingly popular in France, whether this is due to the economic crisis or to greater racial heterogeneity (and the view that immigrants and their children have become increasingly the beneficiaries of social welfare at the expense of the working middle-class).

A recent poll shows that 70% of the French favor the new proposed scheme that would force welfare recipients to do community work in compensation for the checks. In 2010, another poll showed that 80% of the French thought there was too much of the “nanny state” (“assistanat”) in France. This is definitely a major shift towards a much harder social system which may a sign of the times, just like the rise of the Tea Party in the U.S. or the far right in Europe.