Sarko Time [Updated]
I've been trying to follow the story of Nicolas Sarkozy's election to the presidency of France but have been having a heck of a time doing so.
Much of the MSM coverage has been too removed by a degree or two for me to get a real feel for what it means. And coverage, to the degree it exists at all, in more alternative sources has tended to refract the whole French election (surprise, surprise) through the tired pro/anti Bush prism. All this leading me to complain, for the umpteenth time, just how damn parochial American "progressives" have become -- just plain ignorant about and disengaged from much of the rest of the world. They exist, it seems, only in relation to and in reaction against GW Bush. ZZZZZZZZZZ!
Doug Ireland -- who knows the Froggies as well as anybody-- has a full-length and detailed projection of what Sarko's conservative victory actually means. He describes it as something akin to the Reagan Revolution, a coming frontal assault on the French welfare state and a naked appeal to the lesser angels of the French character.
Paris-based writer Elizabeth Bard has a somewhat rosier view, arguing that welfare-state social solidarity is so deeply entrenched in French culture that it will easily resist and outlast Sarko. She might be right. I can recall when former Italian PM and all-around thug Silvio Berlusconi first came to power and proposed cutting back on pensions and salaries. He was met with a general strike of three million Italians who were not about to surrender their perks to some whippersnapper newcomer.
But what fascinates me -- and what I fear I'm unlikely to read anywhere --is just why a sizeable majority of the French would willingly vote for a man who promises to lengthen their work week, make their health care more expensive, and force them to retire at an older age. Believe me, I am in no way shocked or surprised by masses of people voting "against their own interests." We see it all the time right here at home.
But most social theory fails pretty miserably in explaining just what's firing away in the synapses of the unwashed mass of hoople-heads (to borrow a phrase from that great social philosopher Al Swearengen). Lefties always blame some sinister external force in explaining away the bumblings of the electorate: the media, the hate speech, the devil made them do it. Conservatives, meanwhile, actually believe their own propaganda and swear that the masses actually support policies that, in the end, screw them and send their kids off to die in a war.
Reality is much more complicated. Only heaven knows why people actually vote the way they do. No one else seems to have a credible explanation.
UPDATE: Here's a fine piece from The Independent that breaks down the election results and which describes France as split between two tribes: the young and the old. This analysis concludes that Sarko's victory owes to landslide support from older, rural voters and especially from those snarling, nasty French shopkeepers. Brrrrr.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Well, being French, they probably didn’t read Goethe’s aphorism to the effect that a politician who promises both equality and freedom is a mountebank or a fool.
However, with the highest rate of unemployment in Europe and young thugs of North African origin burning cars by the thousands while the left nattered about repression and the social causes of violence, perhaps the French decided that a bit (probably only a bit) of change and tough-mindedness was in order.
Especially when Sarko’s opponent appeared to be a bit of a ditz.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:39 am
I think that in this country, a large part of the explanation for people voting against their own interests has to do with race; maybe it is also true elsewhere.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:02 am
Maybe I’m out of it and have simply absorbed conventional wisdom, but I think that the Sarkozy moment has been pretty clearly explicated from a variety of sources. Unless I’m completely misinformed, and maybe Michael Balter can offer his thoughts on this, France’s welfare state is flawed by ingrained tendencies that reinforce trends toward economic stagnation, a reluctance of employers to create jobs for full-time employees and a large segment of newer workers who are marginalized. Also, the country’s notable failure to assimilate immigrants has created predictable tensions and fears on both sides of that divide. It would border on the bizarre if a conservative pol couldn’t ride that horse into office, given the lame response of establishment leaders.
If you think “progressives” are parochial on this stuff, I’d have to say that the Ireland piece, which is a predictable “Nationesque” screed, reinforces that notion at the canned ideological lefty level. I’m disturbed by Sarkozy’s victory, but not surprised. Nor do I believe he’s the embodiment of Pinochet or le Pen – a notion that Ireland toys with. At the most basic level, Sarkozy strikes me as having a clearer message for addressing real problems facing France than his opponents, who seemed to be winning the battle of bromides but not what would seem to a normal voter like conviincingly proferring some kind of new approach. I don’t have to like Sarkozy’s message to recognize his skill in packaging it or the warmed over rhetoric that was offered as an alternative.
I’m no student of this, nor do I care to be (despite the implication that one is “parochial” because French electoral politics isn’t high on my list of “need to know” subjects.) But it’s no secret that French social democracy lags countries like Sweden and Denmark in its agility and flexibility (why am I not surprised ?) and the French liberal-left’s political representatives have been paying a price.
Don’t get me wrong. I’d live in Paris half the year if I could figure out a way to do it and I find the French people very likeable, but as a Chilean friend points out sarcastically as regards the French, it’s a country that doesn’t know the difference between tradition and culture. There’s a parallel in their politics so far as I can tell, and a Sarkozy could easily exploit this failing if the best the French left can offer, as it appears, is cosmetics and cliches. (Sarkozy’s cliches aren’t the familiar ones and he’s got a genuinely “fresh” personal and political story in the stuffy French context, so his electoral success seems like it was almost a given in what is hardly a high point in Frances’ history.)
I’d also bet that Bard’s take is closer to reality as it unfolds than Ireland’s. France isn’t going to have a “Reagan Revolution”. Truth is, neither did we. We got lot of stupid and negative fallout from a bogus rhetorician, and real reform and progress stalled – but unless you consider tax cuts revolutionary , the notion of Reagan reinstilling traditional values in government or making it smaller, less intrusive and more efficient was a monumental hoax and a failure.
If my impressions are complete bullshit, and Michael or someone else with deeper knowledge can set me straight, fine.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Marc poses a number of interestingt points – first about the Americo-centric perspective people have on this situation. It wasn’t long ago that the socialists of Mitterand were far more Pro-NATO than the Gaullists of Chirac. So indeed the left is (only slightly) more independent in their foreign policy than would be Sarkozy. Neither would be as independent as Chirac.
Its not a “whats the matter with Kansas” situation in France. Its multi-determined…but I think a lot of it, quite disturbingly, has to do with Sarkozy adopting a lot of LePen’s inmmigrant/Arab/Banlieu baiting, alongside the objective situation of class struggle among the “Suburbs” which scares a wide range of French folks…and LePen’s voters certainly helped Sarkozy.
Grumpy Old Man’s reactionary post actually hits the nail on the head. The French philosophers Deleuze and Guatarri thought that all of us have a little authoritarianism/fascism in us. Sarkozy unlocked that id.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Its not a “whats the matter with Kansas†situation in France. Its multi-determined…but I think a lot of it, quite disturbingly, has to do with Sarkozy adopting a lot of LePen’s inmmigrant/Arab/Banlieu baiting, alongside the objective situation of class struggle among the “Suburbs†which scares a wide range of French folks…and LePen’s voters certainly helped Sarkozy.
It is certainly not because of the type of lacunaeu that Reg metnioned, in regards to the welfare state. All Welfare States aren’t generous enough. Employers are relectucant when they aren’t forced to do the right thing. People weren’t voting on this one way or
Grumpy Old Man’s reactionary post actually hits the nail on the head. The French philosophers Deleuze and Guatarri thought that all of us have a little authoritarianism/fascism in us. Sarkozy unlocked that id.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:08 am
That should be one way or another…as in poor anti-Arab Sarkozy voters (whose parents were communist voters probably) are not thinking about the minutae of labor regulation when they vote to screw Mohammed and the secular progressives.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:11 am
One thing I will wager Sarko won’t be able to screw with is the French health care system. It’s excellent and very cost-effective. And it’ll survive Sarko. But in a general sense, France might benefit in the long term from having Sarko break up some of the familiar patterns of political discourse and force the liberal left to sharpen its game.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:17 am
cummings weighs in with his usual profound understanding of economics. Wow…no wonder that “Left” is such a piddling little piece of shit.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:21 am
No coffee this morning Reg? “Piddling piece of shit” That would be an interesting turd, no? One that piddles?
I could give you more details, but to think that people voted on these arcane issues is ludicrous. The French consistently vote for extensions of the welfare state, not against them. French Industrial policy DID use to force employers to take on a certain amount of “apprentices” That is what I was referring to…
May 8th, 2007 at 6:23 am
A persistent unemployment rate of around 10% isn’t “lacunae”. It’s a serious problem. And increasing regulation to make employers “do the right thing” is a fantasy solution.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Your use of the term “arcane” in reference to these issues is further proof that you’re not serious.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Its funny that reg applies logic that when applied to the States, would anger him. (right wing victory “sharpens” liberal left)
May 8th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Arcane in most voters’ minds. The regulation that I speak of used to exist in France, exists in Germany, Scandinavia, Brazil, etc. Its in no way fantastic.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:40 am
“Its funny that reg applies logic that when applied to the States, would anger him. (right wing victory “sharpens†liberal left)”
That doesn’t anger me. It’s an observation based precisely on what I’ve seen happen in the States, only in a more critical and larger context. It sort of disgusts me, but the truth is that a lot of tepid liberals who couldn’t have fought their way out of a DLC policy panel a few years ago have become much sharper and more effective advocates for a renewed liberalism in recent years, simply because they’ve had to.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:49 am
And we can thank Nader for that.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Not that I believe that but I know you do… I doubt that in 2000, after the smoke cleared, you were saying “oh well, the Dems will move left now.” I certainly was…the existence of a Left wing outside of the party scared liberals into moving back to the left.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Why don’t Americans vote to triple the minimum wage, double welfare payments, grant free college tuition, give free health care to everyone, close all industries emitting carbon dioxide, cut our military budget by two-thirds, and end all immigration restrictions? Aren’t those in their best interests and as supported by the left?
Well, the French, like Americans, are beginning to see, although somewhat late, that a nation cannot afford everything that is demanded of it. There comes a time for reason.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:01 am
I should add that France/US political analogies aren’t likely to make much sense, which is why I don’t buy that Sarko is likely to “Reaganize” France although he might “Blairize” it a bit.
Also the key to assimilating immigrants isn’t Kumbaya circles or tirades against opportunistic cretins like le Pen, it’s economics. There’s a vast difference between the position of Muslims in the U.S. and in France, and it’s all about issues of social class, educational tools and economic mobility of the respective groups, i.e. their fundamental ability to integrate into the mid levels of the economy – not because Americans are less chauvinistic (although we probably are, mind-boggling as that may seem to the casual observer.)
May 8th, 2007 at 7:02 am
“the existence of a Left wing outside of the party scared liberals into moving back to the left”
Flatter yourself. But that so misses the point that it actually drew a laugh from me.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Woody, the French don’t “give free health care to everyone”. There’s no such thing as “free health care”. They’ve figured out a way to pay for it and distribute it far more rationally than we do and their superior results and lower costs are well documented. Your about as clueless as cummings when it comes to understanding the real world of economics.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Woody:
Why don’t Americans vote to triple the minimum wage, double welfare payments, grant free college tuition, give free health care to everyone, close all industries emitting carbon dioxide, cut our military budget by two-thirds, and end all immigration restrictions? Aren’t those in their best interests and as supported by the left?
Yes.
Woody:
Well, the French, like Americans, are beginning to see, although somewhat late, that a nation cannot afford everything that is demanded of it. There comes a time for reason.
A nation with the great and taxable fortunes like the US, in which the gap between rich and poor is higher than any time before the depression, can not only afford to do so, but it could do so and save money,if it stopped its programof expensive war.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:11 am
No less than Mathew Yglesias, netroots coolkid, among others, pointed out that while “leninist” the notion of Nader was a definiteve factor in waking up the party’s left position of strength over the faltering DLC neocons.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Americans are chauvinistic about Mexicans. France about Muslims. Its all about who the dominant immigrant population happens to be.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Reg-
In/re my cluelessness..quick economics quiz…
What is the valorization process?
What did Polanyi refer to as the “Great Transformation”?
Define commodity fetishism in regards to modern life?
Is greed the prime factor in capital accumulation?
May 8th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Marc: I know this is hardly original, but it’s the economy, stupid.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:26 am
A long needed and positive change for France. Power corrupts and absolute…., as evidenced by the Republicans 12 year run in Congress, preceeded by the Democrats 25 year run.
Democracies, the people’s voice, works to keep the excesses and extremes under control by eventually removing power from those who get to confident, too powerful.
In a true and fair Democracy, a Welfare State cannot exist for long. Those working and paying the bill will not let it go too far. Neither can a Capitalistic State exist too long. Those working and not being treated fairly will not let it go too long.
Regs statement: “But in a general sense, France might benefit in the long term from having Sarko break up some of the familiar patterns of political discourse and force the liberal left to sharpen its game.” is saying the same thing. I am just adding it works both ways, and thank God……OK, Democracy, it does for all of us.
Please respect it and never take it for granted. So many people in the world do not have it, and never had. Sad.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I’d venture that chauvanistic “cultural” issues do in fact exist with Muslim immigrants that don’t exist in most people’s minds with Mexican-Americans. For all of the “English-only” crap, there’s very little cultural distance between immigrants from Mexico and American culture in general. They are one of the dominant and successful immigrant groups in most parts of the country, making their mark and hardly a despised minority pushed to the margins. Not that ghettos don’t exist, but I wouldn’t characterize most Mexican-Americans in the light of the most economically and socially marginalized among them.
Muslims are surely far more “strange” or even disturbing in the minds of most Americans – yet they are also successful, as are most Latinos. But they’re not a “proletarian” immigrant group, like many Arabs in Europe, they’re largely educated and have business skills at a rate higher than the average U. S. citizen and there’s no connection to a colonial past that complicates their presence with bitter history on both sides.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:49 am
cummings – suffice to say that I can answer all questions on your quiz, but I won’t bore the rest of the readers. Polyani’s one of my favorites. You’ve still proven yourself obtuse with fantasies like solving stagnation by making more rules for employers.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Marc — as someone who has just been accused of being a “committed Marxist” on Roger L Simon’s blog, I must point out: if you want a vibrant welfare state, you need a vibrant capitalist economy to support it. The vote for Sarkozy was a vote for a lower unemployment rate and a higher French GDP. If the price is a slightly less generous pension plan and work rules, then 53% of French voters think that is a price worth paying.
Absent a culturally cohesive country with high natural birth rates, and given the realities of global competition, I don’t see any alternative. The sooner the social democratic Left understands this, the better.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:52 am
“7:45″ was for jc. Re: “7:13″
May 8th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Stagnation is endemic to capitalism. Its neoliberals like Sarkozy or Robert Rubin who think otherwise. A better way of dealing with this is expansion of the public sector, and investment in things like biotechnology and stem cell research, both of which are heavily limited in the US, therefore should be abooming industry in France.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Check out http://www.nvtoday.com for a piece by a French historian.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:22 am
My favorite quote from Sarkozy from an interview last week:
“What good is a longer vacation when you dont make enough money to spend on it.”
Let us not read too much into the French election…it was simply a needed market correction. A decade from now, those in the left will still envy what remains of the French social welfare model.
Except for the drunken driving, Mexicans here take livelihoods, not lives like the Muslims plot to do in Europe.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:24 am
That’s a very interesting, informative piece, although I wouldn’t call the guy a “French historian”.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:30 am
I thought
http://lrb.co.uk/v29/n08/hard01_.html
was a good overview (if wishy washy) of the situation. It definitely says that Sarko would not offer a major change for France. Here’s part of the nut:
Royal can provide a version of the social market and Bayrou a feelgood moment, but this is not really change. As for Sarkozy, unless he can think of a way to redeem his tax and contributions cuts, he would be moving France in much the same direction it has been going. His views about French ‘identity’ and immigration are proof, in case it was needed, that he is not a right-wing libertarian of the full-fledged sort. [...] Sarkozy is, by proper neoliberal standards, naively opposed to ‘speculation’ – which he sees as the wrong kind of capitalism – while being an EU regionalist, a staunch protectionist and a defender of the Common Agricultural Policy. He is opposed to golden handshakes for company directors and means to destabilise the 35-hour week, not abolish it. He is for republicanism with a grimace rather than a smile and the right of government to tell people what to do. The future, if Sarkozy gets it, is l’immobilisme as usual, only with fewer pleasantries and more naked confrontation.
And Reg, on the comparison of Sarko with Le Pen:
It’s a relief for bien-pensant French voters to have a new monster, in case the ageing monster [Le Pen] should fail to shock them sufficiently. [...] It’s not uncommon to hear Sarkozy called a fascist. If you object, you’re told, well never mind, his father was.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:34 am
reg, I recently learned that the French don’t keep score on medical care the same as the U.S. For instance, if a child is stillborn in this country, it is recorded as a death. In France, such statistics are ignored, and their resulting numbers look better. There is nothing that they do that we can’t do better, except breed French children, be rude, and cheat on statistics.
jcummings, the gap between rich and “poor”, however poorly measured and changed and incorrect, is not an indication of wealth available to be squandered on giveaway programs for non-producers. You fall into the same category as most Democrats of milking U.S. defense for government welfare programs. Carter slashed military programs and Clinton let the military run down with the so-called peace dividend to spend on social programs.
The French see that our system works better than socialism and maybe want to see changes to be more like us.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Also, reg, I never said that the French give free health care to everyone.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Well, now I see that my comment at 8:34 AM is awaiting moderation, so you’ll just have to be held in suspense until and if Marc clears it.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief – Nader endorses Gravel…
http://counterpunch.com/nader05082007.html
May 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
“Stagnation is endemic to capitalism”
Karl Marx certainly didn’t think so.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Of course he did. Where the hell do you get that?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:07 am
My favorite short work by Marx has plenty on stagnation: http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/brumaire_vi.html
May 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
jcummings — “Stagnation is endemic to capitalism.”
Please explain what you mean by “stagnation.”
Do you or do you not own a cell phone? DVD player? Laptop? Car with air bags? Ever used a fax machine? Heard of the information superhighway?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Slow growth in the “real economy” for the most part. Stagnation is often masked, ssince the onset of neoliberalism in the seventies, by the financialization of capital accumulation – ie. a shortage of investable capital because assets are in the market.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Distractions, Markus, distractions. Please leave your false consciousness at the door…
May 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
In Marxian terms, capitalism inevitably overproduces, thus decreasing commodity value, in turn capital growth suffers, as always, because of too much commodity production. Production and growth are always inversely proportionate.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Details on what I’m talking about
http://monthlyreview.org/0407jbf.htm
May 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Let’s get a few things clear. France’s “Stagnant” economy has a labor force participation rate among adults almost identical to that of the US. We measure unemployment differently here. If we used the OECD model our unemployment rate would be far higher. Over the past ten years France has produced 2.5 million private sector jobs – the same a “third Way” Britain. On a per capita basis the French GDP is now 72% of the US – down from 78% but all of the growth here went to the top 0.01 per cent. I’ll let people here decide if they would accept fewer material gains for a five week vacation, retirement at age 50, and a 35 hour week. As Ezra Klein points out those are valid choices and, maybe, a society that want to be “Family Friendly” would choose those instead.
Now as to Sarkosy. Despite the cheers in some quarters here that “Sarko” will bring about American-Style Capitalism there have not been listening to what he said in the debate with Royal or with his platform. He made it clear that he has no intention of dismanteling the French Social welfare state, just “reforming” it. And if you think that means big changes all you have to do is remember what happened to Chirac when he came to office and tried that – massive strikes and a Socialist Chamber of Deputies for his troubles. The French are no stupider than the Italians. They voted for Berlesconi then said “Basta!” to any changes. And Sarko is surely more adept than Silvio here being a politician by choice rather than necessity. And he has no intention of changing the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. He knows his support base – and nobody is more cosseted than the French Farmer – again, unless its the Italian or Spanish!
So Sarkosy had the support of the farmer and the support of the shopkeepkep class, as would any Conservative. But he also did well in the “Red Belt” of formerly Communist Working Class Suburbs. Why?
Simply put he appealed to the nationalism, no the chauvanism of the French voter plus a little class resentment.
The class resentment is easy to see. Sarko is not a member of the club. He didn’t graduate from ENA – the nursery of the senior civil service, business leadership and the politcal leadership. He is the outsider. Rather like Nixon. and with the Outsider’s resentments writ large – like those of the lower middle class he sprang from. Like Nixon he picked his targets well. Nixon used to call the Student Demonstators “Bums”. Sarko calls the arab Rioters “Scum.” Probably sounds nastier in French.
(And that’s potent politically. Remember back in your student days, Marc, when Ronnie made hay with California Voters by denoucning the students at UC – and SFVSC – as ingrates who were rioting when they should be studying and were so unappreciative of the benefits bestoyed on them by a generous tax paying electorate?)
And that brings us to his major theme. The overwhelming effect on French Society of the “Alien” presence of so mant North African Arabs unwillinhg to assimilate into the culture of the metropole. Some people here suggested the same above when they alluded to difference between Mexican and North African Immigrants. And plenty here feel that the Mexicans are alien.
(Think a lot of people out there in gringoland were won over by the sight of “Immigrants Rights” groups carrying Mexican Flags and pix of Hugo Chavez on May 1?)
Sarkosy argues that moslems can’t really integrate into French society. He’s not alone. There are similiar movement in Germany and the Netherlands and the murder of Van Gogh sure didn’t help matters. And when Valery Giscard D,estang argues that Turkey not be allowed membership in the EU because it is a Moslem state is Sarko so out of line? His proposal for a “Ministry of Immigration and National Identity” struck a responsive chord in a country where national identity has been a flash point between Left and Right.
(Royal got in trouble with her socialist allies when she played the “Marsielles” at her rallies. To many of the Left that is song of the Right and they want no part of “Bonapartism”.
Imagine the Democrats abjuring the flag or the “Star Spangled Banner”)
So I think those Americans who think Sarko is going to be a good bud are in for a shock. Curiously the only US columist who has noted this is the Conservative Mark Steyn who wrote, in this morning’s OC REGISTER that Sarko wouldn’t do anying but tinker around the edges of the French Welfare State. He deplored that but he could read and watch.
But I’m sure its only a matter of time beore Tom Friedman hails this as another sign of the flattening Earth!
May 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
You know, I’m getting tired of the constant denigration of “Kumbaya” in these threads, it seems to me a perfectly nice song; and even though I attended Unitarian Church in my youth, I never felt it was forced on me to excess. For that matter, what’s so bad about Mimes? “Self Portrait” isn’t all that bad, and I liked “Alien III.”
Cummings begs the question, what sort of horrible turn of goverment will ever sharpen up the the Marxist, common cause with reactionary left? Most of his posts suggest they are beyond sharpening.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
No surprise about Sarko and France- Bush has infected the world with his megalomania and the virus has been located, identified and here’s what it causes and its propereties:
It enters from the nativist underbelly, becomes at once xenophobic and simple minded, cliches replace thought, religion replaces reason, indvidualism metastasizes and “community” becomes a comic expression. Those most susceptible, then are the “salt of the earth” the illiterate, the racists and the zealots. They become what is become a new demographic (long cultured in humid petrie dishes in the States) called the Idiot Vote. (It must be capitalized to give it dignity).
Give the relative similarity of demograhics among advanced nations, this Idiot vote seems to stop at thirty percent of the population (here it is the South+Evangelicals). This at-risk population is susceptible to infection because they have been inoculated by faith and prejudice instead of reason.
This 30% will soon travel the Channel and radiate to Germany. Spain and Italy will be spared because they rightly consider faith a recreational and social acivity, thus having a greater immunity to the virus. This 30% vote may effect close electoral contests.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
reg — I haven’t heard the term “false consciousness” for a long time. Are you serious, or are you doing an Alan Sokal-like parody?
jcummings — Is this how you talk to your unconverted comrades — with econ jargon and links to long articles and a one hundred and thirty five old essay by Marx? Unless you’re happy with 1% or 2% of the vote, you better learn how to talk to the proletarians better.
woody — There is no evidence that the French prefer our system to theirs. They simply want to make their system more sustainable, and they want a government that sees ensuring order and safety as an essential public service.
markus
(social democrat, u.s.a.)
May 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
JCummings: I don’t have it at hand, but I refer you, for example, to the paeans to captalist productivity and dynamism in The Communist Manifesto.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Markus – I won’t flatter myself that my joking remark rose to the Alan Sokal level of parody.
Now please tell me that you’re kidding about “SDUSA”.
Now that Penn Kemble’s gone, is there anything left of that outfit – other than the memories of Maruvchik and faint echoes of Ronald Radosh’s weatherbeaten guitar – the one with “This Machine Kills Islamofascists” painted across it’s face ?
May 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
jc – I think the word “stagnation” has appeared on the cover of Monthly Review more often even than “sweezy”.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I was struck by the fact that the majority of women voted against Segolene. Some French analyst claimed older, less urbane women were basically put off by her good looks and fashion sense.
But I think this election was all to do with the 2005 riots. While the socialists were out linking (sub)urban angst to post-capitalist theories and blaming the racist French employers, Sarko was on TV calling the rioters thugs and blaming hip-hop. You don’t have to be a political genius to figure out what side provincial middle-class France took. Just like when Clinton got his biggest boost after calling out Sistah Soljah and proposed welfare reform. Indirectly attacking the poor and minorities has long been an election-time winner.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
bob
Understanding Marx by means of simply the Manifesto (in which he speaks of capitalism as far more dynamic than past systems AND failure being inevitable) is like understanding Shakespeare by reading Twelfth Night.
Read Capital, or at least a critique of Political Economy, Grundrisse and the Eighteenth Brumaire. Look at the Marxist economic tradition. Stagnation – not the word – but the concept, is spelled out clearly in the Manifesto as well.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I am the ghost of Penn Kemble.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I’m not trying to convert anyone who isn’t willing to do the heavy labor that is involved in understanding the intricacies of this mode of economic theory. People who are self-identified Marxists are senators from Vermont, among other places.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Markus are you a Shactmanite?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Oh Reg incidently Monthly Review regularly publishes Alain Sokal, including his account of the great hoax. I am NOT a postmodernist!!!!!!!!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Easy, jc. Some (note the qualifier) of the intricacies of which you speak, is just sloppy thinking. Some (again, the qualifier) are intentionally impenetrable. I’m not afraid of heavy lifting, but *sometimes* there has been nothing under the rock once you’ve expended the energy to move it.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Jcummings:I’m not an intelletrual, Marxist or otherwise. I’m only a pathetic prole. But I have read large chunks of Capital and the 18th Brumaire etc. etc. etc.
But I am certain that Karl Marx was cognizant of the extreme creativity and dynamism of capitalism. He thought that therein lay the seeds of its destruction, as obsolescence and displacement ran through the the entire industrial world in cycles of increasing furosity.
But then again, I’m just a lowly carpenter. What could I possibly know about this stuff?
Good thing there’s a Vanguard Party to do my thinking for me.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I posted something here earlier and, maybe with luck, it will come back.
I’m sure those people at the INDEPENDENT mean well Marc but I’ll wait till till Tom Freidman tells me how this is just another triumph for globalisation!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
It was nice to see a comment by Michael Turmon, whose remarks I have not seen for a while.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Bob I’m sorry to sound arrogant….and I’m not a vanguardist – your statement encapsulates a very real understanding of Marxian economic theory. And this:
“. He thought that therein lay the seeds of its destruction, as obsolescence and displacement ran through the the entire industrial world in cycles of increasing furosity.” is interesting It
prretty much refers to stagnation (cycles).
My reference to heavy lifting is that a lot of these things – in Marx at least – aer very complicated to explain – try explaining MCM and CMC in a sentence…..I’m not good at what sectarians call “political education” Basically, I was frustrated when i saw a reference to Marx not believing in stagnation, a concept he willy nilly nearly discovered – and so I shot off. Sorry.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
JCummings: It’s already forgotten, my friend. Peace
May 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Agreed on MCM and CMC. Dense, but not impenetrable.
Wish I could remember the title of that gawd awful text book I dropped in the trash on my way out the door.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Woody, presumably you’re getting your inside information on France via Mitt Romney – who also unearthed the little known fact that they only marry for seven years and then decide whether or not to renew the contract.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
reg, do you have information to the contrary?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
What information ? You made an unsubstantiated assertion – just like Mitt Romney’s loony toons comments about French marriage law. Is it now my responsibility to respond to every drooler and raving idiot ?
If you think that the difference between the French health system and ours is that they cook their statistics, you’re a bigger fool than I thought.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
If you defend the French using their cooked numbers, then you’re as big a fool as I always thought.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
If you’re talking about Romney’s nutty assertion, there’s no such critter in French civil law as a “seven year marriage”. The best I can come up with is that he heard about a French comedy film that floated this idea. That’s giving him the benefit of the doubt. The guy belongs to a wacko religious cult that baptizes dead people and officially excluded blacks from their “priesthood” until 1978 because they live under the curse of Ham, so who the hell knows what kind of “information” he’s privy to ? Do you really believe idiotic crap like this whenever some GOPer nutjob unloads it ? Incredible…
May 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Give some fucking evidence for your stupid assertions. People MUCH smarter than you have studied this extensively. You give some evidence – even some slim evidence from an unreliable, partisan source – to prove you’re not just talking out of your ass. You’re a damned fool, Woody. Just about the dumbest bastard I’ve ever encountered in these discussions. You’ve got a lot of fucking nerve to make unsubtantiated assertions and then tell me I’ve got to prove you wrong. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Don’t bother me with this shit. It’s too pathetic.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
The French suffer from:
A calcified economy.
Rampant disorder.
Uncontrolled immigration with inadequate assimilation.
A bureaucratized society.
The degrading effect of the welfare state on character and morale.
And so, they elect a center-rightist who’s a bit more outspoken than the usual suspects from the “great schools,” a fellow who might do some modest reforms. The far rightist, who speaks better French than all the other candidates, loses almost 1/2 of his support from last time, urges abstention, and is widely ignored.
Le ciel ne tombe pas. (“The sky is not falling.”)
May 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
@JC: Re the Sokal Hoax: Actually Sokal’s account was first published in the now-defunct magazine Lingua Franca. So was much of the subsequent exchange with the egg-flecked editors of Social Text.
See
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Franca
May 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
reg, you never accept my sources, anyway, because they disagree with you. If I provided the source, you would reject it, so why waste my time trying to convince a psychopath?
May 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Just got back from Greensburg where the tornado hit…national guard (as few in number as they are, with what little equipment isn’t in Iraq) have been doing an admirable job in our fair state, but the slow cleanup process here is reason number one million and counting of why we shouldn’t be in Iraq.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Reg, I can’t believe you waste your time with that guy.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Hank, your comment is sort of incoherent, and I’ve stuff to do. So if you could like reword it, I really want to understand the very important idea you originally intended to announce to us…before you opted for a third one.
Are you really as simple as ‘Bush Sucks’?
May 8th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Given Woody’s utter contempt for the truth, I’m loathe to join this, but one should review this post by Mark Kleiman which has several links, one of which indicates that one of the possible sources for this may be a science fiction novel (Mitt is a science fiction fan).
One of the attorneys at the law firm where I work is French and she told me that she never heard of anything like this. Mitt’s Mormon underwear is probably too tight.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
rl, your 10:57 am comments were worth waiting for.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I know. I enjoy Sokal’s work.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
richard – regarding “10:57″ there are BLS and OECD “standardized” measures of unemployment and France doesn’t do very well. The 9-10% figure is real and significantly higher than ours. And I wouldn’t use comparisons to Britain’s job creation as a basis for any sort of optimism. What the French have done well, and is clearly worth some trade-off, is in areas of lowering poverty and lessening income inequality. Globalization is stressing every economy – the European social democracies that have emphasized stability haven’t solved that. I think the French do fairly well, all things considered – on balance their choices make far more sense than ours. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have problems. I don’t think that the issue of high unemployment and “tiers” of workers can be dismissed.
I’d also suggest that chauvinism among the working class is fueled by economic insecurities – probably manifested in France by stress on the “social wage” more than job insecurity. People at the upper end who are well off and secure are more than happy to have access to lots of cheap help. Islam complicates this question because it offers an active “counter-identity” to immigrants that goes against the grain of liberal society, but it’s hard to believe that there’s not an economic factor at play in blue-collar chavinism as well.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
There are several striking things about the French election – first, the voter participation at 85%. That’s truly admirable. Second, Sarkozy did best with the old people who have spent their entire lives enjoying the amenities he railed against. He did worst with the young, who face serious problems entering the workforce, which Sarkozy alleged his policies would address. It’s probably a case of people who, on the one hand, want to shut the door after themselves and on the other, folks who don’t trust Sarkozy and are holding out for what the French have historically felt was theirs. I think the attraction of the French lifestyle will defeat Sarkozy in the end if he gets too energetic. Already it looks like he’s backing off his attacks on the 35 hour week. My hunch is he’ll be a blip between the trad parties and, best case, Royal or another lib-left candidate will figure out how to make social-democratic modernization more effective and politically convincing. Sarkozy might turn out to be more like Arnold than any other pol. Begins with a lot of rhetoric, ends by cutting deals over marginal reforms and pirating whatever popular, pragmatic ideas he can scavenge. There seems to be a large ego in the balance, even by pol standards.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:39 am
“I think the attraction of the French lifestyle will defeat Sarkozy in the end if he gets too energetic.”
I agree reg. Energetic is not one of France’s strong traits. Which is why it will take a hell of alot more Sarkozys to keep it from its current path into the third world community of 30% unemployment and the continued civil strife it causes. He is just a blip.
Those in the U.S. contemplating and voting for and campaigning for 35 hour work weeks, guaranteed employment, free health care, free welfare, free college educations, open borders so all others can enjoy the same, etc, have a model in France for the consequences…..if they are practical enough to recognize it.
But lack of common sense and practicality on the left side is the root of the problem to begin with, isn’t it? France’s death wish will be they have not elected a leader that is more energetic than themselves.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:44 am
rlc: Royal got in trouble with her socialist allies when she played the “Marsielles†at her rallies. To many of the Left that is song of the Right and they want no part of “Bonapartismâ€.
Imagine the Democrats abjuring the flag or the “Star Spangled Banner
I’ve never understood Marseilles to be a right wing song. It was written by revolutionaries. The impure blood is metaphorical. It was banned by Vichy.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Reg may be right about Sarkozy’s pragmatism about the French social model.
But Sarkozy, a racist demagogue, is gonna make life miserable for Blacks, Arabs and others.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:52 am
jcummings — No, I’m not a Schachtmanite. But I used to consider myself a DeLeonist! If you’re going to be enamoured by utopian notions like revolutionary socialism, you need to pick a quaint variety.
I actually went to one of the last SDUSA conferences I think there probably ever was, a few years ago. Mainly to check out the scenery, though. They’re too fanatically zionist for my taste. But they did a good job of pointing out leftist blind spots — for instance, embracing radical chic and mau-mauing, and not knowing or caring who Theo van Gogh was — while still speaking out on the need for a counterbalance to capital (something Hitchens, for instance, has no interest in.). SDUSA was also about getting stuff done: they didn’t hang out in coffee shops, they worked for government agencies and unions and so forth.
Today, I’m your garden variety old style Democrat. The government should do a few things, and do them well. We need a strong public sector to counterbalance capitalism. Alternatives to capitalism can wait until the next life. And in the 21st Century, “False Consciousness” sounds like something you hear about from someone reading “A Course In Miracles”.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:53 am
From Wayne Madsen – not a reliable source, but he has broken some real stories…
Nicolas Sarkozy (whom are French intelligence sources have referred to a the “little French Hitler”) will govern France with the help of two Silvio Berlusconi- and Rupert Murdoch-like billionaire neo-con French media moguls, Martin Bouygues and Arnaud Lagardere. Bouygues owns the TF1 television channel, which can be expected to act as Sarkozy’s own version of the U.S. Republican Party’s Fox News Channel. Lagardere’s media group owns the Europe 1 radio network, Paris Match, several French regional newspapers, and is a major stakeholder in the French television network Canal+. Sarkozy is known to censor any news reports that are unfavorable to him and pressure publishers and editors to fire wayward journalists. With much of the French media in his pocket, expect the Franco-Hungarian Sarkozy to institute a new era of Janos Kadarist-style censorship in his nation.
The French election, from the start, has been plagued by election fraud — bogus polling data, false exit polls, and electronic voting machine and machine counting irregularities were hallmarks of the first presidential election round. ES&S’s I-Votronic machines were used in both elections across France. Only Sarkozy’s party was supportive of the machines, with all the other political parties calling for a moratorium on their use. Turnout in the French election was 85 percent. With large turnouts historically favoring the left in France, the exit polling and actual polling were at odds with the turnout — an indication of massive election fraud.
Similar polling irregularities were experienced in recent elections in Scotland, Wales, and England. In Scotland, 100,000 ballots, thought to mostly be cast for the pro-independence Scottish National Party, were declared “spoiled” in Scotland’s election. That “glitch” cost the Scottish Nationalists a larger majority in the Scottish Parliament. Irregularities in Wales and England similarly affected larger margins for Welsh and Cornish nationalists. As the Bretons and Corsicans will soon discover with Sarkozy, regional nationalism is anathema to the globalist neo-con agenda, particularly the international bankers who want strong centralized control and minimal devolution of power to local and regional governments.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Randy Paul wrote: Given Woody’s utter contempt for the truth…. One of the attorneys at the law firm where I work is French….
A rare triple play. What an insult for someone to (1) call me liar, when (2) you work for lawyers, and (3) you make your point with someone who is French. That actually could give me more crediblity.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:30 am
A French lawyer would know more about French civil law than you and Mitt Romney.
As for the rest of your comments, when all accountants stop cooking the books, you can call the legal profession liars.
Your contempt for the truth has been cited by numeorus commenters here.
It wasn’t a triple play; it was a grand slam.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:49 am
The notion that “someone who is French” is less reliable than either Woody or Mitt Romney (“I have heard…”) on the question of French marriage law boggles the mind. French-bashing is, to paraphrase August Bebel, the patriotism of fools.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Commenters from the left define truth as those things that they wish were true.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Reg,
Not just someone who is French, but someone who is French and an attorney!
May 9th, 2007 at 8:56 am
jc – I have no idea who the guy is writing that, but the invocation of Stalinist stooge Janos Kadar as a model for Sarkozy indicates that he’s pretty much of a nutcase.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:58 am
An attorney ???? Sacrebleu!!!
May 9th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Randy and Reg I believe the SF book is by fellow Mormon Orson Scott Card and is, believe it or not, a version of “The Book of Mormon” set in outer space.
And Sarko has announced his legislative priorities:
A bill to make all Overtime earnings tax exempt to encourage people to work more hours
A tougher policy on Immigration of Family members of current resident aliens
Toughter criminal sanctions
Pretty standard Right wing stuff. But notice what is NOT on the agenda – dismantling the Welfare State!
Jim R where do you get “30% Unemployment”?
May 9th, 2007 at 9:50 am
France is in no danger of becoming a “third world country.” While their economy has certain problems, mostly due to the problem all advanced economies face of maintain national labor standards and certain industries in the face of globalization, if I had to choose a model for “the good life”, their approach makes far more sense than ours. They have what I would consider “traditional values” that make life worth living and allow one to enjoy family and friends with less stress. They eat well, in every sense of the word, and live longer. The also have a slightly higher hourly productivity than we do – but less per capita because they don’t spend evenings at the office and take leisurely vacations. There is also, despite the current cultural rifts, a greater sense of social solidarity, as reflected in their health care system, pensions, etc. If that’s not a reflection of traditional values, I don’t understand the concept – or maybe the term is simply being twisted in the US by right-wing opportunists to conform to their arcane sectarian-religious or Hayek/Rand market-materialist dogmas.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Wayne Madsen. A sort of left Drudge. He’s not usually a reliable source, but he did have the Foley story before Brian Ross.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“ ‘The Book of Mormon’ set in outer space.”
That’s not really much of a stretch…the original has “Indian” tribes crossing the ocean in submarines.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I have a small problem with Anti-Mormonism. Bear with me. I do think its completely hokum, like every religion, save Taoism and Buddhism, which are at least rational, if superstitious. I think it is no more or less nuts than believing that a guy died on a cross and came back to life, or that Thetans are forces that need to be cleared, or that a deity gave a tribe a piece of land as a “covenant” or that crystals and “positive energy” can cure illnesses.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
The problem with Mormonism is that it’s such a recent “innovation” that it hasn’t yet given rise to a wing which is comfortable with using the texts metaphorically and assuming that literalism is bullshit. They still are prone to fundamentalism. Major trends within Christianity don’t defend their stories as “facts” but as narratives that reference broader, more open beliefs within a particular faith tradition. Frankly, as a Marxist, you should have some sympathy with this distinction. There’s not a hell of a lot of difference in the way the traditions have evolved. Is it any less likely that crystals can cure illness than that the proletariat will rise up as a conscious class and usher in a transition to communist nirvana according to Marx’s predictions ?
May 9th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Most modern Marxists aren’t so literalist about Marx’s more chiliastic predictions. So I take your point about most Christians.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Also, Salt Lake City is one of the most progressive municipalities in America. Some Mormons are on the Left.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:59 am
jcummings maybe that’s because the largest religious group in SLC is Roman Catholic.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am
And Wayne Madsen is reporting that Dick Cheney’s name appears in the “DC Madam’s” little black book.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:03 am
jcummings,
Try Provo or St. George. That’s the Mormon heartland.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Yeah and even in Provo they told Cheney to F**K Off”!
May 9th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Course Central Utah is where the chairman of the GOP County Committee called Illegal Immigrants “Spawn of Satan”!
May 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
rlc: “jcummings maybe that’s because the largest religious group in SLC is Roman Catholic.”
According to the Catholic Church, the percentage of RC’s in SLC is 6.5% in 2004.
Morman population of SLC has declined to about 40% from a high of about 60%
May 9th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Seen that show “Big Love” on HBO about the Mormon guy with multiple wives? It’d be great timing for Romney if that thing went into syndication and re-runs soon.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
rlc: “Course Central Utah is where the chairman of the GOP County Committee called Illegal Immigrants “Spawn of Satanâ€!”
Hmmm, and New York, Blue State is where one time Democratic Presidential Aspirant Al Sharpton said: “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation,†@ Bloodthirsty Liberal
GOP county chairman meet Democratic Presidential Contender (AKA Pot, meet Kettle).
May 9th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Yes, but Protestants and Catholics both far outnumber Mormons in SLC. Those few Mormons in SLC who do support the mayor there have done so because of his populist (not “progressive”) stances.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
“The French election, from the start, has been plagued by election fraud — ”
Denial. Total and mind numbing denial of reality.
Anyone want to take a stab at why it is the left cannot accept voter rejection. Why it is the left has to make accusation of fraud, make a scene, demonstrate, yell and scream, destroy property, burn cars, and generally just lose it.
Why is it the right can accept responsibility? Is it because they have been trained to do so, expected to do so, have had to do so, and do not expect entitlement….you know free shit.
Where the fuck do these people get the time to demonstrate and make mahem in France. Oh, now I remember. They don’t work…..and don’t need to. That’s gonna change I think.
Didn’t that crazy broad Sarkozy licked threaten this shit if she didn’t win? Classic looney left.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
David a new set of “Big Love” episodes is coming to HBO. They are hoping it will take up up the slack from the departing “Sopranos”
May 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Jim R has some serious unresolved issues around gender.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:18 am
“They are hoping [Big Love] will take up up the slack from the departing “Sopranosâ€
Good luck to them on that. Personally, I find Big Love boring. With Sopranos, Deadwood, and Six Feet Under gone there really isn’t much left there that’s interesting besides Curb Your Enthusiasm…which needs to be an hour long, IMHO.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Well, Entourage sometimes.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Still in denial JC. Confused adolescence is prime material for Jesus or Mohammad. I would suggest Jesuse. He may let you live long enough to find your true self.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Best thing on “Entourage” is Artie. Their “Star” has the personality of a aging boy-band member. I mean, really, Dillion is more interesting!
“Deadwood” wasn’t so hot but, other than the “Sopranos” the last thing I really liked was “The Larry Sanders Show.”
May 10th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Don’t be missing FX. Rescue Me and The Shield have both been terrific – if not as self-conscioiusly “tony” as The Sopranos. The Sopranos – from the first time I saw Tony with the shrink – has always struck me as trying to levitate above its subject matter. Deadwood arguably did the same thing via it’s steady stream of elaborate locutions – but then you’d have to say the same thing about Shakespeare. Overall, I found Swearingen more a more compelling loveable-bad-guy character than the big slob – although both of them raised the ante higher than I thought possible in their TV series genres.
I’m a big Curb fan, but I think hour-long shows might run the concept into the ground.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Artie is definitely the reason to watch Entourage.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Richard,
Larry Sanders was a great show but my favorite of all time on HBO – way more so than even the Sopranos or Larry Sanders – was Six Feet Under. Its cancellation really reinforced the necessity of the invention of complete season DVDs. Years from now I might even write my own book about the series, and have my own nationwide fan club.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Reg,
I will have to check out FX and those shows. I thought about watching the Shield when you mentioned it some weeks or months ago on here, but I found out the guy that starred on the Shield was the same guy who was on the Commish, which I thought was a boring Z-rate cop show.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I’d have to say that besides some stuff on HBO, I am partial to the ever lucrative multi-billion dollar NBC cash cow known as the Law and Order franchise. The acting (and quite often, the absurd storylines) in Law and Order SVU/CI leaves a lot to be desired, but I am a sucker for it all, cheese or no cheese. I still like the original on NBC the most. A lot of sports, especially NHL hockey on Versus lately with the playoffs. And this might be a guilty pleasure, but I love watching VH1 Classic.
I used to LOVE BBC America, but lately they have been replacing those great British comedies on there with these wanky reality shows, home shows, and ribald soap operas like Footballers Wives. Yawn.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Don’t blame The Commish on Chiklis…blame it on Stephen Cannell.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Law & Order is the potato chips of television series. Of course, there’s less salt.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I think Jim R made an Anti-Semitic remark. Regardless, I accept the radical Anti-Imperialist rabbi Yashusa Ben Joseph (Jesus Christ) and his insurgency against the Romans, as a great historical figure.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I have to differ with Reg about the Sopranos trying to be “above” their subject matter. All mob shows and movies have traditionally been social critique combined with morally ambiguous entert,ainment. This goes back – I repeat myself from an early thread- to 30s Warner Bros films, Cagney, etc.
For example, in the recent episode we see Carmella Soprano reading Fred Barnes’ Bush hagiography Rebel in Chief. On one level it isn’t surprsing, she’s a conservative character (which adds to her tragic, Douglas Sirk like persona) – but even moreso shows that she would prefer to look the other way at certain actions if her man/leader keeps her in aposition that she percieves as safety.
When Vito Spatafore, the gay mobster was killed, it was by Phil Leotardo who came out of the motel room closet to kill him.
There are plenty of examples of this.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Actually, to me Carmella is the most repellent character on the show. She acts very high and mighty, but has no problem living on the fruits of Tony’s criminal enterprises.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Sorry jc, but I think the shrink deal was a stretch from the start. It’s actually the piece that sort of distanced me from totally buying the show early on. The Sopranos is wildly different in its self-conscious “hipness” about its characters – as you prove with Carmella reading that dumbass Fred Barnes book – than the Cagney films. Of course they’re all social commentary, but Sopranos is much, much more self-conscious. Cagney didn’t debate evolution to give “texture” to his character.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Very repellent AND tragic. Thats the point (living on the fruit of Tony’s criminal enterprises).
Its a great soap.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Truly the most repellent character on the show is Dr. Melfi.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I think the show is concious of its both embrace and attack on tradition, as symbolized by Christopher beating up Lauren Bacall.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Reg you miss the point. What the “Sopranos” does that no other series on the mob has really done is depict the complete life of these characters. Tony and Christofer are mobsters, sure. But Tony is raising a family. He’s got a son that is a screw-up and doesn’t know what to do. Carmela can be a pain-in-the-ass with her whining. Vito’s son got shanghaied to one of those “Tough Love” camps in
Utah! (maybe he’ll meet the “big love” characters).
There has been some of this in other films – like “Goodfellas” or “Casino” but none that went into the home life of the Cosa Nostra like this.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
To me the most hypocritical and repellent is Meadow, the daughter. Without a doubt, she is David Chase’s two faced liberal, who speaks so eloquently about the victims of society and the other downtrodden while outing the Vito character to her mom with a smile on her face. Very much so, her actions caused his death.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I know the drill on why the Sopranos is considered so great, but it still strikes me as a conceit. The idea of giving these characters the full-on soap opera treatment for nigh on a decade is, IMHO, more than they deserve. Some of it gets too cute for my taste.
As for who’s most repellent on the show, I really hate Tony’s sister. And the son. Okay, I can’t stand the daughter either. And one of those older guys with the hair really bugs me. Can’t remember his name – the one who killed the gay guy. He totally sucks. (And Steve VZ’s pained expression looks as fake as the hairpiece.) I pretty much like everybody else, considering they’re a bunch of scumbags. Except the shrink. Don’t like the shrink. Also don’t much like Peter B, the shrink’s shrink. That’s way too stupid.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
My favorite part of the Sopranos every week is the opening titles and the song. That’s the coolest thing anybody’s ever done on TV. Even better than the Deadwood opening.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Reg – that’s Phil – Frank Vincent, one of the great Italian American character actors of all time. He was in Goodfellas and Casino, the latter of which he was Pesci’s cokebuddy/killer the former in which he was the made guy who Pesci killed.
And the shrink is the biggest scumbag for continuing to treat and enable Tony after the events of the first and second ci, good to see him – one of the great filmmakers alive – getting ANY work at all.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Tehre was a little missing thing from the second paragaraph…it should be first and second season…I like Bogdanovich as Dr. Kupfgerberg – good to see him…….
May 12th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Frank Vincent’s best work was in Raging Bull; the brief time that he was in it.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Or the guy who parks his car in the street in Do the Right Thing..