Free Republic

Only one data point, but this article on Yahoo indicates that Royal only garnered 48% of the female vote according to one exit poll. Particularly reassuring was the quote from a women's movement saying...

"Just because you're a feminist, you don't vote for a women who does not have the ability. We're talking about the presidential election here ... It's too serious to link this to a phenomenon of femininity or feminism,".

Another quote that's a bit disturbing, but in one way probably good fun for this audience, is...

Statistics show women in France are far from equal. Just 12 percent of lawmakers are female and only one woman heads a firm in the CAC-40 index of blue chip companies, and she is American.

On the subject of French taxes, they're huge on the income tax front, but less so (I believe) from the capital gains tax angle. Particularly onerous are inheritance taxes and a special tax on the capital of the very wealthy (that i know very little about). Ask me again in a few months, I'm moving to Paris in 3 weeks! You might say I had a vested interest in the outcome of this election, and that sound you can hear is me, breathing a big sigh of relief.

I've often wondered about the perceived French distaste for wealth, I don't really understand it but it seems underpinned by a vaguely-formed notion that if you're wealthy, you must have somehow cheated or exploited others or taken advantage of the general masses to become that way - possibly a throwback from a previous age when status was purely inherited? What I'm getting at is that these socialist policies aren't entirely an outcome predicated by a set of clearly-defined political beliefs, but something more akin to psychology and collective national history that's harder to pin down and therefore also more difficult to argue against. I've tried.

He’s the son of Hungarian immigrants, but born in France, I believe.

There was some embarassement the next day about both of their pronouncements on nuclear energy, with some of the major papers picking up on their mistakes. Le Monde published the following (my translation, so bear with me)...

Both candidates demonstrated certain weaknesses in their knowledge of civil nuclear issues. During a confused exchange on nuclear energy, Segolene Royal accused her adversary of a "series of errors": "That can happen, but you will need to revise this subject matter!". Actually, both candidates showed certain weaknesses in their knowledge of civil nuclear issues. The share of nuclear power in French electricity products is not, in fact, 17%, as claimed by Segolene Royal, who, on Thursday, on France Inter [Radio Station] admitted to "a lapse". But neither is it 50%, as claimed by Mr. Sarkosy.

In fact, the number is 78% - you can find the information on Bloomberg over here.

I’m French speaking, but have spent a fair bit of time in the US, and I find this sort of comment really interesting because it illustrates some really big differences between what the French and Americans look for in their leaders.

Not to say that they don’t look for the same things overall - it’s more a question of what’s more important and what’s less important.

The French *need* this free-form debate - the nuances that come across and the candidate’s ability to adjust on the fly without losing eloquence, subtlety, class or style are considered - in French - to be indicators of other things, such as intelligence, depth of thinking, considered opinions and general leadership ability.

I’m not sure I can be as clear about what’s important in America, but I would venture as far as to suggest that in much of the Americas, individuals care little for well-formed phrases (coastal cities perhaps being the exception) and care more about certain key policies such as the treatment of the Mexican border in Texas, or the party line on abortion in some other states.

In France, people come to very personal judgements about their leaders attributes (while drawing a clear line between their political persona and their private lives, the latter being considered .. well... private, and up to a point, irrelevant).

In this debate, those that cared only about the protection of state employees and the preservation of the 35-hour week sided with Royal. The reason Sarko did so well is that he didn’t come across as an extremist, he knew where he stood on his issues, he didn’t let himself get pushed away from his core positions and he came across as a statesman. If you’re going to represent one of the five most powerful countries in the world, hysterics just don’t do the job.

I’m glad he won - it’s a shame he as protectionist tendencies - they clash ideologically (to my mind) with his free-market policies in the labour markets.

My 2 euro-cents, anyway.