Why did those anti-U.S. French elect a pro-U.S. president?

Question

Why did those anti-U.S. French elect a pro-U.S. president?
E-mail this page Reader Comments (below)
By M.D. Harmon Portland Press Herald Friday, May 11, 2007

I guess this is the end of freedom fries, not to mention any remaining sentiment to boycott French wines or certain fragant cheeses.
Instead, we should raise a glass of vintage Chardonnay or even Champagne to toast the victory Sunday of a new French president, who without any hesitation said during his entire campaign that it was time to repair relations with "our good friends, the Americans."
Nicholas Sarkozy, 52, is the son of Hungarian immigrants and a law-and-order economic conservative. He soundly beat the Socialist Party nominee, 53-year-old SÈgolËne Royal.
It's tempting to cast the race in American terms, seeing Sarkozy as a combination of George W. Bush, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, with a dash of Fred Thompson thrown in.
Indeed, Sarkozy outraged his leftist critics by visiting the United States during the campaign and being photographed shaking Bush's hand.
In that paradigm, Royal becomes (who else?) Hillary ("don't call me Rodham") Clinton -- especially since the Frenchwoman, finding that her "stay-the-collapsing-welfare-state-course" message was failing to get traction, played the gender card at the end, asking women to vote for her as France's first female leader.
That would leave aside Joan of Arc, but that's not a comparison worth taking too far.
It may or may not be a lesson for Hillary boosters that the appeal to les femmes didn't work.
Sarkozy got 53 percent of the total vote and 52 percent of the women's vote, showing that feminist solidarity comes up a bit short when unemployment's soaring and tout le mond wonders why so many of your young people think that if Paris isn't burning, it's not for lack of effort on their part.
As a Wall Street Journal analysis noted Wednesday, voters expect a woman candidate to meet a higher standard for toughness and leadership. The story quoted Democratic pollster Peter Hart as saying, "One of the challenges is that 'commander in chief' is so much of the job description."
There are those who have tried to downplay this vote, and in some media outlets, coverage of Paris Hilton's scrapes with a drunken-driving charge took precedence over Paris, France's decision to go with the old free-market vintage as opposed to sipping another soupÁon of socialism.
Closing one's eyes won't make reality go away, however.
This reality indicates, among many other things, that all those people who have been telling us for years that the French really hate Americans may have been confusing France's highly anti-American media with the actual sentiments of the people.
Of course, Sarkozy wasn't elected entirely, or even primarily, on his pro-American views. He took a strong stand against rioters in both immigrant (read: Muslim) neighborhoods, where the youth unemployment rate tops 40 percent, and in Paris, where spoiled university students spilled into the streets to protest a law that would have allowed their future employers to dismiss them if they couldn't do their jobs.
That sounds odd to U.S. ears, but such productivity-strangling laws are common in the socialist-influenced societies of Europe. They are places where, when the government promises to take care of you from the cradle to the grave, it changes your diapers and drops the lid on your coffin.
Sarkozy promised to restore the abandoned dismissal law and make it easier to start small businesses. He vowed to crack down on immigrant rioters, who still protested his election, ironically unable (yet, at least) to see that his policies offer them the best hope they've ever had of escaping France's economic doldrums.
Now, conservative leaders expressing a wish for greater friendships with America have been elected not only in France, but in Germany (Angel Merkel, 2005), Canada (Stephen Harper, 2006) and Mexico (Felipe CalderÛn, 2006).
With Tony Blair's departure as British prime minister next month, this nation loses a great friend, but where his successor, Gordon Brown, will take the country remains to be seen.
That overall trend, however, not only casts the complaints of our own limpid leftists about our support abroad in a somewhat different light, it has very good implications for the struggle against jihadist terrorists in the near future.
The hope of further progress in that fight is perhaps the clearest benefit of Sarkozy's election --demonstrating the clarity of the French in seeing what danger confronts them.
As Walid Phares, author of "The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy," wrote this week, Sarkozy's victory is a response to a plea his predecessors ignored: "Please resist the rise of terror that is the urban jihad."
"This is not just another European election," Phares wrote, "it is a benchmark in the Western struggle to win the war on terror."
We can hope the odds of victory took a big leap on Sunday.

Answer 1

Part of the reason the French economy sucks is because the biggest industry in France is tourism. There has been a big drop in American tourists since the begining of the Iraqi liberation. Follow the money.

Answer 2

You forgot one thing, the French Government, the french president, roch sherock? was the leading antiamerican voice, He was the one who said that Europe did not want americans invovled in Kosovo, who complained that the US was not helping in Kosovo when the UN got into trouble (note the flip) and then, while in receipt of funds from Husain's oil for aid funds, was the most out spoken of the US invasion of Iraq. If this new leader of France is truly pro-american, then it only shows that it is truly the people of a country that determine what the rules are, so now it is time to get that message to the American Politicians by voting for an Independant Candidate, but who?

Answer 3

That's some wild thinking man. I liked reading it. But a few complaints: " FDR started WWII and Wilson started WWI" you make a leap from, "got us into the war" to "STARTED THE WAR". if you were trying to build a rational argument, you should have avoided this. Obviously neither of them "Started" either world war. Your accounts of both world wars is off. But you have a good point. if we had a republican president, in today's mold, they would have been more likely to intervene early, instead of letting the situation get outta control. Hindsight is genius, and most geniuses agree that letting the situations develop as they did made the ultimate costs much greater than they could have been, i.e. Clinton could have gotten Bin Laden years before 9-11 when he was still a terrorist threat but didn't, so instead we get two decade long wars. But the issue here isn't "democrats get us into wars and republicans don't", it's "republicans get us into smaller wars that we can win fast and democrats are ******* who like to wait till the $h!t hits the fan." As for Hitler calling his party socialist. That is somewhat fair, but China also calls itself a republic. Does any of that bother you? Hitler called himself a socialist, and since he controlled the economy, I suppose on a level, that is applicable. But Hitler was beyond any shadow of a doubt, fascist. WHy did he sell himself as socialist? Because it doesn't sound as bad. Same reason China calls themselves a republic. FYI. China is a republic. They just don't practice democracy there. IF you don't like that, the splitting Hitler's hairs, consider this...what do you hate about Hitler, the fact that he was supreme ruler of Germany's economy...or...the fact that he thought the germans were a superior race that had a right to commit genocide in order to restore that race to supremacy. I hope you think it's the latter. And you don't honestly think that all the liberal, progressive, equality minded, practically reparation-like in function, programs that dems come up with to help poor people, which are disproportionately african american, are Republican backed? The belief that "Democrats" were opposed to the civil rights act was only true in the south, the deep south, where the republicans were also against it. That Truman guy is the one who desegregated the military.

Answer 4

Seems the french really changed course:"
: convergence of the European and American views. Europeans are now convinced that Iran is working assiduously to develop nuclear weapons and cannot be trusted. French government officials have even gone so far as to complain that the U.S. needs to “act American” and be more overtly threatening to pressure Iran into accepting the advantageous deals European governments have been offering. European concern,"

We got to be more American..roflmao

Answer 5

The French election had very little to do with the so-called war on terror and next to nothing to do with the U.S.

It was an election based almost exclusively on domestic issues.

I've got news for you. They won't be joining us in Iraq.

They continue to recognize the war in Iraq as the strategic blunder it truly is and Sarcozy is in full agreement with that assessment.

Your delusion that this election represents something skewed the direction of the U.S., will slowly dissipate in the coming weeks or probably months in your case.

And you will finally have learned the important distinction between a "pro-U.S. president" and a non anti-U.S. president.

Answer 6

A variety of reading rather than just one source indicated the election results came from a broad range of domestic issues, not just a French response to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But enjoy your french wine anyway.

Answer 7

Many years back the France,England had a plan to take over the Suez canal to protect their oil flow from the mid east The U.S put a stop to it I find it most interesting they also talk of war for oil were is it?

Answer 8

They woke up to the reality of liberalism.

I have more respect now for the French that they look like they have grown a spin.

What does this also say about the the liberal line the world hates us when the French of all people elect a Pro-American.

Time for them to change their line....I doubt it though.

Answer 9

Read the economist, NY Times, or something informative. This isn't so radical a move as you might think. This guy was pretty centrist compared to his main competitor - Ségolène Royal who wanted to basically feed france breast milk as she "listened to the people". That person was disgusting to what passes as centrists in France.

Adieu

Answer 10

Cause they are sick of the immigrants coming into their country and then demanding the country suit their lifestyle.
And why are you suddenly so concerned about the French?