02-18-2008, 05:06 PM
Le Figaro, France
America is Getting Ready to Turn the Bush Page
Translated by Sandra Stark
February 14, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
According to Andre Kaspi, Professor Emiritus at the Sorbonne, âthe Americans are looking for the candidate who can bring them together, who will erase the current divisions.â
The French would vote overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. Is this a prediction? In 2000, they chose Al Gore; in 2004, John Kerry. It would probably be smarter to guard against premature enthusiasm. Nonetheless, we can draw up the first scorecard of this electoral campaign which began more than a year ago.
From primaries to caucuses, Americans expressed their choice in thirty states. They voted in numbers far greater than other elections. They are hoping to turn the page after eight years of George W. Bush's presidency. They are passionate, as we all are, and the media is keeping that passion alive. What is even more striking is the candidates' use of the most sophisticated technology, from TV ads to internet messages, blogs, and surveys. And at the same time they must make themselves available, shake hands with the people, and hold meeting after meeting, passing from one state to another at supersonic speed, repeating incessantly the same speeches in front of new and attentive audiences. So, it is also a ground campaign. The voters must see the candidates, must touch them.
Modernity has not taken the place of the old ways. Democracy always wins. It works. But it is based on electoral arrangements which, from so many miles away, we don't understand very well, and we have every reason to think that the majority of Americans do not understand them much better themselves. There is a strong sense of anxiety. Money plays too big a part. Ridiculous sums are spent and will continue to be spent. Candidates must constantly seek contributions, as if a full coffer is the sign of incontestable popularity. The results are constantly compared. Hillary Clinton had to loan 5 million dollars of her own money to her campaign, which confirms that she has less money than Barack Obama.
The Democratic party is divided. Not about ideology or programs. It is constantly innovating. In 2000, it presented a Jew for Vice President. In 2008, a woman or a black man could enter the White House. The two candidates, who have been carefully scrutinized, differ less in substance than they do in style. Barack Obama is an excellent orator who ignites the enthousiasm of crowds. He benefits from the support of young people as well as blacks (who too often stay away from elections until the last minute). It doesn't seem to matter that his program is a bit uncertain. He has become the idol of the elite, the best educated, and independent voters alike. Hillary Clinton has her policy at her fingertips. She is counting on the votes of women, Hispanics, Jews, voters older than 40, and bedrock Democrats. Bill Clinton, the former president, brings his support, which is sometimes beneficial and sometimes embarrassing. The candidates are neck and neck. Their battle is without concessions, and almost violent.
Whoever wins, this battle will leave its scars. That is the danger of the primary election system. Before reuniting them to fight the opposing party, the primaries force the opponents into positions which make it difficult to reconcile with each other when it is time for the general election.
The Republican party is also divided. John McCain has not yet convinced the hard-core conservatives, those who are opposed to abortion rights, who want to impose creationism, who defend tooth and nail their religious values. They support Mike Huckabee, the former Baptist minister. But, in a contest against Obama or Clinton, the Republicans won't hesitate to back McCain. He will have to make some concessions. Maybe he will let it be known that Huckabee could be his running mate and, in case of victory, the Vice President. It is also possible that McCain will attract a good number of independents. His candidacy will be situated firmly in the center right, and not at the far right. Can he make people forget his age? Certainly, Ronald Reagan was elected for the first time at the age of 69, and re-elected at the age of 73. For McCain, it's a handicap, unless circumstances would require a President who was well-tested, which would reassure his compatriots.
The key to this campaign? Programs count less than personalities. Americans are looking for a candidate who will bring them together, who will erase the present divisions. As the only nationally elected leader, the President must express the will of the greatest number of voters. He cements the unity of the nation. That is why whenever a candidate is rejected by a part of the electorate, he is no longer considered âeligible.â Once elected, the unifier must manage the country the best he or she can. The work of dealing with international crises, economic questions, social difficulties, and all manner of political traps falls to the President. Every presidential election is a bet on the future. Nothing proves that a good candidate will become a good President, or that a mediocre candidate won't make an excellent President. Are we forgetting that there are still nine months of intensive scrutiny before a new President will be chosen? We don't know what the immediate future will bring. Will there be an international crisis of major importance? Will we escape another terrorist attack? Will the economic recession worsen? Will shattering revelations ruin the chances of any candidate? So many unknowns that can reverse predictions.
In a word, nothing is served by the intoxicating game of forecasting. Nothing is bet. Let's wait, with patience, for November 4th.
America is Getting Ready to Turn the Bush Page
Translated by Sandra Stark
February 14, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
According to Andre Kaspi, Professor Emiritus at the Sorbonne, âthe Americans are looking for the candidate who can bring them together, who will erase the current divisions.â
The French would vote overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. Is this a prediction? In 2000, they chose Al Gore; in 2004, John Kerry. It would probably be smarter to guard against premature enthusiasm. Nonetheless, we can draw up the first scorecard of this electoral campaign which began more than a year ago.
From primaries to caucuses, Americans expressed their choice in thirty states. They voted in numbers far greater than other elections. They are hoping to turn the page after eight years of George W. Bush's presidency. They are passionate, as we all are, and the media is keeping that passion alive. What is even more striking is the candidates' use of the most sophisticated technology, from TV ads to internet messages, blogs, and surveys. And at the same time they must make themselves available, shake hands with the people, and hold meeting after meeting, passing from one state to another at supersonic speed, repeating incessantly the same speeches in front of new and attentive audiences. So, it is also a ground campaign. The voters must see the candidates, must touch them.
Modernity has not taken the place of the old ways. Democracy always wins. It works. But it is based on electoral arrangements which, from so many miles away, we don't understand very well, and we have every reason to think that the majority of Americans do not understand them much better themselves. There is a strong sense of anxiety. Money plays too big a part. Ridiculous sums are spent and will continue to be spent. Candidates must constantly seek contributions, as if a full coffer is the sign of incontestable popularity. The results are constantly compared. Hillary Clinton had to loan 5 million dollars of her own money to her campaign, which confirms that she has less money than Barack Obama.
The Democratic party is divided. Not about ideology or programs. It is constantly innovating. In 2000, it presented a Jew for Vice President. In 2008, a woman or a black man could enter the White House. The two candidates, who have been carefully scrutinized, differ less in substance than they do in style. Barack Obama is an excellent orator who ignites the enthousiasm of crowds. He benefits from the support of young people as well as blacks (who too often stay away from elections until the last minute). It doesn't seem to matter that his program is a bit uncertain. He has become the idol of the elite, the best educated, and independent voters alike. Hillary Clinton has her policy at her fingertips. She is counting on the votes of women, Hispanics, Jews, voters older than 40, and bedrock Democrats. Bill Clinton, the former president, brings his support, which is sometimes beneficial and sometimes embarrassing. The candidates are neck and neck. Their battle is without concessions, and almost violent.
Whoever wins, this battle will leave its scars. That is the danger of the primary election system. Before reuniting them to fight the opposing party, the primaries force the opponents into positions which make it difficult to reconcile with each other when it is time for the general election.
The Republican party is also divided. John McCain has not yet convinced the hard-core conservatives, those who are opposed to abortion rights, who want to impose creationism, who defend tooth and nail their religious values. They support Mike Huckabee, the former Baptist minister. But, in a contest against Obama or Clinton, the Republicans won't hesitate to back McCain. He will have to make some concessions. Maybe he will let it be known that Huckabee could be his running mate and, in case of victory, the Vice President. It is also possible that McCain will attract a good number of independents. His candidacy will be situated firmly in the center right, and not at the far right. Can he make people forget his age? Certainly, Ronald Reagan was elected for the first time at the age of 69, and re-elected at the age of 73. For McCain, it's a handicap, unless circumstances would require a President who was well-tested, which would reassure his compatriots.
The key to this campaign? Programs count less than personalities. Americans are looking for a candidate who will bring them together, who will erase the present divisions. As the only nationally elected leader, the President must express the will of the greatest number of voters. He cements the unity of the nation. That is why whenever a candidate is rejected by a part of the electorate, he is no longer considered âeligible.â Once elected, the unifier must manage the country the best he or she can. The work of dealing with international crises, economic questions, social difficulties, and all manner of political traps falls to the President. Every presidential election is a bet on the future. Nothing proves that a good candidate will become a good President, or that a mediocre candidate won't make an excellent President. Are we forgetting that there are still nine months of intensive scrutiny before a new President will be chosen? We don't know what the immediate future will bring. Will there be an international crisis of major importance? Will we escape another terrorist attack? Will the economic recession worsen? Will shattering revelations ruin the chances of any candidate? So many unknowns that can reverse predictions.
In a word, nothing is served by the intoxicating game of forecasting. Nothing is bet. Let's wait, with patience, for November 4th.