The Lefty Boom

great movie....one of my favorites

I wonder that too, Lola.

Perc seems to be like one of those kids who's scared stiff but dying for attention, who provokes but can't stand provocation, who can't stand the heat but can't stay away from the kitchen. My feeling is that we shouldn't play nursy to him, patronize him, if we're going to engage with him at all. When he's interesting (certainly not unheard of), great! When he's only here to provoke, that's different. If he feels he's not getting enough attention -- or agreement -- and wants to set up a provocation, okay. If he gets knocked down.... well, he was the one who set it up. He's far from stupid, and he has all the choices we do. Including the "off" button.

Many drop in here for a break from work and so any amusing conversation, provoking or not, is interesting for a time. So a small fracas can be temporary entertainment...

I'm wearing my "raging lefty" badge with pleasure, being considered out here in the real world as someone who's hard to pin down. A little left, a little center, a little old fashioned "good" Republican (fiscal conservatism, puh-lease!). Of course we have to remember that Chafee and Warren Rudman and Bill Clinton and those guys are raging lefties too. Good company.

Y'know, a conservative friend of mine is fond of pointing out similarities between Dean and Clinton, as if that is supposed to discourage me from voting for him. Yes, Clinton had many flaws, and I'm sure Dean does as well, but comapring Dean to a president who was accomplished at both foreign and domestic policy seems rather a pale condemnation, no?I wonder how much of Bush's "support" is really the far right willing to put up with anything to not have a democrat in office? The contradictions from this administration (expensive war in Iraq, tax cuts, joblessness, declining economy, evidence of corruption) have really made me wonder how any thinking person can continue to support it.

This is a very, very silly thread . . .

I'm right handed, and don't rage, but by perception's definition, i'm a raging lefty . . . rage sounds too much to me like something which will raise a sweat. That sounds like work, and i am constitutionally opposed to work.

A very, very silly thread indeed.

Hold onto your hat, Setanta, it could get even sillier.

thilly, we're not thilly, we're tetched

I gotta agree with Lola's perception.

very good Timber. I'm laughing. Nice comic relief.

Lola wrote:

I meant that perc provokes and then everyone jumps on him, insulting each other becomes the activity most prominent or at least, very noticible to me. I feels like the left bank sometimes. But maybe I'm being overly sensitive. It's ok with me if it's ok with the rest of you. It is entertaining, I must admit. I've always enjoyed a good fight.

Lola----did you really have to put it like that? I am deeply wounded----My god you said: Perc provokes---didn't you mean to say: when perc is provoked by another participant he provokes back?
Please tell me that's what you meant say. Here you are, my most respected mentor. Well---I just may not survive----just think of the entertainment you would miss.

Walter already responded but only very cursorily.

My answer on "why does it say they are a Socialist led gov" would be that your text is outdated - though i cant check the details cause you didnt provide a link.

There's two big parties in France: the Socialist Party on the left, and the Gaullists, currently going under the name Union for the Presidential Majority, on the right. The Gaullists are named after General de Gaulle, the conservative, nationalist President who led the Free French Forces in WW2 and stayed on as President until 1969.

As the current name of the Gaullists already indicates, they have the presidency at the moment, with Jacques Chirac. The last Socialist president was Francois Mitterand, that was back in 1980-1995.

Mitterand used to dominate all of political life, but Chirac tends to restrict himself more to foreign policy and 'father of the nation' symbolism. He leaves most of the domestic politics to the Prime Minister.

The current Prime Minister is Raffarin, also of the Gaullists. He was appointed after the Socialists lost the parliamentary elections, last year. Your source probably wasnt updated after that.

Throughout the years that Chirac and Mitterand were President, Gaullist- and Socialist-led governments have exchanged each other. This because the French system allows for a situation called "cohabitation" (kinda like a LAT relationship), which is when the president is of one party and the prime minister and his government are of the opposing party. This is possible because the President is elected directly, while the Prime Minister is appointed by Parliament, and the elections for President and Parliament often are not at the same time. Involves a lot of compromise.

Lionel Jospin led the last Socialist-led government, from 1997 to 2002.

There's a few other parties in France, too. When the Socialists govern, they usually do so with the support of the Green, Radical and Communist parties ("la gauche plurielle"). When the Gaullists govern, they use the support of the UDF, a more centrist 'freemarket liberal' party. Out of the loop are the populist opposition parties on the far left (Trotskyites) and far right (Le Pen's National Front), which each poll some 7-17%.

Whichever scale from left to right you take, the currently governing Gaullists havent got much to their right 'xcept for the xenophobic National Front. Well, "Hunt Fishing Nature Tradition" perhaps (good for some 3% of the vote). There's also been some maverick anti-EU Gaullists that split from and return to Chirac's party irregularly.

Now, for your other question, about taxes and privatisation.

You submit that, since France has high taxes and low privatisation, it cant be conservative, it must be Socialist. But European conservatism has historically long had a very statist tradition, too. Libertarianism is just one end of the conservative universe. Authoritarian conservatism, with its values of respect for tradition, loyalty to the ruler, and the overriding importance of national pride over individual freedom is on the other end. None of these values promote a great fervour for privatisation and the like.

French conservatism - French politics, period - has always been very statist. The difference between left and right is more equality vs authority than state vs market. In that sense it may sometimes look - superficially, at least - as if French conservatism is more "socialist" than German social-democracy, for example.

Hope that helped.

good question.

Lets just ignore him unless he actually contributes to the discussion.

perc,

I don't think the point is about who started it. To me the point is that anyone can stop it. It's not turning the other cheek, either.....heaven forbid I would suggest such a thing. It's just a matter of why don't we stick to the question being discussed and cut out the rock throwing? It's possible to have an excellent debate and disagree, even disagree strongly, scoring points without stoning each other to death. If we start fighting about who started it, it's still the same old argument.

And I think you do provoke, as do we all from time to time, but it's not the greatest crime in the world. It does make for a good fight, however, are we here for debate or for a stoning?

Nimb

Thanks for the more finite explanation of the politics in France. I got that piece of data off Google and didn't particularly like it. I think part of the difficulty lies in the definition of "Socialist". Like a lot of other words in the English language it has many meanings. I tend to categorize Socialism as a system that discourages private enterprize and individual incentive in order to promote a classless form of society where the individual does not really matter----and should contribute most of his labors to the state.
Yeah I know it's not like that in England but I did get very tired of watching the Labor party nationalize the industry when they got in and then the conservatives would privatize everything when they returned to power.
England also has very strong Labor unions that almost destroyed the country until Thatcher came to power and cut the unions down somewhat and now they SEEM to have a fairly good balance because the labor gov't has adoped some of the conservative management style----I'm probably wrong again ---just my impression. BTW---I'd like some the participants to know that many of the social programs in Europe are made possible by $3 to $4 dollars of tax on EVERY gallon of gasoline sold. Europe now sells approximately the same number of cars anually as the US----16 million--and those cars take a hell of a lot of gas. If we charged that much tax here to support the social programs that we need it would take a huge bite out of the economy because the automobile is more essential due to much greater distances. Everyone here seems to live at least 40 miles one way from work

I suppose most of my perception of the gov't in France was formed by watching the powerful unions in France bring the country to it's knees every 6 months or so with a catestrophic strike---that's probably a gross overstatement but that's the impression I got.

The only thing that I really know about France is that you can drive anywhere in France and when it comes time to eat you can stop anywhere and have a very good meal and drink the local wine. I spent some time in Northern Italy where I bought a new VW and headed for England. I couldn't wait to get across the mountains into France for a good meal.

Thanks again for the information on French politics---you are one of the best sources for factual information. Walter means well but he is convinced I am the enemy plus his translations give him difficulty it seems.

Hi Lola

You wrote:It's possible to have an excellent debate and disagree, even disagree strongly, scoring points without stoning each other to death. If we start fighting about who started it, it's still the same old argument.

Very good point: However that is only possible if everyone has your class and style----UNFORTUNATELY, that is impossible---so life goes on.

I do have a suggestion----how about a thread that would be created by any particular person and the originator of the thread would have the prerogative of banishing anyone who would not comply with the rules of good behavior. That would of course be made possible by the moderators and would require only one instance of personal attack (ad hominem) instead of sticking to the argument at hand. I believe the civility would improve dramatically. The person banished could immediately start their own thread. Just an idea but I completely agree that civility is lost very quickly on the entire forum. It's damn shame because their are a lot of very bright folks and we could all learn which is the objective----yes ----no?

So, posters who said things like
"Why don't you get on your broom,"
"Give it a rest Alice,"
"Oh, I see you're from Old Europe, no wonder you don't understand..."
etc... would be told to leave, eh?

Thanks for the compliment(s)!

Certainly we can exchange our different opinions (about France) in French, if you want to!

Taking into account that there is no "pure socialism" running around out there any more than democracy is pure in the US, we've seen socialist governments, mostly in northern Europe, which have been successful -- socially and economically. Some have looked very attractive to those of us who are uncomfortable with unfettered capitalism-turned-imperialism. I've been rereading Wilson on Marx and Engels lately. It's important to remember that there is a vast gap between political theory and politics on the ground -- and that's as true of socialism as it is of capitalism.

Perc -- I think it makes sense to have (as happened informally in Abuzz) threads in which the host is the moderator, dis-inviter when called for. Probably something satisfactory could be set up within the "usergroup" category -- where you can start with your own "guest list."

Might be preachng to the converted, though, no?

Well, in threads of that kind, the purpose is to exchange, not preach, of course. I think they have their place as a complement to, not a substitute for, open discussion.