Les Guignols de L’Info: Les journalistes les plus professionnels en France

It is awkward to watch French journalists interviewing Nicolas Sarkozy. They look nervous, flustered, incoherent, and most importantly, they look like a bunch of amateurs. They don’t ask the questions that need to be asked of an incumbent president. They don’t talk about his record. They let Sarkozy lead the interview, answer the questions he wants to answer, and ask himself questions and then answer them, and so on. It’s a pitiful spectacle. It is no longer journalism; it’s idolatry.

Take for example Franz Olivier Giesbert, supposedly a famous journalist with the magazine Le Point. In his last interview of Sarkozy, Mr. Giesbert asked the incumbent president–it wasn’t really a question, or a comment or rhetorical question, quite honestly, i really don’t know what he was doing–about his sad eyes. He said, “je vois de la tristesse dans vos yeux!” Oh my goodness! Is that a question or a love declaration? Instead of asking the president about his flip-flopping on many of his previous positions and policies, or on the aggressive tone of his campaign, or on his numerous lies on the campaign trail, or on his record/plan to fight France’s chronically high unemployment rate, Mr. Giesbert asked about the president’s eyes. Wasn’t that a heartwarming question? I literally cringed when i heard that comment/question/whatever you want to call it. Would that be a question that Joe Nocera or Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times would ask? Would that be a question that Mike Wallace or Steve Kroft or Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes would ask? No, they would not because those questions allow the interviewed to gain control of the interview, to lead it, to have the upper hand, and therefore, to escape and avoid answering the most pertinent questions. Instead, Sarkozy gets asked softball questions and he gets to knock them out of the park. The man has yet to answer one hard question on his record or on his campaign. No one has yet to date to ask him the tough question(s).

Don’t get me wrong, Franz Olivier Giesbert is not the only stupid journalist in France. There are plenty of them–especially on television–and all of them seem to be awestruck when they have the incumbent president Sarkozy in front of them. They really remind me of those teenage girls who yell and scream and cry when they meet Justin Beiber or their pop music idol. They are ridiculous. It’s a shameful spectacle that degrades the noble profession of journalism.

However, there are still journalists in France who do their job and ask the real questions, and try to highlight the flagrant inconsistencies and contradictions of Sarkozy the candidate. They are just not human. They are figurines made out of rubber, foam, plastic, and fake hair. Yes, those journalists are the puppets of Canal Plus, also known as Les Guignols de L’Info. They are the only professional journalists in France or what is left of professional journalism in that country. They wrap and mix serious questions with satire, laughter, and jokes, but their questions are right on the money; and they are deadly serious.

These two short clips posted below show one very important thing that no journalist in France has yet to highlight. Les Guignols point to the most obvious, to the biggest elephant in the room: the contradictions, the lies, and the inconsistencies in Sarkozy’s campaign and record. They do that in a very clever and yet accurate way. I think that all journalists in France should sit down, shut up, watch a few clips, take notes, and then try to be as professional as les Guignols de l’Info.

En 2012, je change tout sauf les shoes (courtesy of Canal+.fr)

Nicolas Sarkozy peut-il faire oublier Nicolas Sarkozy (courtesy of Canal+.fr)

France: Après “Nicolas Le Pen” du Wall Street Journal, voici “Sarkozy sur la route de la bassesse” du New York Times.

In less than 2 days, Nicolas Sarkozy performed a miracle; he brought the editorial page of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal together. Something that we have not seen in a while and we are not about to see any time soon. Indeed, the WSJ editorial page, a bastion of the right and conservatism, has rarely agreed on anything with the editorial page of the NYTimes. Well, Sarkozy’s  awfully xenophobic campaign was something that the American left and right agreed to disagree with. Ugly, xenophobic, desperate, racist, radical, divisive, anti-Muslim, frivolous and so on are only a few adjectives used by the NYTimes and the WSJournal editorialists to describe Sarkozy’s campaign. These are journalists and columnists who are used to the rough and tumble American style of politics, and yet they stand bewildered by what Sarkozy and his team have been doing and saying during this campaign.

---

March 14, 2012

Mr. Sarkozy on the Low Road

President Nicolas Sarkozy’s re-election campaign in France is getting a little desperate, and more than a little ugly. Although new polls show him the likely top vote-getter in next month’s first-round voting, they also show him running well behind François Hollande of the Socialist Party in the decisive May runoff. To try and close that gap, Mr. Sarkozy has been fishing for far-right voters by assailing foreign immigrants, foreign imports and even the dietary laws of French Muslims.

Mr. Sarkozy may think it is smart politics to pander to racism and xenophobia. He has done it before. And, sadly, his harsh new tone has given him a quick boost in the polls. But it is damaging to French society. And it may prove a mixed political blessing in May. Many French voters already think that he lacks presidential dignity.

Times are tough in France, but Mr. Sarkozy could have run a more elevated campaign. He has domestic achievements (pension reform) and international achievements (Libya). His main opponent, Mr. Hollande, has vague ideas and unrealistic economic proposals.

Instead, Mr. Sarkozy has chosen the low road. At a packed rally on Sunday, he attacked European Union trade rules, which he said had opened French markets to “savage” competition, and called for a protectionist “buy European” rule for public spending that would raise costs and invite retaliation. He also threatened to suspend French participation in Europe’s 25-nation open border agreement unless others did more to keep illegal immigrants and refugees out of Europe. A few days earlier, he had attacked legal immigration, promising a 50 percent cut in admissions for family reunification.

In a particularly vile gambit from a man who already brags about banning the burqa in public and Muslim-style street prayer, Mr. Sarkozy now pledges to protect French consumers from unknowingly eating halal meat, slaughtered in accordance with Muslim dietary codes. He called for legislation requiring all meat labels to note the slaughtering methods used. This proposal originally came from Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate of the unabashedly xenophobic National Front. Mr. Sarkozy first rightly called it frivolous. Then he adopted it.

Five million to six million Muslims now live in France, almost a tenth of the total population. It is cruel to keep family members from joining them and cruel and destructive to subject their religion to mockery. Ms. Le Pen is currently running third in the polls. Regrettably, Mr. Sarkozy has no problem being frivolous or cruel if it means he can peel away some of her voters.

France: Le second souffle de la campagne de Hollande

Since the rally of the Bourget, Hollande’s campaign has slowed down a bit. This is normal. A presidential electoral campaign is long and has a life of its own punctuated by a certain rhythm. No one can wage an earth-scorching, barn-burning, flag-waving, walls-shaking nonstop campaign. The base would tire and the media would lose interest. So, it is important to have peaks and valleys in a campaign; even more accurately, it is important to chose when to slow down, when to peak, and when to crush the gas pedal to finish the campaign at the top.

However, with the chaotic entrance of Sarkozy in the campaign and his one-announcement-per-day blitzkrieg style and his omnipresence in the media, Hollande was compelled to regain the momentum by increasing not only the rhythm of his campaign, but also by infusing a dose of enthusiasm in his base to foster a greater of mobilization for the first round. This is exactly what Hollande has done this week so far. He started the week by announcing an important endorsement of a serious and highly respected politician–Jean-Pierre Chevènement–and then by holding an important rally in Marseille where he delivered a new stump speech–a sharper stump speech aimed at mobilizing the base and at attacking Sarkozy’s record as well as his numerous, inflammatory, and contradictory campaign promises.

The most important sentence delivered by Hollande in his speech is this: “Pourquoi voulez-vous qu’il fasse dans les cinq prochaine années ce qu’il n’a pas été capable de faire les cinq dernières années?” Hollande here is borrowing from Ronald Reagan who in his closing statement in  the last presidential debate that opposed him to the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, delivered a knockout punch by asking the following: “Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the store than four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment than there was four years ago?” Reagan’s rhetorical questions pierced Carter’s presidency, highlighted the failures of his tenure, tightly linked the incumbent to his record, and helped Reagan to draw a sharp contrast between his vision for the future and Carter’s record.

Here is the closing statement of Ronald Reagan in the 1980 second presidential debate

I think Hollande has just regained the momentum again and i will predict that we will see a slight bump in his numbers in the next couple of weeks. Briefly stated, i think the real campaign has just started, and the next 5 weeks will be a mad dash to the finish line.

Here is the speech delivered March 14 at Marseille.

Sarkozy: Escadron, A Droite, Salu-ez.

Today’s post is an attempt to catch up on the lasted news and the evolution of the French presidential election. We have had quite a week. First, Claude Guéant and his “civilizations are not equal” declaration, then Sarkozy’s long interview in Le Figaro Magazine titled “Mes Valeurs Pour La France”, and the possibility that Marine Le Pen will not be able to gather the 500 necessary signatures to be able to be on the ballot.  Well first, let me clear one thing: Sarkozy is running, and there was never a doubt in my mind (or on his for that matter) that he wasn’t going to run again. Those who thought otherwise either don’t know much about politics or  have not been paying close attention to the Sarkozy circus.

So, this week, we have Guéant, Sarkozy, and Le Pen. The question is: what is the link between the 3? And how does Guéant’s declaration about civilizations play a role in helping Sarkozy win his reelection bid while at the same time taking a sharp ideological turn to his right? Well, everything is linked. It is like jigsaw puzzle and each little piece fits in its little place, and when all the pieces are assembled, the resulting image is Sarkozy in the Élysée Palace for 5 more years. Allow me to explain all of this, folks.

First, we start with Marine Le Pen. As i write this post, Marine Le Pen does not have the 500 necessary signatures (500 parrainages) from local officials to be on the ballot. The likelihood that she does not get those signatures is real. So, who benefits the most from such a situation? Well, let us look at a poll conducted by Le Journal du Dimanche last weekend.

Clearly, the candidate who benefits the most from Marine Le Pen’s absence in the first round of the presidential election is Sarkozy. He goes from an average of 26.6% (i averaged all the polls from December 01, 2011 to February 01, 2012 of the following polling institutes: BVA, CSA, HARRIS, IFOP, IPSOS, LH2, Opinionway, and TNS-SOFRES) to a 33% in the first round. This is a jump of more than 6%, while all other candidates maintain their normal statistical scores. Clearly, the one who benefits the most from the absence of Le Pen is Sarkozy (statistically, he is 1% outside of the margin of error upper bound). The problem for Sarkozy is that he still loses the second round badly to Holland even if Le Pen is not on the first round ballot (a difference of about 8 percentage points). Where can Sarkozy get 8 more percentage points to close the gap with Hollande in the second round and win the election? Most importantly, what can he do to close that gap in the second round and get 6 or 8 points to win? Here enters the faithful soldier, Claude Guéant, and Sarkozy’s “Mes Valeurs Pour La France.”

The minister of the interior Guéant, in an informal meeting with the young UMPists,  said last week the following:

 Contrairement à ce que dit l’idéologie relativiste de gauche, pour nous, toutes les civilisations ne se valent pas

Roughly translated, Guéant said that “Contrary to the relativist ideology and doctrine of the left, for us, not all civilizations are created equal.” This is quite a statement. It is so radical that Heinrich Luitpold Himmler would be proud of his disciple. It is important to understand that Guéant is not talking about political regimes, social and economic structures, or even political values and democracy. Guéant is talking about the importance of civilizational hierarchy. It is also very important to understand that Guéant did not make a mistake or misspoke or his remarks were taken out of context or misconstrued. Guéant meant what he said and said what he meant. Why? Why would a politician so disciplined like Guéant say something so controversial in the middle of a very contested presidential campaign? Well, this is what American politicians and observers call a strong and loud dog-whistle, and its objective is to attract or get the attention of the voters of the National Front. If Sarkozy is seen as a believer (by the way, Sarkozy did not rebuke Guéant’s remarks or distance himself from his minister of the interior. He actually defended and supported his remarks) in the hierarchy of the civilizations–i.e., that the white Catholics are racially, ethnically, culturally, economically, and politically form a more advanced civilization than the rest of immigrants in France–he would be seeing as the ideological gap and distance between him and the FN voters. And if he closes that distance, he would get a big chunk of Marine Le Pen’s vote. Add to that the possibility that she might not be able to be on the ballot, you would have a very close first round, and possibly a close second one too.

In addition, Sarkozy’s long interview in Le Figaro Magazine (a puff piece of the worse kind of journalism i have ever seen. It’s not really journalism, it’s a Soviet-like propaganda piece) leaves no doubt about his sharp ideological turn to the right. The essence of the interview is: same-sex marriage? No; Voting right for foreigners? No;  Adoption rights for homosexuals? No; Euthanasia? No; Situation of the unemployed? Take the job we give you, get some training or go somewhere else, etc… So Sarkozy has clearly opted to campaign very hard on his right. In this interview he does not talk about the economic crisis or the dire situation of most of the French people, but he talks about values, “his values for France.” In a way, Sarkozy decided to run on the cleavage left-right and create a clear and sharp distinction between him and Hollande by positioning himself to right of the traditional right-left ideological divide. He is so far to the right that the distinction between him and Marine Le Pen is only a matter of rhetoric, not policies and values.

Most French incumbent  presidents (Giscard, Mitterrand or Chirac) when they decide to run for a second term, they choose to run on the theme of unity, of bringing the country together, of creating a synergy to lift the country to a higher level and so on. They also run on their records and showcase their accomplishments. Sarkozy cannot do that. I said it before in a previous post on this blog that Sarkozy will run away from his record as vampire runs away from the sunlight. His record is abysmal and he cannot use it and hope to even win the first round. So, he needs to find another theme. Thus, Sarkozy decided to run a value-driven campaign–right-wing value-driven campaign more accurately. Can he win with this strategy? Yes, the electoral math says so. If he runs hard to his right (with the possible absence of Marine Le Pen, this strategy works better), he secures for himself a high enough score in the first round to be able to face Hollande in the second round. The whole strategy of Sarkozy can be summarized in four words: winning the first round. Then, anything is possible. It is, as the French would say, strictement une campagne du premier tour

It is up to Hollande to counter this strategy by never running against Sarkozy the man, but running against Sarkozy’s record. Hollande must talk and hammer Sarkozy’s record ad nauseam. This is Hollande’s most lethal electoral weapon. No one really cares about Hollande’s policy proposals as most voters are ignorant and don’t understand the particularities of fiscal policies or budget reduction versus generation of new revenues. Hollande already passed the most important test–i.e., he looks and sounds as a capable politician and most French people can easily imagine him in the Élysée Palace handling the business of the state–now, he has to cleverly attack the record of Sarkozy and keep it the main focus of the campaign. One more point, it is important for Hollande not to lose control over the agenda. He has to set the agenda and dictate the rhythm of the themes debated during the upcoming weeks. It is easier to say this than do it, especially when one is running against and incumbent. However, by controlling as much as possible the agenda setting, Hollande controls as much as he can his destiny. In other word: this election should be a referendum on Sarkozy’s performance in office for the last 5 years. If Hollande does that, he wins.

France: Sarkozy, une stratégie électorale a la Bush 2004

Sarkozy channeling G. W. Bush and taking a page from his 2004 playbook

The campaign for the 2012 French presidential election will be officially launched this evening during the hour-long interview of Nicolas Sarkozy on France2 and TF1.  During this intervention, the incumbent president will present the main theme of his campaign, which will be articulated as follows: “I am the president; I brought Europe back from the edge of the cliff; don’t you gamble with the future of France by changing an experienced and tough leader for a novice and inexperienced socialist candidate like François Hollande.”  Yes, you read it right. That’s Sarkozy’s strategy. It is actually the only strategy that might give an edge to Sarkozy to win his reelection bid.

Of course, the incumbent president, Nicolas Sarkozy, will not say this word for word, but this will be the base upon which he will build his reelection campaign. However, this theme is hardly new. It reminds me of the 2004 successful reelection campaign of G.W. Bush, which limited the choice before the voters to a binary one: a safe choice versus a risky one. During that campaign, Bush’s strategy was to run as the experienced, battle-hardened, steady-handed leader and the captain who navigated the treacherous waters and brought Ship America to a safe harbor in these dire times. More importantly, he  attacked mercilessly and painted emphatically his opponent, Senator John Kerry (D), as an undecided, flip-flopper man who cannot be trusted to lead America in these trouble times.  In one sentence, Bush’s campaign reelection strategy was: we don’t change a rider in the middle of the race and we don’t change a leader in the middle of a war. For this strategy to work, one needs and must destroy the credibility and the strongest assets of his opponent and run as far as away possible from his own record.

So, why was Bush successful in using this strategy? Could it have been beaten? And what can François Hollande learn from Bush v. Kerry 2004 to counter-attack Sarkozy’s reelection strategy successfully?

It is useless to recount the entire 2004 presidential campaign, but it is useful to highlight a few strategic and fatal errors that Kerry’s camp made during that campaign. First, Kerry ran a very successful primary campaign, in which he presented himself as a powerful trustworthy center-left candidate. However, after the primaries were over and during the doldrums of summer 2004, the Kerry campaign was caught flat-footed. It lacked a strategy for the general election; it lacked a powerful spokesman; it lacked a clear and concise message, and was basically absent from the air during the whole summer. From the time of the last primary election to the time of the democratic convention, the field was wide open for the Bush campaign. It is during that time that the Bush team decided to work on candidate Kerry. Body punch after body punch, they effectively left him for dead by August.

They painted and depicted Kerry as weak on national security, untrustworthy, a liar, and a flip-flopper. The Bush campaign attacked Kerry’s strongest assets. After all, Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam and did two tours, earned several medals for his courage and bravery on the battlefield, was injured, and so forth. How can they attack him on that front while Bush is a draft-dodger you may ask? This is exactly why this strategy was successful. By destroying your opponent’s strongest assets, you basically destroy him entirely. Moreover, all of Kerry’s assets of bravery, war record and senatorial leadership were not really well-known by most Americans. Kerry was still the Democratic candidate and known only to the base of his party. For most, he was an obscure senator from Massachusetts. He had not yet been introduced to most voters at the time. That was supposed to be done during the summer, reinforced during the convention, and amplified during the general election. Nevertheless, before Kerry even opened his mouth, he had already been negatively framed by the Bush campaign. Moreover, at a very critical time of the campaign when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth folks attacked Kerry’s war record, he did not respond in a timely manner. His campaign for some reasons (that I still don’t understand) rolled-over and played dead for a couple of weeks during which the Swift Boat folks called Kerry a liar and a coward and ran negative ad after negative ad in key battleground states. They attacked the candidate’s credibility and manhood without any answer from the candidate himself. That image of a weak liar not-so credible and untrustworthy man dominated any other frame presented by the Kerry campaign.  When the democratic candidate campaign decided to react and counter-attach, it was already too late, and the more Kerry fought that frame, the more he appeared to reinforce it. The harm was done and Kerry was dead in the water.

By destroying Kerry’s strongest assets, Bush was able to have a fairly empty field and frame his candidacy in the terms that suited him the most. Since Bush couldn’t run on any domestic economic or social accomplishments (anemic economic growth, poor job creation record, controversial education reforms, and so on), he chose to run on foreign policy, strong leadership, national unity, and security. He was successful in doing so because he almost ran unopposed on these themes since his opponent’s credibility had been rendered questionable to say the least.

This is exactly what Sarkozy will do during the up coming months. This is exactly what Sarkozy’s reelection campaign strategy will look like. He cannot run on domestic issues. He has one of the worst record in job creation of the fifth republic; he has introduced highly controversial reforms that have not yielded any results (social security reform, retirement reform, education and so forth); he has a poor record on immigration control; he has a poor record on the economy and economic growth; and he has a poor record on security. During his tenure, deficit spending went through the roof and the overall charge of the national debt has tremendously increased. So what else out there is left to run on? In two words: Leadership, and national unity.

Tonight on France2 and TF1, Sarkozy will “re-introduce” himself to the French voters as the “decider”. He will paint himself as this strong leader who does not shy away form or hesitate in making tough decisions to protect France even if he has to put his political capital in jeopardy. He will try to put himself above the day-to-day petty politics and partisan squabbling because he is looking for the interest of the nation. He will probably claim that he saved the euro from a total collapse and resolved the crisis of the European debt by himself. Basically, he is the French Superman. In doing so, the subliminal message is that his opponent, François  Hollande, is not tough, does not have what it takes to be a leader in these very trouble times, and cannot be trusted with the future of France.

Can Sarkozy get away with it? Can this strategy be successful? Yes, absolutely it can be successful if the Socialist Party and François Hollande roll-over and play dead. This is the time for the PS and for Hollande to go on the offensive. He cannot afford to play defense on the theme of leadership. As the old saying goes, offense is the best defense; this saying is truer in politics than in sports. If Hollande allowed Sarkozy to capture the debate and dictate the tempo and the themes upon which the campaign would be fought, the socialist candidate would lose. Period. There is no doubt about this.  Moreover, if Hollande let’s Sarkozy frame him as a weak, divisive, and an untrustworthy leader, Hollande would lose. Electoral politics is mostly a game of perception and expectation, and if you let the voters see you as weak, you might as well pack up and go home.

So, the ball now is in the PS’ and François Hollande’s court. They need to sharpen their attacks, raise doubt and poke holes in Sarkozy’s presentation/argument as the savor of the euro and as the figure that units France in these dire times. Hollande needs and must remind the French voters that Sarkozy is extremely liberal who favors banks and financial lobbies above people’s job security and welfare, and attack his leadership qualities as chaotic and divisive. The French voters already think that Sarkozy has a catastrophic leadership style. He is extremely unpopular already. For the last 3 years, every poll confirmed that a majority of French voters disapprove of Sarkozy’s leadership style, his policies, and even dislike him as a person. So, as the psychologists would say, the voters have been primed and all they need is a frame. That is Hollande’s job–i.e., to frame Sarkozy for the voters.

Basically, Sarkozy has nothing to lose here. He will attack like a mad dog on crack. Therefore, Hollande needs  to attack first and harmer the theme of failed policies and poor leadership skills repeatedly until he negates any gains that Sarkozy might make over the next two weeks.  The strategy for Hollande is very simple really: force Sarkozy to run on his record and not away from it. If he does that successfully, the presidency is his. Otherwise, 5 more years of Sarkozy.