FASNY Headmaster Retires - Franco-American School of New York

Opinion 5Ju n e 2012IntercoursA Column That Strives Not ToInclude Mature SubjectsThe Goodand the BadBy Michael Anderson andArmand LatreilleIntercours is back froma one-issue hiatus! If you hadn’tnoticed that gaping awkwardhole in the last Messenger issue,it’s because our last columnwas deemed a little too controversialby higher powers. Asa result, we’ve come up withsomething not controversial atall: our unbiased opinions onrandom things! Actually, we’veworked hard on this installment,to make up for the lastone. We took some precioustime away from Bac revisionsand finals studying to collectour thoughts for a moment,and reflect on the year thatwas. Without further ado, thisis Intercours’s season finale.LinsanityES WorkloadGiants Super BowlJiminy PeakEnd of tyrant regimesJustice @ terminal 5The rentrée that wasn’t (flood)End of the world in 7000 yearsKONY 2012 YEAAAAH(just kidding, why is nobodypaying attention to Syria?)NBA on ChristmasSenior PrankEnd of the war in Iraq7th Billion baby bornSpirit Week SpiritHalloween ParadeRugby InjuriesShark MascotSpace Shuttles retiredDie down of Occupy movementsDeath of Steve JobsS WorkloadPakistan FloodingKnicks First Round ExitGreek CrisisThe Entire Month of February:SAT, TPE, and Bac BlancSchool on SaturdayRock Bottom Meh AwesomeBy Armand LatreilleExactly a year ago, thisnewspaper published anarticle explaining why NicolasSarkozy would liveto serve another term asthe President of France.I thought it was a brilliantarticle that perfectlyIllustration by Louis Le Jamteloutlined Sarkozy’s assetsin contrasts to FrancoisHollande’s weaknesses. Needless to say, my predictionturned out wrong, and Hollande replaced Sarkozy as theincumbent of the Elysee Palace a month ago. Why did itcome to this?Sarkozy’s presidency started with a misstep thatwould symbolize his governing style: instead of celebratinghis victory with the thousands that were waitingin la Place de la Concorde, him and 60 select few barricadedthemselves at Fouquet’s, one of the more “upscale”restaurants in Paris. Attendees included Frenchbillionaires, finance moguls, CEOs of important Frenchcorporations, and Johnny Hallyday. In other words, theentire who’s who of powerful French personalities waspresent. Needless to say, nobody in France except the 60people invited thought this was the best way to start offa presidency. Imagine if Obama had suddenly decidedto ditch his election party at Grant Park and insteadhead to a posh New York City restaurant to eat lobsterwith Trump, CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan,Rupert Murdoch, and Bruce Springteen.During his campaign, Mr Hollande frequentlytalked about the dignity of the French presidency, radicallymore so than in previous campaigns. Indeed, hesaw the important hatred; disgust, and distrust Franceas a whole felt for Sarkozy, and wisely ran a campaignwhose semi-official main slogan was “5 years of Sarkozyis enough”. Mr Sarkozy was never a president of thepeople, rather, he was viewed as a “bling, bling” personality,meaning attracted to all that shines and makesnoises. It was easy to point out his dérapages, becausethey were frequent and gave fodder to tabloids. Sarkozywasn’t educated through the traditional grandes écoles,the very prestigious and elitist French universities, unlikeFrancois Hollande. He liked to say what was onhis mind, and he was anything but soft-spoken. Furthermore,he championed wildly unpopular austerityreforms that gave the impression he was disconnectedfrom the hardships of the French. That, and his verypublicized and self-proclaimed 140% pay raise didn’thelp. Despite being a powerful speaker, his public behaviorwas detestable to many voters, whom saw in hima mean, arrogant, and incapable little man. Simply put,he was an anthipathetic president.French voters historically favor “close to thepeople” presidents. They need a president that they canrelate to, and in many elections, the electorate favoredthe president whom they could picture themselves sitdown and have a beer with. Sarkozy was literally the antithesisof the model president. Never in five years didFrance feel represented in him, and he never really actedto change that. He was vulgar and his early mistakes (likethe Fouquet’s dinner) had a lasting impression. What’smore, voters recognized his efforts towards fixing theeconomy, and other overall policies: polls suggest thatSarkozy has a better record (against Hollande) in having“the authority of a head of state” and for being “capableof taking the right decisions faced with the current economicand financial crisis.”France’s Changing Political SceneHollande entered the presidential race as a profoundoutsider. Indeed, many speculate that, had DominiqueStrauss-Kahn not been implicated in the murkyrape scandal in New York last summer, he would havenever secured the nomination. Hollande was rocked byultra-left challenger Mélanchon, and was an easy targetfor criticism: he had, after all, never held an importantgovernment position; and his policies in home departmentCorreze left the budget riddled with debts. However,he was soft-spoken, humble, calm, and appealingto voters who simply wanted to get rid of Sarkozy.In trying times, the French needed to be re-assured,and Mr. Hollande did just that. While recognizingthe width of the financial crisis, Hollande made achoice in opting to criticize the difficult steps Sarkozyhad taken to end the crisis (pension age at 60, diminishingof public sector employees); and comfort the electoratewith popular policies (attack on the richest, augmentationof teachers by 60, 000 posts). His proposal ofa 75% tax on millionaires is an example of a gratuitouspromise, aimed at striking voter’s heart- not their brains.It’s easy to blame the banks, the rich, and the marketsfor the financial hardships France has to face. It’s harderto advocate unpopular reforms (read: austerity) neededto steer clear of trouble.Instead of pushing for a balanced budget, ora roll-back of state spending, both Sarkozy and Hollandestuck to calmer seas; promised to expand the roleof the state and supervision of markets. Now, both ofthem are smart men, which have many other intelligentaides. They know that this is not the recipe forbetter economic times.However, it seemed like any method was acceptablefor gaining voters. Sarkozy, for example, toughenedup his stance and advocated a borderline xenophobicagenda concerning immigration to woo extreme-rightvotes. As a result, no one was quite sure what wouldeach candidate do once in office. For example, not manyvoters actually thought that Hollande’s tax proposal wascredible. Many critics, however, observed that Sarkozyhad the personality and potential to pass the hard reforms;while Hollande would likely be more influencedby the electorate. And, the vote reflected that belief.France was scared of Sarkozy, and it became Hollande’selection to loose. After Sarkozy failed to muster his eloquenceduring the single debate, it was clear that he hadlost the vote.Was the election a total rebuttal of Sarkozy’spolicies? Not really.While some of his reforms were unpopular,many saw the good in them. Furthermore, he wasn’t asradical as some people had hoped he would be, but thetendency showed promise. He fostered an important relationshipwith foreign leaders, particularly Germany’sAngela Merkel and USA’s Barack Obama. He did putFrance back on the map, and strengthened its relationshipwith its allies. On the home front, he wasn’t afraidto advocate a tough—but somewhat popular—stanceon immigration and racial problems (see the ban onveils), and he set the country on the right path towardseconomic recovery.If anything, this election is the proof that personalitydoes have an impact on the voters. France showedup en masse against Sarkozy the man, not the president.And, as I re-read last year’s article, I realize that I, too,vouched for Sarkozy- the president, not the man. I waswrong.