The French Connection and America’s Cultural Amnesia

The French Connection and America’s Cultural Amnesia

I’m the first to admit it: its fun to mock the French. Whether you are taking shots at France’s perceived arrogance or its pitiful record in recent wars, Le Republique is an easy target. Even the French language, with its abundance of silent syllables, is open to ridicule. But while I am eager to tease the French, I am also the first to admit I do it largely in jest. After all, I don’t know any French people. I’ve never been to the country, let alone lived there. Who am I to pronounce judgment with any degree of accuracy?

While my France-bashing is confined largely to crude jokes and occasional digs at policy blunders, the attitude toward France harbored by many in the American punditry borders on irrational, pathological hatred. Talking heads constantly vilify French leaders and call for boycotts of all goods produced by “the cheese-eating surrender monkeys” and then have the audacity to complain of rising anti-American sentiment in France (as if they should somehow be expected to take everything we dish out with a smile).

This inane petulance reached a boiling point with the recent civil unrest across France’s urban centers. As cars burned and chaos ensued, America’s opinion-mongers reveled in glee. Suzanne Fields, true to form, found a way to blame the riots on “multiculturalism,” claiming that France’s tolerance of radical Islam was to blame.

As per usual, Fields is grossly misinformed. France has long been a predominantly secular nation, with a legal tradition that excludes religion from state affairs. It is this secular posture that drew the country criticism from Pope Benedict and culminated in the controversial head scarf ban. That France would embrace “radical Islam” is an inherent contradiction.

Ironically, Fields also had the nerve to complain of French anti-Americanism in the same column in which she touted a book called “Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese." I suppose the moral here is that bigotry is A-OK for everyone except for America.

Appearing right beside Fields on the op-ed section of my newspaper that day was Cal Thomas, who took Fields’ erroneous “tolerance” argument one step further and basically implied that France coddled terrorists. But if the underlying message is that this was what France deserved for not participating in the invasion of Iraq, then how does he explain the vicious terrorist attacks in the UK and Spain (which, at the time, was a coalition partner)?

Furthermore, Thomas warns that “France will be America’s future” unless we start converting Muslims to Christianity, ASAP. If and when we reach that point, there would be no need to fight the terrorists. They, in causing us to destroy our fundamental religious freedoms, would have already won.

Even the paper’s own editorial had a hand in the blame game, placing fault for the riots on France’s pitiful public housing and failed welfare programs.

In all three instances, the rioting was used as an excuse to justify whatever solutions were already desired. There was no attempt made on the part of the authors to show causation. Instead, they merely offered a few shallow criticisms and hoped people would see things their way. To draw a parallel, I can blame the destruction on French cars being too easily combustible, point to the fact that many French cars did in fact explode and have as much of a substantive argument as some of these folks.

Or, I can be honest and definitively say that I do not know what caused the rioting. My guess would be that it stemmed from a variety of factors, some of them social, many of them economic. As per the solution, I can only offer this: let the French figure it out. The last thing they need is an obtrusive American “diagnosis” of all that ills them. After all, it unnerves us in the states to no end when people suggest we emulate Europe. Why, therefore, should we reciprocate?

The final point I’d like to make pertains not to the quality of the negative assessments of the French situation, but to why these assessments were made to begin with. Schadenfreude (laughing at others’ pain) was out in full effect on our side of the Atlantic recently, but it was notably absent in France when we were in crisis mode.

Just a few short months ago, Hurricane Katrina hit and unleashed a torrent of destruction. Did the French mock our response efforts and lack of preparedness? If they did, I didn’t notice. I was too busy paying attention to their relief effort, which included 600 tents, 1000 beds, three pumps, three water purification stations, rescue personnel, misc. supplies and a letter of condolence from Jacques Chirac. It is also worth noting that this generous offer was initially declined by the U.S. government.

But why stop there. Let’s go back to 9/11/2001. Did France tell us – as some on the American religious right did – that we got what we deserved? Or was the leading French newspaper, Le Monde, too busy issuing sympathetic front-page headlines that proclaimed “Today, We Are All Americans”? It would appear that the hot-headed, Francophobic American punditry experienced a case of highly selective cultural amnesia when it came time to write about the rioting.

Even given this lengthy diatribe, it’s unlikely that I’ll stop making French jokes. Nor will I suddenly pretend to understand or like those folks across the pond. But I will leave them be. And that is all I ask of anyone reading this.

2004 Revisited

It’s been just over a year since America returned George W. Bush to the White House. During that time, there have been many developments in both the nation and the world beyond that have been less than fortuitous. Yet to look at the president’s low approval ratings and assume – as some of Bush’s opponents have – that Americans chose wrongly in 2004 is to ignore the burdensome task that is governance. The challenge, therefore, is not to look at how Bush handled/mishandled the decisions put before him, but rather if his opponent, John Kerry, would have achieved a better end. The results of this hypothetical may surprise you.

The War in Iraq

The good news here is that there would be far fewer American casualties under a Kerry presidency. Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. After initially advocating more troops, Kerry is now pushing for gradual withdrawal. Assuming this is the course he would take if president (a likelihood given the increasing unpopularity of the war), we can expect a withdrawal from Iraq, and, subsequently, a collapse of the frail governing coalition and a further descent into sectarian and terror-fueled violence. Remember: the al-Qaeda types aren’t just fighting to get us out of the country; they are actively working to destroy the government we help build. Thus, the notion that the violence would experience a downturn upon our departure is ludicrous.

Even if Kerry pegs withdrawal to tangible achievements (i.e.: elections), the Iraqi forces are incapable of defending on their own for the foreseeable future, well beyond the point where political goals are achieved. Echoing Richard Nixon’s botched Vietnamization plan, we would experience a failure that would linger for years to come.

Edge: Bush

The Economy

Unlike his veto-shy predecessor, Kerry would probably go after the deficit with vigor. Unfortunately, his remedy for Congress’ big-spending ways is likely to be no more than a band-aid, and one that is destined to fall off a few years down the lines.

Assume here that Kerry sticks to his plan, which calls for keeping the Bush cuts for the middle class and imposing a tax increase on those earning more than $200,000. This will raise revenue, certainly, but it will also push the wealthy into looking for more tax shelters, some of which are bound to be extra-legal.

Furthermore, Kerry’s record in Congress is one of spending. Thus, instead of attacking the root of deficits, he would probably enable them to continue to grow. Then again, he would probably veto the pork-laden energy bill, if for no other reason than to stick it to ‘big oil.’

In switching from Bush to Kerry, America would basically exchange immediate economic woes for bigger problems further down the line.

Edge: Neither.

Hurricane Katrina Response

This may be the one area where Kerry has an absolute advantage. As could be expected with an incoming Democratic administration, Kerry would have cleaned house, which meant getting rid of the incompetent Michael Brown before he had the opportunity to do any damage. Also, given that he is a more conciliatory figure than the man he replaces, he probably would have achieved better cooperation and communication with the pols in Louisiana. Lastly, if for no other reason than he’s a glory hog, you would not expect to find Kerry on vacation when the worst of it went down.

Edge: Kerry

CAFTA and Summit of the Americas

Kerry likes to compare himself to Bill Clinton on many economic issues, but whereas Clinton actually understood and believed in free trade, Kerry is wishy-washy at best. Add to this the fact that his running mate, John Edwards, is a rabid protectionist and there is no way that CAFTA would have seen the light of day.

It is also likely that Kerry would have fared very poorly at the Summit of the Americas in Argentina. Bush, characteristically stubborn (or resolute, depending on how you choose to spin it), was able to drown out the attempts at intimidation posed by Hugo Chavez and other rabble-rousers and find willing trading partners. Kerry, given his conciliatory temperament, probably would have alienated potential allies in order to appease those who would never be considered friends regardless.

Edge: Bush

The Plame Affair

Given that the wheels were in motion in 2003 and Patrick Fitzgerald is as independent as they get, it really wouldn’t have made a difference who is in office.

Edge: Neither.

Waning Confidence in Government

Kerry gets the edge here, for reasons that have very little to do with him. Most reelected presidents encounter friction during their second terms (see Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, etc.). With an incoming president, however, it’s highly unlikely the turning point/downfall would occur within the first year. At any rate, given that Scooter Libby wouldn’t be affiliated with the White House under Kerry, his indictment wouldn’t stain Washington nearly as badly.

Edge: Kerry, but again, by reason of process rather than person

Supreme Court Nominations

As a legislator, Kerry didn’t sponsor a lot of huge, sweeping bills, which leads me to indicate he’s not interested in pushing for huge, sweeping changes, especially when they aren’t politically expedient. Thus, it’s hard to see him appointing a fire-breathing 9^th Circuit radical to the Supreme Court. I have no insight into who he would nominate, but it’s safe to assume that they would be well-qualified and reliable defenders of the status quo (which, given the court’s recent run of controversial decisions, isn’t particularly a good thing).

While it’s a pretty safe bet Kerry would never pick anyone as intelligent and challenging as John Roberts or Samuel Alito, he would also avoid making the catastrophic political blunder that was the Harriet Miers nomination.

Edge: Even for now, but it goes to Bush if Alito gets confirmed without a circus

Oil prices

Given that even ‘conservatives’ were scolding the oil companies for post-Katrina inflation (aka ‘price gouging), it’s difficult to imagine a Democratic president not going one step further and trying for price controls. And we all know how that turned out in the 70s.

Edge: Bush

A year ago, I made a point of criticizing the ‘anyone but Bush’ philosophy. Though it got virtually no media attention, a number of ardent conservatives – including former New Hampshire Sen. Robert Smith and the late supply side economics guru/Wall Street Journal pundit Jude Wanniski – threw their support behind Kerry to get Bush out of office. Given what Kerry might have done in the above situations, it’s difficult to imagine them being happy now.

My conclusion? America made the right choice between the two, by a narrow margin. This speaks more about the woes of our political system than it does of either candidate, as there are a number of non-candidates from both parties (John McCain and Bill Richardson come to mind) that probably would have done better than either. But hindsight is always clearer and we have to deal with what is in front of us. I can only hope that in future elections, we will have better choices and make better use of them.