Thursday, October 27, 2005
REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH EVOLUTION: A CONSERVATIVE LOOK AT FRANCE [ Updated]
Collounsbury was irked by several slams directed at France in a piece I linked and quoted from by Bruce Kesler and Col responded with some exasperation:
"First, with respect to the blog item, I am pained that you quote more of the simple minded anti-French tripe. Childish and rather outdated (as well as inaccurate with respect to the supposed connexions)"
Col it must be said, resides semi-permanently in a Francophone friendly region of the world and is, if I recall correctly ( and I may not), quite at home with the French language and culture. He is also correct that Franco-American relations have warmed up considerably since their nadir before the invasion of Iraq though this is neither well known outside of Washington nor covered much in the MSM over here. Bush and Chirac have made a concerted effort to retreat from the use of charged rhetoric and improve cooperation in the War on Terror; while the rise of Interior MinisterNicolas Sarkozy as Chirac's possible successor, whose views on economics, terrorism and Israel are congenial to the USG, damps down any urge on the Bush administration's part to do anything that could incite French voters and improve the chances of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin .
So why do conservatives and even moderate or apolitical commentators continue to take gratuitous rhetorical swipes at France ? Some of it has to do with news lag - the change in tone in relations really isn't reported much, fireworks merit frontpage treatment not quiet diplomacy. Mostly however it is a combination of recent events and a long historical legacy.
In the family of democratic nations, the United States and France have the longest and most bitter case of ongoing case of love-hate sibling rivalry. Friction did not begin with Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush, it started with John Adams and Talleyrand.
France is the country that helped midwife the American Revolution, sent us Lafayette, Alexis de Tocqueville and the Statue of Liberty. The United States in turn sent the French Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine,Thomas Jefferson, General Pershing and soldiers unnumbered who fell at Belleau Wood and Omaha Beach. America moved forward after WWII with the Marshall Plan and when America and the Soviet Union stood on the brink of nuclear war Charles DeGaulle backed the United States without even a single reservation. Even if the Russians moved on Berlin, the French President said " "France will act in accord with you."
Yet relations were seldom warm between the two countries in over two hundred years. Even in Washington's time, relations soured with the antics of "Cititzen Genet" and French privateering. The diplomacy of France struck most of the Founding Fathers ( Franklin and Jefferson being notable exceptions) in particular John Adams as exactly the corrupt decadence of the Old World that America must stand as a moral example against. The French in turn loathed the rigid Protestant moralism of Woodrow Wilson and the parochial obstinacy of Truman and most of all, the outsized and loud " Texan" presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush. Reagan too, was initially demonized as a "cowboy" but he and Mitterand bonded over a shared anti-Soviet outlook and over time, the Gipper managed to acquire something bordering on a cordial acceptance from the French, not unlike that given to an eccentric but respected elderly uncle who visits once or twice a year.
The French have habitually made snide remarks about American provincialism for two centuries and at times on matters of geopolitics their complaints were warranted. The failure of America to support the League of Nations in the 1920's or the efforts of Prime Minister Leon Blum in the mid-1930's to rally countries against Nazi Germany left feelings of great bitterness and, in some sectors of French opinion, justified Daladier's later resort to appeasement. The collaboration of large portions of French society with the Nazis during Vichy, the robotic loyalty of Maurice Thorez's Communists to Stalin and French military ineptitude in Vietnam, Egypt and Algeria did little to inspire confidence in Washington. Most Americans though, generally retained a benign attitude toward France in the postwar years and despite periodic squabbles, Paris always remained a prime draw for Americans headed for Europe.
There has been a sea change in attitudes over here since the invasion of Iraq which I don't think is either well-understood or appreciated in Paris. Nor is it likely to change soon. For the first time in my life I sense real hatred directed at France, not annoyance at an ally but a hardening sentiment at the grassroots level that France is no ally at all. It is not a universal opinion but while it is centered on the political Right attributing this Francophobia to a delusion of the Freepers would be a huge error. It exists across much of the political spectrum now, only among hard-core Democratic, Bush-haters and the far-Left is Chirac's performance admired.
It was not so much Chirac's opposition to American policies -if anything Gerhard Schroedrer's position was even more inflexible and unreasonable but he caught little popular disdain here - but the form that Chirac's opposition took, the visceral feel that carried through the media shocked many Americans who were not particularly conservative and not a few who were critical of President Bush. " Freedom Fries" was a particularly idiotic reaction but it was also a sign that the average joe who didn't care a whit for world politics was engaged and very angry. Chirac's message misfired here about as poorly as George W. Bush's did among European Social Democrats.
These feelings and the frequency of these anti-French remarks will die down if France and the United States have occasion to work together in a common cause in a mutually supportive and very public way. Failing some kind of important symbolic gesture by Paris, one directed at the American people rather than at official Washington, the cooling off period may take years.
UPDATE:
Bruce Kesler asked that I post the following comment as the excerpt above had been directed at his post.( Note: The link in this excerpt is mine though the quote is Mr. Kesler's):
"Which part of the UN report released today documenting Frances's politicians and companies as the most active corrupters in Saddam's oil-for-bribes scam does Collounsbury consider "simple-minded anti-French tripe"? His comment is simple-minded French tripe, a childish denial of the broken vase at his feet, rather outdated from a supposedly grown person. --Make all the excuses imagined, and the facts still remain that France has been usually more trouble, and antagonist, or useless, than ally." ¶ 6:44 PM
Collounsbury was irked by several slams directed at France in a piece I linked and quoted from by Bruce Kesler and Col responded with some exasperation:
"First, with respect to the blog item, I am pained that you quote more of the simple minded anti-French tripe. Childish and rather outdated (as well as inaccurate with respect to the supposed connexions)"
Col it must be said, resides semi-permanently in a Francophone friendly region of the world and is, if I recall correctly ( and I may not), quite at home with the French language and culture. He is also correct that Franco-American relations have warmed up considerably since their nadir before the invasion of Iraq though this is neither well known outside of Washington nor covered much in the MSM over here. Bush and Chirac have made a concerted effort to retreat from the use of charged rhetoric and improve cooperation in the War on Terror; while the rise of Interior MinisterNicolas Sarkozy as Chirac's possible successor, whose views on economics, terrorism and Israel are congenial to the USG, damps down any urge on the Bush administration's part to do anything that could incite French voters and improve the chances of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin .
So why do conservatives and even moderate or apolitical commentators continue to take gratuitous rhetorical swipes at France ? Some of it has to do with news lag - the change in tone in relations really isn't reported much, fireworks merit frontpage treatment not quiet diplomacy. Mostly however it is a combination of recent events and a long historical legacy.
In the family of democratic nations, the United States and France have the longest and most bitter case of ongoing case of love-hate sibling rivalry. Friction did not begin with Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush, it started with John Adams and Talleyrand.
France is the country that helped midwife the American Revolution, sent us Lafayette, Alexis de Tocqueville and the Statue of Liberty. The United States in turn sent the French Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine,Thomas Jefferson, General Pershing and soldiers unnumbered who fell at Belleau Wood and Omaha Beach. America moved forward after WWII with the Marshall Plan and when America and the Soviet Union stood on the brink of nuclear war Charles DeGaulle backed the United States without even a single reservation. Even if the Russians moved on Berlin, the French President said " "France will act in accord with you."
Yet relations were seldom warm between the two countries in over two hundred years. Even in Washington's time, relations soured with the antics of "Cititzen Genet" and French privateering. The diplomacy of France struck most of the Founding Fathers ( Franklin and Jefferson being notable exceptions) in particular John Adams as exactly the corrupt decadence of the Old World that America must stand as a moral example against. The French in turn loathed the rigid Protestant moralism of Woodrow Wilson and the parochial obstinacy of Truman and most of all, the outsized and loud " Texan" presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush. Reagan too, was initially demonized as a "cowboy" but he and Mitterand bonded over a shared anti-Soviet outlook and over time, the Gipper managed to acquire something bordering on a cordial acceptance from the French, not unlike that given to an eccentric but respected elderly uncle who visits once or twice a year.
The French have habitually made snide remarks about American provincialism for two centuries and at times on matters of geopolitics their complaints were warranted. The failure of America to support the League of Nations in the 1920's or the efforts of Prime Minister Leon Blum in the mid-1930's to rally countries against Nazi Germany left feelings of great bitterness and, in some sectors of French opinion, justified Daladier's later resort to appeasement. The collaboration of large portions of French society with the Nazis during Vichy, the robotic loyalty of Maurice Thorez's Communists to Stalin and French military ineptitude in Vietnam, Egypt and Algeria did little to inspire confidence in Washington. Most Americans though, generally retained a benign attitude toward France in the postwar years and despite periodic squabbles, Paris always remained a prime draw for Americans headed for Europe.
There has been a sea change in attitudes over here since the invasion of Iraq which I don't think is either well-understood or appreciated in Paris. Nor is it likely to change soon. For the first time in my life I sense real hatred directed at France, not annoyance at an ally but a hardening sentiment at the grassroots level that France is no ally at all. It is not a universal opinion but while it is centered on the political Right attributing this Francophobia to a delusion of the Freepers would be a huge error. It exists across much of the political spectrum now, only among hard-core Democratic, Bush-haters and the far-Left is Chirac's performance admired.
It was not so much Chirac's opposition to American policies -if anything Gerhard Schroedrer's position was even more inflexible and unreasonable but he caught little popular disdain here - but the form that Chirac's opposition took, the visceral feel that carried through the media shocked many Americans who were not particularly conservative and not a few who were critical of President Bush. " Freedom Fries" was a particularly idiotic reaction but it was also a sign that the average joe who didn't care a whit for world politics was engaged and very angry. Chirac's message misfired here about as poorly as George W. Bush's did among European Social Democrats.
These feelings and the frequency of these anti-French remarks will die down if France and the United States have occasion to work together in a common cause in a mutually supportive and very public way. Failing some kind of important symbolic gesture by Paris, one directed at the American people rather than at official Washington, the cooling off period may take years.
UPDATE:
Bruce Kesler asked that I post the following comment as the excerpt above had been directed at his post.( Note: The link in this excerpt is mine though the quote is Mr. Kesler's):
"Which part of the UN report released today documenting Frances's politicians and companies as the most active corrupters in Saddam's oil-for-bribes scam does Collounsbury consider "simple-minded anti-French tripe"? His comment is simple-minded French tripe, a childish denial of the broken vase at his feet, rather outdated from a supposedly grown person. --Make all the excuses imagined, and the facts still remain that France has been usually more trouble, and antagonist, or useless, than ally." ¶ 6:44 PM
Comments:
<< Home
It is not a universal opinion but while it is centered on the political Right attributing this Francophobia to a delusion of the Freepers would be a huge error. It exists across much of the political spectrum now, only among hard-core Democratic, Bush-haters and the far-Left is Chirac's performance admired.
True. France seems to be the only state that Big Cheese is angrier at than the United States. Similar feelings by a liberal Republican (but freeper by comparison to Big Cheese) prof at my last university.
Dan tdaxp
True. France seems to be the only state that Big Cheese is angrier at than the United States. Similar feelings by a liberal Republican (but freeper by comparison to Big Cheese) prof at my last university.
Dan tdaxp
It's hard to pinpoint the exact reason for mainstream U.S. hostility toward France. I know that the late night talkshow hosts and other comedians have found plenty of humor in deriding France (including Robin Williams' hilarious take on French sensibilities, and other non-conservative celebrities.) I think that a large number of Americans take their cues from these celebrities, lacking any other barometer than perhaps the GWB admin. Most Americans have never been to France.
And, not to beat up on America too badly, or why the hell not, I suspect that the gung-ho "America is #1!" mentality couldn't quite cope with the turncoat French -- who are supposed to be eternally grateful that we saved their collective asses in WWII. How dare the French not go along with everything we tell them to do?! Most of these Americans do not realize the big role that France played in our gaining our independence from Britain.
And of course, there's the corresponding French cultural superiority, and artsy independent filmmaking, etc. What has France done lately? (When was the last time they saved the world from evil?)
I wonder if the more relaxed stance toward Germany is due to the large German immigrant population (and decendents of same) living in the U.S.
And, not to beat up on America too badly, or why the hell not, I suspect that the gung-ho "America is #1!" mentality couldn't quite cope with the turncoat French -- who are supposed to be eternally grateful that we saved their collective asses in WWII. How dare the French not go along with everything we tell them to do?! Most of these Americans do not realize the big role that France played in our gaining our independence from Britain.
And of course, there's the corresponding French cultural superiority, and artsy independent filmmaking, etc. What has France done lately? (When was the last time they saved the world from evil?)
I wonder if the more relaxed stance toward Germany is due to the large German immigrant population (and decendents of same) living in the U.S.
# posted by 
: Friday, 28 October, 2005
: Friday, 28 October, 2005
My annoyance has been aimed at the Parisians I have run into. They are so proud of being the worlds leading Cosmopolitan population, that they have become rather parochial about the whole thing.
And, of course, the Communists/Socialists and their insults and snobbery. I get the impression that I am expected to grovel at their feet because they are so superior to "Americans".
Phillep
And, of course, the Communists/Socialists and their insults and snobbery. I get the impression that I am expected to grovel at their feet because they are so superior to "Americans".
Phillep
# posted by : Friday, 28 October, 2005
: Friday, 28 October, 2005
Irked?
Well, regardless, my residence and fluency in the language of Moliere (as the French so charmingly put it) is only of tangential interest - although it does put me in sustained contact with rather more actual living French people than 90 percent of the blithering axe grinders engaging in tediously childish national jingoism and France-baiting.
As to Chirac, eh... well of course no one respects the man (in France one notes he is not popular either), but that's really neither here nor there with respect to France bashing among the Right Bolshies.
With respect to French lack of respect or liking of Texan Presidents (and the present one in particular), well this is something of a universal, hardly French, inclination (with respect to the present fool).
With respect to French military "ineptitude" in Viet Nam and Algeria.... well, I think the usage alone says everything that needs to be said about the degree of knowledge on the two issues (the Suez fiasco of course was equally British so I should hope one adds them in). Military ineptitude was hardly the problem, really.
Freedom Fries" was a particularly idiotic reaction but it was also a sign that the average joe who didn't care a whit for world politics was engaged and very angry. I rather took it as a sign that certain vocal politicians and associated Right Bolshies were more twitish and loud-mouthed than expected, rather than a national wave of renaming (ex in mockery), but perhaps not.
Regardless, it would strike me that it was De Villepin's panache that struck a nerve.
That aside, with respect to the cooling off period... I sincerely hope Paris is not so stupid as to pander to the ignoramuses and know nothings. I rather expect d'Orsay will not.
Finally, with respect to the "rejoinder" by the Right Bolshy pants wetter:
Which part of the UN report released today documenting Frances's politicians and companies as the most active corrupters in Saddam's oil-for-bribes scam does Collounsbury consider "simple-minded anti-French tripe"? His comment is simple-minded French tripe, a childish denial of the broken vase at his feet, rather outdated from a supposedly grown person. --Make all the excuses imagined, and the facts still remain that France has been usually more trouble, and antagonist, or useless, than ally."
Well, I would rest my case but I fear the object of the case is too dim.
The part that is simple minded anti-French tripe is of course not the report, but the idiotic and over-wrought spin on the same (as well as the absurd pretensions in the underlying quote cited by Zenpundit with respect to the French in the Middle East, as if French interests in 'corrupt' undemocratic MENA regimes run deeper than US interests. [One need only look to Egypt, the Gulf and Jordan] An idiotic assertion that is mere pedestrain domestic jingo politics dressed up as pretend commentary) by the semi-literate axe grinder.
The entire shrieking on about the mere fact of France not bending over to be buggered or being so rude as to point out the obvious with respect to the absolutely idiocy of the Iraq project is fundamentally boring and childish tripe.
Well, regardless, my residence and fluency in the language of Moliere (as the French so charmingly put it) is only of tangential interest - although it does put me in sustained contact with rather more actual living French people than 90 percent of the blithering axe grinders engaging in tediously childish national jingoism and France-baiting.
As to Chirac, eh... well of course no one respects the man (in France one notes he is not popular either), but that's really neither here nor there with respect to France bashing among the Right Bolshies.
With respect to French lack of respect or liking of Texan Presidents (and the present one in particular), well this is something of a universal, hardly French, inclination (with respect to the present fool).
With respect to French military "ineptitude" in Viet Nam and Algeria.... well, I think the usage alone says everything that needs to be said about the degree of knowledge on the two issues (the Suez fiasco of course was equally British so I should hope one adds them in). Military ineptitude was hardly the problem, really.
Freedom Fries" was a particularly idiotic reaction but it was also a sign that the average joe who didn't care a whit for world politics was engaged and very angry. I rather took it as a sign that certain vocal politicians and associated Right Bolshies were more twitish and loud-mouthed than expected, rather than a national wave of renaming (ex in mockery), but perhaps not.
Regardless, it would strike me that it was De Villepin's panache that struck a nerve.
That aside, with respect to the cooling off period... I sincerely hope Paris is not so stupid as to pander to the ignoramuses and know nothings. I rather expect d'Orsay will not.
Finally, with respect to the "rejoinder" by the Right Bolshy pants wetter:
Which part of the UN report released today documenting Frances's politicians and companies as the most active corrupters in Saddam's oil-for-bribes scam does Collounsbury consider "simple-minded anti-French tripe"? His comment is simple-minded French tripe, a childish denial of the broken vase at his feet, rather outdated from a supposedly grown person. --Make all the excuses imagined, and the facts still remain that France has been usually more trouble, and antagonist, or useless, than ally."
Well, I would rest my case but I fear the object of the case is too dim.
The part that is simple minded anti-French tripe is of course not the report, but the idiotic and over-wrought spin on the same (as well as the absurd pretensions in the underlying quote cited by Zenpundit with respect to the French in the Middle East, as if French interests in 'corrupt' undemocratic MENA regimes run deeper than US interests. [One need only look to Egypt, the Gulf and Jordan] An idiotic assertion that is mere pedestrain domestic jingo politics dressed up as pretend commentary) by the semi-literate axe grinder.
The entire shrieking on about the mere fact of France not bending over to be buggered or being so rude as to point out the obvious with respect to the absolutely idiocy of the Iraq project is fundamentally boring and childish tripe.
# posted by : Friday, 28 October, 2005
: Friday, 28 October, 2005
Hello Col -
Wondered when you'd wander over here and respond.
Yes. French military performance in Vietnam was particularly inept.I'm not sure how it could be categorized as anything else.
What Blaziot, Alessandri, Carpentier and Navarre did in Indochina through their efforts primarily was to contribute to the legend of Giap. They could not deal with Vietminh pourissment tactics in the delta or even organize an orderly retreat. The French MI did not penetrate the Vietminh, the Vietminh penetrated the French command - and not just with Vietnamese but with Europeans(!) whom they turned. Count me as no great admirer of William Westmoreland but he did a far better job in a country and with an enemy he certainly understood far less than his French predecessors.
I will grant you the French performance was abler ( and more brutal) in Algeria - the psychological stakes were of course, far higher there - and that retaining Indochina was beyond the strength of the Fourth Republic, but that doesn't change how the war had been run from start to finish.
The Brits own Suez as well. Eden's performance there was as calamitous as a great number two man trying to be number one could have been. A debacle from which Britain did not recover for a quarter-century.
In regard, to contemporary relations I'm stating an opinion, one I think is grounded in the reality of the situation that the American public is deeply alienated from the France right now. Ranging from the right wing to Dan's very pro-EU, anti-Bush, left-wing, International Law professor. You can say it's unjust or ill-informed or however you want to dismiss it but that perception remains a salient issue.
Wondered when you'd wander over here and respond.
Yes. French military performance in Vietnam was particularly inept.I'm not sure how it could be categorized as anything else.
What Blaziot, Alessandri, Carpentier and Navarre did in Indochina through their efforts primarily was to contribute to the legend of Giap. They could not deal with Vietminh pourissment tactics in the delta or even organize an orderly retreat. The French MI did not penetrate the Vietminh, the Vietminh penetrated the French command - and not just with Vietnamese but with Europeans(!) whom they turned. Count me as no great admirer of William Westmoreland but he did a far better job in a country and with an enemy he certainly understood far less than his French predecessors.
I will grant you the French performance was abler ( and more brutal) in Algeria - the psychological stakes were of course, far higher there - and that retaining Indochina was beyond the strength of the Fourth Republic, but that doesn't change how the war had been run from start to finish.
The Brits own Suez as well. Eden's performance there was as calamitous as a great number two man trying to be number one could have been. A debacle from which Britain did not recover for a quarter-century.
In regard, to contemporary relations I'm stating an opinion, one I think is grounded in the reality of the situation that the American public is deeply alienated from the France right now. Ranging from the right wing to Dan's very pro-EU, anti-Bush, left-wing, International Law professor. You can say it's unjust or ill-informed or however you want to dismiss it but that perception remains a salient issue.
I'm busy with business presently, not much time for this.
Re perceptions, I am in no position to argue, but I do consider the foolish and crudely exagerated France bashing (I have no deep love of the French state I may add) to be childishness.
Re perceptions, I am in no position to argue, but I do consider the foolish and crudely exagerated France bashing (I have no deep love of the French state I may add) to be childishness.
# posted by : Saturday, 29 October, 2005
: Saturday, 29 October, 2005
I almost forgot -- Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent goes out of the way to criticize France. I believe he says that French are particularly closed-minded, or something equally surprising. He's to the Left of Big Cheese!
Post a Comment
<< Home
