L' Election Présidentielle 2007 / French Presidential Election [R]

[Pike]

Fundamental needs exist, certainly. That is why the worker submits himself to low wages.

I don't agree that workers "submit" to wages, they compete for their wages.



You're arguing that we live to acquire whatever we can, which I suppose is a continuation of your statement that human nature is fundamentally possessive/selfish and self-serving.

I would say self- serving. Possessive & selfishness is misleading and they both carry negative conotations. You could argue greed does as well, but through teaching, being provocative is a good way to get the students to debate. Additionally, someone who is self- serving can be chaitable without creating an oxymoron, unlike selfishness.


*Personally, I tend to agree in with him in that I'm not willing to assign a concrete vision of human nature based upon the biological fact that we all need a certain amount of carbs and food to fuel us every day. Beyond that, the assumptions of common nature are open to debate, as we see here, i.e. nature versus nuture, essence versus determinism.*

Ok, the only people that ever debate the nature of man within society are socialist types. Its very logical why,... man cannot be inherently greedy, if so, bye bye socialism. Of course, some are resigned to conceeding the point today with the expectation of it changing over time,...hmm this is why I cynically quoted Jean- Luc Picard.


...you are going to critique his conclusions and analysis of historical events, then you're going to have to give me a run-down of why his analyses of capitalist economy and modern political economy contained in "Das Kapital" do not function. And please, when you do so, give me a summary of Marx's arguments as well, given that I have not read Das Kapital, nor intend to. Too busy avoiding self-estrangement by way of reading, so to speak ;) :D

I suggest you read his works before you start debating them.

[Nanbawan]

I can call myself a bird all I want, but if I am a penguin, I ain't gonna fly. This is a fact. Marx entire theory was based on erronoeous conclusions of historical events. Identification with a process is irrelevant, we eat to live, we drink to live, and we reproduce so that society lives. This is the primal nature of our existence. Within, society, as I already mentioned, we live to acquire whatever we can using whatever means we can. We are only restricted by laws. Its a good thing too,... if not, I would be out hunting wild game instead of typing on this laptop!

Over simplistic and you carry the bad habits of gross scientific reductionism applied to the human society. Especially the "we live to acquire whatever we can using whatever means we can" ; there are so many counter examples that I can't even begin to count them. So what you state is your view on the matter but it's quite far from the Truth.

Now, like I said earlier, it's a valid argument that at some point, the human nature would lead to social strain and finally conflict on the many scales that you can find versus any kind of 'system'. Should it be some kind of 'perfect communism' (regarless of Stalinist totalitarian regimes examples) or 'pure capitalism'. BTW, the theories of revolution can be considered as a response to what was baffled by the inhumanity of the capitalist system in the XIXth Century. They could be the doctrinal expression of other undeniable aspects of the human nature (collectivity, solidarity) that for some reasons you decided to simply obliterate.

So, maybe our nature precedes the value sytems and dogmas that our intellect elaborate yet thanksfully our nature may simply be deeper and more complex, more paradoxical than the bacteria you seem to believe we are. Otherwise, we would not even be able to envisage the debate we're having right now.

man cannot be inherently greedy, if so, bye bye socialism.

You sound like you have issues with subtlety...I guess you deal wth something that should be a perfect and completely rigid form of socialism regarding the original doctrine.

And besides, man is greedy to some point but thank God (:D )not only...And we all can be very thanksfull for that. Sarkozy also, there's no way he would have survived in a world where the only rule was the one of the mightier ! :p

[Nanbawan]

The only thing going through my head was "If only these people knew" ;)

Bah, even Nietzsche has been blamed for the Nazi ideology. The truth is that 'common sensed' people hate philosophers and would blame them for anything that happened in History.

[Nanbawan]

Commodity fetishism, according to Marx, hijacked the very functioning of modern society so that no one except for the rare few are even willing to consider that capital does not constitute man.


Explain this to my mom ! :D

[Anthony]

Bah, even Nietzsche has been blamed for the Nazi ideology. The truth is that 'common sensed' people hate philosophers and would blame them for anything that happened in History.

Actually, I meant "if only these people knew" what my ideology was -- I probably would have been lynched on hung from the lamp post.

[Pike]

Over simplistic and you carry the bad habits of gross scientific reductionism applied to the human society. Especially the "we live to acquire whatever we can using whatever means we can" ; there are so many counter examples that I can't even begin to count them. So what you state is your view on the matter but it's quite far from the Truth.

Yes, that's an inherent problem with metaphores & stats,... they only support your argument, not make them & they tend to oversimplify.



You sound like you have issues with subtlety...I guess you deal wth something that should be a perfect and completely rigid form of socialism regarding the original doctrine.

Can one really have issues with subtlety?


And besides, man is greedy to some point but thank God (:D )not only...And we all can be very thanksfull for that. Sarkozy also, there's no way he would have survived in a world where the only rule was the one of the mightier ! :p

You seem to have the mistaken notion that I believe in survival of the fittest. Man pursues wealth, rather or not he succeeds would depend on many factors.

[ilv2]

Ok, the only people that ever debate the nature of man within society are socialist types. Its very logical why,... man cannot be inherently greedy, if so, bye bye socialism. Of course, some are resigned to conceeding the point today with the expectation of it changing over time,...hmm this is why I cynically quoted Jean- Luc Picard.

I suggest you read his works before you start debating them.

Really? Sartre's existentialism, of the top of my head, is certainly a far cry from the left-wing/communist sphere of influence, even though he was affiliated with them at the same time - he even labelled the relationship between the self and the other as sadomasochistic! He not only debated human nature, but deconstructed it to the point that human nature becomes a sheer farce. Honestly, to assume that all commentary upon man and society is restricted a priori to socialist/idealist anti-"greed" ethos is a demonstration of ignorance. So this is your response affirming that man is inherently greedy?

I suggest you read his works before you start debating them.

Oh I have, a number of his works ranging from his more theoretical critiques of Hegelian dialectics to his chronicles of the development of bourgeois society and the political-economic characteristics thereof that render the negation of the negation so important for mankind. So yes, I would consider myself as having a fairly comfortable grasp of his conclusions and his reasons for ending up with them. Perhaps, I'm being presumptuous, but you have not demonstrated any familiarity with his work given that the only critiques that you have brought against it, have been the general dismissal of his ideas based on a blanket argument of human nature and a simple comment that his conclusions are also erroneous. Which, leads me to ask you, once again, to run down his analysis of capital (and here, I point out Das Kapital because it sums up and reasserts his call to communism), and tell me where the logic breaks down.
I have no problem with someone saying communism is a broken dream - hell, I say it. But at least give it the merit of a decent criticism - i.e. critique the foundations upon which its conclusions are drawn.

[Pike]

Really? Sartre's existentialism, of the top of my head, is certainly a far cry from the left-wing/communist sphere of influence, even though he was affiliated with them at the same time - he even labelled the relationship between the self and the other as sadomasochistic! He not only debated human nature, but deconstructed it to the point that human nature becomes a sheer farce. Honestly, to assume that all commentary upon man and society is restricted a priori to socialist/idealist anti-"greed" ethos is a demonstration of ignorance. So this is your response affirming that man is inherently greedy?

Actually, I didn't say that greed is the beginning and end of humanity. I said its the one aspect of human naure that dooms socialism.



...So yes, I would consider myself as having a fairly comfortable grasp of his conclusions and his reasons for ending up with them. Perhaps, I'm being presumptuous, but you have not demonstrated any familiarity with his work given that the only critiques that you have brought against it, have been the general dismissal of his ideas based on a blanket argument of human nature and a simple comment that his conclusions are also erroneous. ...- hell, I say it. But at least give it the merit of a decent criticism - i.e. critique the foundations upon which its conclusions are drawn.

I believe I stated that a a classless and or stateless society is an impossibility. In case, in any "communist country, was there ever a classless soceity created. In fact, they only change the factors thatdetermined class.

Similarly, There are Libertarian Socialist (if you prefer European Libertarian/ Anarchism) who believed that an anarchal society is sustainable. History has proven that anarchy is a temprorary state, not pernament one. Also, history has shown us that humans are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, and collectively, as nation or society, we are even more obsessed with the accumulation of wealth. I argues on a political forum that ALL nations act for for their own self- interest.

Socialism is a beautiful sentiment. Let's face it, a society in which our desires are met, and how needs fulfilled is a great society. However, I do not believe its possible to achieve. I am not going to critique his work point bu point,... that would be very exhaustive. Such efforts is noble for a book, not for a political forum.

[ilv2]

Actually, I didn't say that greed is the beginning and end of humanity. I said its the one aspect of human naure that dooms socialism.


A little consistency please. So you label greed/self-serving desire as the common denominator of humankind that makes the socialist dream a broken one. Indeed, as you said, "socialism will never work because it goes against human nature ." At the end of the day, one concludes based on these statements that greed is in fact the beginning and end of humanity because it is what constitutes us to the core and permeates every fiber of our being - it is constant and will exist within us (inate, in your own words) as long as a human being walks on the earth. And now you're trying to tell me that it is merely [I]one aspect of human nature that dooms the idealist desire for society to achieve something "better". Well isn't this lovely! For if we possess other aspects of human nature that dooms or produces other desires then what exactly do you think prevents these alternative desires from sublating that of greed? If it is a heirarchy of human values, then we are simply going around in a circle and you'll have to answer why humanity as a reproduced and constituted being in society cannot work within the Marxist analysis of capital.


I believe I stated that a a classless and or stateless society is an impossibility. In case, in any "communist country, was there ever a classless soceity created. In fact, they only change the factors thatdetermined class.

Similarly, There are Libertarian Socialist (if you prefer European Libertarian/ Anarchism) who believed that an anarchal society is sustainable. History has proven that anarchy is a temprorary state, not pernament one. Also, history has shown us that humans are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, and collectively, as nation or society, we are even more obsessed with the accumulation of wealth. I argues on a political forum that ALL nations act for for their own self- interest.

Socialism is a beautiful sentiment. Let's face it, a society in which our desires are met, and how needs fulfilled is a great society. However, I do not believe its possible to achieve. I am not going to critique his work point bu point,... that would be very exhaustive. Such efforts is noble for a book, not for a political forum.

1. Again, why are we pointing to past 'socialist' states as representative of Marx's ideas. If Marx had seen what Lenin, Stalin, and Che attempted, he probably would have shat on them. Literally. Anyone remember Celebrity Deathmatch? I'm certain they had Marx on for one of the episodes.

2. So history has proven that anarchy is temporary, hm so let's assume that humans and their superior representatives, i.e. counties indeed act completely in self-interest and that they are inevitably driven to seek higher gains and accumulating wealth (I can imagine a hundred IR professors tearing out their hair right now). The broad argument you're making here sounds like a bad rehash of realist theory, except that you're taking their logical assumption of structural anarchy based upon "human nature" and that states are the pure motivators of their actions as sovereign states and inverting it with the strange conclusion that man and societal/state relations are somehow finally controlled. By what exactly? You're telling me that they are ultimately controlled by... themselves, or rather their inherent nature, which itself implicates a reversion to total anarchy.

3. Sure an analysis would be exhaustive. But why the hell start a debate when we do not even attempt to push it the farthest it can go, or at least pay attention to the truly fundamental arguments that need to be answered before drawing any conclusions. Surely our time spent is worth that much, and should not be wasted in a half-bit discussion.

[Pike]

A little consistency please. So you label greed/self-serving desire as the common denominator of humankind that makes the socialist dream a broken one. Indeed, as you said, "socialism will never work because it goes against human nature ." At the end of the day, one concludes based on these statements that greed is in fact the beginning and end of humanity because it is what constitutes us to the core and permeates every fiber of our being - it is constant and will exist within us (inate, in your own words) as long as a human being walks on the earth. And now you're trying to tell me that it is merely [I]one aspect of human nature that dooms the idealist desire for society to achieve something "better". Well isn't this lovely!

I only said that greed prevents socialism from ever working in society. You assumed the rest.


1. Again, why are we pointing to past 'socialist' states as representative of Marx's ideas. If Marx had seen what Lenin, Stalin, and Che attempted, he probably would have shat on them. Literally. Anyone remember Celebrity Deathmatch? I'm certain they had Marx on for one of the episodes.

They are examples of communist states that failed. A classless society is impossible. Stateless society is also impossible to create. When theory meets reality, reality dictates a different course of action.



2. So history has proven that anarchy is temporary, hm so let's assume that humans and their superior representatives, i.e. counties indeed act completely in self-interest and that they are inevitably driven to seek higher gains and accumulating wealth (I can imagine a hundred IR professors tearing out their hair right now). The broad argument you're making here sounds like a bad rehash of realist theory, except that you're taking their logical assumption of structural anarchy based upon "human nature" and that states are the pure motivators of their actions as sovereign states and inverting it with the strange conclusion that man and societal/state relations are somehow finally controlled. By what exactly? You're telling me that they are ultimately controlled by... themselves, or rather their inherent nature, which itself implicates a reversion to total anarchy.

No necessarily. Man & state will compromise & cooperate, if it is in his self- interest. If you disagree, perhaps you ca explain how a plural society (ie state) can act in any other way, but its own self- interest?



3. Sure an analysis would be exhaustive. But why the hell start a debate when we do not even attempt to push it the farthest it can go, or at least pay attention to the truly fundamental arguments that need to be answered before drawing any conclusions. Surely our time spent is worth that much, and should not be wasted in a half-bit discussion.

You need to relax dude. This is for fun. This isn't serious debate. If you want to believe in the beautiful dream of a socislistic society, be my guess. I just shared why I don't think it will ever happen.

[ilv2]

I only said that greed prevents socialism from ever working in society. You assumed the rest.

Absolutely not, the universalistic observation that greed is innate human nature was your argument against the socialist position, is it not? This necessarily entails the arguments that followed.

They are examples of communist states that failed. A classless society is impossible. Stateless society is also impossible to create. When theory meets reality, reality dictates a different course of action.

No[t] necessarily. Man & state will compromise & cooperate, if it is in his self- interest. If you disagree, perhaps you ca explain how a plural society (ie state) can act in any other way, but its own self- interest?

1. Poor examples, for the simple reason that these were flawed experiments rather than societies that at least fulfilled the requirements of Marx's original doctrine. Moreover, because the revolution of the proletariat has not occured by any stretch of the imagination, then the connection between conclusion and example truly has no ground whatsoever. If we were to discuss the flaws of the experiments then truly, we will have a lot of common ground. But the experiments hardly equal the unrealised theory, and thus the doctrine itself should be the point of analysis here.

2. No, reread what I stated. Personally, I see that man and state operate upon two different conscious levels given that the former is bound voluntarily by laws, which depending who you talk to, either act as social accords or restrictions on social behavior for the greater "good" or continuation of the society in which the individual lives. In this sense, one observes that self-interest can manifest itself or is imposed upon us by the societal structures in place - i.e. essence vs. determinism.
The state as an actor achieves a level of freedom of action within the international system because it is a sovereign actor without any superior structures potentially restricting "its" range of actions. To take the master-slave dialectic, the state has a wider liberty to construct and act according to its values. The very fact that the state has complete control over its actions in international relations points to an inherent anarchy in the international system - anarchy here, meaning freedom to fulfill whatever suits its "national interest." You pointed out that anarchy is temporary. Where you actually derive this conclusion from does not make any sense logically since you also affirm that every being inevitably operates upon self-interest, something that effectively indicates the absence of an overarching system of control.
In any case, the way you define self-interest is both vague and oversimplified given that what man or the state holds as a self-serving good can therefore easily represent a sacrifice for idealism (something which indeed occurs both at the individual level as Nanbawan pointed out, and at the international level). In fact, this conception of self-interest (inevitably) mirrors your self-defeating greed/pluralistic rendering of human nature that I looked at in the previous post.

You need to relax dude. This is for fun. This isn't serious debate. If you want to believe in the beautiful dream of a socislistic society, be my guess. I just shared why I don't think it will ever happen.

You're not getting it. Do I subscribe to Marx's ideals? No. Do I feel that a criticism of communism as a social ideal should at least be made in a proper fashion - i.e. analysing his arguments in detail and reexamination the foundation upon which he builds his theory? Yes. If one does not even acknowledge the necessity of the latter, then the words coming out of his/her mouth amount to pretty much nothing.
It is summer break though, and with yardwork, cooking, reading, and television, I do find enough time to relax. :)

[guignol]

i for one do "subscribe" to marx's ideals. just as with freud, experience has proved his thinking incomplete, flawed, in parts completely mistaken. that doesn't prevent him from being one of the minds that has formed the modern world. and as for art or literature, time has a way of winnowing out error and leaving the core of genius. one day marx will seem as obvious as galileo or raphael.

the big stumbling block is of course ourselves. few of us have the courage of our convictions, and fewer the consistency in our convictions that are necessary to weather the sea change revolutionary marxism represents.

but these ideas can bear fruit gradually, and we can, and will, change to allow it. it is false to say human nature is fixed like salt crystals, which however crushed or dissolved will always return to their cubic invariability. man does change, but as michel serres pointed out in a recent interview in télérama, only very slowly, or rather, at very long intervals. as earth-shattering as they seem de memoire de rose, 9/11 or the vietnam war are insignificant, leaving no trace on us as a species, but from the neolithic to the present man has not remained the same. cro-magnon was as poorly suited to parliamentary democracy or capitalism as we are to the workers' paradise, but here we are...

[Douai]

Strauss-Kahn: Hollande est "le principal responsable" de la défaite
14.05.07 | 10h03
Dominique Strauss-Kahn a affirmé lundi que le premier secrétaire du PS François Hollande était "le principal responsable" de la défaite présidentielle, qui crée "évidemment une crise" au Parti socialiste.

"Le PS, depuis 2002, a été incapable de se renouveler" et François Hollande en est "le responsable principal", a-t-il dit sur RMC et BFM-TV.


Le député du Val-d'Oise a ironisé sur la proposition de François Hollande d'organiser "des assises pour refonder un grand parti de la gauche".

"C'est un aveu (...) Cela veut dire qu'on n'est plus un grand parti de la gauche", a-t-il dit, en déplorant "la tendance à fuir, dans des manoeuvres institutionnelles, la réalité".

Selon Dominique Strauss-Kahn, ce n'est pas le nom du parti qui est en cause, "ce sont les idées". "Nous n'avons pas attiré les Français", a-t-il dit, en plaidant pour "un socialisme du réel, ancré dans la réalité". "Depuis des années, on ne tranche rien" au PS, a-t-il déploré.

De la défaite du 6 mai, "on est tous responsables à la mesure des responsabilités qu'on a exercées". "Plus la responsabilité est grande, plus on est responsable", a-t-il expliqué.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn s'est déclaré opposé à une désignation très rapide du candidat pour la présidentielle 2012, prônée samedi par Ségolène Royal, candidate malheureuse au scrutin 2007, jugeant que "cela n'a pas de sens".

Il a toutefois reconnu que choisir le candidat six mois avant le scrutin, "c'est trop tard". Le mieux, selon lui, c'est de prévoir une désignation "un an ou un an et demi" avant la présidentielle.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-30879013@7-40,0.html

[Pike]

1. Poor examples, for the simple reason that these were flawed experiments rather than societies that at least fulfilled the requirements of Marx's original doctrine. Moreover, because the revolution of the proletariat has not occured by any stretch of the imagination, then the connection between conclusion and example truly has no ground whatsoever.
If we were to discuss the flaws of the experiments then truly, we will have a lot of common ground. But the experiments hardly equal the unrealised theory, and thus the doctrine itself should be the point of analysis here.

There isn't going to be a revolution of the proletariat. I think Marx seriously underestimated the adaptability of the industrial class. As long as the standard of living increases relatively at the same rate, the the poletariat will never need to band together to force a change,... a radical one at that.



In any case, the way you define self-interest is both vague and oversimplified given that what man or the state holds as a self-serving good can therefore easily represent a sacrifice for idealism (something which indeed occurs both at the individual level as Nanbawan pointed out, and at the international level). In fact, this conception of self-interest (inevitably) mirrors your self-defeating greed/pluralistic rendering of human nature that I looked at in the previous post.

Okay,... greed isn't self- defeating. This is very silly to state. Greed has led to everything we take for granted today.

I don't deny that my statements are general. My opinion is devloped through my study of history on the actions of nations throughout history. Why do nations fight wars is an interesting question I am seeking to interest. I ask myself; Why did we fight the Persian Gulf Wars? Did the US really fight WWI to defend democracy? Was the Thirty Years Wars really fought over religion? How specific should I be? I hesistate to say that this is a developing theory, because there is no concentrated effort on my part to cone to a definitive answer. Therefore, oversimplication will always be problematic. it unfortunate that you chose not to offer a counter- argument or opinion. Then again, I am afraid of ther answer, based on the following;

The state as an actor achieves a level of freedom of action within the international system because it is a sovereign actor without any superior structures potentially restricting "its" range of actions. To take the master-slave dialectic, the state has a wider liberty to construct and act according to its values. The very fact that the state has complete control over its actions in international relations points to an inherent anarchy in the international system - anarchy here, meaning freedom to fulfill whatever suits its "national interest." You pointed out that anarchy is temporary. Where you actually derive this conclusion from does not make any sense logically since you also affirm that every being inevitably operates upon self-interest, something that effectively indicates the absence of an overarching system of control.

LOL,... I think we all know what anarchy really means and we ALL know it doesn't mean how you define it above. Seriously, do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just playing little games? It reminds me of the kind of silly stuff I did 15 years ago. I was so bad people stop talking to me about anything. :rolleyes:

[Anthony]

There isn't going to be a revolution of the proletariat.

But my personal goal is that when the revolution comes, I am up against the wall in the first month. If I am not declared an enemy of the people by the Trotskeyites, Marxists, fascists or whomever takes over, my life will have been for nothing.

[YankBastard]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/cartoons/20070513/1.jpg

[lefutur]

The link actually goes straight to my myspace blog.


sorry Yank. The blog url is http://blog.myspace.com/501378

[Douai]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/cartoons/20070513/1.jpg

That drawing does not look like Sarkozy at all.Does anyone know why the UMP's symbol is that tree?

[ilv2]

There isn't going to be a revolution of the proletariat. I think Marx seriously underestimated the adaptability of the industrial class. As long as the standard of living increases relatively at the same rate, the the poletariat will never need to band together to force a change,... a radical one at that.

Sure, I believe Frederick Taylor made that very same argument, and I don't have a huge problem with it. However, that is not what the discussion is focused upon, and certainly has nothing to do with the misguided connection between poor experiments made in the general spirit of communism, and the actual theory itself.

Okay,... greed isn't self- defeating. This is very silly to state. Greed has led to everything we take for granted today.

Sigh, reread please. That is not my argument and I fear you are grossly misunderstanding me. If you need clarification, ask, so that your responses don't go off track. Your position combines both an assumption of greed as a core aspect of human nature, in addition to other multiple aspects that you alluded to. Their mere concurrent existence is self-defeating given that like your argument about self-interest, you do not provide any explication of how these operate together and also within the larger argument of the broken socialist dream (i.e. Marx's historical materialism).


I don't deny that my statements are general. My opinion is devloped through my study of history on the actions of nations throughout history. Why do nations fight wars is an interesting question I am seeking to interest. I ask myself; Why did we fight the Persian Gulf Wars? Did the US really fight WWI to defend democracy? Was the Thirty Years Wars really fought over religion? How specific should I be? I hesistate to say that this is a developing theory, because there is no concentrated effort on my part to cone to a definitive answer. Therefore, oversimplication will always be problematic. it unfortunate that you chose not to offer a counter- argument or opinion. Then again, I am afraid of ther answer, based on the following;

LOL,... I think we all know what anarchy really means and we ALL know it doesn't mean how you define it above. Seriously, do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just playing little games? It reminds me of the kind of silly stuff I did 15 years ago. I was so bad people stop talking to me about anything. :rolleyes:

Developing theory? Theories on international relations have existed for ages, even long before the rise of IR as a academic field, and even the most simple commentary upon the international system will at least offer a nuanced analysis of a) the context in which movements in the international domain take place and b) the actors within this context and their behaviors. Integral to this is an actual definition of self-interest, the term being hugely fundamental, because reconciling both A and B, requires that the role self-interest be defined given the system's actors and how national interest is projected upon the rest of the world. Your "theory" accomplishes neither, and actually trips over itself when seeking to develop a coherent image of politics on the global stage.
As for my definition of anarchy, our entire foreign policy was largely based exactly upon this assumption of an anarchic international system - i.e. the realists, who based their arguments upon their pessimistic (self-interested) view of human nature and the philosophies of Macchiavelli, Hobbes, and the like. The observation has considerable weight in both academic and governmental fields given that Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan had an enormously significant influence inside and on the United States as well as elsewhere. So no, these are not little games and certainly not some brilliant explanatory paradigm that I made up, although the logic is admittedly quite simple to understand. For some.

[Douai]

Nicolas Sarkozy confie la présidence de l'UMP à une direction collégiale
LEMONDE.FR avec AFP | 14.05.07 | 15h44 • Mis à jour le 14.05.07 | 18h17
Comme prévu, Nicolas Sarkozy a annoncé sa démission de la présidence de l'UMP, lundi 14 mai, lors d'un conseil national de son parti à Paris. "Au moment où je viens d'être élu président de la République et à la veille de prendre mes fonctions, chacun comprendra que je ne puis demeurer à votre tête", a déclaré M. Sarkozy devant quelque 2 000 conseillers nationaux réunis dans un hôtel parisien.


http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-909970@51-909853,0.html