La folie royale

[Ah, c'mon, S�gol�ne; is this what the candidate of a major party does leading up to an election to demonstrate her foreign relations chops? I've been rooting for you, ch�rie, but the Qu�bec secessionist movement has just about faded in Canada for the time being, and here you gotta go, touting Qu�b�cois "sovereignty" (that murky word that has caused so much trouble) during what could have been merely a courtesy call from the leader of the separationist Bloc.]

[In most republics that have a prime minister (or premier - same thing), the president has a mostly ceremonial role, kind of like an elected monarch. In France, though, the president has substantial powers alongside the premier, and the French elect the two offices separately. I gather that when the president and the prime minister are of different political parties, they enter a state called la cohabitation, something like what we'd like to think Bush and Pelosi/Reid are juggling here at home. Over there, though, it's been established that in such cases, the president gets to do foreign policy, while the PM watches the home front. (Imagine if that were the deal here!) So, when a presidential candidate expresses foreign policy views, it matters.]

[Well, a candidate has expressed, and I'm not impressed. While I think Qu�bec should be allowed to leave Canada if a majority votes to go (unwisely IMHO), they've voted on it a couple of times, and so far they've voted non; while it's been a near thing, it seemed settled. (Note: The Angry Young J.D. reminds me that it is settled, at least in law: the Canadian Supreme Court held in 1998 that no province can secede unilaterally. Well, OK, but try telling that to Lord North.) The Bloc Qu�b�cois is no longer the biggest opposition party in Ottawa, and the rest of Canada has gone to great, if sometimes grumpy, lengths to recognize Qu�bec's special status; it's still a province, but it has symbolic and real prerogatives not held by the other, most English-speaking areas of the country.]

[In the event the numbers shift, and Qu�bec were to secede, it would mean a big shake-up not just for Canada but for North America as a whole, so I think it's OK for Americans to have a point of view on what might normally be considered a purely Canadian political issue. (Everyone's favorite Anglo-Quebecker DiaryLander has been scrupulous in refraining from comment on U.S. politics, and normally I'd return the courtesy.) I think we're entering an era where outright nationalist secessions are more counterproductive than not, and that Qu�bec is better off in Canada than not. But then, I'm an Anglophone in an Anglophone-dominated continent.]

[Anyway, I've been hoping France's Socialist candidate for president, S�gol�ne Royal, would prevail in next April's elections. Not only would she be a moderate leftist in power balancing the moderately conservative Angela Merkel of Germany, the symbolism of a woman in a role that's ultimately the successor to the all-male French monarchy would be a landmark in feminist politics. (Her last name is a cute coincidence that you know I get off on.) Macho France is one of the last big Western countries besides the U.S. not to elect a woman leader, and if they do it, maybe we'd be next. (Technically, Canadian voters didn't elect their only female prime minister so far, but at least they've had one.) Royal's center-right opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy, didn't shine during the unpleasantness that rocked certain non-European neighborhoods near Paris in late 2005, and I think a win by him would go far toward fostering the ugly anti-immigrant feeling that's been blighting France, as well. So I've been an armchair Royal partisan for a while now.]

[Now, I get that Qu�bec separatism has generally been more of a leftist cause than not, but I think in this case, our S�gol�ne (what a fabulous first name; I'll name my first cat S�gol�ne) has made a mistake in endorsing Qu�bec "sovereignty," which isn't quite the same thing as endorsing "independence." There are nuances (especially in Canada, which has led the hemisphere in recognizing its aboriginal peoples' prerogatives) but those nuances don't matter during a media cycle, and Royal should have known that. Predictably, Canada's Conservative PM Stephen Harper has hit le roof. I'm no Harper fan, if only because he wants "reexamine" same-sex marriage in Canada, but still...she needn't have done this. No Canadian PM of any party is going to be anything but vocally for the continued physical integrity of his country, so his reaction is unsurprising in this case.]

[Royal should've smiled and kept her comments neutral when meeting the Bloc leader, as this will be another of her roles as head of state if elected. Why stir things up on this issue now? Sarkozy's a bit ahead already in the opinion polls, and this is Royal's high-profile chance to show how she'd deal with North America. While this will play well on France's left, Royal's already got their votes. She doesn't need to play "Huguette Chavez" and antagonize the conservative majority in Canada's parliament (and in the U.S. presidency). She needs to play Mitterrand, the Socialist president who got along well enough with Reagan and Thatcher and Kohl in the '80s because it was the smart thing to do, not hew to some misguided Francophonic solidarity like that hothead reactionary Charles "Frankreich �ber Alles" DeGaulle, who followed his stupid Gallic heart and alienated everybody in the '60s. If I were a French centrist, I'd be thinking twice about voting for her, and that's too bad.]

[Yes, I still occasionally contemplate stuff other than my own navel, and here's your proof. (Others can ably analyze ugly, worthwhile issues at home. Me, I'll spout off on an issue I can actually take a position on without having even a theoretical obligation to act.)]

Previously Next