Merkel, Sarkozy, Chirac, all those guys

[kenberg]

Americans are often charged with knowing not much about what goes on outside its borders. There is some truth to that. I offer a couple of columns (by Americans) and ask, especially I ask Europeans, if the columns give a good description of what's up "over there".

 

The first entry is from Anne Applebaum. I have always enjoyed her columns (despite her opposition to the arrest of Roman Polanski) and her brief wikipedia biography is impressive. She writes today about Angela Merkel.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9110202449.html

 

My second entry is from Jim Hoagland. Evidently he has had a number of conversations with Chirac. His column from a couple of days back discusses French politics in general, Chirac and Sarkozy in particular.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9103003320.html

 

 

The above, as noted, is American writing about Europe. But both are from some first hand experience. Comments are solicited.

[hrothgar]

The first entry is from Anne Applebaum. I have always enjoyed her columns (despite her opposition to the arrest of Roman Polanski) and her brief wikipedia biography is impressive.

Some feel that Applebaum should be required to disclose her husbands' business interests any time she comments on Polanski...

[Codo]

I like the way Mrs Applebaum wrote about "my" chancellor.

 

And Angela Merkel will never ever be loud or looking for PR. But somehow she manages to reach most of her goals. She is female, from the east and not catholic. Actually one of these facts make her a no go for leading the CDU. All three of them- unthinkable. But they voted her and they never regretted it.

 

I belive that your commentator did a great job in describing her. Or at least, I share all of her statements and views.

[kenberg]

This reply written before I saw Codo's.

 

 

 

 

 

The first entry is from Anne Applebaum. I have always enjoyed her columns (despite her opposition to the arrest of Roman Polanski) and her brief wikipedia biography is impressive.

Some feel that Applebaum should be required to disclose her husbands' business interests any time she comments on Polanski...

From the Wik:

 

She is married to Foreign Minister of Poland Radoslaw Sikorski.

 

 

Relevant, I suppose, but we all come with baggage. Or maybe better, we all have our views influenced by our linkages. Anyway, like everyone I know, I see the Polanski case as not open to serious debate. For whatever her reasons, she sees it otherwise.

 

I may regret mentioning Polanski at all. It's her views about Merkel's place in European politics that interest me.

 

But just a word about baggage: I grew up at a time when it was an article of faith that the American isolationism of the thirties was a grave error. One can overlearn from a mistake, no doubt about it. But it colors my views, and I am aware of it. There are other items from that era that may or may not be applicable today.

 

 

Anyway, Applebaum's piece is, I think, a generally favorable assessment of Merkel's place in European politics. Applebaum herself does not easily get classified as left or right I think, and I am interested in whether her estimate stands up.

[Aberlour10]

The first entry is from Anne Applebaum. I have always enjoyed her columns (despite her opposition to the arrest of Roman Polanski) and her brief wikipedia biography is impressive.

Some feel that Applebaum should be required to disclose her husbands' business interests any time she comments on Polanski...

The same, any time she comments on polish-russian relationships.

She thinks like her husband in old pure "cold war categories", They write and talk about....if 100 000 russian tanks still stand directly at the polish border . People like them and many more from our "political eiltes" see Russia as our eternal enemy, no matter what the russians really do. The chance to prosper, to profit from our geopolitical stand between East and West is thrown away by people like them.

 

Robert

[jkljkl]

Americans are often charged with knowing not much about what goes on outside its borders. There is some truth to that.

 

The first entry is from Anne Applebaum. I have always enjoyed her columns (despite her opposition to the arrest of Roman Polanski) and her brief wikipedia biography is impressive. She writes today about Angela Merkel.

Hello,

 

imo Appelbaum's article is acceptable even if it suffers a little bit due of the fact that it is quite short.

 

Even if I would never vote for her party I am happy to see how the positions of the CDU (her party) changed under her leadership and consider her a plus for germany (a country that has still a lot to do about gender mainstreaming).

 

I will not bore you with an analysis of the outcomes of the elections, it may suffice to say that germany has become a state with a 5 parties (from former 2) so the winning of Merkel was that CDU went from 13.136.740 votes 2005 to 11.828.277 2009 while the socialist SPD went fom 16.194.665 to 9.990.488. (The CDU does not get votes in Bavaria they go to the sister party CSU)

 

I am not a prophete, but I do not see big changes in the matter of cutting taxes. Merkel suffered a belly landing 2005 when she made a loud campaign about cutting taxes (Paul Kirchhof was her expert). In fact the new treasury secretary (CDU) is already putting the brakes and both parties CDU+FDP are constructing a lot of hollow sentences to relativize their promises about tax cuts. Nothing new under the sun :-)

 

ciao stefan

germany

[Aberlour10]

And Angela Merkel will never ever be loud or looking for PR. But somehow she manages to reach most of her goals.

Her strategy is quite simple. Never polarize! Be always non-committal, let your knights (minister) to be pro or contra something, I stand always "im the middle of"!

Her newest nickname>>>> Teflon-Angie says all: she gives very less opportunity for political attacks. Sure, its very successfull for the retention of power, but is it good for the country too?

 

Robert

[hotShot]

To understand Angela Merkel you need to understand her background.

.... she studied physics from 1973 to 1978.

....

Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof from 1978 to 1990.

....

After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry she worked as a researcher.

Research in the GDR meant that you did not have access to foreign high-tech and that you usually could not get required replacement parts.

So among the researchers there was a big number of "MacGyver" like experts who could improvise a solution for almost anything.

 

So basically she is not (very) ideological but pragmatic.

Expect her to evaluate solutions in categories "working" and "not working", rather then "left" or "right".

If she can't convince others to go all the way at once, she will make any small step that can be made, hoping/expecting that time will prove she's on the right track. Letting the facts convince the others later.

[jkljkl]

If she can't convince others to go all the way at once, she will make any small step that can be made, hoping/expecting that time will prove she's on the right track.

Ken I am sorry but I can't resist ;-)

 

so we now can close the circle:

 

"Dabei ist die ideologische Heimat von schwarz-gelb eindeutig zu bestimmen: Es ist der rechte Keynesianismus, wie ihn vor allem George W. Bush in den USA praktizierte."

 

http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2009-10/ange...esianismus-bush

 

or a little bit longer

 

http://www.zeit.de/2009/45/Merkel-Wachstum

 

ciao stefan

[helene_t]

Merkel addresses the US congress: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8339949.stm

[kenberg]

If she can't convince others to go all the way at once, she will make any small step that can be made, hoping/expecting that time will prove she's on the right track.

Ken I am sorry but I can't resist ;-)

 

so we now can close the circle:

 

"Dabei ist die ideologische Heimat von schwarz-gelb eindeutig zu bestimmen: Es ist der rechte Keynesianismus, wie ihn vor allem George W. Bush in den USA praktizierte."

 

http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2009-10/ange...esianismus-bush

 

or a little bit longer

 

http://www.zeit.de/2009/45/Merkel-Wachstum

 

ciao stefan

Oh my. I did once pass my exam in German. In 1962, I believe it was. I will work on it. I imagine the headline "Angela Bush" gives a good summary of the general idea?

 

 

Quantum chemistry? I'll be damned. Didn't know that. I had known she was from the GDR but until it was mentioned even that had slipped my mind.

[jkljkl]

If she can't convince others to go all the way at once, she will make any small step that can be made, hoping/expecting that time will prove she's on the right track.

Ken I am sorry but I can't resist ;-)

 

so we now can close the circle:

 

"Dabei ist die ideologische Heimat von schwarz-gelb eindeutig zu bestimmen: Es ist der rechte Keynesianismus, wie ihn vor allem George W. Bush in den USA praktizierte."

Oh my. I did once pass my exam in German. In 1962, I believe it was. I will work on it. I imagine the headline "Angela Bush" gives a good summary of the general idea?

 

Roughly translated:

"the ideological home of black-yellow (the colours of CDU+FDP) can be determined unambiguously: It is the right wing Keynesianism, how it has been put in practice lately by George W. Bush in the USA"

 

I was just kidding about whatever you do we seem to land again in the USA politics.

 

ciao stefan

[y66]

I don't read German. But I think jkljkl's link refers to Merkel's bold, Bush style tax cuts, which are a centerpiece of her new coalition's economic strategy.

 

Just read excerpts from her address to Congress yesterday at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04merkel.html

[jdonn]

I love it. We are bored with discussing the US, so let's discuss the opinions of the US about everyone else!

[Gerben42]

In the German election, the real vote was for vice-chancellor. Either four more years of the "more of the same" christian democrat - socialist government, or "change" christian democrat - liberal government.

 

The vote was clearly in favor of change and a government that would actually be able to do something rather than have endless discussions. I think "Zeit" must be a social democrat magazine, otherwise it would not be so quick to judge the financial policy of the new government. I would compare the FDP strategy more with Roosevelt than with Bush. Although it is not certain to succeed, the opposite approach suggested by SPD or even worse, the Left party (whose economic ideas are still very close to those in the GDR of the 70s), are certain to fail.

 

For me as a foreign national living in Germany, the voters appear to have made the right choice (I say this independent of my field of work, which may profit from a nuclear power-friendly government). On the other hand in the area of choosing the right persons for the right jobs, I think there are better choices for foreign minister than mr. Westerwelle, and putting mr. von Guttenberg on defense was a bad choice as his talent will be mostly wasted there.

[Winstonm]

This thread reminds me of a song: "Merkel, Sarkozy, and Chirac" (Sung to the tune of Abraham, Martin, and John.)

 

Has anybody here

seen my old friend Merkel?

Can you tell me

where she's gone?

[y66]

From today's paper:

Learning From Europe

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

As health care reform nears the finish line, there is much wailing and rending of garments among conservatives. And I’m not just talking about the tea partiers. Even calmer conservatives have been issuing dire warnings that Obamacare will turn America into a European-style social democracy. And everyone knows that Europe has lost all its economic dynamism.

 

Strange to say, however, what everyone knows isn’t true. Europe has its economic troubles; who doesn’t? But the story you hear all the time — of a stagnant economy in which high taxes and generous social benefits have undermined incentives, stalling growth and innovation — bears little resemblance to the surprisingly positive facts. The real lesson from Europe is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.

 

Actually, Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it.

 

In any case, the statistics confirm what the eyes see.

More ...

[Al_U_Card]

This thread reminds me of a song: "Merkel, Sarkozy, and Chirac" (Sung to the tune of Abraham, Martin, and John.)

 

Has anybody here

seen my old friend Merkel?

Can you tell me

where she's gone?

After the "shoulder-rub" from W she just retreated into a corner and shudders occasionally. :ph34r:

[Aberlour10]

Has anybody here

seen my old friend Merkel?

Can you tell me

where she's gone?

Nobody has seen her these days...she is under heavy friendly fire at the moment.

[kenberg]

If you go to the article Y66 cites and then follow on to the comments, you get quite a variety.

[PassedOut]

If you go to the article Y66 cites and then follow on to the comments, you get quite a variety.

Seemed to me that there was quite a difference in the comments from people living in the US compared with those from people who had lived in both the US and Europe.

 

I strongly recommend that folks from the US travel extensively in Europe, socializing with Europeans and taking the time to see how life really is there. And ask about health care.

[P_Marlowe]

To understand Angela Merkel you need to understand her background.

.... she studied physics from 1973 to 1978.

....

Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof from 1978 to 1990.

....

After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry she worked as a researcher.

Research in the GDR meant that you did not have access to foreign high-tech and that you usually could not get required replacement parts.

So among the researchers there was a big number of "MacGyver" like experts who could improvise a solution for almost anything.

 

So basically she is not (very) ideological but pragmatic.

Expect her to evaluate solutions in categories "working" and "not working", rather then "left" or "right".

If she can't convince others to go all the way at once, she will make any small step that can be made, hoping/expecting that time will prove she's on the right track. Letting the facts convince the others later.

Yes, I think this is a very good description.

 

Merkel did study science, which means her analytic skills are well trained,

and being pragmatic is a feature, one sees a lot, if one compares "East"

Germans with "West" Germans, there are other examples.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe (..., was born and raised in "East" German, but would never vote

for Merkels party, but thinks she does a reasonable job.)

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Hello,

 

imo Appelbaum's article is acceptable even if it suffers a little bit due of the fact that it is quite short.

 

Even if I would never vote for her party I am happy to see how the positions of the CDU (her party) changed under her leadership and consider her a plus for germany (a country that has still a lot to do about gender mainstreaming).

 

I will not bore you with an analysis of the outcomes of the elections, it may suffice to say that germany has become a state with a 5 parties (from former 2) so the winning of Merkel was that CDU went from 13.136.740 votes 2005 to 11.828.277 2009 while the socialist SPD went fom 16.194.665 to 9.990.488. (The CDU does not get votes in Bavaria they go to the sister party CSU)

 

<snip>

ciao stefan

germany

The numbers comparing the votes the CDU got and the votes the SPD got

need some explanations.

 

The "lost" SPD votes did not go to the CDU, but to (newly) party, the "Left",

which origins from the former SED (the governing party in the GDR).

This characterisation of the "Left" needs to be taken with a lot of "salt".

 

Nevertheless the SPD did split in two parties, this happened due to some

necessary reforms, which the SPD triggered, as the SPD was governing.

Those reforms were needed, but seen as unsocial, and the SPD was the

leading "social" party.

 

The SPD (together with the FDP) did have a similar split around 1980, the

year it was decide to install nuclear weapons in (West) Germany, the SPD

was the governing party.

 

And another point is, that although the CDU did win lots of direct mandates,

we have a mix direct mandates like in Britain and proportional mandates,

this is misleading, lots of won seats, were won with just 30-35% of the votes,

because the three "left" parties were not able to align them self.

=> This led to add. seats for the CDU, since they won more direct seats then

seats according to proportions.

 

If you look at the numbers, than you have

CDU 34%

FDP 15%

......................

SPD 23%

Left 12% (6-7% of those 12% are due to the SPD split)

Green (11% - the Green party was created 1980, see above )

 

So if you add the above numbers up, you have 34% for CDU and 30-31% for

the SPD, and 49% "conservative" parties vs 46% "left" parties.

I did some rounding.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

If you go to the article Y66 cites and then follow on to the comments, you get quite a variety.

My two pence:

 

The conclusion is not implausible but saying that generous (relative to US) social benefits are not bad for the economy because Western Europe has a reasonably well-performing economy is quite a leap.

 

Europe and US both have a few obvious advantages and obvious disadvantages. And some debatable ones as well, one of them being the "welfare state" and the way the health systems are financed.

 

Maybe it is safe to say that those factors roughly cancel out. Probably many would say that regardless of what GDP and other key statistics say, they would much prefer to live on one continent over the other. In either case it is not, IMHO, safe to say much about the role of particular factors. From the GDP statistics alone, I mean. Of course one could have good reasons for preferring one health/welfare system over the other.

[P_Marlowe]

If you go to the article Y66 cites and then follow on to the comments, you get quite a variety.

My two pence:

 

The conclusion is not implausible but saying that generous (relative to US) social benefits are not bad for the economy because Western Europe has a reasonably well-performing economy is quite a leap.

 

Europe and US both have a few obvious advantages and obvious disadvantages. And some debatable ones as well, one of them being the "welfare state" and the way the health systems are financed.

 

Maybe it is safe to say that those factors roughly cancel out. Probably many would say that regardless of what GDP and other key statistics say, they would much prefer to live on one continent over the other. In either case it is not, IMHO, safe to say much about the role of particular factors. From the GDP statistics alone, I mean. Of course one could have good reasons for preferring one health/welfare system over the other.

I agree, but ...

 

I heard a story, that a factory got build in Canada instead of the US,

although the expected Tax rate in Canada was higher than in the US.

 

The reason is simple: Companies pay a lot for health care benefits,

those costs usually get ignored, when one does compare Europe with the

US.

 

In Europe you basically have explicit Taxes for health card on everyone,

in the US you have hidden taxes for health care. (Over Simplification).

GM went bancrupt not only because the made terrible cars, they had also

problems because the huge amount to finance health care was a big burden,

which wad destinate to kill GM.

 

As always: Know how a specific statistics got compiled, than you understand

how to compare two different statistics.