http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.p ... d=19015177
I reproduce it for convenience as I found it helpful.
Obviously there is some idealization. But it also serves to illustrate the different flavors conservatism comes in. I am not, in general, a conservative, as conservatives in the past have been opposed to progress. I am opposed to progress for progress' sake, but not in general to progress for a good cause. Some elements of our past are superior to what we have now, but many are not. Sarkozy, on the whole, I find intelligent and not hard to agree with.The election in France will almost prove to be the single most important event in this decade, for this election signals a tidal shift back to asserting that Western values are superior. This tidal shift will be resolutely proved if the French citizens give control of the French National Assembly to pro-Sarkozy politicians in June.
Note that Sarkozy is not a neoconservative in the American sense. In European culture, he may seem very conservative, but in American culture, he is mostly a moderate populist. He wants to maximize the wealth for the middle class, not the upper class.
Allow me to elaborate. First, he opposes an open-border policy. Most American neoconservatives favor an open-border policy because they like to use illegal and legal immigration to suppress wages. American agribusiness, not just Hispanic groups like La Raza, are the strongest advocates for allowing the importation of desperate foreign labor.
Sarkozy supports strong restrictions on immigration but favors treating immigrants kindly. The concept of immigrants working 14+ hours per day is considered to be cruel. He does not favor such brutal working conditions. Note that both parents of Seung Hui Cho, the mass murderer at Virginia Tech, worked 14+ hours per day. Neoconservatives applaud this situation: with glee, they self-servingly "praise" the hardworking nature of the Korean parents are. The consequence is that his parents were just too busy at work to give Seung Hui Cho the proper care that he needed. They never even noticed his rapid mental degeneration.
Second, Sarkozy supports globalization with only other free markets. So, he supports the European Union. However, he opposes fake free trade with non-free markets like India. He realizes that this kind of trade drives down the quality of life in France. He realizes that combining a free market and a non-free market damages the operation of the free market.
By contrast, American neoconservatives favor fake free trade with non-free markets like India.
Nonetheless, Sarkozy will (if the legislative election in June is favorable) will vastly transform France. It will not be the brutal kind (i.e., 14+ hours of work by illegal aliens) of capitalism in America. Rather, France will be a kinder, gentler economic superpower. If he succeeds (and I think that he will), I would likely prefer to live in France instead of America.
The rather interesting point is what's noted in the first paragraph. I have definitely noticed this trend in recent years, among others in myself. I think Sarkozy's comments in an interview half a year ago were partly those that inspired me to definitely reject blind multiculturalism. By and large, the trend has grown out of reaction to fundamentalist Islam, so it is unimportant, but the actual idea behind the trend is remarkably simple and durable: all societies are not equal. Many Western values are indeed superior to the average of other value systems (and some are not, of course).
I didn't post in the shoutbox as I actually wanted to write something. But I don't mean to post as flamebait or to troll, so if there isn't a need for a debate, that's great.
