Edited by Robin Silberman and Alex Brewer
Obama and Sarkozy in the Face of the Media
Published in Figaro
(France) on 4 August 2009
by Yves Thréard (link to original)
Yesterday Barack Obama turned 48 years old, but no star came to sensuously sing “Happy Birthday, Mr. President,” like Marilyn Monroe did for John F. Kennedy’s 45th birthday. Without a doubt such a scene would be looked at differently now that the American media no longer have the eyes of Chimène for their president.
And then there are the ungrateful Americans who waited for him, wanted him, adored him, to excess. Six months later, they reproach him for going too fast in his reforms, or not quickly enough. Six months later, they begin to become disenchanted. Six months later, as if saturated, they accuse him of media omnipresence.
Is this the sort of harsh law that is necessary when one governs in the 21st century? This trial in hyper-presidency reminds us of another, namely the Sarkozy administration.
As much as the two men look differently, they exercise their power in a similar fashion. The reason is simple: each was elected with the imperative need to change their country. Obama to break with the Bush era: more listening, less intemperance, more solidarity. Sarkozy to break with the practices used by an almost monarchic government: more proximity, more temperance, more will. The former had the mandate of making the United States more presentable to the planet. The latter to modernize France and prepare it for the new challenges of international competition.
Without delay, both got down to the task. And they are trying to convert their many, very many, promises into visible realizations. But, as La Palisse said, the world is not remade in a day.
In fact, two primary reproaches have been made of them. The first being that they interfere in all cases, including the smallest aspects of society. There have been countless times that the French president replaced one of his secretaries of state for seemingly minor reasons. Across the Atlantic, the intervention of Obama in the Gates affair - named for the black professor arrested in his own home - has notably raised much debate.
The other reproach is confusing communication with action. They speak a lot; omni-directional, they occupy the field rather than working on essential changes. This is forgetting that the financial crisis has modified their respective road maps. This is also omitting that the schizophrenia of the people is great. And is it the fault of Obama or Sarkozy if globalization and ultra-mediatization, inseparable realities in our time, have upturned political times?
In the vast global zapping, everything becomes urgent. The hyper-presidency is then a response to a contemporary demand whose impatience is only matched by insatiable curiosity.
And then there are the ungrateful Americans who waited for him, wanted him, adored him, to excess. Six months later, they reproach him for going too fast in his reforms, or not quickly enough. Six months later, they begin to become disenchanted. Six months later, as if saturated, they accuse him of media omnipresence.
Is this the sort of harsh law that is necessary when one governs in the 21st century? This trial in hyper-presidency reminds us of another, namely the Sarkozy administration.
As much as the two men look differently, they exercise their power in a similar fashion. The reason is simple: each was elected with the imperative need to change their country. Obama to break with the Bush era: more listening, less intemperance, more solidarity. Sarkozy to break with the practices used by an almost monarchic government: more proximity, more temperance, more will. The former had the mandate of making the United States more presentable to the planet. The latter to modernize France and prepare it for the new challenges of international competition.
Without delay, both got down to the task. And they are trying to convert their many, very many, promises into visible realizations. But, as La Palisse said, the world is not remade in a day.
In fact, two primary reproaches have been made of them. The first being that they interfere in all cases, including the smallest aspects of society. There have been countless times that the French president replaced one of his secretaries of state for seemingly minor reasons. Across the Atlantic, the intervention of Obama in the Gates affair - named for the black professor arrested in his own home - has notably raised much debate.
The other reproach is confusing communication with action. They speak a lot; omni-directional, they occupy the field rather than working on essential changes. This is forgetting that the financial crisis has modified their respective road maps. This is also omitting that the schizophrenia of the people is great. And is it the fault of Obama or Sarkozy if globalization and ultra-mediatization, inseparable realities in our time, have upturned political times?
In the vast global zapping, everything becomes urgent. The hyper-presidency is then a response to a contemporary demand whose impatience is only matched by insatiable curiosity.
Previous article![]( "Love Is Blind")
