Paul from Paris

1. Did Sarkozy lose the election, or for the incumbent was this race unwinnable? Did Sarkozy and his handlers tragically misread or underestimate the strength and depth of anti-Sarkozy sentiment in the electorate?
2. Does Hollande hold a mandate for anything? Did his blandness and seeming lack of substance improve his performance as the anti-incumbent?
3. Which was the greatest disservice to Sarkozy’s campaign: morose economic conditions that would be a curse to any candidate; policy proposals that struck voters as unattractive (or even repulsive); or the candidate’s own personality (hyperactive, ever-changing)?
4. Sarkozy held off, for a long time, in declaring his candidacy for re-election. Would his campaign have been better served had he officially announced his intention to seek re-election the day (before? after?) Hollande was anointed as his challenger?
5. In 2007, Sarkozy ran as a candidate of change. This was no mean feat, as conservatives were in power, and Sarkozy held ministerial portfolios. In 2012, Sarkozy ran as an outsider (not as the incumbent, based on a record) seeking –paradoxically– to preserve (or conserve, but not to change) French institutions and lifestyle. Would Sarkozy have been better served by running, again in 2012, as the candidate for change?
6. In 2007, Sarkozy’s “travailler plus pour gagner plus” (work more to earn more, earn more by working more) echoed Blair’s call for an “opportunity society”: both championed for social mobility. By 2012, social mobility disappeared from Sarkozy’s objectives. Evocations of “travail” (work) rang hollow and divisive. Would the Sarkozy campaign have stood better chances had the incumbent positioned himself as an advocate for social mobility?
7. Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign slogan echoed an exhortation made long ago, under the reign of King Louis-Philippe, by statesman François Guizot: “Enrichissez-vous” (enrich yourselves). Both slogans shrugged off traditional unease with money and shone a favorable light on material prosperity. Unfavorable publicity surrounding Sarkozy –a celebratory dinner on the Champs-Elysées, a respite on a billionaire’s yacht, a noticeable penchant for aviator sunglasses and collectable watches– tempered arguments in favor of making money. Since the financial crisis, growth seems not to be even an option in Sarkozy’s mind. By 2012, any tax relief seemed off the table; Sarkozy instead pushed for a tax rearrangement that would cut some payroll taxes but boost VAT, paid by all and felt heavily by lower-income households. Would Sarkozy’s prospects have shown more promise had the candidate at least paid lip service to the goal of increasing household income and bettering material circumstances?
8. Until a year ago, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the socialist also-ran tapped by Sarkozy to head the IMF, seemed, largely on a widely shared assumption of economic competence, likely to win his party’s nomination and the 2012 presidential election. Once Strauss-Kahn ceased to be a political rival, why didn’t Sarkozy and his handlers build the incumbent’s campaign around economic themes, developed over several months?

French prime minister François Fillon accepted lavish gifts, including use of a private jet and luxury hotel accomodations, from Mubarek while vacationing in Egypt between Christmas and the New Year, it has been reported.

Fillon saw no need to comment on the situation until the day before a national newspaper went to press with the story. Fillon’s office has limited remarks, and the prime minister left National Assembly question time early, and ducking the press at appearances yesterday.

As with a similar problem with French foreign affairs minister Alliot-Marie, Fillon’s office answered questions posed with indirection: Fillon was on a private trip, but he did have a meeting with Mubarek; Fillon will pay (or has already paid) for use of a French government jet that carried him to and from Egypt.

To the fundamental question of why the leader of the government would feel compelled or entitled to accept significant gifts from the Egyptian strongman, silence seems to be the only answer.

Some commentators have drawn a connection between the Sarkozy presidency and a political class with loose morals. For my part, I’m inclined to believe that the scandal could have arisen under a left-wing government.

The big story is the insouciance with which the French political class willingly accepts –and maybe actively seeks– personal gain from office, while in office. The gains tend to be soft, consumable, and offshore; but there seems to be a cognitive gap where others would perceive conflict of interest, profiting from public service, or the appearance of impropriety.

The little story is a proclivity, at least among monied Parisians, towards long-distance travel during the week between Christmas and the New Year. In a manner akin to the “5-to-7″, where married men feel unduly imposed upon if asked to account for their late-afternoon activities, there may exist a French social habit where a nice vacation abroad is taken as a matter of course, not the subject for probing questions.

Louis XIV by Hyacinthe Rigaud (1701)

Louis XIV never actually said, “L’Etat, c’est moi” (I’m the State), according to historians. But the saying fits with the image we have of the absolute monarch. The saying has staying power.

Some say that French president Sarkozy has a Napoleon complex. I beg to differ: doesn’t Sarkozy instead have a Louis XIV complex?

In today’s France, don’t all discussions turn, sooner or later, to politics? And, when they do, doesn’t Sarkozy quickly take center stage?

At this point in Sarkozy’s presidency, the catalog of projects is becoming long: save the planet, get the scum (la racaille) out of troubled neighborhoods, refound finance on a sound moral foundation, encourage business growth, earn more by working more, ….

But here’s the paradox: as much as Sarkozy would like to stake a claim on reclaiming safe streets, returning to secure jobs, and generally righting wrongs everywhere, his record on actual accomplishment is thin. The State isn’t up to Sarkozy’s oversized ambitions.

Isn’t this as it should be? Isn’t modest government or limited government –keenly aware of its limitations, whether by design or in practice– preferable to a state that thinks itself up to mastering any challenge?

This post is intended to reassure several readers who questioned whether Florence Woerth, the spouse of French labor minister Eric Woerth, had sacrificed her career in order to insulate her husband’s political career from potential scandal or harm.

Indeed, reported quid pro quo exchanges, where Woerth received a job and her boss received the Legion of Honor from her husband, led to Woerth’s resignation from Clymène. This company, where Woerth worked as a financial analyst, manages money for L’Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt and suffers heavy losses, year after year.

But Woerth’s departure from Clymène has not resulted in inactivity.

• On June 7, Woerth was elected to the board of Hermès, a French luxury brand that nurtures an equestrian heritage.
• Woerth is the founder and member of Dam’s, a stable whose shareholders are all women. Initially a quintent –Woerth was joined by Nathalie Bélinguier, Réjane Lacoste, Dominique Hazan, and Nicole Séroul (women involved in horse racing and textiles)– Dam’s has prospered and today counts about thirty members. Incidentally, under a law known by its French acronym, TEPA, investment in Dam’s yields significant tax benefits for its members. (The stable seems to have recently become publicity-shy, it’s web site having gone blank.)
• Woerth is widely reported to have longstanding ties with France Galop, another equestrian organization. She seems, at the least, to have served in the past on its horse owners’ committee.

Woerth’s equestrian interests are close to home, as her husband is mayor of Chantilly, a major equestrian center in France. This having been said, matters equestrian have dealt Eric Woerth the misfortune of an additional controversy: the press is asking why, just be changing ministerial portfolios, Woerth authorized the sale of a racetrack complex, estimated as worth €20 million, for €2.5 million in favor of its politically friendly tenant.

Long considered a great place to work and much admired in business, Arthur Andersen became a target for criticism in the wake of the implosion and scandal of Enron (also considered a great place to work and, in its heyday, much admired in business).

Arthur Andersen was criticized mostly for how its different parts worked as a whole. In addition to auditing, Arthur Andersen sold accounting services and consulted on many business questions. According to critics, an entity that sold advisory services could not be counted on to audit impartially the recipient of its own advice, especially as consulting was more profitable than auditing.

An alumnus of Arthur Andersen has been in the news in France.

Eric Woerth is mayor of Chantilly (a town north of France famous for its stables and horse racing), MP from the 4th district of the Oise, French conservative party treasurer, former budget minister, and current labor minister.

Eric Woerth is also the husband of Florence Woerth, a financial analyst. The details are contested, but according to press reports Eric Woerth orchestrated a meeting between Florence Woerth and money manager Patrice de Maistre. In any case, Florence Woerth soon got a job and Patrice de Maistre soon got a decoration.

Florence Woerth joined Clymène, a money management firm run by Patrice de Maistre that has two unusual features: its sole shareholder and sole client is Liliane Bettencourt, an heiress to the L’Oréal fortune; and it consistently loses money, having suffered losses of more than €100 million from 2000 through 2008.

Patrice de Maistre was inducted into the French Legion of Honor, and received a decoration directly from Eric Woerth. According to press reports, the ceremony to present the decoration had been scheduled originally for November 2007, when Florence Woerth joined Clymène, then was moved to January 2008.

Earlier this summer, there was much talk about conflict of interest.

For former finance minister and free-market conservative Alain Madelin, “This is a situation of conflict of interest, incompatible with the office”.

Eric Woerth contested the point. But he also started talking about a “Chinese Wall”, borrowing a term that investment banks use to describe how they practice underwriting and trading under the same roof. And as this metaphor makes plain, even if the Woerths never talk about their work, they do share a household, supporting one another financially.

Florence Woerth resigned from Clymène, which seemed to undercut her husband’s denial of any problem.