I cannot of course comment on France as a whole, but as I mentioned at my blog today ( http://www.di2.nu/200705/07.htm ), here on the Riviera we have yet another SNCF strike and people seem pretty annoyed by the fact that they (we) can't rely on public transport.

I don't know whether there is enough support but I do think that a lot of people are sick and tired of the unions strikes and protests. Assuming Sarko prepares properly I could imagine him gaining significant support if he used the "Karcher" on the trades union leaders.

Your "bold" prediction, like the piece in yesterday's NYT, is the conventional wisdom on the subject. Perhaps it will turn out to be accurate. But it was probably also the conventional wisdom in May 1979, when Mrs. Thatcher took over. Like her, Sarko has a very clear view of what he wants to accomplish, and why he thinks his proposed changes are essential in the French national interest. But it's even more unlikely that Sarko will fail in bringing about any of the major changes he has been pushing. In 1979, the British unions were militant, too, but met their match in the Iron Lady. Granted, the parliamentary system gave her a freer hand and she accomplished only a part of what she set out to do. But just as Thatcherism has defined British politics since 1979, Sarko seems determined to leave a deep mark on France; over the last few months he has been at pains to spell out the details of how he intends to do that. When he said in his victory speech that France has voted for change, he certainly sounded like a leader who to shake up a status quo that no longer works, and is willing to do what it takes to deliver. This is one instance where I think the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong.

It's very possible that Sarko might "grow" or "shrink" in the job. Certainly the 1979 Tory manifesto was cautious compared to what actually followed; The manifesto promised a little bit of privatization, a little cut in income tax, a little increase in indirect taxes, a little bit of curbing the unions. But we very quickly got a lot of all the above in the UK.

Of course, politicians also go the other way; Ted Heath in 1970 produced a very similar election manifesto to Thatcher'a 1979 effort and then pulled back after a rough economic stretch in 71-72.

I think part of Sarko's problem is that he may not have diagnosed France's troubles accurately. I'm hearing a lot about tax cuts and streamlining social programs, when what France really needs isn't fiscal reform, it's regulatory reform -- liberalizing workplace rules, hiring and firing, making it easier bureaucratically to start a business, maybe a right to work law and so on.

Daniel, you disappoint me. But then again, most people who become professors lose their imaginations and succumb to groupthink, so I suppose I should not be so surprised.

Those things between your legs are called something, perhaps you can look it up.

He's gonna get along great with President Romney. I can't wait.

Dan,

Last night on France2 one of Sarkozy’s closest advisors laid out a number of measures that he intends to push through immediately after he takes office. The first concerns the 35 day work week .In and of itself that will make a big difference in they things are run in France.

At the very least his determination to act quickly holds some promise that he will be a different kind of French President.

As far as him trafficking in anti-American rhetoric, that does not seem likely. He had every opportunity to do so during the election campaign. If he failed engage in that kind of demagoguery then, I doubt he will begin to use this tactic now.

Like Merkel ,and Haper here in Canada, Sarkozy is likely to step back from the bash=Anerica tactics of his predecessor. That does not mean that a new strategic relationship between Europe and America will emerge tomorrow. It does mean that the French political class will spend less time proclaiming their moral superiority and more time dealing with their nation’s problems.

In France Union are weak ,wery very weak.
The weakest in the developed wrold.
They are only strong in public sector 25% of the wrok force.
in private sector 3%.
I think since the collapse of Soviet Union the relation with USA are less important, and if USA is still messianic and want to change the world with bomb (Irak, Iran ? ...) we will not follow USA, not by anti-americanism but simply we have no interest.