Literary Review: Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson)
Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence”
Thomas Jefferson is esteemed as one of the most significant figures in American history, despite being misrepresented by scholars. The former American president, credited with a plethora of writings, is most famous for his Declaration of Independence. This political paper is the founding document for the United States of America. Through Jefferson, the Founding Fathers declared their independence from England and the rationale in support of their action (Raphael 117-152). Not generally thought of as a literary work, a few prominent historians have conducted critical analyses of its content, style, and sources. Some scholars focus on the text’s creative technique, while others ponder its sources and their relevance. Americans are wide-ranging in their evaluation of its assignment in the development of the county’s heritage and in their interpretations of its implications. Scholars dedicate a great deal of effort to study the Declaration. However, instead of expounding on the understanding, it greatly increases the amounts and variances of viewpoints.
On the surface, the declaration has several distinct messages. These include the points that people have the right and duty to abolish and replace an oppressive government, that Britain had an oppressive government, so consequently the American people have a right and duty to abolish and replace political ties with Britain. Dr. Stephen Lucas, professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, describes this deductive reasoning as the conditions required to overthrow a government (“The Stylistic Artistry”). The attacks on England’s government in the latter portion of the document include the “proof” for America to request independence from her former enslaver. This scholar disagrees with the notion that the declaration has a theological agenda when he writes, “these religious connections and meanings . . . have been added by others later was never implied as written or as understood at the time by it authors.” He feels that they are not part of what is originally important with respect to the founders’ original understandings, meanings, and intentions.
Bold in its insurgence to Great Britain, the document is bold in its word choice. Each word and sentence has a profound and distinct meaning. In his internet article, Lucas asserts that the language is “brief, free of verbiage, a model of clear, concise, simple statement.” The document is to the point and comprehensible, so that the readers should have no difficulty in appreciating its plain meanings. In one paragraph, the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence summarizes European philosopher John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” He discusses that as a master of the English language, Jefferson was meticulous in choosing his words. He refers to the statesman’s vast familiarity with treaties and scholarly works of the day, and to his writing of the essay, “Thoughts on English Prosody.” This unpublished dissertation deals predominantly with poetry, but demonstrates his keenness for the English language. Jefferson’s facility for eloquent writing greatly assists in relaying his message.
Many feel the Declaration of Independence to be a medium through which Thomas Jefferson could propagandize his doctrine to the masses. Harvard professor Alfred Kazin complies with this thought when he contrasts Jefferson to the British revolutionist, Thomas Paine, one the sources for his declaration, by discussing the historical figures’ differing opinions on the connection between revolution in government and revolution in religion (8-9). In his book, “God and the American Writer,” Kazin writes about the background of early American literature and its adamancy of the supremacy of God. He shows the divergence from this standard with the progression of times. Kazin denotes Jefferson as being among the last of this order of writers in America (110).
Historian Allen Jayne disagrees, insisting that the declaration is not meant to give a religious foundation to this nation or its laws (83-86). He contends that it is not intended to give a theological dissertation on the design of humanity. According to Jayne, the declaration instead suggests a theology well-suited to democracy (89-91). This theology incorporates concepts of rational thinking and “Nature’s God.” It also encompasses those of human equality and government by consent, the idea drawn from Locke. Jayne’s scrutiny of the document brings to light contemporary discussions over separation of church and state. He suggests that Jefferson would most likely not agree with those who see the appeals to the “Creator” in the declaration as a rationalization for some merger of government and religion. He feels that Jefferson had in mind an ethical philosophy, wherein all persons enjoy a natural ability to make moral choices. In addition to explaining the colonies’ severance from England, the declaration transmits what Jayne refers to as a “heterodox theology,” giving the view that it is necessary to the founding of a government by the people(6). Lord Bolingbroke gave Jefferson his deistic theology, which surfaces in the declaration when he refers to “Nature’s God,” a term coined by the British aristocrat. Jayne discusses Jefferson’s possible influences of the Scottish Enlightenment and the religious liberalism of Lord Bolingbroke, a hero of Jefferson. .
Mt. Holyoke College history professor and Jefferson biographer Joseph Ellis agrees that the revolutionists in the Scottish Enlightenment were a major influence for the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. He also is of the same opinion that Lockean philosophies, such as a government held accountable to the people, played a major role in Jefferson’s 1776 mindset. Ellis writes, “. . . the founders were always self- conscious about how posterity would view their decisions and their behavior,” to illustrate the importance of their deeds (23). Northwestern professor and avid historian Gary Wills emphasizes the magnitude of Scottish influences in the declaration. Wills compares Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence with the final, accepted version, disputing assumptions about both Jefferson and the declaration. He argues that Jefferson’s dream was one wherein the basis of society is a trust and reliance among men, rather than selfishness. He asserts that the Declaration of Independence is commonly misinterpreted because of not placing its language accurately in the perspective of eighteenth-century thought (Inventing America 115-145).
Scholars debate the specific sources as well as the actual extent to which the influences had in the drafting of the text. A revisionist scholar, Wills believes the declaration to be an expression of Jefferson’s ideal of a social commune. However Jayne contradicts this idea, pointing out that if the rights of the community are to supersede those of the individual, the result would be slavery. Ellis holds that Jefferson’s work is the result of the “harmonizing sentiments of the day.” The considered perspectives of history, political theory, linguistics, and style each encompass various approaches which give way to valuable insights into the Declaration of Independence. This founding document is of supreme significance to America’s heritage and legacy, but is still often viewed as a classical text. Hence, a scholarly approach to the Declaration of Independence must employ prudence, lest such an action undermine its status in American tradition.
Works Cited
Stephen E. Lucas. “The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence.” National Archives Experience. 14 June 05. <www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_style.htm>.
Ellis, Joseph, Ed. What did the Declaration Declare? Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s, 1997
23.
Jayne, Allen. Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy and
Theology. Lexington, KY: The UP of Kentucky, 1998. 6, 83-86, 89-91.
Kazin, Alfred. God and the American Writer. New York: Vintage, 1997. 8-9, 110.
Raphael, Ray. Founding Myths: Stories that Hide our Patriotic Past. New York: New
Press, 2004. 117-152.
Wills, Garry. Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 2002. 115-145.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Related posts
Ideal Society
Ideal Society
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In 1776, on July 4, Americans affirmed that they were free of the long-held, yet patronizing view that ordinary people are inept at self-government. These pioneers boldly declared that government is not a supreme entity to which the governed are subordinate, but rather it is an instrument of the people, by which, and more importantly through which, the peoples’ desires are achieved by their own accord. When he wrote, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put into words the consensus of an oppressed people, that governing power is derived from the masses, and from there, ultimately from God in Heaven.
One of the influences of the Declaration of Independence, and the notions from which it originated, was European philosopher John Locke, who said that the “state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions.” Here, Locke is manifestly stating that all willing men are able to participate in self-government, and that thusly, the government is actually subordinate to the people themselves. Through millennia of oppression by the few, this view that men are competent, through prudence and reason, to directly affect and participate in government, has become distorted and perversed by corruptive leaders seeking self-satisfaction. In boldly calling these ideas “self-evident,” Jefferson proclaims that the contrary should be obvious to all, through revelation from God, Who is certainly the origin of these rights.
Dr. Alan Keyes, former Ambassador and now a political commentator, asserted that the Declaration of Independence does not merely set forth a doctrine of liberty, and is not just a creed of equality. It is an understanding of the basic derivations of governing authority, and in that an understanding of the responsibility that the governed must accept should they wish to enjoy freedom in an ideal society. The United States Constitution, in its Second Amendment, ensures the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. In ignorance, many feel this to be an outdated policy, or even one which causes danger to personal liberty. However, this is not simply a right of the people, so that they may go and kill deer for entertainment or even for food. Nor is this is even a right of the people for the purpose of deterring burglars. Jefferson sets forth the idea that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government…” A people with the desire to be free have not the right, but the duty, to arm themselves against a potentially corrupt government. If a body of government clearly and systematically is intrusive on a peoples’ personal rights, and is oppressive of their liberties given by God, it is their duty to alter or abolish it, lest they live under subjugation. This amazingly insightful document invites its participants to be educated that as a free people, or a people wishing to be free, they have the duty and responsibility to maintain the ability to overthrow a government which shows a clear trend of extreme abuse and oppression.
The generation of America’s Founding Fathers was born into a world where despotism, tyranny, and slavery were common. (Brinkley) They were brought up in an age subject to the philosophy and practice of institutions based upon inequality and the denial of human freedom. It is amazing to ponder that these great founders’ recognition and far-reaching declaration of the civil rights of man which are common to all. During that time in history, totalitarianism and inequality were not generally thought of to be conditions that were at all unusual or even able to be altered. Nevertheless, the founders were clever, audacious, and prudent enough to be aware of the reality of necessary common rights and to set into motion the ideas of that liberty and freedom which would topple years of dictatorship and develop into the basis for a triumphant effort. There are those who insist on demeaning the founders or disregarding the complete history of liberty introduced by them. However, a citizen wishing to be free must ask the question posed by Keyes: does one wish to be identified with a generation which, though brought up in an age of commonplace and accepted slavery, planted the seeds of liberty, or with a generation that, brought up in an age of liberty, plants the seeds of renewed slavery and bondage?
America is indeed an ideal society. An emigrant French aristocrat turned farmer, De Crevecoeur expressed that, though not perfect, she represents the ideals given by those with such insight on the matter. America is a nation of nations, combining peoples from all over the world. Foreigners come to America with the express desire to enjoy her freedoms, with the knowledge that they can enjoy personal liberties which should be common to everyone. America strives to show that humans are of one race, and can all live together as the same people, regardless of amounts of skin pigmentation or of theological differences. The I Timothy 4:4 states that “every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused.” Some say that to use divine references in the persuasion of ideals is to be religiously biased. But it must be understood that the founders of America proclaimed that all governing authority came from “a firm reliance on Divine Providence.” (Jefferson.) The Liberty Bell is inscribed with the words of Leviticus 25:10: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” (Brinkley.)
According to Keyes, a common well intentioned but ignorantly incorrect thought of a model of an ideal society is a government of strict comprehensive laws with the aim of protecting a peoples’ freedom. This way of thinking, however, is motivated yet misguided. As the number of laws increase, so increases the level of intrusion into the personal freedom of those subject to these laws. In lieu of a large and expansive government full of laws to direct every facet of a person’s life, America’s founders wanted a government to assist in creating and maintaining an ideal society in which people are near complete freedom. This was expressly stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution when they defined that the role of government was to “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.” That is the only purpose of government. They understood that there is no need for numerous laws which result in the limitations of rights and freedoms and thusly evolve into an ultimately oppressive society. Keyes expressed their design in saying, “it was a vision of freedom based upon the fear of God and the respect for law.”
America must regain these ideals. Infected by corrupt liberal politicians who are in power and wish for a divided society, the country is constantly moving away from the vision set forth by the writers of the Declaration of Independence and of the U.S. Constitution. Contemporary America and her inhabitants allow for laws which are intrusive to liberty and to justice. Anti-gun laws exist with the mistaken idea that crime can be reduced by the removal of private gun ownership. This is a horrible infringement on the rights given by God. The very principle of an ideal society, on which America is base, is that every citizen of such a society has the ability to protect these freedoms and liberties. This ability includes using violent means if necessary. Americans must be reeducated and informed that they solely bear the responsibility of maintaining the enjoyment of an ideal society, through which people govern themselves. This elucidation was the aim of President Lincoln when he said,
Let every one who really believes, and is resolved, that free society is not, and shall not be, a failure, and who can conscientiously declare that in the past contest he has done only what he thought best – let every such one have charity to believe that every other one can say as much. Thus, let bygones be bygones. Let past differences, as nothing be. And with steady eye on the real issue, let us re-inaugurate the good old “central ideas” of the Republic. We can do it. The human heart is with us – God is with us. We shall again be able not to declare, that “all States as States, are equal,” nor yet that “all citizens as citizens are equal,” but to renew the broader, better declaration, including both these and much more, that “all men are created equal.
Bibliography
Brinkley, Alan. American History: A Survey. Columbus: McGraw-Hill College, 2002.
De Crevecoeur, J Hector. Letters from an American Farmer (Oxford World’s Classics). Oxford University Press, 1999.
Jefferson, Thomas. “Declaration of Independence.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. 7th Ed. Bedford,St. Martin’s, 2004.
Keyes, Alan. Our Character, Our Future. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
King James Bible. Holman Bible Publishers: Nashville, 1979.
Lincoln, Abraham. “Speech at a Republican Banquet.” teachingamericanhistory.org
McPherson, CB. and John Locke. “John Locke Second Treatise of Government.” Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980.
Pilon, Roger. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Washington: Cato Institute, 2000.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Related posts
Nicolas Sarkozy
Nicolas Sarkozy
| Nicolas Sarkozy | |
 |
|
|
President-elect of the French Republic |
|
| Taking office 16 May 2007 |
|
| Succeeding | Jacques Chirac |
|---|---|
|
Minister of the Interior |
|
| In office 31 May 2005 – 26 March 2007 |
|
| President | Jacques Chirac |
| Preceded by | Dominique de Villepin |
| Succeeded by | François Baroin |
| In office 7 May 2002 – 31 March 2004 |
|
| President | Jacques Chirac |
| Preceded by | Daniel Vaillant |
| Succeeded by | Dominique de Villepin |
|
|
|
| Born | 28 January 1955 (age 52) Paris, France |
| Nationality | French |
| Political party | UMP |
| Spouse | (1) Marie-Dominique Culioli (married 1982, divorced 1996) (2) Cécilia Ciganer-Albeniz (married 1996) |
| Children | Pierre, Jean and Louis |
| Alma mater | University of Paris X: Nanterre Sciences Po |
| Religion | Roman Catholic |
| Website | sarkozy.fr |
| France |
 This article is part of the series: Politics and government of France |
|
|
|
|
Other countries · Politics Portal |
Nicolas Sarkozy (IPA: [nikɔla saʁkɔzi] — pronunciation ), born Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa on 28 January 1955 in Paris, France, is a French politician. He is leader of the UMP, and was elected President of the French Republic on 6 May 2007 after defeating Socialist Party contender Ségolène Royal during the 2007 election, and will take office on the morning of 16 May.
Sarkozy is known for his conservative stance on law and order issues and his admiration for a new economic model for France, suggesting that the country should have a more liberalised economy, inspired by the American and British examples. Until 26 March 2007, he served as the Minister of the Interior of France. His nickname Sarko is used by both supporters and opponents.
|
Contents[hide]
|
Personal life
Family background
Nicolas Sarkozy is the son of a Hungarian immigrant father, Pál Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa[1] (Hungarian: nagybócsai Sárközy Pál; some sources spell it Nagy-Bócsay Sárközy Pál; Hungarian pronunciation ), and a French mother Andrée Mallah.
Pál Sárközy was born in 1928 in Budapest into a family belonging to the lower nobility of Hungary. The family possessed lands and a small castle in the village of Alattyán (near Szolnok), 92 km (57 miles) east of Budapest. Pál Sárközy’s father and grandfather held elective offices in the town of Szolnok. Although the Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa (nagybócsai Sárközy) family was Protestant, Pál Sárközy’s mother, Katalin Tóth de Csáford (Hungarian: csáfordi Tóth Katalin), grandmother of Nicolas Sarkozy, was from a Catholic aristocratic family.
As the Red Army entered Hungary in 1944, the Sárközy family fled to Germany[2]. They returned in 1945 but all their possessions had been seized. Pál Sárközy’s father died soon afterwards and his mother, fearing that he would be drafted into the Hungarian People’s Army or sent to Siberia, urged him to leave the country and promised she would eventually follow him and meet him in Paris. Pál Sárközy managed to flee to Austria and then Germany while his mother reported to authorities that he had drowned in Lake Balaton. Eventually, he arrived in Baden Baden, near the French border, where the headquarters of the French Army in Germany were located, and there he met a recruiter for the French Foreign Legion. He signed up for five years, and was sent for training to Sidi Bel Abbes, in French Algeria, where the French Foreign Legion’s headquarters were located. He was due to be sent to Indochina at the end of training, but the doctor who checked him before departure, who happened to also be Hungarian, sympathised with him and gave him a medical discharge to save him from possible death at the hands of the Vietminh. He returned to civilian life in Marseille in 1948 and, although he asked for French citizenship only in the 1970s (his legal status was that of a stateless person until then), he nonetheless gallicised his Hungarian name into “Paul Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa”. Paul Sarkozy moved to Paris where he used his artistic skills to enter the advertising industry. He met Andrée Mallah, Nicolas Sarkozy’s mother, in 1949.
Andrée Mallah, then a law student, was the daughter of Benedict Mallah, a wealthy urologist and STD specialist with a well-established reputation in the mainly bourgeois 17th arrondissement of Paris. Benedict Mallah, originally called Aaron Mallah and nicknamed Benico, was born in 1890 in the Sephardic Jewish community of Thessaloniki (Salonica), Greece, which at the time had a Jewish majority. According to Jewish genealogical societies, the Mallah family of Salonica anciently came from Spain which they had left in 1492 when the Catholic Monarchs had expelled the Jews. Resettled in Provence, southern France, the family had moved to Salonica a century later. Benico Mallah, the son of a jeweler, left Salonica, then part of the Ottoman Empire, with his mother in 1904 at the age of 14 to attend the prestigious Lycée Lakanal boarding school of Sceaux, in the southern suburbs of Paris. He studied medicine after his baccalaureate and decided to stay in France and become a French citizen. A doctor in the French Army during World War I, he met a recent war widow, Adèle Bouvier (1891–1956), from a bourgeois family of Lyon, whom he married in 1917. Adèle Bouvier, Nicolas Sarkozy’s grandmother, was a Catholic like the majority of French people. Mallah, for whom religion had reportedly never been a central issue, converted to Catholicism upon marrying Adèle Bouvier, which had been requested by Adèle’s parents, and changed his name to Benedict. Although Benedict Mallah converted to Catholicism, he and his family nonetheless had to flee Paris and take refuge in a small farm in Corrèze during World War II to avoid being arrested and delivered to the Germans.
Paul Sarkozy and Andrée Mallah settled in the 17th arrondissement in Paris and had three sons: Guillaume, born in 1951, who is an entrepreneur in the textile industry, Nicolas, born in 1955 and François, born in 1957 (an MBA and manager of a healthcare consultancy company [2]). In 1959 Paul Sarkozy left his wife and his three children. He later remarried twice and had two more children with his second wife.
Early life
During Sarkozy’s childhood, his father refused to give his former wife’s family any financial help, even though he had founded his own advertising agency and had become wealthy. The family lived in a small mansion owned by Sarkozy’s grandfather, Benedict Mallah, in the 17th Arrondissement. The family later moved to Neuilly-sur-Seine, one of the wealthiest communes of the Île-de-France région immediately west of the 17th Arrondissement just outside of Paris. According to Sarkozy, his staunchly Gaullist grandfather was more of an influence on him than his father, whom he rarely saw. His grandfather, a Sephardi Jew by birth, was a convert to Catholicism, and Sarkozy was, accordingly, raised in the Catholic faith of his household. Nicolas Sarkozy, like his brothers, is a baptised and professing Catholic. Sarkozy also said recently that one of his role models was former pope John Paul II.
Sarkozy’s father Paul did not teach him or his brothers Hungarian. There is no evidence suggesting that there was an attempt to educate the Sarkozy siblings about their paternal ethnic background.
Sarkozy has said that having been abandoned by his father shaped much of who he is today. As a young boy and teenager, he felt inferior in relation to his wealthy classmates.[3] He suffered from insecurities (his physical shortness of 1.65 m, 5 feet 5 inches, or his family’s lack of money, at least relatively to their 17th Arrondissement or Neuilly neighbours), and is said to have harboured a considerable amount of resentment against his absent father. “What made me who I am now is the sum of all the humiliations suffered during childhood”, he said later.[4]
Studies
Sarkozy was enrolled in the Lycée Chaptal, a state-funded (public) middle and high school in the 8th arrondissement, where he failed his sixième (equivalent to sixth grade in the US and Year 7 in England and Wales). His family then sent him to the Cours Saint-Louis de Monceau, a private Catholic middle and high school in the 17th arrondissement, where he was reportedly a mediocre pupil, but where he nonetheless obtained his baccalauréat in 1973. Later he obtained a bachelor’s degree in law from the Université Paris X Nanterre. He attended the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (more commonly known as Sciences Po), but did not graduate because he failed his exam in English [5]. He enrolled himself at Nanterre University in law, already run down some years after May ‘68. After passing the bar exam, he became a lawyer specializing in French business law and family law, skills which he would later put to use in divorcing his first wife and helping his mother take legal action against his father in order to raise alimony [6].
Personal wealth
Sarkozy declared to the Constitutional Council a net worth of two million euros, most of the assets being in the form of life insurance policies. [7].
Political career
General traits
Nicolas Sarkozy speaking at the congress of his party
He is generally recognized by the right and left as a highly skilled politician and striking orator. Supporters of Sarkozy within France emphasize his charisma, political innovation and willingness to “make a dramatic break” amidst mounting disaffection against “politics as usual”; some see him as wanting to depart from traditional French social and economic principles in favor of American-style economic reform. Overall, he is generally considered to be somewhat more pro-U.S. than most French politicians.
Since November 2004, he has been president of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), France’s major right political party, and he was Minister of the Interior in the government of Dominique de Villepin, with the honorific title of Minister of State, making him effectively the number three man in the French State after President Jacques Chirac and the prime minister. His ministerial responsibilities included law enforcement and working to co-ordinate relationships between the national and local governments, as well as Minister of Cults (in this guise he created the CFCM, French Council of Muslim Faith). Previously, he was a deputy to the French National Assembly. He was forced to resign this position in order to accept his ministerial appointment. He previously also held several ministerial posts, including Finance Minister.
Career
Sarkozy’s political career began at the age of 22, when he became a city councillor in Neuilly-sur-Seine, a wealthy and exclusive western suburb of Paris (in the Hauts-de-Seine département). A member of the Neo-Gaullist party RPR, he went on to be elected mayor of that town, after the death of the incumbent mayor Achille Peretti. Sarkozy had been close to Peretti, as his mother was Peretti’s secretary. The senior RPR politician in the time, Charles Pasqua, wanted to become mayor, and asked Sarkozy to organise his campaign. Instead Sarkozy profited from a short illness of Pasqua to propel himself into the office of mayor.[8] He was the youngest ever mayor of any town in France with a population of over 50,000. He served from 1983 to 2002. In 1988, he became a deputy in the National Assembly.
In 1993, Sarkozy was in the national news for personally negotiating with the “Human Bomb”, a man who had taken small children hostage in a kindergarten in Neuilly. The “Human Bomb” was killed after two days of talks by policemen of the RAID, who entered the school stealthily while the attacker was resting.
From 1993 to 1995, he was Minister for the Budget and spokesman for the executive in the cabinet of Prime Minister Édouard Balladur. Throughout most of his early career, Sarkozy had been seen as a protégé of Jacques Chirac. However, in 1995 he spurned Chirac and backed Balladur for President of France. After Chirac won the election, Sarkozy lost his position as Minister for the Budget and found himself outside the circles of power. It is widely believed that ever since 1995 Chirac has considered Sarkozy’s siding with Balladur as a form of treason, and that the two men now loathe one another.
However, he came back after the right-wing defeat at the 1997 parliamentary election, as number 2 of the RPR. When the party leader Philippe Séguin resigned, in 1999, he took the lead of the Neo-Gaullist party. But it obtained its worst result at the 1999 European Parliament election, winning 12.7% of the votes, less than the dissident Rally for France of Charles Pasqua. Sarkozy lost the RPR leadership.
In 2002, however, after his re-election as President of the French Republic (see French presidential election, 2002), Chirac appointed Sarkozy as French Minister of the Interior in the cabinet of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, despite the widely acknowledged friction between the two. Following Jacques Chirac’s 14th of July keynote speech on road safety Sarkozy as interior minister pushed through new legislation leading to the mass purchase of speed cameras and a campaign to increase the awareness of dangers on the roads.
Following the cabinet reshuffle of 31 March 2004, Sarkozy was moved to the position of Finance Minister. Tensions continued to build between Sarkozy and Chirac and within the UMP party, as Sarkozy’s intentions of becoming head of the party after the resignation of Alain Juppé became clear. It became increasingly apparent that Sarkozy would go on to seek the presidency in 2007; in an often-repeated comment made on television channel France 2, when asked by a journalist whether he thought about the presidential election when he shaved in the morning, Sarkozy commented, “not just when I shave”.[9]
In November 2004 after party elections, Sarkozy became leader of the UMP with 85% of the vote. In accordance with an agreement with Chirac, he resigned his position as minister. Sarkozy’s ascent was marked by the division of UMP between sarkozystes, such as Sarkozy’s “first lieutenant”, Brice Hortefeux, and Chirac loyalists, such as Jean-Louis Debré.
Sarkozy was made Chevalier de la Legion d’honneur (Knight of the Legion of Honour) by President Chirac in February 2005. He was re-elected on 13 March 2005 to the National Assembly (as required by the constitution,[10] he had had to resign as a deputy when he had become minister in 2002).
On 31 May 2005 the main French news radio station France Info reported a rumour that Sarkozy was to be reappointed Minister of the Interior in the government of Dominique de Villepin without resigning from the UMP leadership. This was confirmed on 2 June 2005, when the members of the government were officially announced.
Raffarin government
First term as Minister of the Interior
Nicolas Sarkozy, here with then prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, meeting with bicycle-mounted officers of the French National Police.
Towards the end of his first term as Minister of the Interior, in 2004, Sarkozy was the most popular and also the most unpopular conservative politician in France, according to polls conducted at the beginning of 2004. His “tough on crime” policies, which included increasing the police presence on the streets and introducing monthly crime performance ratings, were popular with many and unpopular for many others. However, he was criticized for putting forward legislation which can be questioned as an infringement on civil rights, and adversely affected disadvantaged sections of the population.[citation needed]
Sarkozy has sought to ease the sometimes tense relationships between the general French population and the Muslim community. Unlike the Catholic Church in France with their official leaders or Protestants with their umbrella organisations, the French Muslim community had a lack of structure with no group that could legitimately deal with the French government on their behalf. Sarkozy felt that the foundation of such an organisation was desirable. He supported the foundation in May 2003 of the private non-profit Conseil français du culte musulman (“French Council of Muslim Worship”), an organisation meant to be representative of French Muslims.[11] In addition, Sarkozy has suggested amending the 1905 law on the separation of Church and State, mostly in order to be able to finance mosques and other Muslim institutions with public funds[12] so that they are less reliant on money from outside of France.
Minister of Finance
During his short appointment as Minister of Finance, Sarkozy was responsible for introducing a number of policies. The degree to which this reflected libéralisme (a hands-off approach to running the economy) or more traditional French state dirigisme (intervention) is controversial. He resigned the day following his election as president of the UMP.
- In September 2004, Sarkozy oversaw the reduction of the government ownership stake in France Télécom from 50.4% to 41%.[13]
- Sarkozy backed a partial nationalisation of the engineering company Alstom decided by his predecessor when the company was exposed to bankruptcy in 2003.[14]
- Sarkozy reached an agreement with the major retail chains in France to concertedly lower prices on household goods by an average of 2%; the success of this measure is disputed, with studies suggesting that the decrease was closer to 1%.[15]
- Taxes: Sarkozy avoided taking a position on the ISF (solidarity tax on wealth). This is considered an ideological symbol by many on the Left and Right. Some in the business world and on the Liberal Right, such as Alain Madelin, wanted it abolished. For Sarkozy, that would have risked being categorised by the Left as a gift to the richest classes of society at a time of economic difficulties.[16] So Sarkozy preferred reducing the ISF with the bouclier fiscal.
Villepin government
Second term as Minister of the Interior
Sarkozy as Minister of the Interior with American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, after their bilateral meeting in Washington D.C.
During his second term at the Ministry of the Interior, Sarkozy was initially more discreet about his ministerial activities: instead of focusing on his own topic of law and order, many of his declarations addressed wider issues, since he was expressing his opinions as head of the UMP party.
However, the civil unrest in autumn 2005 put law enforcement in the spotlight again. Sarkozy was accused of having provoked the unrest by calling young delinquents from housing projects “rifraff” (”racaille”) in Argenteuil near Paris. After the accidental death of two youths, which sparked the riots, Sarkozy first blamed it on “hoodlums” and gangsters. These remarks were sharply criticised by many on the left wing and by a member of his own government, Delegate Minister for Equal Opportunities Azouz Begag.[17]
After the rioting, he made a number of announcements on future policy: selection of immigrants, greater tracking of immigrants, and a reform on the 1945 ordinance government justice measures for young delinquents.
Action as UMP’s leader
Sarkozy currently is the president of UMP, the French conservative party, elected with 85% of the vote. During his presidency, the number of members has significantly increased. In 2005, he supported a “yes” vote in the French referendum on the European Constitution.
Throughout 2005, Sarkozy became increasingly vocal in calling for radical changes in France’s economic and social policies. These calls culminated in an interview with Le Monde on 8 September 2005, during which he claimed that the French had been misled for 30 years by false promises, and denounced what he considers to be unrealistic policies.[18] Among other issues:
- he called for a simplified and “fairer” taxation system, with fewer loopholes and a maximum taxation rate (all direct taxes combined) at 50% of revenue;
- he approved measures reducing or denying social support to unemployed workers who refuse work offered to them;
- he pressed for a reduction in the budget deficit, claiming that the French state has been living off credit for some time.
Such policies are what are called in France libéral (that is, in favour of laissez-faire economic policies, although this judgment is made by French standards) or, with a pejorative undertone, ultra-libéral. Sarkozy rejects this label of libéral and prefers to call himself a pragmatist instead.
Sarkozy opened another avenue of controversy by declaring that he wanted a reform of the immigration system, with quotas designed to admit the skilled workers needed by the French economy. He also wants to reform the current French system for foreign students, saying that it enables foreign students to take open-ended curricula in order to obtain residency in France; instead, he wants to select the best students to the best curricula in France.
In early 2006, the French parliament adopted a controversial bill known as DADVSI, which reforms French copyright law. Since his party was divided on the issue, Sarkozy stepped in and organised meetings between various parties involved. Later, groups such as the Odebi League and EUCD.info alleged that Sarkozy personally and unofficially supported certain amendments to the law, which enacted strong penalties against designers of peer-to-peer systems.
Controversy
Many on the Left have a particular distrust for Nicolas Sarkozy; specific “anti-Sarko” movements have been started
Generally speaking, Sarkozy is a bête noire of the left (see below), and is also criticized by some on the right, most vocally by the supporters of Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin, such as Jean-Louis Debré, but also by social Catholics such as Christine Boutin; Boutin however, in the end, gave up her presidential bid and became a political advisor to Sarkozy. [3] [4]
Critics have accused him of being an authoritarian demagogue, ready to trade away civil liberties for political gains.[19] Some of these accusations are echoed by French civil rights organisations.[citation needed] He is also accused by the Left of being a populist who favours far-right ideas.[20]
Kärcher remark
Since his famous Kärcher remark, Nicolas Sarkozy has been lampooned about his fondness for cleaning out the riff-raff; here, electoral posters of Sarkozy were posted on a Kärcher car wash
In the midst of a tense period and following a shooting that killed an 11-year-old boy in the banlieue of La Courneuve in June 2005, he quoted a local resident and vowed to clean the area out “with a Kärcher” (nettoyer la cité au Kärcher, Kärcher being a well-known brand of pressure cleaning equipment), and two days before the 2005 Paris riots he referred to the rioters as voyous (thugs) and racaille, a slang term which can be translated into English as dregs or riff-raff, [21] this being criticised as being too hard on the rioters.[22][23]
Separation of powers
As Minister of the Interior, Sarkozy has made bold statements following heinous crimes reported in the media. As a consequence, he has been accused in certain cases of failing to respect the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary by trying to apply pressure in certain cases. Most famously, he was criticised, not only by the left-wing Syndicat de la magistrature judges’ union, but also by the centrist Union syndicale des magistrats for attacks on the independence of the judiciary.[24]
In September 2005 some youths were acquitted of an arson attack on a police station in Pau for lack of proof and Sarkozy was accused of having pushed for a hasty inquiry—Sarkozy had vowed that the perpetrators would be arrested within three months.[25] On 22 June 2005, he announced to law enforcement officials that he had questioned the Minister of Justice about the future of “the judge” who had freed a man on parole, enabling him to commit a murder.[26] These comments were criticised by both moderate and left-wing magistrates since the decision had been made by three judges.
Sarkozy has personal friendships with some of the most powerful figures in the French business world; for example, Martin Bouygues (from the Bouygues group, owner of the TF1 channel, as well as telecommunications and public works companies) and Bernard Arnault (from LVMH) were his marriage witnesses. His brother, Guillaume, is a senior executive of the MEDEF, the foremost business union in France; in 2005, he renounced running for the top position of that union because he said he did not want to hinder his brother’s political career.
Religion and state
Sarkozy, a Catholic, has caused controversy because of his views on the relationship between religion and state. In 2004, he published a book called La République, les religions, l’espérance (“The Republic, Religions, and Hope”),[27] in which he argued that the young should not be brought up solely on secular or republican values. He also advocated reducing the separation of church and state, arguing for the government subsidy of mosques in order to encourage Islamic integration into French society.[28][29] He flatly opposes financing of religious institutions with funds from outside France. After meeting with Tom Cruise, Sarkozy was criticised by some for meeting with a member of the Church of Scientology, which is classified as a dangerous sect in France.[30]
War in Iraq
Nicolas Sarkozy, like almost all French politicians, disapproved of the US-led invasion of Iraq, but was nonetheless critical of the way Jacques Chirac and his foreign minister Dominique de Villepin expressed France’s opposition to the war. Talking at the French-American Foundation in Washington, D.C. on 12 September 2006, he denounced what he called the “French arrogance” and said: “It is bad manners to embarrass one’s allies or sound like one is taking delight in their troubles.”[31] He also added: “We must never again turn our disagreements into a crisis.” This speech, given without the assent of the French president by a member of the French government traveling abroad (Sarkozy was still Minister of the Interior), was criticized by many in France. Jacques Chirac reportedly said in private that Sarkozy’s speech was “appalling” and “a shameful act”.[31]
Regularisation of immigrant families
Sarkozy issued a memorandum (the ‘circulaire Sarkozy’) on 13 June 2006. In this decision sent to all prefects of France (his representatives in the provinces), he proposed to hand some immigration papers to immigrant families with children integrated in French schools. A strict series of conditions were listed in order to accept the regularisation of the situation of these families (proofs of integration in the country, proof of job, etc.). This offer attracted a large number of applications (around 25,000) handed to police services, usually under the advice of charities of specialised social associations. Most of the files were refused because the minister had fixed, beforehand, a number of “about 6000″ files to be accepted, whatever happened. The remaining 20,000 or so people have however been carefully registered in police files, including their personal address and child’s school (one of the criteria was providing school certificates). Some consider the situation to be a possible ‘trap’ for integrated immigrants.
View on genetic predispositions
A few weeks before the first round of the 2007 presidential elections, Nicolas Sarkozy said during an interview with philosopher Michel Onfray[32] that he thinks disorders such as paedophilia and depression have a genetic as well as social basis, famously stating “I don’t agree with you, I’d be inclined to think that one is born a paedophile, and it is actually a problem that we do not know how to cure this disease”; he also claimed that suicides among youth was linked to genetic predispositions by stating, “I don’t want to give parents a complex. It’s not exclusively the parents’ fault every time a youngster commits suicide.” These claims were criticized by a few scientists, including geneticist Axel Kahn.[33][34]
Marriages, divorce and separation
On 23 September 1982 he married Corsican-born Marie-Dominique Culioli, daughter of a pharmacist from Vico (a village north of Ajaccio, Corsica). They have two sons, Pierre (born in 1985) and Jean (born in 1987). Sarkozy’s marriage witness was the prominent right wing politician Charles Pasqua, later to become a political opponent. Sarkozy divorced Culioli in 1996, although they had already been separated for some years. Culioli continues to be a practicing Catholic and a charismatic and affirms that she still prays fervently for Sarkozy.[35]
As mayor of Neuilly, Sarkozy met Cécilia Ciganer-Albeniz (great-granddaughter of composer Isaac Albéniz and of a Russian father)[36] At the time, she was then married to TV host Jacques Martin. In 1989, Ciganer-Albeniz left Martin for Sarkozy. After a divorce lasting four months, Sarkozy married her in October 1996 (with witnesses Martin Bouygues and Bernard Arnault). They have one son, Louis, born in 1997.
Between 2002 and 2005, the couple often appeared together on public occasions, with Ciganer-Albeniz acting as a sort of chief aide for her husband. On 25 May 2005, however, the Swiss newspaper Le Matin revealed that Ciganer-Albeniz had left Sarkozy for French-Moroccan national Richard Attias, head of Publicis in New York.[37]. There were other accusations of a private nature in Le Matin. This led Sarkozy to sue the paper.
In late 2005, the press reported that Sarkozy was in a relationship with Anne Fulda, a journalist from Le Figaro. Finally, in January 2006, a reconciliation with Ciganer-Albeniz took place.[38]
Ciganer-Albeniz and Sarkozy are currently believed to be living together.[citation needed] In early 2006, Sarkozy suggested to the press that he had welcomed Ciganer-Albeniz back from the USA, although the exact circumstances of the reconciliation are not known.[39]
Candidacy for President
Nicolas Sarkozy in 2006
In Toulouse for the 2007 presidential campaign
On 14 January 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy was chosen by the UMP to be its candidate in the 2007 presidential election. Sarkozy, who was running unopposed, won 98% of the votes. Of the 327,000 UMP members who could vote, 69% participated in the online ballot.[40]
In February 2007 Sarkozy appeared on a televised debate on TF1 where he expressed his support for affirmative action for minorities and the freedom to work overtime, but his opposition to homosexual marriage.
On 7 February, Nicolas Sarkozy finally decided in favour of a projected second, non-nuclear, aircraft carrier for the national Navy (adding to the nuclear Charles de Gaulle), during an official visit in Toulon with Defence Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie. “This would allow permanently having an operational ship, taking into account the constraints of maintenance”, he explained.[41] This new view on the second aircraft carrier issue comes in conflict with a January report, where he was against a second carrier.[42]
On 21 March President Jacques Chirac announced his support for Sarkozy, adding that he had his vote. Chirac pointed out that Sarkozy had been chosen as presidential candidate for the ruling UMP party, and said: “So it is totally natural that I give him my vote and my support.” To focus on his campaign, Sarkozy stepped down as interior minister on 26 March.[43]
During the campaign, rival candidates had accused Sarkozy of being a “candidate for brutality” and of presenting overly hardline views about France’s future.[44] He was also criticized by opponents for allegedly courting conservative voters in policy-making in a bid to capitalise on right-wing sentiments among some communities. However, his popularity was sufficient to see him polling as the frontrunner throughout the later campaign period, consistently ahead of rival Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal.
The first round of the presidential election was held on 22 April 2007. Nicolas Sarkozy came in first with 31.18% of the votes, ahead of Ségolène Royal of the Socialists with 25.87%. In the second round, Sarkozy came out on top to win the election with 53.06% of the votes ahead of Ségolène Royal with 46.94%. In his speech immediately following the announcement of the election results, Sarkozy stressed the need for France’s modernisation, but also called for national unity, mentioning that Royal was in his thoughts. In that speech, he claimed “The French have chosen to break with the ideas, habits and behaviour of the past. I will restore the value of work, authority, merit and respect for the nation.”
First term as president (2007-)
On 16th May, Nicolas Sarkozy will become the 23rd Président of French Republic.
The power transfer from Jacques Chirac is scheduled for the morning of 16 May at the Élysée Palace, where he will be given the nuclear codes of the nuclear deterrence and be presented the Grand Master’s Collar, symbol of his new function of Grand Master of the Legion of Honour. At that point he will become President. A public ceremony in Paris is also planned. The same day, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin will resign. Sarkozy will appoint his first Prime Minister on May 17. In a break with tradition, the first foreign statesman that the new President met following his election was the British Prime Minister Tony Blair on May 11. The first foreign statesman that he is scheduled to meet upon his taking up the office of President will be Germany’s Angela Merkel.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Related posts
American Dream
American Dream
There are many concepts of the clichéd American Dream. Former President Bill Clinton’s administration believed the American Dream to consist of everyone residing in America to enjoy comfort and free medical care (Roark 1135). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed the American Dream to be one of racial equality, as Barnet and Bedau described in their reproduced speech (803-806). Different people romanticize various notions of monetary, racial, and religious equality, diversity, and tolerance. This assortment of liberal ideals has caused the Americans’ accord to stray from the actual dream.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!