The Cost of Conservatism: French Defeat in World War II

American Conservatives are self righteous and convinced that they alone have the best interests of the nation and the American people in their hearts. Conservative politicians throughout the globe behave in this fashion and try and portray their opponents as decadent, irresponsible and unpatriotic.

These themes mirror the conservative movement in France of the late 1930s. When Leon Blum and the popular front ( a coalition of liberal parties) were elected in 1936 to lead France, the right began what can only be called a crusade against him and the government. It did not help that Blum was Jewish.

The right in France used religion, particularly Catholicism and morality to advance their cause. As Hitler and Mussolini began their march through Europe, the French right showed sympathy for the fascist dictators whose domestic policies and opposition to the United Kingdom were appealing to conservatives. The fear and hatred of socialism and the Soviet Union was so intense among the French right that Adolf Hitler was seen in some quarters as the best leader in Europe. Hitler's anti-communist and anti-Jewish agenda was soon to be replicated in France by the right.
While it has become commonplace in the post war world to assign blame for French defeat on outdated military tactics, much of the blame lies with political conservatives whose sympathy for Nazi Germany and whose apprehension about alliance with Great Britain led to a rapid French capitulation. Once Winston Churchill tried to rally France to fight on, the French right began to discuss an armistice with Germany. For these conservatives a deal with Hitler, despite the fact that it was a violation of the Anglo-French alliance that had been in place since before the First World War was preferable to being submissive in any way to the British. What I am saying here is quite clear: In violation of all standards of human decency and in violation of the interests of the French Republic, these conservatives sought to make a deal with Hitler. The fact that many on the right did not respect Democracy and had blamed the French Republic whose governments were often voted in the by masses and filled with Jews for all of France's problems. These conservatives preferred a return to Monarchy or even a Nazi style government for France. When Prime Minister Paul Reynaud sent Charles DeGaulle to London on June 14th, 1940 he made it clear he did not want to give up the fight. Two days later Reynaud was deposed in what can only be described as an illegal coup by the right wing within his conservative government and six days later he was arrested and sent to Germany as a prisoner where he remained until May 1945.

Once the Armistice was signed and the new Vichy French state formed, it became a military dictatorship. On July 10th the National Assembly voted dictorial powers to Marshall Philippe Petain, the hero of Verdun in World War I but also the instigator of the illegal coup against Reynaud, a noted Anglo-phobe and supporter of French antisemitism.

Petian immediately began to reshape French society on a more conservative model which also means collaborating with the Nazi's who had not only defeated France and occupied 60% of its territory but whose ideology the new French leadership sympathized with. The National Revolution was launched which began to reshape French society on religious lines. Pétain used his power to order the dismissal of republican civil servants, the installation of exceptional jurisdictions, the proclamation of anti-Semitic laws, and the imprisonment of his opponents and foreign refugees. His government also without a formal deceleration of war did everything it could do to help the Axis cause against the British by trying to hold French colonies in North Africa and attacking British forces in the Middle East. During this time the French forces in Syria even battled Free French forces under the leadership of General Charles DeGaulle who was fighting alongside the British. DeGaulle, who like Petain was a member of Reynaud's cabinet was tried in absentia and sentenced to death should he return to France from London. DeGaulle however had the ear of Winston Churchill (but not Franklin Roosevelt who preferred to cultivate moderates in Petain's government) and as time wore on the majority of French colonies in Africa and Asia submitted to DeGaulle as the legitimate leader of France, not Petain.

Petain's Government did many things that undermined the French resistance cause and continued France's new status as a satellite of Nazi Germany. Multi party democracy was rejected in favor of a single party, conservative dictatorship. Petain was portrayed as a hero in posters and government propaganda. The cult of personality of Petain became the central focus of the French state. Thousands of Jews were stripped of French citizenship and forced to wear a yellow badge. Eventually Jews were put in concentration camps. Known Communists who had been legitimate members of government under the Republic were often times simply rounded up shot.

The France of commerce and city life was rejected in favor of a more agrarian and traditional France. Abortion policy was restricted and official government propaganda promoted the role of woman as merely servants of men who were to raise a family and stay home. This is in sharp contrast to the role of woman in wartime Anglo and American societies. In addition, active collaboration with the Nazi's was encouraged and a death sentence was ordered for anyone who was convicted of listening to the BBC.

France's conservative movement had succeed in destroying the republic, rejecting its alliance with the U.K., promoting fascism and ostracizing the Jews. Conservatism worldwide promotes itself as a strong force for good. But when we are faced with conservative leaders we must recall the lessons of France and hold our leaders accountable for any slide towards fascism.

Politicians and Affairs: A Dangerous Game

It's not simply about sex as some Democratic activists claimed during President Clinton's troubles. It's not simply about power as many felt during the Elliot Spitzer situation. Politicians having affairs is dangerous for their constituents, for the process and for the country.

My view on this subject is about as conservative as it gets, or as puritanical as it gets despite my liberal views on most other issues. I do not believe someone prone to having an affair with a young lady should be allowed to live in the White House or chair an important Congressional committee. Thus someone like Senator David Vitter or Senator Larry Craig should be barred from serving as the head of a major committee should the GOP regain control of the Senate anytime soon.

Here's why:

1- Let's say a young lady turns out to be a foreign agent, or worse yet someone who later sells information to a hostile foreign government.
2- What if the young lady is a lobbyist for some industry or corporation affected by legislation pending in front of Congress or the President? What if as in the first case after having an innocent affair, the young lady spills the beans to people with influence among a corporation or industry with regulatory legislation pending?
3- Ultimately many politicians who have affairs are male chauvinists who see Women in an ancient sense. These male politicians in most cases look down as females as a way to demonstrate their manhood and power.

Far fetched? Perhaps, but not that far out of the realm of possibilities and certainly not worth taking the chance with so much at stake for our nation.

Public service is a special calling. Elected officials to high offices have a moral obligation to serve the public and not behave a fraternity brother or a good time Charlie. If a male official has a fondness for the ladies or other similar weaknesses they should not run for higher office. The stakes in this post 9/11 world, where China and India's economies are becoming threats to the United States and Russia is behaving more like a cold war adversary than a friend coupled with all the threats from the Islamic world to me say we cannot afford the risk of having a politician in the White House or a high position in the Congress prone to being compromised so easily.

I'm not saying female elected officials don't have affairs, but one case for Senator Hillary Clinton
's candidacy is that women who are in public office tend to be more consciousness and interested than serving the public than men. While that seems like a crass generalization, I believe it after fifteen plus years of being involved in the process to be very true. However Senator Clinton has her husband to deal with. Campaign cash in many ways behaves like sex does for a politician. President Bill Clinton proved this on two occasions when he altered US foreign policy because of a campaign donation. The first occasion as we have talked about previously was when he got a phone call from donor Charlie Trie who was bust illegally raising foreign money in Little Rock. The second time was when President Clinton thanks to his dealing with an internationally infamous arms dealer (who also had some White House contacts in the Reagan years) approved an oil pipeline through the Caucucus Mountains in a reversal of longstanding American policy. Now can you imagine if Monica Lewinsky had been a foreign agent and hadn't been given a hush job by master Clinton donor (and co-author of the recent letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi) Bernard Schwartz?

Politicians having affairs is nothing new. However in this new information driven age, when blackmail is possible, and the challenges abroad are immense, having a leader less susceptible to compromise is not only wise, it's essential.