Segolene should have both pointed out what 'growth' has done to decimate the US and UK economies and how the Socialist policies are what has made the French way of life the envy of the world. She didn't and considering the importance of the one debate; I thought both her and Sarkozy were poorly prepared by their handlers. The good thing is Sarkozy was able to show what a phony, despicable person he is.
But only Edwards in the US is making any mention at all of what 'reform' means to ordinary people.
You're right - it was an extraordinary gaffe by Royal, and yet more proof of just how much the Right dominates the economic discourse by setting the frames for it.
The question is one of greed versus happiness. As societies and cultures we have the ability to choose a pursuit of wealth path versus a pursuit of happiness path. Both come at the possible expense of the other. While in practice it may be historically evident that one tends to do better than the other it is the risk and the gambling impulse that must be tempered. Boring "facts" don't get the job done.
The effort is in getting the society to choose a fair, equitable society over the possibility of hitting the jackpot. In the US we have failed miserably at this task. The French have a greater inclination to choose correctly. The messenger is what the election is about and Royal has finally shown herself a genuinely capable messenger. I believe the debate may have helped her significantly.
