Jarred's wrong about the French EU vote, here's why

It turns out the typhoon here has given me a free day from class and work to catch up on other things.

On July 7th, Jarred posted a very thoughtful blog inspired by a recent Francis Fukuyama lecture given to Davidson students in Washington. Jarred's blog is a consideration of the motives behind the French rejection of the EU vote. Read the full text of his post here. In his post, Jarred concludes that "the French have decided, and probably not consciously, that they value the history and culture of France more than they value their ability to cross swords with the U.S." Although he makes many insightful comments that reflect his palpable understanding of French politics, this conclusion Jarred reaches is flawed: the no-vote does not reflect a conscious or unconscious cultural "decision."

As Jarred correctly explains, one bundle of reasons French voters rejected the EU constitution is concern about Muslim immigration and Turkey's admission into the EU. But Jarred himself notes that this is only one reason for the no-vote. There are more important reasons why so many French citizens voted "no."

I discussed the French no vote, and Jarred's thoughtful considerations, with a French graduate student here named Mathiew, (he's pictured napping in a post below). Mathiew listed two concerns for French voters that outweighed "unspoken" worries about Turkey and Muslims: the ailing Franco-German social model, and Chirac himself. I wrote down what Mathiew said after I explained Jarred's post:

"It might be true, but I don't think that's a good framework for analyzing the vote. I think the two main factors still are the kind of social-economic factors of the EU that French people still reject, and that Chirac implied himself too much in the campaign ... so it became a protest vote against Chirac."

Like Mathiew, I think that both of these explicitly important considerations dominated thinking for French voters. Turkey, Muslim immigrants, and French identity were no doubt a part of the EU vote for some French people, but seeing a cultural "decision" about these concerns is too much, and drawing such a conclusion deemphasizes these two other important reasons why French voters voted "no."

Another flaw in Jarred's conclusion is the assumption that many French voters have a shared concern about Turkey's EU admission and immigrants from the Middle East. I agree with Mathiew, who noted that "even people who voted no, who had very clear economic and political reasons why they voted, even members of the far-left... if you asked all them to let Turkey in, many of them might say yes, why not?" There's no doubt that these issues worry a lot of French people, but there is not unity of opinion in France about issues like Turkey or Muslim immigration, and therefore it is inappropriate to conclude from the "no" vote that decisions have been made about preserving French culture in the face of a European or Muslim cultural onslaught.

It's important not to "read too much" in a vote. That's not to say that votes don't tell us a lot about how voters are thinking -- of course they do -- but voting "no" in a constitution referendum that is important and controversial for many reasons does not necessarily amount to a single, big cultural decision. In his post, Jarred writes: "their choice is the France of old, but weaker, or a new France, and stronger. They have chosen the former, and the full implications of that decision have yet to reveal themselves." Consciously or unconsciously, I think very few French voters had such a grand decision in mind when they voted "no" in the referendum.

Jarred's post is very thoughtful, and it's unfair for me to attack his conclusion when, as he noted, his post was an off-the-cusp reflection on Fukuyama's speech. I agree with a lot of what he wrote. Ultimately even if I disagree with his conclusion, Jarred's right that Turkey's admission to the EU and Muslim immigration are important issues that the French need to come to terms with, whether or not they were trying to make a decision about it during the EU vote.