Publisher's Note — June 15, 2011, 8:48 am

DSK and the Typical American Ignorance About France

John R. MacArthur is publisher of Harper’s Magazine and author of the book You Can’t Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America. This column originally appeared in the June 15, 2011 Providence Journal.

Isn’t French-bashing fun? With Dominique Strauss-Kahn (aka Le Perv) residing in tabloid hell on charges of attempted rape, we’ve gone back to anti-Frog ridicule not seen since Bush and company were denouncing the other Dominique — de Villepin — for opposing the invasion of Iraq. “The Simpsons” image of a “cheese-eating surrender monkey,” popularized by Anne Coulter among others in 2003, has been replaced by the image of a woman-devouring “chimpanzee in rut.”

The difference between 2003 and today is that now even left-wingers are getting in on the act. Writing last week in The Nation magazine, Katha Pollitt declared herself “through” with her love affair with France: “Oh, it was lovely while it lasted, my crush on your big welfare state, with its excellent national health service and its government-funded childcare.”

But thanks to DSK and his louche defenders among the French elite, Pollitt has discovered that many Frenchmen are “self-satisfied creeps” and that some Frenchwomen “enable” their arrogant men with “docility and feminine-mystique-ization.”

I don’t disagree with Pollitt’s views about some French intellectuals she quotes, or even with her critique of what the French consider appropriate sexual pursuit. As in all cultures, there’s much to be mocked about France’s pretensions and national self-image. Yet I can’t join in the general merriment over seeing the big-cheese DSK forced to eat his country’s motto of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité in full frontal humiliation before America’s carnival-like “justice” system.

Partly I’m disgusted by American hypocrisy: I can’t bear hearing U.S. pundits and lawyers congratulating themselves on our supposedly egalitarian approach to criminal prosecution. Asked to comment on the Strauss-Kahn case by French radio and TV, I’ve been obliged to describe the depressing realities of elected district attorneys and their political ambitions, selective prosecution, leaking to the press to foul the pool of potential jurors, and the ingrained biases, varying by state and locality, against ethnic minorities and the poor.

The single prosecution of a DSK — just like Tom Wolfe’s WASP bond trader in The Bonfire of the Vanities — does not redress the inequities of the American legal system. It is a double irony, then, that the rich Strauss-Kahn couple (unlike a poor black rape defendant with a court-appointed lawyer) can afford to hire the best legal talent and investigators to destroy the reputation of his accuser, a lower-class African woman.

My work as a police reporter in Chicago and covering the Cook County state’s attorney extinguished my illusions about U.S. justice being “blind” at the same time that it gave new meaning to Claude Rains’s line in Casablanca, “Round up the usual suspects.” Chicago cops, especially in Area 2 homicide, are forever rounding up the usual suspects.

But what distresses me more than American self-righteousness is the ease with which some journalists judge a whole culture about which they know very little. I happen to be half-French, through my mother, and I’m offended by the stereotypes and generalizations applied to people who have nothing in common with the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund. If you read the tabloids as well as Katha Pollitt, you might get the idea that France is a nation dominated by skirt-chasing libertines who think that the droit du seigneur is part of the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

In my experience, French society is vastly more conservative — much more centered on family life and respectful of women — than is American society. True, the miserable, deracinated, sex-obsessed characters found in Michel Houellebecq’s novels represent a growing phenomenon in France. However, loyalty to family and care for children remain paramount, which is why French governments — whether “left” or “right” — spend a lot of money on social services to make possible the maintenance of a family, even on a modest income.

If America really respected women, we would follow the French model. Reducing economic stress tends to reduce stress on marriages and helps keep families together. I’ve been the direct beneficiary of France’s family/women-friendly policies — from the private hospital room that permitted me or my wife, at no extra cost, to stay overnight with our sick daughter to the Napoleonic Code that prevented my French grandfather from disinheriting my mother and my aunt.

I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that the French divorce rate is lower than America’s (43 percent compared with 49 percent, says Divorce magazine) and that reported rapes, say the United Nations’s latest statistics, were 16.6 per 100,000 in France, compared with 28.6 per 100,000 in the U.S.

Social life in France still revolves around the family, and while I can’t cite statistics to prove it, I know that French children tend to stay closer to their parents. Indeed, meals and weekends “en famille” can become oppressive for someone used to Anglo-Saxon informality, fluidity, and anomie.

As it happens, I’ve shared a conference platform with Dominique Strauss-Kahn and once interviewed him. I didn’t like him much: He was obviously bright but too obviously cynical to be an attractive politician. Moreover, I found it preposterous for a former IMF chief to be running for president as a member of the Socialist Party. Essentially a free-market economist, DSK representing the French left would have insulted authentic leftists everywhere.

But something about the virulence of the attacks on Strauss-Kahn — the blatant anti-Frenchness of it all — makes me wish for a different resolution than the one splashed all over the Daily News and the New York Post. After all, he’s innocent until proven guilty.

Isn’t he?

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

From the January 2018 issue

The Human Factor

How I learned the real meaning of dissent

Publisher's Note December 13, 2017, 7:25 pm

McCain’s War

“Although McCain participated in a morally unpardonable war in which the United Sates killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, one can’t help sympathizing with him in his reduced state.”

Publisher's Note November 10, 2017, 5:29 pm

Industrial Tourism

NAFTA is an investment contract that protects American and Canadian goods and interests against Mexican expropriation, regulation, and pestering by local authorities.

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner

Cost of a baby-stroller cleaning, with wheel detailing, at Tot Squad in New York City:

$119.99

Australian biologists trained monitor lizards not to eat cane toads.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today