Stonishing moments throughtout the past year and the beginning of this, where great nations are now facing a new era, where the politicions are attempting to become more central than choosing one way or another. I guess, primarly because this kind of ideology still force us to bring back to life some values from old systems of government where, to be conservative could mean that those who considered to be, have a tendency to be more regionalist than progressive and vice-versa.
The recent elections in Europe, specificaly in France have shown me that the social democracy are now steping back, which is something at my point, good to see because the state and all the elements within could "colapse" the structure of the model of state after the 70's. I'm not talking about the well-fair state but the vigilant, that one which conduces the economy and the guardian of the modern democrat state.
There are some rumors about Sarcozy much more of it because of the statements he gave while issued about the wave of riots in France in 2005, on the time, he called them of: "punks and skunks" pretty much close from other candidate, Le Pen who is tradicionaly known for the despize for foreigner communities in France. after the elections, Sarcozy seemed to be a pragmative politician, not being populist or using speechs in favor of an idea of government. His contender, Róyal was on his back most part of the time, not because of her ability as a poltician but her promisses when previously analyzed, could maintain France without any perspective of growing. Something that Sarcozy intends not to do, Unfortunately I do not expect him to make the reforms of his plataform of government to be accomplished. Labor and Retirement are issues that should be discussed seriously and as quick as possible and I don't think he could have guts enought for that.
We could use the current events on France as somekind of landscape to see how their politicians are dealing with this issues. Not socialist or centrist, A politician must have ideas and not being totally faifhful to what the party has to say. I don't think our President totally free to stabilish what he would have in mind (which, is something quite good actualy) but to rule a country is a challenge of pacience and strongness on its own ideas, to see what will be better to the people and for the country not for one class or other. To bad our revolucionaries change their thoughts for some bucks.
Att.
Rafael Gomes
The recent elections in Europe, specificaly in France have shown me that the social democracy are now steping back, which is something at my point, good to see because the state and all the elements within could "colapse" the structure of the model of state after the 70's. I'm not talking about the well-fair state but the vigilant, that one which conduces the economy and the guardian of the modern democrat state.
There are some rumors about Sarcozy much more of it because of the statements he gave while issued about the wave of riots in France in 2005, on the time, he called them of: "punks and skunks" pretty much close from other candidate, Le Pen who is tradicionaly known for the despize for foreigner communities in France. after the elections, Sarcozy seemed to be a pragmative politician, not being populist or using speechs in favor of an idea of government. His contender, Róyal was on his back most part of the time, not because of her ability as a poltician but her promisses when previously analyzed, could maintain France without any perspective of growing. Something that Sarcozy intends not to do, Unfortunately I do not expect him to make the reforms of his plataform of government to be accomplished. Labor and Retirement are issues that should be discussed seriously and as quick as possible and I don't think he could have guts enought for that.
We could use the current events on France as somekind of landscape to see how their politicians are dealing with this issues. Not socialist or centrist, A politician must have ideas and not being totally faifhful to what the party has to say. I don't think our President totally free to stabilish what he would have in mind (which, is something quite good actualy) but to rule a country is a challenge of pacience and strongness on its own ideas, to see what will be better to the people and for the country not for one class or other. To bad our revolucionaries change their thoughts for some bucks.
Att.
Rafael Gomes
