I write here about the election in France, but first must note that the most important European news this week very well may come from Greece. The legislative elections there clearly show the disastrous political consequences of hyper-austerity. They demonstrate that the European handling of the crisis has not only brought no remedy. It has aggravated the problem. The results of the Greek elections provide the context for understanding politics in Europe, including France.

In France, François Hollande’s victory did not come as a surprise, but the nature of the victory indicates fundamental changes in the political landscape. The unexpected element was the relatively low margin of victory. He received only 51.6% of the votes after having led constantly in the polls, approaching 60% at times. Sarkozy’s far-right accented campaign shocked the so-called “Republican right,” leading the center right leader François Bayrou to vote for Holland in the second round of the election. It did, though significantly, enable Sarkozy to win substantial  support from those who voted for the far-rightist Marine Le Pen in the first round. This needs deliberate consideration.

Sarkozy’s hyper-nationalist, openly anti-European and strongly anti-Islam stance during the last days of the campaign ominously has reunited the right on an ideological basis. Of course, Sarkozy’s neo-nationalist turn was partly tactical, but now there is a real possibility of a dialogue between the far-rightist National Front and the “Republican” right (the President’s party UMP). The so-called “droite populaire,” a part of the UMP that claims 70 députés in the Assemblée nationale, is not against talking to Le Pen. The new ideological horizon for the French right is undoubtedly one of the most important consequences of the presidential election. Sarkozy has played the nationalist and anti-Islam card with an unexpected dedication, particularly if one recalls his attitude during the first years of his presidency, when he practiced the “ouverture” to the left and to ethnic minorities, appointing the French-Senegalese Rama Yade and the French-North Africans, Rachida Dati and Fadela Amara, to ministerial  positions. His late commitment to the old Nation was also contradictory with his previous “Merkozy” attitude, that led him to agree with the Kanzlerin in all circumstances. The reconstruction of the French right is underway, as are important changes on the left.

The Socialist Hollande shifted his trajectory during the campaign also, with interesting implications. Having started with a clear support of a form of leftist austerity and a strong commitment to reduce the French debt, he has turned to a more critical position vis-à-vis the German conventional wisdom, and has come up with new fiscal measures, such as the 75% tax on over one million euros income. This was done partly under the pressure of the rise of a new radical left led by the former member of the Socialist Party Jean-Luc Mélenchon and leader of the Front de Gauche, but not only. The Socialists have changed because the austerity packages clearly have not worked, in Greece, Spain or Portugal. While Hollande remains aware of the dangers of economic leftism that led Mitterrand to turn to austerity in 1983 after two year of big spending policy, he is now convinced that he will not succeed with the center-right policy that was advocated from within the Parti Socialiste by Dominique Strauss-Kahn. In this election, the Socialists have regained, partly with the support of the Front de Gauche, but not only, the majority of the clerical workers (58%) and the working class (68%) voted socialist, proving that the popular classes’ turn toward the nationalist and xenophobe National Front is far from an accomplished fact, but is in part the illusion, largely spread by the moderate left think tanks, particularly Terra Nova, according to which the Socialists should focus on middle classes only.

Hollande started his campaign with the claim for a “normal presidency.” Against Sarkozy’s bling-bling presidency, but also against Strauss-Kahn jet setter left. He was mocked for that: how could an average guy do an extraordinary job? But the “président normal” attitude proved to be his best asset in a time of political disenchantment. The French people don’t expect that much from him. It was clear with the celebration of his victory last Sunday night in the Place de la Bastille, which I observed on the scene. Although it might have looked as a replay of Mitterrand’s fête on May 10th 1981, there was no utopian mood displayed and no claim to “changer la vie.” Rather, there was a minimal modest claim: if life can’t be changed radically, it can be kept secure to some extent. Hollande will be a normal president for abnormal times.

Hollande, the unpretentious and “provincial” politician, could reveal himself to be a European Roosevelt, reinstalling the notion of public interest in the political landscape and offering a new deal to the European Union. But to do this, he must find strong allies against the “there is no alternative” mode of thinking. No one would have bet a single euro on Hollande one year ago, maybe it is not totally crazy to gamble now.

Just before the Sofitel Affair brutally ended his political career, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the director of the IMF, was considered as the great favorite of the French presidential election, and François Hollande, who had started earlier his bid for the primary polls organized for the first time on the left by the Socialist Party, was not taken seriously, particularly in his own camp. Nicknamed Flanby, Little Gouda, or even “couilles molles” (soft testicles) by his socialist contender Martine Aubry, Hollande very well may be the unexpected winner of the competition, on May 6^th, the final round of the French election. Although it has been a boring campaign, it also has been very interesting sociologically.

Strauss-Kahn embodied a center-left version of the “there is no alternative” line, smoothed by a reputation, acquired in happier times, of a rare economic competency that would alleviate the inescapable rigor ahead. Roughly, President Sarkozy and Strauss-Kahn shared the same views. The President had backed the very moderate socialist for the job at the IMF, and they navigated in very close social and economic circles.

But now, one can see almost every day a sea of red flags and an amazing number of raised fists during the Front de Gauche candidate’s electoral meetings, from the Place de la Bastille in Paris to the Prado beaches in Marseilles. Enthusiastic crowds appreciate the leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon‘s tough rhetoric: his speeches are loaded with the most traditional items of the radical camp with a very strong French flavor (a daily celebration of the Bastille Day, but also of 1793 and Robespierre). Mélenchon’s fondness for Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro and the Chinese communist leaders does not seem to bother any of his increasingly young and socially mixed supporters. Mélenchon’s rise has totally reshuffled the campaign, that had started with Sarkozy taking up extreme right-wing issues (mainly immigration and security) and Hollande not saying much as he was so far ahead in the polls that he seemed to be afraid of taking any side that would shrink the support he received, mainly based on Sarkozy’s strong rejection, particularly among the working and lower middle classes.

Sarkozy’s strategy was partially a replay of his winning 2007 campaign: using populist rhetoric to siphon off the Front National, the populist and nationalist party that emerged in the Mitterrand years and has not left the stage since.  But, the strategy does not seem to be working this time for two reasons. First, the far rightist candidate, Marine Le Pen, “la fille du chef” (Jean-Marie Le Pen’s daughter) has softened her rhetoric and looks more palatable to moderate voters. Second, the “work more, earn more motto” that was so appealing in 2007, particularly among workers, has become impossible with almost one million more unemployed people and a stalled economy.  Sarkozy’s arguments are a mixed bag of traditional rightist elements (being tougher at the borders and in the rough areas of cities, fighting Islam night and day) and of self praise (I saved the country from the crisis; the Socialists will turn France into Greece after two weeks; all the European leaders, Angela Merkel leading the group, support me). Coached by a far rightist spin doctor, Patrick Buisson, Sarkozy has constantly gone to the right, with a few unexpected and short lived moves towards criticism of financial capitalism. In the last days, he has not seemed to believe himself that he would be reelected.

Spurred by Mélenchon’s radical campaign, the left, on the contrary, looks in good shape. The polls regularly show that the left vote is about as strong as it was in 1981, on the eve of François Mitterrand’s election. Of course, the old division of the left into two parts, dating back to at least as old as the opposition between Jean Jaurès and Jules Guesde at the turn of the 20th century, one oriented toward social-democracy, and another more radical, at least with respect to rhetoric, is very much alive and well .

This time, however, there is an irony in the story: the reformist and the radical candidates both come from the Socialist Party. Mélenchon spent 31 years on the left side of the PS, served as Minister and Senator before he left it in 2008 to launch the Parti de Gauche, the French version of the German Linkspartei. Mélenchon has been endorsed by the Communist Party that did very poorly in the former presidential elections, but has been rejuvenated by its new spokesman’s unexpected performance. Mélenchon benefits from the strong organizational capacities of the main workers’ union, the CGT, historically linked to the Communist Party. Their campaign is an outlet for the protesters who could not succeed in developing movements like the Indignados or Occupy.

There is a strong nostalgic flavor in this, and one of the leading French historians, Christophe Prochasson, views Mélenchon’s success as oriented towards the past (“passéiste”). It shows the French taste for reenacting great political ceremonies more than adding new items to the repertoire, as in the Occupy movement.

The absence of the rest of the world is a striking feature of the campaign, and it concerns all the candidates. Its beginnings were overloaded with petty issues taken from the National Front (banning halal meat in school cafeterias, or special hours for women in swimming pools) or even surprising issues, like democratizing access to the training for a driving license.

France focuses on itself as if the economic questions could be dealt with at the national level. Euro-scepticism is growing, even among Sarkozy’s supporters. The President has devoted himself to zealously following Frau Merkel in all her recent decisions, but now he seems to be about to change his mind about European integration. To be honest, not only Mélenchon could be labeled “passéiste” in this campaign. The present will brutally come back on May 7th, a day after the second round of the election.

For a dozen years I have taught a freshman seminar at Northwestern University, entitled “Scandal and Reputations.” When I first selected the topic “Bill and Monica” it was the topic du jour, filled with phallic cigars, hypocrisies and conspiracies. I had planned the course to capture that sour, if momentarily historic, time.

Over the years I have never been without subject matter. I could pick and choose among the birthers, the deniers, the earthers and the truthers. Would we discuss churchly pedophiles or Abu Ghraib? DUI or DNA? Tiger Woods, Charlie Sheen, Britney, Paris or OJ Redux? Always some claim of conspiracy or scandal emerged that would capture the attention of students.

This week demonstrates that whether we run out of oil, we won’t run out of oily elites. The case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund and prominent French socialist politician, is instructive. (Yes, yes, innocent until proven…). Mr. Strauss-Kahn is currently holed up in a snug government-supplied suite on Riker’s Island (a neo-socialist dream of free housing for all). Mr. Strauss-Kahn has been arrested and accused of having attempted to rape a hotel maid in his self-paid suite at New York’s Sofitel. No doubt several of Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s new compatriots will be happy to turn the tables on their new friend. DSK, don’t drop your soap in the shower.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn was apparently naked in the bathroom when the maid arrived. As a prominent economist, he surely figured that since he was already naked, intercourse was simply a matter of structural efficiency. Perhaps he saw her as “my cute little Portugal.” Never having interned at the IMF, she had not been adequately educated in recognizing how the powerful organize the lifeworlds of the powerless. Metaphors gone wild.

But the tawdry events at a slick hotel reveal something more. First, they remind us that often what makes bad behavior scandalous is when it emerges outside the local domain in which “everyone knew” of its likelihood. As more evidence appears, it seems that Strauss-Kahn’s colleagues were aware that he was a sexual predator. Possibly they were surprised that he would be as rough and rushed as reports of his hotel encounter suggested, but he leaves a trail of accusations, discretely excused by friends and colleagues. Perhaps he was embarrassing, but this is what (some) rich men do. Most shameful is Anne Mansouret, a Socialist party official and the mother of a young French journalist, Tristane Banon, who Strausss-Kahn apparently attempted to rape nine years ago. Knowing this, Ms. Mansouret suggested that her daughter not press charges, presumably satisfied to have a politically correct rapist as the president of France. There are just some things that we provincial Americans will never understand. Strauss-Kahn had been previously criticized for his inappropriate sexual behavior by the IMF for a coercive affair with a subordinate in 2008. Ho-hum. He’s our colleague and by winking we can make the embarrassment disappear.

A scandal is not just bad or criminal behavior. A scandal is different than a crime (of which this rape is both), but scandal results from a form of behavior that “everyone” knows about, but which had been defined as normal or innocuous, leading the perpetrator to be conclude that he is protected. How many people knew about Tiger Woods’ behavior or that of former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? More than zero. The inner group considered the behavior acceptable, if undesirable, until it broke outside its charmed circle.

Finally, the Strauss-Kahn imbroglio reminds us that the capacity for conspiracy never dies. Some French socialists, once they learned of the arrest, concluded that the event was a frame-up by the supporters of Nicolas Sarkosy, Strauss-Kahn’s likely opponent in the next French election. Just another vast right-wing conspiracy. Mr. Sarkosy, of course, has his own problems, political and ethical, although surely less than his neighbor, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi. A Euro-conspiracy to discredit Strauss-Kahn seems laughable today, but one is well-advised “never to say never.” Still, the claims speak to the belief that some enemy will always stand behind the breach in reputation of those one admires.

Today Strauss-Kahn’s future is dim, but mine is bright. As I prepare to teach Scandals and Reputation this fall, I prepare confidently, knowing that my students and I will analyze lustily – as we have each year.