Say what you want to about those insufferably arrogant, lazy-ass Frenchmen. When it comes to Presidential elections, they have the right idea.

Turnout at an astonishing 85%. A relatively short campaign season. Lots of intrigue and backstabbing for us political junkies. The novelty of a woman heading up a major party’s ticket. Even the threat of violence from left wing loons following an election defeat which shows once again how the Euro-twits and socialists never tire of aping the tactics of their 1960’s ideological counterparts.

In fact, the winner of yesterday’s contest, Nicolas Sarkozy, made it a central theme of his campaign to once and for all rid French politics of the disease that infected the country in 1968. In May of that year, a series of student strikes led to a general strike that paralyzed many parts of the country. Despite the fact that the protests failed to change much of anything in French society and culture much less altering any of President DeGaulle’s policies, the battle cry “May ‘68” lives on in leftist legend much the same way the legend of Woodstock lives on in this country; as an iconic representation of a time and place that never was. Instead, those two events are treated by the left as talismans that are trotted out at regular intervals and lovingly stroked and fondled by those who see the “revolutionary spirit” or “spirit of Woodstock” as more important than any tangible benefit to society that accrued as a result of those events.

For the French, the legacy of May ‘68 has been devastating. It has led France down the primrose path of hard left socialism much to the detriment of the economy and culture. But beyond that, the infection has created the illusion that if only France were to pile more socialist experimentation on top of what has already been tried, the “spirit” of May ‘68 would become flesh and a socialist paradise would be created.

This political mindset permeated not only the hard left but also the soft right and moderates in France. To one degree or another, every French government for more than 35 years – left, right, or in between – has tried to keep faith with that revolutionary spirit.

Until today. President-elect Sarkozy has finally said “non” and vowed to change course nearly 180 degrees:

Mr. Sarkozy acknowledges he is now part of the elites of French society, but he pledges he will govern in a way that is beyond their interests. “If I’m elected,” he told reporters before yesterday’s balloting, “it won’t be the press, the polls, the elites. It will have been the people.” His clearest break with much of French elite opinion came last week when he made a dramatic speech about a “moral crisis” the nation entered in 1968, when the “moral and intellectual relativism” embodied by the 1968 student revolt that helped topple President Charles de Gaulle from power the next year. Today, many philosophers and media commentators routinely pay homage to “the élan of 1968” and lament that the revolutionary spirit of the time did not succeed in transforming bourgeois French society more than it did.

Mr. Sarkozy took on that ‘60s nostalgia. He labelled Ms. Royal and her supporters the descendants of the nihilists of 1968, and even appealed to France’s “silent majority” to repudiate the false lessons of that period. He claimed that too many Royal backers continue to hesitate in reacting against riots by “thugs, troublemakers and fraudsters.” He declared this Sunday’s election would settle the “question of whether the heritage of May ‘68 should be perpetuated or if it should be liquidated once and for all.”

It appears that Mr. Sarkozy may have found the ultimate “wedge” issue in France, judging by the solid margin he won many traditional working-class neighborhoods that normally support Socialist candidates. Mr. Sarkozy’s triumph provides at least a chance that there will be a real debate on the role of the state in France’s economy and, yes, even some discussion of whether France should be in perpetual conflict with America.

Can it be done? Can benefits and economic policies that have given the people of France an unprecedented amount of job security and leisure time not to mention the comfy, warm blanket of cradle-to-grave nanny state guarantees that government will always take care of its citizens actually be withdrawn at the behest of the people these programs and policies help the most?

It would be unprecedented in the history of Democratic states – at least to the degree that Sarkozy is talking about altering the social compact between citizen and government. And the reason he may succeed is the almost universal agreement among the voters (except the die hard left and anarchists) that the reforms Sarkozy is talking about are absolutely necessary if France is to find its way back to economic greatness:

Mr Sarkozy delivered a lyrical victory speech, voicing his love for “this great and beautiful nation which has given me everything”. He promised to be “the president of all the French” and fulfill his promise of immediate radical reform.

“The French have chosen to break with the ideas, habits and behaviour of the past,” he said. “I will restore the value of work, authority, merit and respect for the nation.”

He would also rid France of its habit of “repenting” for its past historical sins. “This repentance is a form of self-hatred,” he said.

What Sarkozy proposes is nothing less than an “Americanization” of the French economy and a Reaganesque revival of national self-confidence. The new French President has continuously gotten into trouble at home with the Yankophobes by expressing his admiration for the American system as well as his desire to repair the almost shattered relations between the two countries – a state of affairs that hurts the national interest of both nations. The French can be extraordinarily trying as an ally. But their positions directly opposing many American initiatives in the international arena has been a disaster for our foreign policy. Like it or not, the French are still a major power with influence over most of their former colonies as well as a large segment of the Third World who view the French as something of a champion. Even a modest improvement in relations would be a boon to American interests.

From what I’ve seen of Sarkozy, I like. He seems straightforward, down to earth, and something of an idealist. After 12 years of the cynical Chiraq, he’s like a breath of fresh air. Whether he succeeds or not depends on how he handles the coming painful transition to economic sanity that will almost surely roil the streets of France, setting off massive demonstrations against his program. And it’s almost a dead certainty that his “law and order” program will not sit well with the immigrant communities – particularly the Muslim ghettoes where unrest is almost a nightly occurrence.

In his favor, the people of France seem to have spoken fairly convincingly that they want reform. But it will take all of his skills as a politician and communicator to turn his ideas into reality without shattering French society in the process.

It should be interesting to watch.