Sarkozy: “I do not believe in the doctrine of a minimalist state."

Firstly, this makes sense considering that in spite of mounting demographic challenges, France is a nation, even if it is no longer an ethnically homogenous one, and therefore would pursue a more communitarian path. Secondly, I cannot think of a single Western or industrialized state that is a "night watchman state" in practice, especially when one considers that public spending as a share of GDP has been steadily on the rise since 1945 in these states. Indeed, Thatcher's neo-conservatism only halted the advance of the state briefly, and Reagan's defense expeditures were not "minimalist" in the least.

Sarkozy: "I do not believe in the doctrine of laissez-faire."

Nor does any Western or industrialized government; laissez-faire implies that the free market is completely unregulated, which is not the case anywhere on Earth.

Sarkozy: "I do not believe that in France the State should be reduced to a secondary role […] I do not think the nation can continue to exist without a strong State […]"

Strong states must legitimately represent the will of their nations. As France becomes increasingly heterogenous, the impetus for ethnic French to desire a sizable state when this entails significant income redistribution to other ethnic groups (e.g. healthcare, welfare and pensions).

Sarkozy: "If Europe and globalisation are synonymous with dumping and unfair competition for too long and on too big a scale, there will soon be no more Europe […]"

I wasn't aware that "Europe" and "globalisation" were synonyms.

Like her socialist friends, Segolene backs an obese state, but a very weak one. The present situation in the muslim suburbs is the result of 20 years of socialist-state renunciation there.

"that the state has an "important" role does not necessarily have to be anti-market or market-unfriendly"

After careful reflection and consideration of the issue I take it that Nicolas Sarkozy mixtures classical liberal and political elements in the same way as did Carl Schmitt in his Verfassungslehre; the liberal element being defined by the rule of law or Rechtsstaat - which is still a state and thus contains "a specifically political element." But a state affirming the freedom and autonomy of civil society! Indeed, as for the liberal element, it stresses the values of private property, the moral sovereignty of individuals - the protection of freedom against the state, or more specifically: "the protection of citizens from the abuse of state power." The state,as a pre-condition for a free economy, had to be seen as a "strictly controlled steward of society." Individuals are, according to Schmitt, best served if boundaries are set to political interference into their private life. In his book Der Begriff des Politischen, he states that the individuals constitute the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem of liberalism. Looking back, Schmitt retrieved the agenda of classical liberals and, in recognizing the priority of individual rights, he assumed a notion of liberalism that did not negate the state as such, but only the absolute welfare state of today's liberals.

"there will soon be no more Europe "

He got the conclusion right anyway.

What would any politician be prepared to say in order to get or keep the job? They'll say anything and they have done so.

...is the enemy of the good.

It's like with Giuliani in the US. If 'conservatives' demand 'purity' (verbal or otherwise) from their candidates, they will end up with a much worse alternative getting elected.

One has to make allowances. The man needs to get elected first before he can improve matters. Turn the statement around, and notice what he did NOT say. It is reasonably clear that:

-- he does not believe in a 'maximalist' state;

-- he does not believe in the opposite of laissez-faire, i.e. in constant government intervention and/or compulsory allocation;

-- Not a "secondary role" for the state in France? He probably means that the state has an "important" role. That is what the French generally appear to want, and it does not necessarily have to be anti-market or market-unfriendly;

-- And, he is certainly right that "the nation" cannot continue to exist without a "strong state". Strong does not have to mean "large share of government spending in GDP". Perhaps he means "strong enforcement of the law"?

-- "Dumping" and "unfair competition" have become holy ligthening rods in western societies. No politician can say that he is for those things. The question is which candidate is more likely going to try to inform the public better on economic realities and trade-offs?

Then the French truly are beyond hope.