You could check out Badiou's 'The Meaning of Sarkozy' - it's more of a motivational than an analytical book but it gives some idea. Badiou calls him a 'Petainist' rather than a fascist, and links him to the long lineage of French reaction. It's not only nationalism and racism, but also an exaggerated fear and loathing of radicalism, a desire to exorcise 1968, partly a result of France's equally long and more distinguished revolutionary heritage.
http://mariborchan.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/alain-badiou-the-meaning-of-sarkozy/
.....
And lest it be overlooked...
We're often unaware (or under-appreciative) of the admirable efforts of our fellow list members.
LBOTalk "Lenin's Tomb" (aka Richard Seymour, author of _The Liberal Defense of Murder_ <http://bit.ly/32Lj3o> ) reviewed _The Meaning of Sarkozy_ last February:
Badiou on Le Petit Nicolas
Alain Badiou doesn't mess around. As an advocate of direct action, contre "capitalo-parliamentarism", he has pledged to reward his nastier critics (largely idiots like BHL) with a slap whenever he sees them. These opponents, with their accusations of antisemitism and fascism, were responding to the publication of his book 'Polemics' (in French, 'Circonstances 3') and the more recent 'The Meaning of Sarkozy' ('De quoi Sarkozy, est-il nom?'). The latter is less about the "fidgety mayor of Neuilly", or "the Rat Man", than about what Sarkozy's ascendancy says of the vacuity of the electoral process. Sarkozy himself is important only inasmuch as he embodies the spirit of reaction, even if it is a dwarfish embodiment compared to the Thermidoreans, the Orléanists, the Versaillais, Pétain and even d'Estaing. The book is a curious mixture of political philosophy and acuminated satire. I had never thought of Badiou as an especially funny man before, but - as is so often the case - it is because he is so serious that his satire is so lethal. Through a series of essays and lectures, he takes the occasion of Sarkozy's election victory and subsequent travailles to subject parliamentary democracy to an acerbic critique - and behind all of this witty and indomitable polemicising lurks the shade of communism.
According to Badiou, the French Left (and by extension, the Left as such) has practised a reactive politics based on fear of the right, which in turn is essentially mobilised by the fear of the leftist challenge. At the same time, the politicians of the reformist left flaunt their impotence, their inability to transform affairs, and cling to it. All they can do is keep the right out of office and limit the reaction. Then Sarkozy wins, and Socialists - many from the generation of the nouveau philosophes - flock to join his administration, or be part of the clique. Sarkozy expresses his 'openness' to the left, the better to coopt its luminaries for the creation of a technocratic single-party state (this is what the language of bipartisanship always boils down to) and form what Badiou calls a Union for Presidential Unanimity (a pun on the name of Sarkozy's party, the Union for a Popular Movement). This is the state that neoliberal capitalism has reduced politics to. As Badiou says, quoting Zizek, those who used to oppose parliamentary democracy to Stalinism missed the point that Stalinism was the future of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, "the technological means for controlling the population are already such that Stalin, with his endless handwritten files, his mass executions, his spies with hats, his gigantic lice-ridden camps and bestial tortures, appears like an amateur from another age".
[...]
full at --
<http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/02/badiou-on-le-petit-nicolas.html>
.d.