La victoire de Barack Obama : Mirage ou réalité
jeudi 22 janvier 2009
Par Leslie Péan
Soumis à AlterPresse le 22 janvier 09
L’inauguration de Barack Hussein Obama comme 44ème président des États-Unis d’Amérique représente la victoire de la raison contre les monstres de l’animalité qui hantent et menacent de détruire les civilisations. Il y avait de l’excitation et de l’émotion dans l’air. Dans une adresse d’un grand réalisme qui fera date, Obama a pris la route du dialogue. Le couple présidentiel a pris son bain de foule. Le couple Obama était heureux, tout comme au jour de leur mariage, cheminant sur la Pennsylvania Avenue, pour rentrer dans la Maison Blanche, et défendre une Constitution qui disait à son origine qu’un Noir était 3/5ème d’un être humain. C’est la culmination d’une longue lutte menée par les Noirs et Africain-Américains contre la discrimination et pour leur émancipation. La réalisation du rêve de Martin Luther King. Il y a un changement d’approche et l’attitude raciste négative envers le Noir prend un sérieux coup. Longtemps déprécié pour mieux légitimer son exploitation pendant cinq siècles, le Noir comme être humain reprend de la valeur. La fierté et l’espoir renaissent dans les cœurs. C’est la fête avec une allégresse similaire à celle que suscita la libération de Nelson Mandela en Afrique du Sud le 11 février 1990. Telles sont les performances des milieux de la haute finance capables de toutes les convulsions. Y compris celle de vendre à leurs propres ennemis les armes pour les combattre. Ce fut le cas dès l’origine, quand les commerçants hollandais en lutte pour leur indépendance de l’Espagne vendirent néanmoins des armes qui faisaient défaut à leurs adversaires espagnols lors de cette guerre de quatre-vingt ans (1568-1648), s’achevant avec le traité de Westphalie consacrant la naissance de l’État-nation moderne. [1]
Dans un pays où un quart des Noirs Américains vit en-dessous du seuil de pauvreté et où 36% des prisonniers sont des Noirs américains, l’élection de Barack Obama est un évènement sans précédent. Moins de 50 ans après que les droits civiques aient été accordés aux Noirs, la rentrée d’Obama à la Maison Blanche réchauffe le cœur de nombre de Noirs qui se croyaient condamnés à la déréliction à cause de la couleur de leur peau. Le racisme anti-noir fait partie du capital symbolique que les forces du grand capital ont utilisé pour démarrer et maintenir la machine d’exploitation des peuples de couleur depuis 1492. Nombre de Blancs et de Noirs qui se sont attaqués à ce capital symbolique ont eu un triste sort. C’est le cas de John Brown à Abraham Lincoln, de John à Robert Kennedy, de Malcom X à Martin Luther King. Mais le système se révèle plus astucieux et capable de se réformer.
Contre le pouvoir de l’argent des lobbies
Toutefois, l’euphorie de l’inauguration risque de disparaitre vite et de céder la place à la réalité. À un moment où le monde entier se pose des questions sur Gaza, cette réalité était absente du beau discours d’Obama. C’est que les néocons ont perdu la bataille mais pas la guerre. Nombre de personnalités républicaines ont été maintenues par Obama dans son gouvernement. C’est le cas surtout avec Robert Gates, Ministre de la Défense ou encore de Dennis Blair, directeur des seize (16) agences d’espionnage et d’intelligence. Mais ce ne sont pas uniquement les républicains que Barack Obama a conservé pour assurer la continuité. Certains architectes de la crise financière et économique actuelle comme Larry Summers sont toujours aux commandes. En effet, Larry Summers a été le maitre d’œuvre de la politique ultralibérale contre la régulation des fonds de couverture (hedge funds), contre celle de régulation des contrats dérivés de produits financiers multiples incluant les Credit Default Swaps (CDS) dont la valeur de $473 trillions dépasse de dix fois le PIB mondial évalué à $47 trillions en 2006, [2] pour la politique de capitalisation des fonds de pension, pour l’élimination du Glass-Steagall Act de 1933 refusant aux banques commerciales d’avoir des activités de courtage et de spéculation. Ce sont ces politiques désastreuses qui ont abouti à la crise des subprimes, la goutte d’eau qui a fait déverser le vase de la crise financière.
La machine de corruption mise en branle par Robert Rubin, le patron de Summers au Département du Trésor, pour exécuter des politiques visant à favoriser les grandes banques d’investissement telles que la Citi Bank (la plus grande banque privée mondiale), a donné carte blanche aux financiers pour inventer en 1980 et 1990 les fameuses obligations garanties par des créances multiples synthétiques appelées Collaterized Debt Obligations (CDO) synthétiques. Ces produits dérivés ne sont pas basés sur des actifs réels adossés à de réelles créances mais sur les CDS. Ce sera l’extrapolation de la politique des subprimes avec le carrousel de la musique de la titrisation entrainant tout le monde dans la danse de la spéculation financière. Le résultat est la plus grande récession mondiale depuis le crash de 1929. L’avenir dira si les ingénieurs de cette crise sont des dinosaures égarés dans le Jurassic Park d’un empire contesté mondialement ou si ce sont les gardiens du temple. Des personnalités comme Naomi Klein [3], Paul Krugman, prix Nobel d’Economie de 2008, Joseph Stiglitz, prix Nobel d’Economie de 1991, qui ont toujours contesté la globalisation ultralibérale, auraient mieux fait l’équilibre dans l’équipe des conseillers économiques autour du nouveau président.
Obama a fait campagne contre le pouvoir de l’argent des lobbies dans la politique. Il a répété ce thème inlassablement. Il fallait avoir du courage pour s’attaquer à ces lobbies qui mènent la politique étrangère américaine en achetant les décisions du pouvoir politique. De l’affaire Mossadegh en Iran en 1953 à la guerre actuelle en Irak pour des armes destruction massive qui n’ont jamais existé, le pouvoir des lobbies est incontournable. En nommant Susan Rice ambassadeur aux Nations-Unies avec rang de membre du cabinet ministériel, Obama donne-t-il le signal de la fin des lobbies dans la politique étrangère ? Il n’est que d’attendre pour avoir la réponse. Les promesses d’Obama au cours de sa campagne électorale risquent de rester des promesses engageant uniquement ceux qui y croient. Surtout en ce qui concerne l’héritage de l’administration Bush. Les attaques de cette administration contre la constitution américaine et les libertés civiques sont nombreuses. Le 19 janvier 2009, Keith Oberman et Rachel Maddow, deux reporters bien connus de la chaine de télévision américaine MSNBC, ont demandé au président élu Obama d’investiguer et punir les membres de l’administration Bush qui ont commis des crimes de torture, plus précisément de torture par l’eau (waterboarding). Ce sera un test critique pour la nouvelle administration Obama. Comme un phœnix qui renait de ses cendres
Mais on ne saurait rester à une pensée racialiste pour analyser la victoire d’Obama. Il faut aller plus loin et aborder cette victoire à partir de l’idéologie et des pratiques de mobilisation sociale qu’elle inaugure. L’africain américain Eric Holder, nommé par Obama ministre de la justice, est le noir qui, en tant que juge à Washington, a changé la loi faisant de la possession de marijuana un crime, contribuant ainsi à augmenter de manière significative le nombre de Noirs dans les prisons. Le noir Clarence Thomas à la Cour Suprême est l’exemple le plus achevé de la capacité du système dominant de corrompre et récupérer les demandes de justice contre la discrimination raciale à son avantage. Le vote du conservateur Clarence Thomas sera déterminant pour donner la victoire à l’élection frauduleuse du président George W. Bush en l’an 2000. [4] Le fait que le pouvoir républicain ait nommé des Noirs américains comme Colin Powell et Condoleezza Rice aux postes respectifs de chef des forces armées et de Secrétaire d’Etat laisserait penser que la victoire de Barack Obama comme président des États-Unis est beaucoup de bruit pour rien.
La stratégie d’Obama combine le style à la substance. Avancer sur un terrain miné demande de la dextérité. La conspiration démocratique qui a fait triompher Obama se nourrit de l’expérience de la victoire des abolitionnistes au Congrès américain au cours de la guerre civile de 1861-1865. Après cette guerre, et au cours des années 1870-1887, les Noirs américains eurent dix-sept représentants au Congrès parmi lesquels des sénateurs tels que Hiram Revels et Bruce Blanche pour le Mississipi. [5] Les abolitionnistes du Nord formant l’aile radicale du Parti Républicain mettront en œuvre les moyens légaux pour changer la situation des Noirs Américains. Ce fut d’abord en 1865 le 13ème amendement à la Constitution abolissant l’esclavage, ratifié par le 38ème Congrès. Puis, ce sera en 1866 le 14ème amendement à la Constitution déclarant que tous les citoyens sont égaux devant la loi, ratifié par le 39ème Congrès. Enfin, en 1869, le 40ème Congrès donnera autorité aux commandants militaires nordistes occupant le Sud, divisé en districts, d’organiser les élections et d’assurer, avec le 15ème amendement à la Constitution, que les Africains-Américains puissent voter. [6] Mais ces mesures seront contournées avec les lois ségrégationnistes Jim Crow qui seront mises en vigueur dans les États du Sud avec la complicité du pouvoir exécutif central de Washington. Mais, comme un phœnix, le mouvement abolitionniste pour l’émancipation des Noirs et des minorités renaitra de ses cendres avec les luttes des années 1950-1970 culminant aujourd’hui en la victoire présidentielle de Barack Obama. Un siècle après les prédictions de George White, congressman noir de la Caroline du Nord en 1900.
C’est avec cet arrière-plan qu’il faut saisir la victoire d’Obama. Dans tous les cas, le nouveau président a fait un grand pas dans sa promesse de renouvellement du personnel politique en nommant Hilda Solis au poste de Ministre du Travail. Partisane du mouvement écologique et ouvrier faisant la promotion de la création de syndicats dans les entreprises, Hilda Solis a eu le soutien des centrales syndicales comme l’AFL-CIO. Également, la nomination de Steven Chu pour gérer le Département de l’Énergie en dit long sur l’approche d’Obama de l’environnement. Mais la plus importante leçon à tirer de l’expérience Obama est la capacité de la conscience de s’élever pour vaincre les forces d’argent dans leur capacité hormonale de corrompre le politique. Cette capacité de corruption de l’argent que l’on a vu lors de la crise des Savings and Loans (S&L) en 1999 s’est reproduite sur une plus grande échelle avec la crise des subprimes, et les truquages comptables de Fannie Mae et Freddy Mac en 2008. Rester dans les tranchées
La fête de 200 millions de dollars offerte à Obama, dans une situation économique qui approche la dépression, n’est pas de bon augure. La perte d’un demi-million d’emplois par mois, en novembre et décembre 2008, donne-t-elle à penser que la lune de miel ne durera longtemps ? Obama a averti que la sortie de crise ne sera pas facile. Les marchés financiers ont boudé cette fête car l’indice Dow Jones est descendu à son point le plus bas, soit moins de 8,000 points. Si les titres du Trésor américain continuent d’être attractifs pour la Chine qui en est le premier détenteur ($618 milliards en novembre 2008), les Sud-Coréens ne sont pas de cet avis et ont commencé à s’en débarrasser. Les données du Département du Trésor américain indiquent que la Corée du Sud ne détenait que $28 milliards, soit moins de la moitié de ce qu’elle avait en 2006. [7] Le rendement des bons du trésor US à 10 ans a considérablement baissé passant d’un taux de 4.76% le 22 janvier 2007 à 3.53% le 22 janvier 2008 et à 2.40% le 20 janvier 2009. On a même vu l’État américain emprunter $30 milliards avec une maturité de 28 jours à taux zéro. Cette vente de titres sans intérêt sur le marché obligataire suppose des investisseurs l’attente d’une baisse des prix ou encore d’une inflation négative. Ce qui ne semble pas cadrer avec la politique de relance de $800 milliards proposée par Obama. Après le fameux sauvetage (bail-out) des grandes banques de $700 milliards, l’orthodoxie financière du libre marché est à nouveau abandonnée pour tenter d’éviter un soulèvement social.
La victoire d’Obama mérite célébration dans la sérénité et la réflexion. Surtout avec les bruits de bottes dans le décor. Un stratège américain n’envisage-t-il pas une intervention militaire aux États-Unis en cas de dérapages et troubles dus à « un effondrement économique imprévu » [8] ? La politique de consensus proposée par Obama semble être un moindre mal. Pour éviter de rentrer dans l’approche chimérique des forces de sécurité voulant remplacer l’incapacité à générer et distribuer le surplus par la politique du contrôle social sous la houlette de la main de fer de la surveillance. Pour avoir compris cela et pour ne pas permettre que le grand mouvement de masse qui l’a amené au pouvoir soit corrompu et récupéré, Obama est revenu dans les tranchées en créant le mouvement Organizing for America . Sans un mouvement à la base demandant le changement par une nouvelle allocation des ressources, Obama ne pourra faire face aux lobbies de l’argent. La crise financière et économique n’est pas seulement un obstacle, elle est aussi une opportunité pour renouer avec les solidarités ébranlées par le fondamentalisme de marché qui s’est imposé depuis le scandale du Watergate de 1972-1974. La route vers la terre promise est encore longue mais la distance diminue chaque jour avec les pas du pèlerin.
[1] Arnaud Blin, 1648 La Paix de Westphalie ou la naissance de l’Europe politique moderne, coll. Questions à l’histoire, Bruxelles, 2006.
[2] Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money – a Financial History of the World, The Penguin Press, New York, 2008, p. 4.
[3] Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine – The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Knopf, Canada, 2007.
[4] Les autres membres de la Cour Suprême qui votèrent pour Georges W. Bush sont William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy et Sandra Day O’Connor.
[5] Molefi Kete Asante, 100 Greatest African Americans : A Biographical Encyclopedia, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, 2002.
[6] Robert Brady, Chairman of the Committee on House Administration of the U.S. House of Representatives, Black Americans in Congress 1870-2007, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 19-25.
[7] Wes Goodman, ‘Time to Sell’ Treasuries, Biggest Korean Fund Says, Bloomberg News, January 19, 2009.
[8] Nathan Firer, “Known Unknowns : Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development”, Strategic Studies Institute, November 2008, p. 32.
jeudi 22 janvier 2009
mercredi 21 janvier 2009
M. OBAMA DEVANT LES DECOMBRES
Par Serge Halimi
L’entrée en fonction de M. Barack Obama confirmera une triple rupture.
D’abord politique. C’est la première fois depuis 1965 qu’un président démocrate entame son mandat dans un contexte de faiblesse, voire de déroute des forces conservatrices. En 1977, M. James Carter l’avait d’abord emporté (de justesse) grâce à sa promesse d’un renouveau moral (« Je ne vous mentirai jamais ») après le scandale du Watergate, sa présidence fut marquée par une politique monétariste et par les premières grandes mesures de déréglementation ; en 1993, M. William Clinton se présenta comme l’homme qui « moderniserait » le parti démocrate en reprenant à son compte nombre d’idées républicaines (la peine de mort, la mise en cause de l’aide sociale, l’austérité financière).
Ensuite une rupture économique. Le néolibéralisme à la Reagan n’est plus défendable même par ses partisans. Lors de sa dernière conférence de presse de président, lundi 12 janvier, M. George W. Bush l’a « volontiers admis » : « j’ai laissé de côté certains de mes principes libéraux quand mes conseillers économiques m’ont informé que la situation que nous allions connaître risquait d’être pire que la Grande dépression [la crise de 1929] ». « Pire », c’est tout de même aller un peu loin tant la crise de 1929 avait fait fermenter les « raisins de la colère » et failli faire basculer le pays dans le chaos. Toutefois, 2008 s’achève avec une perte de 2 600 000 emplois aux Etats-Unis, dont 1 900 000 rien que sur les quatre derniers mois de l’année. Cela représente la pire performance depuis 1945 — autant dire une chute libre. Passe encore si le pays possédait des comptes en équilibre et une possibilité illimitée de relance par l’endettement. Il en est loin… Le déficit budgétaire va atteindre cette année 1200 milliards de dollars et 8,3 % du PNB. Là encore, le chiffre est impressionnant tant il est mauvais : non seulement il excède les plus mauvais résultats de l’ère Reagan (6 % en 1983), mais il marque un triplement du déficit d’une année sur l’autre. Et, pour ne rien arranger, chaque jour semble annoncer une nouvelle faillite bancaire.
Une rupture diplomatique. Jamais, sans doute depuis la seconde guerre mondiale, l’image des Etats-Unis dans le monde n’avait été aussi dégradée. La plupart des pays estiment que la superpuissance américaine joue un rôle négatif dans les affaires du monde, souvent dans une proportion écrasante. Irak, Proche-Orient, Afghanistan : le statu quo paraît inenvisageable tant il est à la fois coûteux et meurtrier. Au demeurant, c’est en invoquant la nécessité d’un retrait d’Irak que M. Obama a commencé sa campagne en 2007 et c’est grâce à cette insistance qu’il a vaincu Mme Hillary Clinton — sa future secrétaire d’Etat …— lors des primaires démocrates. Le calendrier de ce retrait paraît toutefois déjà opposer le président élu (plus impatient) et les militaires (plus « prudents » (1)) . Mais l’impatience du premier ne s’explique en rien par une disposition pacifiste. Elle tient d’abord à la volonté de M. Obama de réaffecter en Afghanistan une partie des troupes retirées d’Irak. Or il n’est pas certain que les perspectives d’enlisement soient moins grandes à Kaboul qu’à Bagdad…
Politiquement, le nouveau président a les mains libres. Le paysage de décombres dont il hérite va condamner à une certaine retenue ses adversaires politiques. Son élection, largement acquise, a bénéficié de l’élan des forces vives de la nation, les jeunes en particulier. Enfin — les dossiers spéciaux souvent hagiographiques que la presse du monde entier consacre à M. Obama le suggèrent assez —, l’espérance que suscite son entrée à la Maison Blanche est immense ; et cela ne s’explique pas par le seul fait que le président des Etats-Unis est Noir. D’un coup, la « marque Amérique » s’est redressée. Quelques décisions à forte portée symbolique relatives à la fermeture de Guantanamo et à l’interdiction de la torture vont venir conforter ce sentiment d’ère nouvelle. « Nous devons mettre autant de diligence à nous conformer à nos valeurs et à protéger notre sécurité », a annoncé le nouveau président.
Ensuite, les difficultés commencent. Il ne suffit pas d’asperger l’économie américaine de liquidités pour que la machine économique et l’emploi se remettent en branle. L’inquiétude de la population quant à l’avenir est telle que, loin de s’apprêter à consommer davantage, elle épargne plus que jamais (2). Le taux d’endettement des ménages, qui ne cessait de progresser depuis 1952, a ainsi connu son premier recul au troisième trimestre de l’année dernière. Or ce qui est assurément souhaitable à moyen et à long terme met en danger la relance rapide par la consommation et par l’investissement qu’escompte la nouvelle équipe de la Maison Blanche. « Si nous ne faisons rien, cette récession pourrait durer des années », a prévenu M. Obama, désireux que son programme de dépenses supplémentaires de 775 milliards de dollars, composé de dépenses publiques et de baisses d’impôts, soit adopté au plus vite par le Congrès. Suffira-t-il ? Certains économistes démocrates comme Paul Krugman le jugent insuffisant et mal conçu (3).
La situation internationale ne paraît pas non plus se prêter à un résultat immédiat. Délibérément ou non, les dirigeants israéliens ont placé leur grand allié devant un fait accompli — une guerre particulièrement impopulaire dans le monde arabe — et obligé le nouveau président à se saisir séance tenante d’un dossier miné, qui ne constituait en rien sa priorité. La partialité dont il risque de faire preuve à cette occasion, car nul n’imagine plus que les Etats-Unis puissent un jour défendre une position équilibrée au Proche-Orient, pourrait entamer assez vite sa popularité internationale.
Mais tout ne se résume pas à un homme, même nouveau. D’autant que la nouveauté est beaucoup moins frappante quand on examine les choix faits par M. Obama pour son cabinet. Pour une ministre du travail proche des syndicats, Mme Hilda Solis, qui promet une rupture avec les politiques antérieures, il y a une ministre des affaires étrangères, Mme Clinton, dont les orientations diplomatiques tranchent moins avec le passé, et un ministre de la défense, M. Robert Gates, carrément hérité de l’administration Bush. Quant à la diversité de l’équipe, elle n’est assurément pas de nature sociologique. Vingt-deux des trente-cinq premières désignations de M. Obama sont diplômés d’une université d’élite américaine ou d’un collège huppé britannique… Voilà qui rappelle un peu le retour à la « compétence », aux « best and brightest » (les meilleurs et les plus brillants) de l’administration Kennedy-Johnson. L’immodestie qui caractérise ce genre d’individus les conduit parfois à présumer de leurs forces et à devenir les architectes de catastrophes planétaires, comme on l’observa lors de la guerre du Vietnam. Mais, aux Etats-Unis, par les temps qui courent, c’est plutôt l’enlisement « centriste » que l’audace du « Yes, we can » qui constituerait la menace la plus redoutable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lire « Timetable for Iraq too slow for Obama », International Herald Tribune, 15 janvier 2009.
(2) Cf. « Hard-Hit Families Finally Start Saving, Aggravating Nation’s Economic Woes », The Wall Street Journal, 6 janvier 2009.
(3) Paul Krugman, « The Obama Gap », The New York Times, 8 janvier 2009.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/carnet/2009-01-16-Obama-investiture - janvier 2009
L’entrée en fonction de M. Barack Obama confirmera une triple rupture.
D’abord politique. C’est la première fois depuis 1965 qu’un président démocrate entame son mandat dans un contexte de faiblesse, voire de déroute des forces conservatrices. En 1977, M. James Carter l’avait d’abord emporté (de justesse) grâce à sa promesse d’un renouveau moral (« Je ne vous mentirai jamais ») après le scandale du Watergate, sa présidence fut marquée par une politique monétariste et par les premières grandes mesures de déréglementation ; en 1993, M. William Clinton se présenta comme l’homme qui « moderniserait » le parti démocrate en reprenant à son compte nombre d’idées républicaines (la peine de mort, la mise en cause de l’aide sociale, l’austérité financière).
Ensuite une rupture économique. Le néolibéralisme à la Reagan n’est plus défendable même par ses partisans. Lors de sa dernière conférence de presse de président, lundi 12 janvier, M. George W. Bush l’a « volontiers admis » : « j’ai laissé de côté certains de mes principes libéraux quand mes conseillers économiques m’ont informé que la situation que nous allions connaître risquait d’être pire que la Grande dépression [la crise de 1929] ». « Pire », c’est tout de même aller un peu loin tant la crise de 1929 avait fait fermenter les « raisins de la colère » et failli faire basculer le pays dans le chaos. Toutefois, 2008 s’achève avec une perte de 2 600 000 emplois aux Etats-Unis, dont 1 900 000 rien que sur les quatre derniers mois de l’année. Cela représente la pire performance depuis 1945 — autant dire une chute libre. Passe encore si le pays possédait des comptes en équilibre et une possibilité illimitée de relance par l’endettement. Il en est loin… Le déficit budgétaire va atteindre cette année 1200 milliards de dollars et 8,3 % du PNB. Là encore, le chiffre est impressionnant tant il est mauvais : non seulement il excède les plus mauvais résultats de l’ère Reagan (6 % en 1983), mais il marque un triplement du déficit d’une année sur l’autre. Et, pour ne rien arranger, chaque jour semble annoncer une nouvelle faillite bancaire.
Une rupture diplomatique. Jamais, sans doute depuis la seconde guerre mondiale, l’image des Etats-Unis dans le monde n’avait été aussi dégradée. La plupart des pays estiment que la superpuissance américaine joue un rôle négatif dans les affaires du monde, souvent dans une proportion écrasante. Irak, Proche-Orient, Afghanistan : le statu quo paraît inenvisageable tant il est à la fois coûteux et meurtrier. Au demeurant, c’est en invoquant la nécessité d’un retrait d’Irak que M. Obama a commencé sa campagne en 2007 et c’est grâce à cette insistance qu’il a vaincu Mme Hillary Clinton — sa future secrétaire d’Etat …— lors des primaires démocrates. Le calendrier de ce retrait paraît toutefois déjà opposer le président élu (plus impatient) et les militaires (plus « prudents » (1)) . Mais l’impatience du premier ne s’explique en rien par une disposition pacifiste. Elle tient d’abord à la volonté de M. Obama de réaffecter en Afghanistan une partie des troupes retirées d’Irak. Or il n’est pas certain que les perspectives d’enlisement soient moins grandes à Kaboul qu’à Bagdad…
Politiquement, le nouveau président a les mains libres. Le paysage de décombres dont il hérite va condamner à une certaine retenue ses adversaires politiques. Son élection, largement acquise, a bénéficié de l’élan des forces vives de la nation, les jeunes en particulier. Enfin — les dossiers spéciaux souvent hagiographiques que la presse du monde entier consacre à M. Obama le suggèrent assez —, l’espérance que suscite son entrée à la Maison Blanche est immense ; et cela ne s’explique pas par le seul fait que le président des Etats-Unis est Noir. D’un coup, la « marque Amérique » s’est redressée. Quelques décisions à forte portée symbolique relatives à la fermeture de Guantanamo et à l’interdiction de la torture vont venir conforter ce sentiment d’ère nouvelle. « Nous devons mettre autant de diligence à nous conformer à nos valeurs et à protéger notre sécurité », a annoncé le nouveau président.
Ensuite, les difficultés commencent. Il ne suffit pas d’asperger l’économie américaine de liquidités pour que la machine économique et l’emploi se remettent en branle. L’inquiétude de la population quant à l’avenir est telle que, loin de s’apprêter à consommer davantage, elle épargne plus que jamais (2). Le taux d’endettement des ménages, qui ne cessait de progresser depuis 1952, a ainsi connu son premier recul au troisième trimestre de l’année dernière. Or ce qui est assurément souhaitable à moyen et à long terme met en danger la relance rapide par la consommation et par l’investissement qu’escompte la nouvelle équipe de la Maison Blanche. « Si nous ne faisons rien, cette récession pourrait durer des années », a prévenu M. Obama, désireux que son programme de dépenses supplémentaires de 775 milliards de dollars, composé de dépenses publiques et de baisses d’impôts, soit adopté au plus vite par le Congrès. Suffira-t-il ? Certains économistes démocrates comme Paul Krugman le jugent insuffisant et mal conçu (3).
La situation internationale ne paraît pas non plus se prêter à un résultat immédiat. Délibérément ou non, les dirigeants israéliens ont placé leur grand allié devant un fait accompli — une guerre particulièrement impopulaire dans le monde arabe — et obligé le nouveau président à se saisir séance tenante d’un dossier miné, qui ne constituait en rien sa priorité. La partialité dont il risque de faire preuve à cette occasion, car nul n’imagine plus que les Etats-Unis puissent un jour défendre une position équilibrée au Proche-Orient, pourrait entamer assez vite sa popularité internationale.
Mais tout ne se résume pas à un homme, même nouveau. D’autant que la nouveauté est beaucoup moins frappante quand on examine les choix faits par M. Obama pour son cabinet. Pour une ministre du travail proche des syndicats, Mme Hilda Solis, qui promet une rupture avec les politiques antérieures, il y a une ministre des affaires étrangères, Mme Clinton, dont les orientations diplomatiques tranchent moins avec le passé, et un ministre de la défense, M. Robert Gates, carrément hérité de l’administration Bush. Quant à la diversité de l’équipe, elle n’est assurément pas de nature sociologique. Vingt-deux des trente-cinq premières désignations de M. Obama sont diplômés d’une université d’élite américaine ou d’un collège huppé britannique… Voilà qui rappelle un peu le retour à la « compétence », aux « best and brightest » (les meilleurs et les plus brillants) de l’administration Kennedy-Johnson. L’immodestie qui caractérise ce genre d’individus les conduit parfois à présumer de leurs forces et à devenir les architectes de catastrophes planétaires, comme on l’observa lors de la guerre du Vietnam. Mais, aux Etats-Unis, par les temps qui courent, c’est plutôt l’enlisement « centriste » que l’audace du « Yes, we can » qui constituerait la menace la plus redoutable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lire « Timetable for Iraq too slow for Obama », International Herald Tribune, 15 janvier 2009.
(2) Cf. « Hard-Hit Families Finally Start Saving, Aggravating Nation’s Economic Woes », The Wall Street Journal, 6 janvier 2009.
(3) Paul Krugman, « The Obama Gap », The New York Times, 8 janvier 2009.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/carnet/2009-01-16-Obama-investiture - janvier 2009
THE BUSH'S LEGACY PART II: TRILLIONS IN DEFICITS FOR YEARS TO COME
Newsmax.com
The Bush Legacy Part II: Trillions in Deficits For Years to Come
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:46 PM
Newsmax.com Editorial
As Barack Obama assumes the mantle of the presidency and duties of the office, he has inherited from his predecessor a federal government that has a staggering national debt of more than $10 trillion, a ballooning federal deficit this year estimated at $438 billion – and a government that recently assumed responsibility for some $5 trillion of the nation’s consumer debt.
The irony is that George W. Bush, who billed himself as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, leaves a legacy of profligate federal spending, record debt and an economy in shambles.
A broad range of conservative thinkers, surveying the political and economic fallout of the two Bush terms, are openly voicing their concerns that it may take years for the Republican Party and the nation to repair the damage Bush policies have inflicted.
“Bush has added a staggering $32 trillion to unfunded government liabilities future generations of Americans will have to bear,” wrote the London Sunday Times’ Andrew Sullivan, a maverick conservative who described Bush’s economic policies as “fiscal madness.”
The huge spending increases came despite the fact that fellow Republicans controlled Congress for six of Bush’s eight years in office. And Bush did not veto a bill of any kind, including spending, until July 2006, and left office having cast the fewest vetoes of any modern president.
“Not vetoing [Democrats’] bills as the price for their support of the war meant endless red ink,” said Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
[Editor's Note: Read Part 1 of “The Bush Legacy: Conservatives Betrayed” - Go Here Now]
Leading conservative activist Richard A. Viguerie, publisher of ConservativeHQ.com, told Newsmax: “When Bush and the Republican Congress broke their commitment to the American people to govern as conservatives, they lost their moral authority and subtly sent signals that no one has to be obligated to keep commitments or be fiscally responsible.”
And Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund told Newsmax: “Where Bush fell down, I think, was — partly because of the war — he decided he was going to let Congress take control of the spending levers.
“Giving Congress control over spending, without a check from the presidential veto pen, is like giving teenagers car keys and a bottle of whiskey and asking them to behave – they’re just not going to do it.”
In Bush’s favor, he did cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 for many Americans. Like Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s, they worked, increasing economic activity and boosting government revenues. But unlike President Reagan, he failed to control the unbridled growth in spending. A grim look at Bush’s eight years:
When Bush was elected in 2000, the federal government had a surplus of more than $200 billion. By the end of his first year in office, that had dropped to just over $100 billion, and the government has run deficits every year since then.
The federal budget deficit hit a new record in the just-completed 2008 budget year — $438 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Bush’s first budget asked for $2 trillion in spending. For his last budget, the figure was $3.1 trillion — a 50 percent rise in eight years. During the same period, inflation climbed only 20 percent.
Even during his first term, when Republicans controlled Congress, Bush had an annualized real growth in discretionary spending of 8 percent, compared to 4.6 percent for Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” spending spree.
When Bush took the oath of office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. As Bush departed Washington on Tuesday, it had grown by almost $5 trillion to more than $10.6 trillion – a quantum increase of nearly 100 percent. Today, each American shares a burden of $34,800 for this debt.
And Americans are paying for it in taxes. Interest on the debt in just the first nine months of the current fiscal year was nearly $400 billion. And a quarter of that outlay went to other countries that hold our debt instruments.
“Nowhere does there seem an awareness that the ideas [Bush] absorbed at his father’s knee and the Harvard Business School,” columnist Patrick Buchanan wrote, “had resulted in the de-industrialization of his country, an enormous and growing dependency on Japan, China and Asia for the essentials of our national life, and, now, for the borrowed money to pay for them.”
Bush oversaw the greatest increase in discretionary social spending in history, beginning with the No Child Left Behind program that he proposed as soon as he took office. That program alone has added billions to the federal government’s education funding, which rose from $42 billion in 2001 to nearly $60 billion last year.
Bush signed the bill providing prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients. That program was originally projected to cost $400 billion over 10 years. More recent estimates put the cost at $725 billion through the year 2015.
President Bush placed the United States on a global interventionist path for the elusive goal of “democracy.” The U.S. has now spent more than $800 billion on the Iraq war, with estimates of the ultimate cost as high as $4 trillion.
The Defense budget has swelled to $650 billion for fiscal 2009, including supplemental and emergency discretionary funds. The Department of Homeland Security Department tacks on another $50 billion in expenditures each year.
The huge increases in Defense and Homeland Security came in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But consider that al-Qaida plotters spent between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and execute the attacks, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
During Bush’s tenure, his administration pushed the Federal Reserve for easy money and turned a blind eye to dangerous banking practices, such as zero percent equity mortgages, and Wall Street financial practices that were motivated by greed, not good business sense.
This led to the housing market collapse and the financial meltdown that followed, necessitating the huge $700 billion-plus bailout program that could push the deficit into the stratosphere.
Obama himself has already warned of trillion-dollar federal budget deficits for years to come. He will have his predecessor to blame for creating the mess.
Bush himself has laid the groundwork for his successor to fulfill a socialist agenda for the nation. Obama has pledged a new stimulus program, including massive public works projects that will essentially add as many as 3 million employees paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Bush also created an awful precedent by agreeing to a bridge loan bailout of Detroit of $17.4 billion. When Congress, led by Senate Republicans, blocked legislation for such a giveaway to the dying U.S. auto industry, Bush plowed away anyway.
Without congressional approval he appropriated billions from the TARP legislation Congress provided for Wall Street.
No matter that TARP specifically said the money should be used only for the “finance” industry.
In November, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino had acknowledged: “The TARP funding is there for financial institutions . . . Congress never intended for individual industries to be able to come forward . . . There’s not an appetite in Congress, or in the administration, to open up the TARP funding for individual industries.”
For sure, Bush has created dangerous precedents that will likely be abused by succeeding presidents.
In his closing days in office, after long betraying conservative principles, Bush had the temerity to blame the economic disaster on the free market and cast himself as some sort of hero.
"I will be known as somebody (who) saw a problem and put the chips on the table to prevent the economy from collapsing," Bush told Fox News. "I'm a free-market guy. But I'm not going to let this economy crater in order to preserve the free-market system."
Huh?
Bush views his role in the economic collapse as if he was an innocent bystander caught in the winds of the free market.
Asked at his last press conference about the burdens of being president, Bush mocked the idea, telling the press said the “burdens of the office is (sic) overstated.”
Acting if he was deeply worried about the economy, he said with sarcasm, “Why me, the burdens? Why did the financial collapse have to happen on my watch? It’s just pathetic; the self pity.”
Bush’s response also offered a more subtle message. He was not responsible for economic problems that simply happened on his “watch.”
Not everyone has bought Bush’s view.
“Where was President Bush while all this was happening?” Fox News’ Bill O‘Reilly asked in a recent column.
“He continued to put forth that the economy was fundamentally strong when it was not. That is on the president. If his economic advisers misled him, he should have said so. But Bush is leaving office with no credible explanation for the collapse.”
Columnist Thomas Sowell added that the bailout money “is just a gift to the Democrats to spend in whatever ways will advance the interests of their constituents and of the Democratic Party.”
The bailout “does ensure that President Bush will have a legacy. It’s a legacy that will set back the concept of economic liberty by a century,” Competitive Enterprise Institute President Fred Smith said.
Assessing the Bush presidency, Viguerie declared: “Bush’s big government approach to his presidency, including massive expansion of the power and reach of the federal government domestically and in foreign affairs, blurred the difference between the two parties, thereby discouraging Republicans, emboldening Democrats and confusing and angering the center.
“Bush’s massive expansion of the Federal government and deficit spending has undone the work of a generation of conservatives, wiped out 30 years of electoral victories of Republicans, and encouraged Democrats to increase their desire to make America a socialist country.”
[Editor's Note: Read Part 1 of “The Bush Legacy: Conservatives Betrayed” - Go Here Now]
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The Bush Legacy Part II: Trillions in Deficits For Years to Come
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:46 PM
Newsmax.com Editorial
As Barack Obama assumes the mantle of the presidency and duties of the office, he has inherited from his predecessor a federal government that has a staggering national debt of more than $10 trillion, a ballooning federal deficit this year estimated at $438 billion – and a government that recently assumed responsibility for some $5 trillion of the nation’s consumer debt.
The irony is that George W. Bush, who billed himself as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, leaves a legacy of profligate federal spending, record debt and an economy in shambles.
A broad range of conservative thinkers, surveying the political and economic fallout of the two Bush terms, are openly voicing their concerns that it may take years for the Republican Party and the nation to repair the damage Bush policies have inflicted.
“Bush has added a staggering $32 trillion to unfunded government liabilities future generations of Americans will have to bear,” wrote the London Sunday Times’ Andrew Sullivan, a maverick conservative who described Bush’s economic policies as “fiscal madness.”
The huge spending increases came despite the fact that fellow Republicans controlled Congress for six of Bush’s eight years in office. And Bush did not veto a bill of any kind, including spending, until July 2006, and left office having cast the fewest vetoes of any modern president.
“Not vetoing [Democrats’] bills as the price for their support of the war meant endless red ink,” said Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
[Editor's Note: Read Part 1 of “The Bush Legacy: Conservatives Betrayed” - Go Here Now]
Leading conservative activist Richard A. Viguerie, publisher of ConservativeHQ.com, told Newsmax: “When Bush and the Republican Congress broke their commitment to the American people to govern as conservatives, they lost their moral authority and subtly sent signals that no one has to be obligated to keep commitments or be fiscally responsible.”
And Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund told Newsmax: “Where Bush fell down, I think, was — partly because of the war — he decided he was going to let Congress take control of the spending levers.
“Giving Congress control over spending, without a check from the presidential veto pen, is like giving teenagers car keys and a bottle of whiskey and asking them to behave – they’re just not going to do it.”
In Bush’s favor, he did cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 for many Americans. Like Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s, they worked, increasing economic activity and boosting government revenues. But unlike President Reagan, he failed to control the unbridled growth in spending. A grim look at Bush’s eight years:
When Bush was elected in 2000, the federal government had a surplus of more than $200 billion. By the end of his first year in office, that had dropped to just over $100 billion, and the government has run deficits every year since then.
The federal budget deficit hit a new record in the just-completed 2008 budget year — $438 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Bush’s first budget asked for $2 trillion in spending. For his last budget, the figure was $3.1 trillion — a 50 percent rise in eight years. During the same period, inflation climbed only 20 percent.
Even during his first term, when Republicans controlled Congress, Bush had an annualized real growth in discretionary spending of 8 percent, compared to 4.6 percent for Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” spending spree.
When Bush took the oath of office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. As Bush departed Washington on Tuesday, it had grown by almost $5 trillion to more than $10.6 trillion – a quantum increase of nearly 100 percent. Today, each American shares a burden of $34,800 for this debt.
And Americans are paying for it in taxes. Interest on the debt in just the first nine months of the current fiscal year was nearly $400 billion. And a quarter of that outlay went to other countries that hold our debt instruments.
“Nowhere does there seem an awareness that the ideas [Bush] absorbed at his father’s knee and the Harvard Business School,” columnist Patrick Buchanan wrote, “had resulted in the de-industrialization of his country, an enormous and growing dependency on Japan, China and Asia for the essentials of our national life, and, now, for the borrowed money to pay for them.”
Bush oversaw the greatest increase in discretionary social spending in history, beginning with the No Child Left Behind program that he proposed as soon as he took office. That program alone has added billions to the federal government’s education funding, which rose from $42 billion in 2001 to nearly $60 billion last year.
Bush signed the bill providing prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients. That program was originally projected to cost $400 billion over 10 years. More recent estimates put the cost at $725 billion through the year 2015.
President Bush placed the United States on a global interventionist path for the elusive goal of “democracy.” The U.S. has now spent more than $800 billion on the Iraq war, with estimates of the ultimate cost as high as $4 trillion.
The Defense budget has swelled to $650 billion for fiscal 2009, including supplemental and emergency discretionary funds. The Department of Homeland Security Department tacks on another $50 billion in expenditures each year.
The huge increases in Defense and Homeland Security came in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But consider that al-Qaida plotters spent between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and execute the attacks, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
During Bush’s tenure, his administration pushed the Federal Reserve for easy money and turned a blind eye to dangerous banking practices, such as zero percent equity mortgages, and Wall Street financial practices that were motivated by greed, not good business sense.
This led to the housing market collapse and the financial meltdown that followed, necessitating the huge $700 billion-plus bailout program that could push the deficit into the stratosphere.
Obama himself has already warned of trillion-dollar federal budget deficits for years to come. He will have his predecessor to blame for creating the mess.
Bush himself has laid the groundwork for his successor to fulfill a socialist agenda for the nation. Obama has pledged a new stimulus program, including massive public works projects that will essentially add as many as 3 million employees paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Bush also created an awful precedent by agreeing to a bridge loan bailout of Detroit of $17.4 billion. When Congress, led by Senate Republicans, blocked legislation for such a giveaway to the dying U.S. auto industry, Bush plowed away anyway.
Without congressional approval he appropriated billions from the TARP legislation Congress provided for Wall Street.
No matter that TARP specifically said the money should be used only for the “finance” industry.
In November, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino had acknowledged: “The TARP funding is there for financial institutions . . . Congress never intended for individual industries to be able to come forward . . . There’s not an appetite in Congress, or in the administration, to open up the TARP funding for individual industries.”
For sure, Bush has created dangerous precedents that will likely be abused by succeeding presidents.
In his closing days in office, after long betraying conservative principles, Bush had the temerity to blame the economic disaster on the free market and cast himself as some sort of hero.
"I will be known as somebody (who) saw a problem and put the chips on the table to prevent the economy from collapsing," Bush told Fox News. "I'm a free-market guy. But I'm not going to let this economy crater in order to preserve the free-market system."
Huh?
Bush views his role in the economic collapse as if he was an innocent bystander caught in the winds of the free market.
Asked at his last press conference about the burdens of being president, Bush mocked the idea, telling the press said the “burdens of the office is (sic) overstated.”
Acting if he was deeply worried about the economy, he said with sarcasm, “Why me, the burdens? Why did the financial collapse have to happen on my watch? It’s just pathetic; the self pity.”
Bush’s response also offered a more subtle message. He was not responsible for economic problems that simply happened on his “watch.”
Not everyone has bought Bush’s view.
“Where was President Bush while all this was happening?” Fox News’ Bill O‘Reilly asked in a recent column.
“He continued to put forth that the economy was fundamentally strong when it was not. That is on the president. If his economic advisers misled him, he should have said so. But Bush is leaving office with no credible explanation for the collapse.”
Columnist Thomas Sowell added that the bailout money “is just a gift to the Democrats to spend in whatever ways will advance the interests of their constituents and of the Democratic Party.”
The bailout “does ensure that President Bush will have a legacy. It’s a legacy that will set back the concept of economic liberty by a century,” Competitive Enterprise Institute President Fred Smith said.
Assessing the Bush presidency, Viguerie declared: “Bush’s big government approach to his presidency, including massive expansion of the power and reach of the federal government domestically and in foreign affairs, blurred the difference between the two parties, thereby discouraging Republicans, emboldening Democrats and confusing and angering the center.
“Bush’s massive expansion of the Federal government and deficit spending has undone the work of a generation of conservatives, wiped out 30 years of electoral victories of Republicans, and encouraged Democrats to increase their desire to make America a socialist country.”
[Editor's Note: Read Part 1 of “The Bush Legacy: Conservatives Betrayed” - Go Here Now]
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
OBAMA'S WORDS: INAUGURAL ADDRESS
Obama's words: Inaugural address
The following is the prepared text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address, delivered Jan. 20, 2009, in Washington, D.C.:
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Source: Presidential Inaugural Committee
The following is the prepared text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address, delivered Jan. 20, 2009, in Washington, D.C.:
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Source: Presidential Inaugural Committee
mardi 20 janvier 2009
BUSH'S LEGACY: CONSERVATIVES WERE BETRAYED
Newsmax.com
Bush's Legacy: Conservatives Were Betrayed
Monday, January 19, 2009 5:17 PM
Newsmax.com Editorial
"This administration has had a good, solid record, and I'm very proud of it. I tell people I leave town with a great sense of accomplishment and my head held high.”
—George W. Bush, Jan. 13, 2009
As the 43rd president waves goodbye to Washington, relatively few Americans share his proud assessment of his own presidency.
George W. Bush leaves the White House with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. According to Gallup, only Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered the double whammy of a bad economy and the unpopular Korean War, had lower approval ratings when they left the White House.
Today, Bush’s legacy to his successor is two unresolved wars, a global image that is deeply tarnished, and the greatest economic crisis in modern times.
Conservatives who backed Bush in two successive elections have little to show for their efforts. Bush, in fact, has decimated the Republican brand.
Bush oversaw the greatest increase in discretionary social spending in history as the federal government usurped new powers in its war on terror. He placed the United States on a global interventionist path for the elusive goal of “democracy.” Ronald Reagan would not be able to recognize the party he knew, which espoused limited government, protection of personal liberty, and the idea that the U.S. should lead globally by example rather than by force.
The best that can be said of President Bush is that he kept America’s homeland safe. During his watch, we did not experience another terror attack on U.S. soil after Sept. 11.
It is a laudable fact, but one that came at enormous financial cost and an erosion of personal freedoms. Still, for all the talk about al-Qaida’s weakened state, Osama bin Laden remains at large despite Bush’s pledge to capture him “dead or alive.”
And if a major terror attack were to take place under the new Obama administration, his supporters will be quick to pin the blame on the Bush regime.
Voters’ bitter memories of George Bush may soften with time. As Truman’s example suggests, presidencies often appear quite different once placed in a historical context.
On the other hand, if the economic crisis worsens or another major terror attack happened soon after Bush departs the White House, he may be “Hooverized” – with a generation of Democratic politicians running successfully against his memory as they did against Herbert Hoover whose policies were linked to the Great Depression.
There’s no escaping the fact that Bush presided over one of the most tumultuous, and least popular, presidencies of modern times, in large part because of the Iraq war.
The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have come at enormous cost in terms of blood and national treasure.
About 4,200 Americans have died, and more than 30,000 have been wounded. The U.S. has spent more than $800 billion on the Iraq effort, with estimates of the ultimate cost as high as $4 trillion.
The war was justified on the legitimate evidence, first offered by the Clinton administration, that Saddam Hussein was intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Hussein had flouted agreements with the United Nations, and his riddance was a desirable goal.
But almost from the beginning, the war was flawed. The American occupiers quickly fired the entire Iraqi military, leaving not only a tremendous vacuum of authority but also turning loose trained military professionals to join terror cells and paramilitary groups who would work to undermine the U.S. efforts.
Some Pentagon military advisers suggested the U.S. military force was too light to accomplish the goal of both invading Iraq and stabilizing the country. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strongly resisted deploying a larger force.
And as casualties mounted in the early part of the war, the administration continued to resist sending additional troops. Only after the 2006 elections did Bush sign off on the surge that added 30,000 troops in the spring of 2007, under the command of Gen. David Petraeus.
The surge helped, as did a more aggressive policy to pay off Iraqi Sunnis who turned against al-Qaida — the so-called “Anbar Awakening.”
Another ingredient: U.S. and Iraqi authorities rounded up tens of thousands of likely dissidents and imprisoned them. The effect of this action may be short lived, as many of these agitators eventually will be released. But the immediate impact of the surge has been good. By the end of 2008, U.S. troop deaths dropped to an average of 14 per month, down from 100 a month two previous years.
Still, the likelihood is that such calm will not prevail once American troops are removed and the goal of establishing a stable democracy in an Arab state may still prove elusive.
It should be remembered that, sometime after the invasion, the raison d’etre of the war changed from removing Saddam from power and stopping his weapons of mass destruction program to a dreamy plan of creating a democracy in Iraq.
In Bush’s second inauguration speech, he echoed the thoughts expressed in former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky’s book “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.” Bush said: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
Such Wilsonian thoughts are laudable, but have long been discarded by conservatives as dangerous and unworkable. Even Sharansky himself had said that Iraq did not have the necessary cultural and political ingredients to create a stable democracy.
In that effort to create a new Iraqi democracy, the Sunni Muslims — more sympathetic to the West — were pushed aside and the Shias ascended to power in Baghdad. The American-backed power shift in Iraq also created a new regional ally for Shia-dominated Iran, a major threat to the region.
After 9/11, as the U.S. considered making Saddam’s regime its prime target of revenge, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly warned the president, "You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people.” He noted that the U.S. would have little room to maneuver in dealing with other global problems.
"It's going to suck the oxygen out of everything," Powell added. "This will become the first term."
It also became the second term. Powell’s stunning assessment was accurate. The U.S. became stuck in an Iraqi mire after its successful 2003 invasion, meanwhile elsewhere its enemies grew in power.
Shortly after Sept. 11, Bush himself warned of an “axis of evil” and identified not only Iraq but also Iran and North Korea as posing real threats to American security interests. Ironically, as a result of U.S. efforts to occupy Iraq, Iran and North Korea have progressed in their desire to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Iran, for example, continues to defy U.N. Security Council demands to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment program, which is key to fashioning fuel for an atomic weapon. A recent report disclosed that Iran could soon have enough enriched uranium to build a small nuclear weapon. That’s a daunting thought considering that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be “wiped off the map.”
More disturbing is a recent New York Times report that Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran’s main nuclear complex.
The Times said Israel was rebuffed after it requested from the U.S. specialized bunker-busting bombs that it needs to attack Iran’s nuclear complex at Natanz. The U.S. also reportedly nixed permission to the Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraqi territory to reach Iran.
With the focus in Iraq, the second war, in Afghanistan, almost became a forgotten one. The effort at first appeared to be highly successful, dethroning the Taliban, with the U.S. and NATO seemingly playing ancillary roles to bolster an indigenous government. But the government of Hamid Karzai has weakened increasingly and is rife with corruption. The Taliban has regrouped and has benefited from the Afghan opium poppy trade, which has grown enormously. Now the U.S. is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into southern Afghanistan to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected.
As the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia has aggressively asserted its power over its neighbors. It recently used its “energy weapon” and shut down its delivery of natural gas to Eastern Europe via the pipeline network in Ukraine over a pricing dispute. It shockingly disregarded all international conventions by sending its troops into Georgia. Its strongman, Vladimir Putin, has moved his nation from a nurturing democracy to an authoritarian state.
Others, such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, also have run amok, thumbing their noses right in our own back yard. Across Latin America, with Chavez financing, leftist, anti-American governments have swept to power. In Mexico, perhaps the most critical nation for the U.S., the political infrastructure has crumbled as it moves perilously close to becoming a narco-regime.
A U.S. military report warned that Mexico could face a “rapid and sudden collapse,” and just last week, retiring CIA Director Michael Hayden said Mexico could rank alongside Iran as a challenge for Barack Obama and be a greater problem than Iraq.
Perhaps the most calamitous effect of the Iraq war is the decline of the Republican Party’s fortunes. When Bush came to power in 2001, the GOP controlled both the House and Senate. But with the war wearing thin and no clear exit strategy in place, the Republicans lost control of both houses in 2006 after a dozen years in power.
The signal from the American people was clear that the Iraq war, at least its prosecution outlined by the president, did not have their support.
Rather than act on that signal, Bush refused to offer a practical exit strategy. The Republicans in Congress, who should have read the tea leaves and begun distancing themselves from Bush, continued their unfailing support the president.
The results in 2008 were disastrous. Obama, the most liberal candidate ever nominated, not only won the nomination from favorite Hillary Clinton, who had been early supporter of the war, but also delivered a crushing defeat of Republican John McCain, carrying 29 states and winning 365 electoral votes.
Republicans in Congress, who could have mitigated losses by becoming an active critic of Bush’s domestic policies, were hit harder. In the House, Democrats gained 21 seats to hold a 257-178 majority, while they picked up seven seats in the Senate for a total of 58, not including the disputed Senate seat that shows Al Franken leading in Minnesota.
Bush knew that his unchanging and unyielding course would hurt the party, recently saying he refused to "bail out my political party" by withdrawing troops "during the darkest days of Iraq."
He said in an interview: "I had faith that freedom exists in people's souls and therefore, if given a chance, democracy and Iraqi-style democracy could survive and work. I didn't compromise that principle for the sake of trying to bail out my political party."
But by failing to modify his desire for long-term democracy in Iraq and to offer a clear exit strategy, Bush not only hurt his own party but also helped his strongest political adversaries, paving the way for Democrats to gain almost complete hegemony over Congress and putting a strident critic of the Iraq war in White House. Obama, while moderating on issues since his election, has stated that he will seek a pullout of all U.S. forces within the first 16 months of taking office.
In the end, the result of the Iraq war will likely be no democracy in Iraq, virulently liberal control of all three branches of the federal government, and the threatened extinction of the Republican Party itself.
Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq and issues abroad also turned his attention away from pressing domestic issues and contributed to several major problems, including the financial meltdown.
The Bush-led federal government’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina drew widespread criticism and turned public sentiment against Bush and the Republicans after their post-9/11 rise in popularity.
A Vanity Fair article featuring interviews with people close to Bush disclosed that the consensus among his friends and critics alike is that Katrina marked the turning point of his presidency.
Dan Bartlett, White House communications director and later counselor to the president, was quoted as saying: “Politically, it was the final nail in the coffin.”
And Matthew Dowd, Bush's pollster, said: “Katrina to me was the tipping point. The president broke his bond with the public. Once that bond was broken, he no longer had the capacity to talk to the American public.”
Bush had the misfortune of being in office during the bursting of the housing bubble and the financial calamity that followed.
At a recent news conference, Bush said it was not his fault that the economy tanked on his watch, as if he were an innocent victim of the meltdown. But Bush is not without blame in the ongoing crisis.
During Bush’s tenure, his administration pushed the Federal Reserve for easy money as his administration turned a blind eye to far out banking practices, such as zero percent equity mortgages and Wall Street financial practices that were motivated by greed, not good business sense.
Huge amounts of cash flowed into new types of securities following the 2001 downturn, after the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to essentially replace the tech-equity bubble with a housing bubble. This occurred without the preoccupied Bush strengthening regulatory oversight to reduce risks to the overall economy.
The bottom line is that Bush’s overriding focus on Iraq — and his refusal to readjust course as circumstances and facts warranted – became the touchstone of an administration that, in so many areas, seemed unaccountable to principles or good sense.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Bush's Legacy: Conservatives Were Betrayed
Monday, January 19, 2009 5:17 PM
Newsmax.com Editorial
"This administration has had a good, solid record, and I'm very proud of it. I tell people I leave town with a great sense of accomplishment and my head held high.”
—George W. Bush, Jan. 13, 2009
As the 43rd president waves goodbye to Washington, relatively few Americans share his proud assessment of his own presidency.
George W. Bush leaves the White House with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. According to Gallup, only Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered the double whammy of a bad economy and the unpopular Korean War, had lower approval ratings when they left the White House.
Today, Bush’s legacy to his successor is two unresolved wars, a global image that is deeply tarnished, and the greatest economic crisis in modern times.
Conservatives who backed Bush in two successive elections have little to show for their efforts. Bush, in fact, has decimated the Republican brand.
Bush oversaw the greatest increase in discretionary social spending in history as the federal government usurped new powers in its war on terror. He placed the United States on a global interventionist path for the elusive goal of “democracy.” Ronald Reagan would not be able to recognize the party he knew, which espoused limited government, protection of personal liberty, and the idea that the U.S. should lead globally by example rather than by force.
The best that can be said of President Bush is that he kept America’s homeland safe. During his watch, we did not experience another terror attack on U.S. soil after Sept. 11.
It is a laudable fact, but one that came at enormous financial cost and an erosion of personal freedoms. Still, for all the talk about al-Qaida’s weakened state, Osama bin Laden remains at large despite Bush’s pledge to capture him “dead or alive.”
And if a major terror attack were to take place under the new Obama administration, his supporters will be quick to pin the blame on the Bush regime.
Voters’ bitter memories of George Bush may soften with time. As Truman’s example suggests, presidencies often appear quite different once placed in a historical context.
On the other hand, if the economic crisis worsens or another major terror attack happened soon after Bush departs the White House, he may be “Hooverized” – with a generation of Democratic politicians running successfully against his memory as they did against Herbert Hoover whose policies were linked to the Great Depression.
There’s no escaping the fact that Bush presided over one of the most tumultuous, and least popular, presidencies of modern times, in large part because of the Iraq war.
The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have come at enormous cost in terms of blood and national treasure.
About 4,200 Americans have died, and more than 30,000 have been wounded. The U.S. has spent more than $800 billion on the Iraq effort, with estimates of the ultimate cost as high as $4 trillion.
The war was justified on the legitimate evidence, first offered by the Clinton administration, that Saddam Hussein was intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Hussein had flouted agreements with the United Nations, and his riddance was a desirable goal.
But almost from the beginning, the war was flawed. The American occupiers quickly fired the entire Iraqi military, leaving not only a tremendous vacuum of authority but also turning loose trained military professionals to join terror cells and paramilitary groups who would work to undermine the U.S. efforts.
Some Pentagon military advisers suggested the U.S. military force was too light to accomplish the goal of both invading Iraq and stabilizing the country. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld strongly resisted deploying a larger force.
And as casualties mounted in the early part of the war, the administration continued to resist sending additional troops. Only after the 2006 elections did Bush sign off on the surge that added 30,000 troops in the spring of 2007, under the command of Gen. David Petraeus.
The surge helped, as did a more aggressive policy to pay off Iraqi Sunnis who turned against al-Qaida — the so-called “Anbar Awakening.”
Another ingredient: U.S. and Iraqi authorities rounded up tens of thousands of likely dissidents and imprisoned them. The effect of this action may be short lived, as many of these agitators eventually will be released. But the immediate impact of the surge has been good. By the end of 2008, U.S. troop deaths dropped to an average of 14 per month, down from 100 a month two previous years.
Still, the likelihood is that such calm will not prevail once American troops are removed and the goal of establishing a stable democracy in an Arab state may still prove elusive.
It should be remembered that, sometime after the invasion, the raison d’etre of the war changed from removing Saddam from power and stopping his weapons of mass destruction program to a dreamy plan of creating a democracy in Iraq.
In Bush’s second inauguration speech, he echoed the thoughts expressed in former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky’s book “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.” Bush said: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
Such Wilsonian thoughts are laudable, but have long been discarded by conservatives as dangerous and unworkable. Even Sharansky himself had said that Iraq did not have the necessary cultural and political ingredients to create a stable democracy.
In that effort to create a new Iraqi democracy, the Sunni Muslims — more sympathetic to the West — were pushed aside and the Shias ascended to power in Baghdad. The American-backed power shift in Iraq also created a new regional ally for Shia-dominated Iran, a major threat to the region.
After 9/11, as the U.S. considered making Saddam’s regime its prime target of revenge, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly warned the president, "You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people.” He noted that the U.S. would have little room to maneuver in dealing with other global problems.
"It's going to suck the oxygen out of everything," Powell added. "This will become the first term."
It also became the second term. Powell’s stunning assessment was accurate. The U.S. became stuck in an Iraqi mire after its successful 2003 invasion, meanwhile elsewhere its enemies grew in power.
Shortly after Sept. 11, Bush himself warned of an “axis of evil” and identified not only Iraq but also Iran and North Korea as posing real threats to American security interests. Ironically, as a result of U.S. efforts to occupy Iraq, Iran and North Korea have progressed in their desire to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Iran, for example, continues to defy U.N. Security Council demands to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment program, which is key to fashioning fuel for an atomic weapon. A recent report disclosed that Iran could soon have enough enriched uranium to build a small nuclear weapon. That’s a daunting thought considering that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be “wiped off the map.”
More disturbing is a recent New York Times report that Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran’s main nuclear complex.
The Times said Israel was rebuffed after it requested from the U.S. specialized bunker-busting bombs that it needs to attack Iran’s nuclear complex at Natanz. The U.S. also reportedly nixed permission to the Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraqi territory to reach Iran.
With the focus in Iraq, the second war, in Afghanistan, almost became a forgotten one. The effort at first appeared to be highly successful, dethroning the Taliban, with the U.S. and NATO seemingly playing ancillary roles to bolster an indigenous government. But the government of Hamid Karzai has weakened increasingly and is rife with corruption. The Taliban has regrouped and has benefited from the Afghan opium poppy trade, which has grown enormously. Now the U.S. is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into southern Afghanistan to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected.
As the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia has aggressively asserted its power over its neighbors. It recently used its “energy weapon” and shut down its delivery of natural gas to Eastern Europe via the pipeline network in Ukraine over a pricing dispute. It shockingly disregarded all international conventions by sending its troops into Georgia. Its strongman, Vladimir Putin, has moved his nation from a nurturing democracy to an authoritarian state.
Others, such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, also have run amok, thumbing their noses right in our own back yard. Across Latin America, with Chavez financing, leftist, anti-American governments have swept to power. In Mexico, perhaps the most critical nation for the U.S., the political infrastructure has crumbled as it moves perilously close to becoming a narco-regime.
A U.S. military report warned that Mexico could face a “rapid and sudden collapse,” and just last week, retiring CIA Director Michael Hayden said Mexico could rank alongside Iran as a challenge for Barack Obama and be a greater problem than Iraq.
Perhaps the most calamitous effect of the Iraq war is the decline of the Republican Party’s fortunes. When Bush came to power in 2001, the GOP controlled both the House and Senate. But with the war wearing thin and no clear exit strategy in place, the Republicans lost control of both houses in 2006 after a dozen years in power.
The signal from the American people was clear that the Iraq war, at least its prosecution outlined by the president, did not have their support.
Rather than act on that signal, Bush refused to offer a practical exit strategy. The Republicans in Congress, who should have read the tea leaves and begun distancing themselves from Bush, continued their unfailing support the president.
The results in 2008 were disastrous. Obama, the most liberal candidate ever nominated, not only won the nomination from favorite Hillary Clinton, who had been early supporter of the war, but also delivered a crushing defeat of Republican John McCain, carrying 29 states and winning 365 electoral votes.
Republicans in Congress, who could have mitigated losses by becoming an active critic of Bush’s domestic policies, were hit harder. In the House, Democrats gained 21 seats to hold a 257-178 majority, while they picked up seven seats in the Senate for a total of 58, not including the disputed Senate seat that shows Al Franken leading in Minnesota.
Bush knew that his unchanging and unyielding course would hurt the party, recently saying he refused to "bail out my political party" by withdrawing troops "during the darkest days of Iraq."
He said in an interview: "I had faith that freedom exists in people's souls and therefore, if given a chance, democracy and Iraqi-style democracy could survive and work. I didn't compromise that principle for the sake of trying to bail out my political party."
But by failing to modify his desire for long-term democracy in Iraq and to offer a clear exit strategy, Bush not only hurt his own party but also helped his strongest political adversaries, paving the way for Democrats to gain almost complete hegemony over Congress and putting a strident critic of the Iraq war in White House. Obama, while moderating on issues since his election, has stated that he will seek a pullout of all U.S. forces within the first 16 months of taking office.
In the end, the result of the Iraq war will likely be no democracy in Iraq, virulently liberal control of all three branches of the federal government, and the threatened extinction of the Republican Party itself.
Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq and issues abroad also turned his attention away from pressing domestic issues and contributed to several major problems, including the financial meltdown.
The Bush-led federal government’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina drew widespread criticism and turned public sentiment against Bush and the Republicans after their post-9/11 rise in popularity.
A Vanity Fair article featuring interviews with people close to Bush disclosed that the consensus among his friends and critics alike is that Katrina marked the turning point of his presidency.
Dan Bartlett, White House communications director and later counselor to the president, was quoted as saying: “Politically, it was the final nail in the coffin.”
And Matthew Dowd, Bush's pollster, said: “Katrina to me was the tipping point. The president broke his bond with the public. Once that bond was broken, he no longer had the capacity to talk to the American public.”
Bush had the misfortune of being in office during the bursting of the housing bubble and the financial calamity that followed.
At a recent news conference, Bush said it was not his fault that the economy tanked on his watch, as if he were an innocent victim of the meltdown. But Bush is not without blame in the ongoing crisis.
During Bush’s tenure, his administration pushed the Federal Reserve for easy money as his administration turned a blind eye to far out banking practices, such as zero percent equity mortgages and Wall Street financial practices that were motivated by greed, not good business sense.
Huge amounts of cash flowed into new types of securities following the 2001 downturn, after the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to essentially replace the tech-equity bubble with a housing bubble. This occurred without the preoccupied Bush strengthening regulatory oversight to reduce risks to the overall economy.
The bottom line is that Bush’s overriding focus on Iraq — and his refusal to readjust course as circumstances and facts warranted – became the touchstone of an administration that, in so many areas, seemed unaccountable to principles or good sense.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
dimanche 18 janvier 2009
EDUCATION ET LES NOUVELLES THEORIES DE LA CROISSANCE
Education et les nouvelles théories de la croissance
(extrait du Journal Le Matin du 7 mars 2008)
Par Guichard DORE
Les nouvelles théories de la croissance développées au cours de ces dernières années font reposer le progrès économique sur quatre facteurs fondamentaux : l’innovation et l’adaptation technologique sont les moteurs de la croissance ; l’innovation technologique sont produites pour une large part au sein des entreprises ; l’entreprise est un milieu apprenant ; toute innovation nouvelle accélère l’obsolescence des technologies existantes (destruction créatrice de Schumpeter) ; le stock de capital humain conditionne l’aptitude des pays à innover et/ou à rattraper les pays les plus avancés. Ces mêmes théories expliquent, d’une part, que les différences de niveaux de développement économique constatées entre les pays sont largement dues à des différences dans leurs systèmes et politiques de R&D et, d’autre part, aux différences entre leurs systèmes éducatifs vu que les systèmes d’éducation conditionnent le travail qualifié susceptible d’engendrer le progrès technique. Quelque soit le pays et son niveau de développement technologique, l’éducation, au sens large, et la recherche sont considérées comme facteur de croissance.
L’attitude d’un pays et ses efforts de R&D varient selon qu’il est proche ou loin de la frontière technologique (Etats-Unis) . Dans un pays proche de la frontière technologique, (Allemagne, France) l’éducation augmente l’offre de chercheurs ou développeurs potentiels et par la suite renforce les effets incitatifs d’une politique directe de subvention à la R&D et à l’innovation. Dans un pays loin de la frontière technologique (République Dominicaine, Chili), l’éducation et la R&D facilitent l’adoption de nouvelles technologies introduites antérieurement dans les pays les plus avancés et leurs adaptations aux situations géographiques et économiques locales (innovations incrémentales) . Pour les théoriciens de la croissance, il y a une complémentarité entre éducation et progrès technique et on doit la retrouver au niveau de la politique économique d’un pays qui conduit une politique de croissance. Un pays qui veut atteindre la croissance doit : subventionner la R&D et aider à l’équipement des laboratoires des entreprises innovantes ; avoir une politique de droit de propriété sur l’innovation ; améliorer qualitativement le système national d’éducation et de formation ; fluidifier le marché du travail en fournissant des informations pertinentes sur l’offre et la demande du travail hautement qualifié.
Face aux défis du développement économique, les pays réagissent différemment quitte à sacrifier une génération pour atteindre la croissance économique (Chine) ou instaurer un système dual par l’accélération d’une société à deux vitesses (Inde). En Amérique Latine, le Brésil et le Mexique ont privilégié l’éducation élitiste en mettant l’accent sur la formation supérieure et la recherche en laissant une large partie de la population non alphabétisée ce qui explique, en partie, la croissance déséquilibrée des Etats du Brésil et du Mexique. Certains pays de l’Asie ont mis l’accent sur l’enseignement classique et professionnel sans pour autant négliger l’enseignement supérieur. Ils ont une croissance équilibrée. Un pays comme la Philippine, par exemple, s’en sort très bien. Elle exporte de matière grise dans le monde (40% de cadres de haut niveau). Pour l’année 2006, le PIB a enregistré une croissance de 5,4% soutenue principalement par la croissance de la consommation (5,5%), les transferts en devise de la diaspora philippine (12,8 USD), la croissance des exportations (12,1%).
Importance d’une éducation efficace
Une éducation efficace doit permettre à chacun d’assurer son entrée dans la vie professionnelle et d’exercer ses droits et devoirs de citoyen. Elle doit fournir à l’économie les ressources humaines nécessaires à la production du travail. Les progrès de l’éducation accompagnent ceux de l’économie et, par conséquent, l’évolution des techniques de production, sans qu’il soit toujours aisé « de distinguer les causalités respectives dans la complexité des interactions »[1]. Les grands desseins économiques se sont toujours joints à une expansion de l’éducation. Une éducation efficace doit faciliter la transformation des pratiques professionnelles, améliorer les techniques séculaires de production tout en faisant évoluer les traditions ancestrales surtout en milieu rural. La politique éducative peut se situer dans une logique adaptative ou dans une perspective ‘’pratico-utilitarist e ’’ afin de répondre aux besoins de l’économie en termes de main–d’œuvre. En ce sens, tout l’effort s’oriente vers la formation de la main-d’œuvre, la qualification professionnelle, la promotion scientifique et technique. Dans une telle perspective, la confrontation « des besoins aux disponibilité s prévisionnelles de la main d’œuvre pour chaque catégorie »[2] est nécessaire pour pouvoir mieux ajuster les sorties du système éducatif à la réalité du monde du travail.
Le système éducatif, par ses activités immenses et de recherches, devient lui- même un secteur productif. L’éducation est une activité pourvoyeuse d’emplois, et dans certains pays ou régions, elle est un service marchand qui tire les autres composantes de l’économie. Elle se situe, en termes budgétaires dans certains Etats, au second rang après les dépenses militaires. « Avec le temps, l’éducation pénètre dans tous les compartiments de la vie sociale. Elle constitue une composante importante de tout effort de développement et de progrès humain et prend une place non négligeable dans l’élaboration des politiques nationales »[3].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] FAURE E. et al. (1972). Apprendre à être, UNESCO, Fayard, Paris, p. xxv.
[2] GRAVOT P. (1993).Economie de l’éducation, Economica Paris, p. 194.
[3] DORE G. (2006). Crise de l’éducation, élément de frein au développement d’Haïti, Université Paris XII, p. 25.
(extrait du Journal Le Matin du 7 mars 2008)
Par Guichard DORE
Les nouvelles théories de la croissance développées au cours de ces dernières années font reposer le progrès économique sur quatre facteurs fondamentaux : l’innovation et l’adaptation technologique sont les moteurs de la croissance ; l’innovation technologique sont produites pour une large part au sein des entreprises ; l’entreprise est un milieu apprenant ; toute innovation nouvelle accélère l’obsolescence des technologies existantes (destruction créatrice de Schumpeter) ; le stock de capital humain conditionne l’aptitude des pays à innover et/ou à rattraper les pays les plus avancés. Ces mêmes théories expliquent, d’une part, que les différences de niveaux de développement économique constatées entre les pays sont largement dues à des différences dans leurs systèmes et politiques de R&D et, d’autre part, aux différences entre leurs systèmes éducatifs vu que les systèmes d’éducation conditionnent le travail qualifié susceptible d’engendrer le progrès technique. Quelque soit le pays et son niveau de développement technologique, l’éducation, au sens large, et la recherche sont considérées comme facteur de croissance.
L’attitude d’un pays et ses efforts de R&D varient selon qu’il est proche ou loin de la frontière technologique (Etats-Unis) . Dans un pays proche de la frontière technologique, (Allemagne, France) l’éducation augmente l’offre de chercheurs ou développeurs potentiels et par la suite renforce les effets incitatifs d’une politique directe de subvention à la R&D et à l’innovation. Dans un pays loin de la frontière technologique (République Dominicaine, Chili), l’éducation et la R&D facilitent l’adoption de nouvelles technologies introduites antérieurement dans les pays les plus avancés et leurs adaptations aux situations géographiques et économiques locales (innovations incrémentales) . Pour les théoriciens de la croissance, il y a une complémentarité entre éducation et progrès technique et on doit la retrouver au niveau de la politique économique d’un pays qui conduit une politique de croissance. Un pays qui veut atteindre la croissance doit : subventionner la R&D et aider à l’équipement des laboratoires des entreprises innovantes ; avoir une politique de droit de propriété sur l’innovation ; améliorer qualitativement le système national d’éducation et de formation ; fluidifier le marché du travail en fournissant des informations pertinentes sur l’offre et la demande du travail hautement qualifié.
Face aux défis du développement économique, les pays réagissent différemment quitte à sacrifier une génération pour atteindre la croissance économique (Chine) ou instaurer un système dual par l’accélération d’une société à deux vitesses (Inde). En Amérique Latine, le Brésil et le Mexique ont privilégié l’éducation élitiste en mettant l’accent sur la formation supérieure et la recherche en laissant une large partie de la population non alphabétisée ce qui explique, en partie, la croissance déséquilibrée des Etats du Brésil et du Mexique. Certains pays de l’Asie ont mis l’accent sur l’enseignement classique et professionnel sans pour autant négliger l’enseignement supérieur. Ils ont une croissance équilibrée. Un pays comme la Philippine, par exemple, s’en sort très bien. Elle exporte de matière grise dans le monde (40% de cadres de haut niveau). Pour l’année 2006, le PIB a enregistré une croissance de 5,4% soutenue principalement par la croissance de la consommation (5,5%), les transferts en devise de la diaspora philippine (12,8 USD), la croissance des exportations (12,1%).
Importance d’une éducation efficace
Une éducation efficace doit permettre à chacun d’assurer son entrée dans la vie professionnelle et d’exercer ses droits et devoirs de citoyen. Elle doit fournir à l’économie les ressources humaines nécessaires à la production du travail. Les progrès de l’éducation accompagnent ceux de l’économie et, par conséquent, l’évolution des techniques de production, sans qu’il soit toujours aisé « de distinguer les causalités respectives dans la complexité des interactions »[1]. Les grands desseins économiques se sont toujours joints à une expansion de l’éducation. Une éducation efficace doit faciliter la transformation des pratiques professionnelles, améliorer les techniques séculaires de production tout en faisant évoluer les traditions ancestrales surtout en milieu rural. La politique éducative peut se situer dans une logique adaptative ou dans une perspective ‘’pratico-utilitarist e ’’ afin de répondre aux besoins de l’économie en termes de main–d’œuvre. En ce sens, tout l’effort s’oriente vers la formation de la main-d’œuvre, la qualification professionnelle, la promotion scientifique et technique. Dans une telle perspective, la confrontation « des besoins aux disponibilité s prévisionnelles de la main d’œuvre pour chaque catégorie »[2] est nécessaire pour pouvoir mieux ajuster les sorties du système éducatif à la réalité du monde du travail.
Le système éducatif, par ses activités immenses et de recherches, devient lui- même un secteur productif. L’éducation est une activité pourvoyeuse d’emplois, et dans certains pays ou régions, elle est un service marchand qui tire les autres composantes de l’économie. Elle se situe, en termes budgétaires dans certains Etats, au second rang après les dépenses militaires. « Avec le temps, l’éducation pénètre dans tous les compartiments de la vie sociale. Elle constitue une composante importante de tout effort de développement et de progrès humain et prend une place non négligeable dans l’élaboration des politiques nationales »[3].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] FAURE E. et al. (1972). Apprendre à être, UNESCO, Fayard, Paris, p. xxv.
[2] GRAVOT P. (1993).Economie de l’éducation, Economica Paris, p. 194.
[3] DORE G. (2006). Crise de l’éducation, élément de frein au développement d’Haïti, Université Paris XII, p. 25.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)