tout en \u00e9pousant le sentiment populaire,<\/a> dans tous les cas des 63% de la population (selon le sondage CBS du 18 janvier) qui disent que l’administration Bush cache quelque chose dans cette affaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAu centre de ces observations, il y a donc ce scandale qui prend des dimensions consid\u00e9rables. Le scandale a deux orientations majeures qu’il faudra suivre en ayant \u00e0 l’esprit ce fait fondamental que l’une peut influer sur l’autre, de fa\u00e7on directe et grave :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t• D’une part, il y a donc cet effet de d\u00e9stabilisation politique de l’\u00e9quipe GW Bush, avec, notamment et particuli\u00e8rement vis\u00e9, le vice-pr\u00e9sident Cheney qu’on ne voit plus depuis le 11 septembre que de loin en loin, dont on ne sait plus s’il existe encore, — situation compl\u00e8tement extraordinaire pour un pays soi-disant \u00ab\u00a0ouvert\u00a0\u00bb comme se targue d’\u00eatre l’Am\u00e9rique. Comme on l’a dit, on ne sait pour l’instant jusqu’o\u00f9 les \u00e9v\u00e9nements peuvent conduire \u00e0 ce niveau de la politique washingtonienne. En th\u00e9orie, le champ est tr\u00e8s vaste. Le scandale d\u00e9passe potentiellement en importance, en signification, en effets politiques, tout ce qui a pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 depuis les scandales de l’administration Harding (1920-23), la plus corrompue de l’histoire des \u00c9tats-Unis. La question est de savoir si ce potentiel se r\u00e9alisera. La seule certitude est que cette menace, qui existe d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0, impose d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 une position d\u00e9fensive \u00e0 l’administration Bush. L’\u00e9lectorat, par sondage interpos\u00e9, a donn\u00e9 l’autorisation aux hommes politiques d’abandonner leur position d’all\u00e9geance au consensus de la Grande Guerre contre la Terreur. La concurrence \u00e9lectorale d’ici les \u00e9lections mid-term<\/em> devrait accentuer le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne. D’autre part, il n’est pas s\u00fbr que, devant les perspectives du scandale, l’administration ne manipule pas la guerre en cours pour la dramatiser \u00e0 nouveau et forcer ses adversaires \u00e0 se regrouper derri\u00e8re elle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t• Le scandale est d’une telle gravit\u00e9, d’un point de vue fondamental, d’une part parce qu’il implique la mise en cause du syst\u00e8me de contr\u00f4le des pratiques du capitalisme (implication du cabinet d’audit Andersen, l’un des premiers du monde, dans l’effondrement d’Enron, effondrement d’Andersen \u00e9galement probable) ; d’autre part parce qu’il met en cause les structures m\u00eames du capitalisme am\u00e9ricain, par cons\u00e9quent du capitalisme mondial (globalis\u00e9). Le scandale doit \u00e9galement jouer un r\u00f4le subtil mais puissant dans les relations transatlantiques, les Europ\u00e9ens d\u00e9fendant une autre conception des cabinets d’audit, avec le contr\u00f4le de leurs activit\u00e9s confi\u00e9e \u00e0 d’autres puissances que les rassemblements des actionnaires des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s concern\u00e9es. Les Britanniques eux-m\u00eames, \u00e9chaud\u00e9s par l’affreux scandale Maxwell, sont revenus \u00e0 une conception plus stricte du cabinet d’audit et ont, dans cette mati\u00e8re, une position bien de l’am\u00e9ricaine. Dans tous les cas, les cons\u00e9quences \u00e0 terme sur l’\u00e9volution des activit\u00e9s boursi\u00e8res devrait \u00eatre s\u00e9rieuse puisque le scandale attaque au coeur le principal ingr\u00e9dient de cette activit\u00e9, qui est \u00e9videmment la confiance.<\/p>\n
Une dimension psychologique<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
\tEn effet, la psychologie est essentielle. Ce qu’on doit appr\u00e9cier dans les suites et les effets de ce scandale, c’est aussi la possibilit\u00e9 d’un retentissement s\u00e9rieux au niveau de la psychologie am\u00e9ricaine, sensible \u00e0 toutes les formes d’accident au niveau des structures boursi\u00e8res et capitalistiques, et d\u00e9j\u00e0 fortement secou\u00e9e par l’attaque 9\/11. L\u00e0 aussi, il y a une question insistante sur la confiance. Alors qu’on pensait que 9\/11 pourrait \u00e9galement \u00eatre l’occasion d’un r\u00e9tablissement de la confiance du public am\u00e9ricain dans ses autorit\u00e9s, le gouvernement, l’establishment<\/em>, Washington D.C., le scandale va puissamment dans le sens contraire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00a0Voici, comme exemple de ce climat psychologique, un texte significatif des temps nouveaux qui courent d\u00e9j\u00e0, peut-\u00eatre signe avant-coureur de renversements possibles dans l’opinion publique, sans aucun doute illustratif de la potentialit\u00e9 explosive de Enron-Andersen. Nous donnons ci-dessous la reproduction d’une partie significative de ce texte, du commentateur John Balzar, dans le Los Angeles Times<\/em> du 18 janvier 2002).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00ab This rotten barrel of apples is all encompassing. Down at the bottom, in the really contaminated slime, Enron\/Andersen\/et al. is about what we have allowed our nation to become.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb It’s about us. It’s about winning at any price–not just winning but trouncing–about seeing what you can get away with. It’s about greed and the glorification of greed. It’s also the football player who deliberately tries to injure his opponent. It’s about parents who beat each other up at their kids’ sports matches. It’s about the hand-to-hand combat of getting your children into the best colleges so they will be the dog that eats instead of the dog that gets eaten. It’s about the ugly edge that has crept into our language, so that words such as \u00ab\u00a0intimidation\u00a0\u00bb become virtuous and \u00ab\u00a0honor\u00a0\u00bb a quaint laughingstock. It’s about the blue-ribbon professor-cum-economics columnist who acknowledges taking $50,000 from Enron for serving on \u00ab\u00a0a panel that had no function that I was aware of.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Awhile back, we lost sight of the principle that hard work, diligence and some luck made the man.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tInexplicably, we veered from the root ideal of civil in civilization. We took what we could and called it ours. We created the lottery for the instant chance at more. We demanded that every business \u00ab\u00a0grow\u00a0\u00bb rather than serve–which sounds a lot less benign than it became, as we watched ourselves transformed into jackals feeding from our own wounds. We watched as our political system was co-opted for pennies by wheeler-dealers who hollowed out the laws with fancy regulations and hidden legislative favors until our vaunted democracy became the instrument of our own oppression.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00bb We saw simple and honest things devalued. Like the passbook savings account. And employee loyalty–or loyalty of any kind, for that matter. You could wish you were high-minded in this age, but weren’t you looking for 25% gains on your retirement holdings too? It didn’t matter if a company made something, only if it made something happen. It mattered less whether a deed was right than whether you were \u00ab\u00a0in\u00a0\u00bb or \u00ab\u00a0out.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Where is the smoking gun?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb It’s in our hands.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Yes, George W. Bush is culpable: This freight train crashed on his watch. These were his back-slapping buddies. These are the people he entrusted with government. This is the way-of-life philosophy he championed. Let’s not forget that just a few weeks ago he denounced Democrats for stalling on a multimillion-dollar, retroactive tax break for Enron and other giant companies. Let’s remember that his top economics advisor, a former Enron retainer, views the collapse of the company as \u00ab\u00a0a triumph for capitalism.\u00a0\u00bb Let’s not overlook that his Treasury secretary sees Enron as evidence of the \u00ab\u00a0genius of capitalism.\u00a0\u00bb Let’s not overlook that his choice to run the GOP has decided to stay on the payroll of a law firm retained by Enron and reserves the right to moonlight as a strategic advisor for the company.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb But Bush didn’t create the scandal. It’s been in the works for years. He’s no more guilty than the people who voted for him, or for those many millions who were suckered into this vision of a cutthroat America where values–that shopworn word–mean nothing at all when measured against the bottom line.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Perhaps all boats float on a rising tide. But reach down. Tastes like sewer water now, doesn’t it?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb I can hardly wait for tomorrow’s papers. This is a terrific time. Maybe, finally, at long bloody last, things will get bad enough to make them right.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00a0Un autre commentateur, Robert J. Samuelson, parle d’une autre crise que nous rapprochons du scandale Enron-Andersen, parce que ces deux affaires concernent la globalisation et marquent aujourd’hui la crise de la globalisation. Il s’agit d’un texte sur la crise de l’Argentine. L’int\u00e9r\u00eat est la remarque de Samuelson sur la psychologie. Effectivement, nous pensons que ces chocs successifs vont avoir un effet vraiment d\u00e9vastateur sur la psychologie. (Dans l’International Herald Tribune<\/em> du 18 janvier 2002) :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t[…] \u00ab Perhaps Argentina’s crisis will harm only Argentina. But because globalization promised so much more than it has delivered, the crisis may foretell a wider political and psychological fatigue. \u00ab\u00a0I travel a lot to these ’emerging market’ countries,\u00a0\u00bb says the economist Arturo Porzecanski of ABN Amro. \u00ab\u00a0There’s a lot of disenchantment. … Everywhere people are disenchanted.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Enron-Andersen \u00e0 nouveau un bouleversement? Un sondage d\u00e9favorable \u00e0 GW Bush, on avait oubli\u00e9 que cela pouvait exister. GW Bush avait \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9sign\u00e9 \u00e0 son \u00e9lection et lors de ses neuf premiers mois de pr\u00e9sidence comme un homme \u00e9nigmatique \u00e0 force de m\u00e9diocrit\u00e9 et d’inexistence. L’attaque du 11 septembre 2001 avait chang\u00e9 et m\u00eame renvers\u00e9… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[3260,3261,3245,3262,2804],"class_list":["post-65024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-analyse","tag-andersen","tag-argentine","tag-enron","tag-samuelson","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65024"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65024\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}