\t11 octobre 2004 William Keegan, chef du service \u00e9conomique de l’Observer<\/em>, a rencontr\u00e9 John Kenneth Galbraith<\/a>, vieux et c\u00e9l\u00e8bre \u00e9conomiste lib\u00e9ral am\u00e9ricain d’origine canadienne, qui travailla dans diverses fonctions gouvernementales am\u00e9ricaines, de Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) \u00e0 John Fitgzerald Kennedy (JFK). Galbraith a aujourd’hui 96 ans, auteur d’une myriade de bouquins \u00e0 succ\u00e8s et travaillant \u00e0 son dernier, et toujours bon pied bon il (\u00ab As Catherine Galbraith offered a glass of sherry, the professor boomed: I’m still partly crippled, but alcohol is still remedial.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tC’est un bonheur rare de l’entendre discourir des sujets qui l’int\u00e9ressent, car c’est son habitude de mener lui-m\u00eame les interviews qu’on lui fait subir. Sujet de pr\u00e9dilection (c’est un signe des temps) : la catastrophique \u00e9quipe GW. Le vieux professeur Galbraith, que l’auteur de l’interview n’a gu\u00e8re pu d\u00e9tacher de son sujet de pr\u00e9dilection, est extr\u00eamement pessimiste quant \u00e0 l’avenir de l’Am\u00e9rique :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab Warming to his theme, <\/em>[Galbraith] said: This is a crude government, and its crude misdirection of power in minor things has more direct impact domestically than abroad. Such as? One of the worst things unimaginable in Britain is the open character of legislation for the rich, particularly on taxation; and the open resistance to support for the poor.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb But that was not all. When income tax reductions, he pauses and revises reductions’ to slashes’, were put into effect they were combined with this warning: Let’s not open the way for a softer policy for the poor and the unemployed’ a softer policy that in Keynesian terms might have been a more important factor in alleviating the recession.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab We are seeing the disintegration of the American economic and wider world role, which could well continue after this election. I am talking about the passage of power to the Rumsfelds of the economic and political structure.<\/em> \u00bb […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab In one sense, as he acknowledges, little has changed since President Eisenhower warned in the 1950s of a military industrial complex. As Galbraith says, a large, vital and expanding part of what is called the public sector is for all practical effect in the private sector… much [arms expenditure] is at the initiative and with the authority of the arms industry and its political voice the private sector.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Galbraith gave a dire warning of what would happen if Bush was re-elected. ‘Under the thrust of power of present forces, including the money-making powers, there’s going to be a continuing and disastrous [American] decline. The Rumsfelds and the Cheneys will still be there, and anyone with a grasp of world history should be here to report it.’ He smiled and said: Why don’t you do that?’<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb The great man feels passionately. In all my 90-odd years, I’ve never had such a clear view of the future, adding with a twinkle in his eye, with still, of course, the possibility of being wrong. But only the possibility. I have a feeling that not since the end of World War Two have we had such a time when the role of wisdom, action and misunderstanding in the US has such worldwide consequences.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’int\u00e9r\u00eat est \u00e9galement, de fa\u00e7on plus pr\u00e9cise, dans le jugement que donne Galbraith du comportement britannique dans l’\u00e9volution de la crise am\u00e9ricaine, notamment le comportement et la politique de Tony Blair. Il appara\u00eet tr\u00e8s vite comme allant de soi que Galbraith est tr\u00e8s s\u00e9v\u00e8re pour la politique de Tony Blair. Surtout, il la juge implicitement extr\u00eamement stupide, tant elle apporte un appui \u00e0 un gouvernement (US) catastrophique, un gouvernement dans lequel Galbraith ne voit aucune raison qui justifie le moindre soutien (un gouvernement o\u00f9 l’on ignore m\u00eame Keynes : \u00ab this is the only government in 30 or 40 years with no one in authority who has ever heard of John Maynard Keynes<\/em> \u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tD’o\u00f9 ces interrogations de Galbraith :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab Then, before I could ask a question, he sailed in. Let’s start with a few problems I have. Is Blair in trouble? I said he ought to be, but it might be wishful thinking on my part, and reminded him of Lord Hailsham’s dictum that the British political system is an elective dictatorship.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Galbraith continued: It’s a strange political calculation of his to stay for so long in support of George Bush. Why did he do that? I said his bafflement was shared by many here.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb The wise professor, who has advised both FD Roosevelt and JF Kennedy in his time, went on to express very strong views: It is not a good design for relations with the US because the active voices in this country on international policy are all in conflict with Bush. What the special relationship needed was a certain deeper association and alliance with someone who is responsibly critical. For whatever reason, that has not been the case in Britain.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb In Galbraith’s view the French were more in tune with reality. Politics must take account not only of the position of the government but also of the forces behind it, and Blair does not have the support of the articulate in the US. He added: And that is the group which has always thought well of a certain allied relationship with Britain. He paused. There was a better decision by Winston Churchill!<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’analyse de Galbraith est int\u00e9ressante en ce qu’elle conduit \u00e0 penser qu’une majorit\u00e9 de l’establishment<\/em> est hostile \u00e0 la politique de GW (et, par cons\u00e9quent, dit Galbraith, la politique fran\u00e7aise est la bonne, au contraire de celle de Blair). Galbraith signifie-t-il implicitement que Kerry a une bonne politique, qui serait diff\u00e9rente de celle de GW ? Il ne s’exprime pas l\u00e0-dessus (et l’on sait que la position de Kerry est aujourd’hui un point capital, avec un tournant constant vers la droite au point o\u00f9, en souriant \u00e0 peine, certains font de Kerry le plus r\u00e9cent adepte du n\u00e9o-conservatisme<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLa question est bien de savoir comment les opposants \u00e0 la politique de GW oseront s’exprimer, et dans quelles circonstances. Pour l’instant, on a plut\u00f4t l’impression que r\u00e8gne \u00e0 Washington un conformisme de fer, maximaliste, patriotard, qui soutient la politique actuelle. C’est-\u00e0-dire que ceux qui sont oppos\u00e9s, ceux auxquels Galbraith fait allusion, continuent (pour l’instant ? Jusqu’\u00e0 quand ?) \u00e0 affirmer officiellement leur soutien, par devoir, c’est-\u00e0-dire plut\u00f4t par conformisme et par couardise. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le sombre diagnostic du professeur Galbraith 11 octobre 2004 William Keegan, chef du service \u00e9conomique de l’Observer, a rencontr\u00e9 John Kenneth Galbraith, vieux et c\u00e9l\u00e8bre \u00e9conomiste lib\u00e9ral am\u00e9ricain d’origine canadienne, qui travailla dans diverses fonctions gouvernementales am\u00e9ricaines, de Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) \u00e0 John Fitgzerald Kennedy (JFK). Galbraith a aujourd’hui 96 ans, auteur d’une myriade… <\/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":[10],"tags":[4017,855],"class_list":["post-66099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-galbraith","tag-kerry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66099","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=66099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}