{"id":66107,"date":"2004-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-20T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/10\/20\/lohio-et-le-rest-of-the-world-le-guardian-et-ralph-nader\/"},"modified":"2004-10-20T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-10-20T00:00:00","slug":"lohio-et-le-rest-of-the-world-le-guardian-et-ralph-nader","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/10\/20\/lohio-et-le-rest-of-the-world-le-guardian-et-ralph-nader\/","title":{"rendered":"L’Ohio et le Rest Of the World, le Guardian et Ralph Nader<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’Ohio et le Rest Of the World, le Guardian et Ralph Nader<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t20 octobre 2004 L’initiative du Guardian<\/em> peut nous sembler chaleureuse, inqui\u00e8te, responsable, civique, etc. Pour les Am\u00e9ricains, elle appara\u00eet d\u00e9plac\u00e9e, pour le moins, voire compl\u00e8tement arrogante ou affreusement absurde, et rien de moins qu’une ing\u00e9rence, une violation de la souverainet\u00e9. On peut comprendre les deux points de vue et admettre qu’ils sont justifi\u00e9s, et aussit\u00f4t conclure que ce sont bien deux mondes compl\u00e8tement \u00e9trangers que s\u00e9pare l’Atlantique, entre le Royaume-Uni comme partie int\u00e9grante de l’Europe, pour cette fois aucun doute, et les Etats-Unis.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes Am\u00e9ricains ont tr\u00e8s, tr\u00e8s mal r\u00e9agi<\/a> \u00e0 l’initiative du Guardian<\/em>, disant \u00e0 ses lecteurs : \u00e9crivez aux gens de Clark County, pour faire battre GW Bush en leur demandant de voter Kerry. Pour les Am\u00e9ricains, cette initiative est une ing\u00e9rence dans un scrutin national. L’attitude est imparable, la r\u00e9action compl\u00e8tement compr\u00e9hensible. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe Herald Tribune de ce matin reprend un article du New York Times<\/a> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab A letter-writing campaign sponsored by Britain’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper that supports the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, and targets undecided U.S. voters has provoked outrage across the Atlantic. The newspaper has encouraged its readers to express their opinions on the coming U.S. election to voters in the key state of Ohio, a move that has prompted a deluge of indignant reactions.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb One e-mail the newspaper printed read, \u00a0\u00bbHey England, Scotland and Wales, mind your own business. We don’t need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidential election.\u00a0\u00bb The conservative Fox television network has criticized The Guardian and even Democrats have expressed horror at the campaign. \u00a0\u00bbWe all feel it is not a good idea,\u00a0\u00bb said Sharon Manitta, spokeswoman for Democrats Abroad in Britain. \u00a0\u00bbI think it was unwise. It is so poorly thought out.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb As of Monday night, more than 14,000 people had registered with the Guardian to write to voters in Clark County, which has a population of 143,000. The Guardian, which simply bought a list of registered voters and extracted those names that were listed as undecided, pledged that it would give out the name of each voter only once, to avoid swamping voters in Clark County with unsolicited mail from strangers on the other side of the ocean.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tLes Britanniques du quotidien londonien d\u00e9fendent sans la moindre h\u00e9sitation leur initiative. \u00ab But the newspaper, whose cartoons regularly portray President George W. Bush unfavorably, was unrepentant. We did consult a number of opinions and made our decision accordingly,’ said Paul MacInnes, assistant features editor. It has been an operation to give our readers an opportunity to express their opinions.’<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa position am\u00e9ricaine dans cette \u00e9trange affaire, \u00e0 la fois d\u00e9risoire et significative, appara\u00eet \u00e0 premi\u00e8re vue comme la plus coh\u00e9rente dans la mesure o\u00f9 elle implique un refus de l’ing\u00e9rence \u00e9trang\u00e8re dans un processus fondamental de la d\u00e9mocratie am\u00e9ricaine. Alors, pourquoi les Britanniques sont-ils sans le moindre regret, et justifient-ils leur initiative ? Mais plus encore<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe matin, un \u00e9ditorial du Guardian<\/a> appara\u00eet comme un message, volontaire ou pas, qui nous dit que le Guardian<\/em>, non seulement ne regrette rien, mais en plus s’estime tout \u00e0 fait fond\u00e9 dans cette affaire, jusqu’\u00e0 continuer… Message indirect, peut-\u00eatre, mais d’une signification \u00e9vidente, sans aucun doute. L’\u00e9dito est un appel \u00e0 Ralph Nader \u00e0 se d\u00e9sister en faveur de John Kerry. Le New York Times<\/em> n’aurait pas fait diff\u00e9remment<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab In state after state, polls now show that Nader voters could provide the margin of victory for the Democrats. A second Bush term would lead to \u00a0\u00bbtort reform\u00a0\u00bb, shorthand for reining in the one effective means for holding corporate America to account through litigation. It would complete the destruction of the income tax system, replacing it with a national value added tax that would fall most heavily on the poor. It would silence the few remaining watchdogs, turning America into a closed theocracy at war with all who differ with the administration. In such a reactionary tide, what remains of Mr Nader’s progressive citadels would simply wash away.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Mr Nader owes it to his supporters, his principles and himself to withdraw from the race and throw his weight behind John Kerry. In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, his action could make a world of difference.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tR\u00e9ponse volontaire ou pas ? Peu importe, parce que l’essentiel est bien que le dilemme pr\u00e9sent, l’affrontement essentiel aujourd’hui est bien mis en \u00e9vidence. L’\u00e9dito demandant \u00e0 Ralph Nader de partir, c’est une fa\u00e7on de dire : contrairement \u00e0 ce que nous disent les Am\u00e9ricains, oui, cette \u00e9lection est bien notre affaire, \u00e0 nous, non-Am\u00e9ricains. On ignore si le Guardian<\/em> l’a voulu ainsi, mais si non \u00e8 vero, \u00e8 ben trovato<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAux Am\u00e9ricains qui reprochent (justement) au Guardian<\/em> de ne pas respecter leur souverainet\u00e9 en s’ing\u00e9rant dans leurs affaires int\u00e9rieures, le Guardian<\/em> r\u00e9pond (justement) : mais qui nous dit depuis dix ans et plus que l’Am\u00e9rique domine le monde, que le monde est am\u00e9ricanis\u00e9’, que l’Am\u00e9rique, au nom de la d\u00e9mocratie, a le droit de s’ing\u00e9rer dans les affaires des autres, que tous les autres ne sont rien d’autre que des citoyens de l’Empire ? We are the world<\/em>? Nous sommes dans l’Empire am\u00e9ricain ? OK, alors les citoyens de l’Empire, m\u00eame des terres ext\u00e9rieures, et surtout si elles sont d\u00e9mocratiques (et parlant la m\u00eame langue, en plus !) ont le droit d’exprimer leur avis lorsqu’il s’agit d’\u00e9lire l’Empereur.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes deux raisonnements contradictoires sont imparables. Qui a permis qu’ils soient tous deux acceptables, sinon l’Am\u00e9rique qui ne veut pas qu’on lui dise comment voter et qui dit aux Irakiens comment voter ? (En d’autres termes, plus lestes et plus exotiques : Si vous avez le droit d’intervenir en Irak parce que Saddam est un danger pour le monde, nous avons le droit d’intervenir en Ohio et aupr\u00e8s de Nader parce que GW est un danger pour le monde’.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe Guardian<\/em> place, volontairement ou pas, l’Am\u00e9rique devant ses responsabilit\u00e9s. (A propos, si Bush est \u00e9lu, l’\u00e9volution des relations USA-UK vaudra le d\u00e9placement.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

L’Ohio et le Rest Of the World, le Guardian et Ralph Nader 20 octobre 2004 L’initiative du Guardian peut nous sembler chaleureuse, inqui\u00e8te, responsable, civique, etc. Pour les Am\u00e9ricains, elle appara\u00eet d\u00e9plac\u00e9e, pour le moins, voire compl\u00e8tement arrogante ou affreusement absurde, et rien de moins qu’une ing\u00e9rence, une violation de la souverainet\u00e9. On peut comprendre… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3376,4372,857,2746],"class_list":["post-66107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-americanisation","tag-ingerence","tag-irak","tag-souverainete"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66107","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=66107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}