{"id":66123,"date":"2004-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-09T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/09\/lelection-du-2-novembre-precipite-la-crise-centrale-du-systeme-dans-une-crise-de-legitimite\/"},"modified":"2004-11-09T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-11-09T00:00:00","slug":"lelection-du-2-novembre-precipite-la-crise-centrale-du-systeme-dans-une-crise-de-legitimite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/09\/lelection-du-2-novembre-precipite-la-crise-centrale-du-systeme-dans-une-crise-de-legitimite\/","title":{"rendered":"L’\u00e9lection du 2 novembre pr\u00e9cipite la crise centrale du syst\u00e8me dans une crise de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’\u00e9lection du 2 novembre pr\u00e9cipite la crise centrale du syst\u00e8me dans une crise de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t9 novembre 2004 Partout, on nous dit que GW est en grande forme. Lui-m\u00eame, aimable et souriant, ne cesse de nous le confirmer. En plus d’avoir l’intime conviction d’\u00eatre un grand pr\u00e9sident, GW est d\u00e9sormais convaincu d’\u00eatre un pr\u00e9sident tr\u00e8s bien \u00e9lu, donc d’\u00eatre l\u00e9gitim\u00e9. (Curieux : les quatre ann\u00e9es d’exercice du pouvoir depuis fin 2000 seraient-elles usurp\u00e9es ?)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn ne cesse de nous avertir que le deuxi\u00e8me mandat commence, que tout cela va \u00eatre enlev\u00e9, que tous les probl\u00e8mes vont \u00eatre r\u00e9solus. On dirait que le premier terme a \u00e9t\u00e9 pass\u00e9 \u00e0 pr\u00e9parer l’\u00e9lection du second, pour enfin avoir les mains libres pour ce second terme. Une expression \u00e9merge de tout cela : mandate<\/em> ; GW aurait, avec l’\u00e9lection du 2 novembre, re\u00e7u un mandat du peuple am\u00e9ricain. La qu\u00eate de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 que rec\u00e8le cette insistance est frappante. Elle montre combien ce pouvoir, depuis novembre-d\u00e9cembre 2000, est en qu\u00eate d’une l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 qu’il n’eut jamais. (R\u00e9ponse \u00e0 la question ci-dessus ?)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDivers journaux ont exprim\u00e9 cette position du pr\u00e9sident r\u00e9\u00e9lu au lendemain de cette victoire. On peut lire ce sentiment dans deux articles, qui sont pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ici bien plus comme exemples d’une tendance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qu’\u00e0 cause de leur originalit\u00e9 d’analyse.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe Miami Herald du 4 novembre<\/a> exprime effectivement cette volont\u00e9 de s’affirmer comme l\u00e9gitim\u00e9 par l’\u00e9lection du 2 novembre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Four years after he came to office in a disputed election, Bush has claimed the mandate the mandate that eluded him the first time. He’s the first president to win a popular-vote majority since 1988 and he rolled up more votes than any president in history, even though his margin over John Kerry was well short of a landslide.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb White House officials interpreted his 51 percent majority, and Republican gains in the House of Representatives and Senate, as a call to action and an affirmation of the president’s far-reaching goals. After just two hours sleep in the pre-dawn hours Wednesday, Bush began the day by reaching out to newly elected Republican senators for their help with his second-term plans.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tLa m\u00eame id\u00e9e est exprim\u00e9e dans un article du Washington Post du 5 novembre<\/a>, d\u00e9peignant un GW Bush extr\u00eamement confiant, et insistant implicitement, toujours sur cette question de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab President Bush vowed yesterday to use the political capital gained from his victory on Tuesday to push an aggressive domestic agenda in a second term, beginning with limiting medical malpractice lawsuits and continuing with revamping the tax code and adding private accounts to Social Security.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb At a news conference a day after Sen. John F. Kerry conceded, Bush spoke repeatedly about his desire to unify the country, including Democrats who did their best to evict him from power. But he also made it clear that he views the election returns especially a 3 percent margin of victory in the popular vote that he said reflected the will of the people as a mandate to pursue conservative priorities and to continue a governing style that has rarely accommodated the opposition.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tOn trouvera ci-dessous un texte de l’organisation FAIR<\/a> qui a pass\u00e9 en revue d’une fa\u00e7on critique l’utilisation du terme mandate<\/em> (le mandat du peuple qu’aurait re\u00e7u GW Bush \u00e0 l’occasion de ce vote). On comprendra ais\u00e9ment que ce terme est extraordinairement relatif, et \u00e9videmment le r\u00e9sultat d’une interpr\u00e9tation compl\u00e8tement abusive des r\u00e9sultats de l’\u00e9lection du 2 novembre (le Miami Herald note cela lorsqu’il remarque tout de m\u00eame : \u00ab even though his margin over John Kerry was well short of a landslide<\/em> \u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPr\u00e9senter une victoire \u00e0 51% comme un mandat de la volont\u00e9 du peuple est compl\u00e8tement abusif, cela n’a pas besoin d’\u00eatre d\u00e9montr\u00e9 tant l’\u00e9vidence arithm\u00e9tique s’impose. (Sans parler des soup\u00e7ons de fraude massive<\/a>, qui ne cessent de grandir.) Mais on comprend bien qu’il s’agit d’une r\u00e9action relative, par rapport au premier mandat o\u00f9 GW ne disposait d’aucune majorit\u00e9, ni une majorit\u00e9 relative par rapport \u00e0 son adversaire, ni, encore moins, une majorit\u00e9 des votants. Ce souci d’affirmer une l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 qu’il n’a pas, m\u00eame aujourd’hui (51% abusivement pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s comme un mandat pour des projets r\u00e9volutionnaires), montre la nature de la crise du syst\u00e8me (crise de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, \u00e9videmment). Nous avons l\u00e0, trac\u00e9e clairement devant nous, la voie qui attend GW dans son second mandat. En premier lieu, il y a une l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 affirm\u00e9e avec tant d’ardeur que cela finit par faire comprendre que ce pouvoir souffre lui-m\u00eame de son ill\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 profonde ; en second lieu, cette affirmation de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 est faite \u00e0 partir d’un r\u00e9sultat officiel qui met gravement en cause, par sa faiblesse, le fondement de cette affirmation ; enfin, des rumeurs de fraudes mettent en cause cette tr\u00e8s contestable affirmation de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 elle-m\u00eame. On peut attendre de tout cela que le deuxi\u00e8me mandat de GW, dans le climat de haine et d’hostilit\u00e9 qui l’accompagne, m\u00e8nera \u00e9videmment \u00e0 une crise de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici donc le texte de FAIR sur la notion, abusivement employ\u00e9e par GW, de mandate<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Defining Bush’s \u00a0\u00bbMandate\u00a0\u00bb<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy FAIR, November 5, 2004<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWinning 51 percent of the popular vote in Tuesday’s election, Bush administration officials were quick to declare that the results constitute a \u00a0\u00bbmandate\u00a0\u00bb for Bush’s second term. This interpretation of the election caught hold in the mainstream media– a sign perhaps that White House spin was triumphing over the actual numbers recorded on Election Day.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Boston Globe (11\/4\/04) reported that Bush’s victory grants him a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years. The Los Angeles Times (11\/4\/04) made the somewhat peculiar observation that Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51 percent of the vote. USA Today (11\/4\/04) was more definitive, headlining one story Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush’s Authority, Reach, while reporting that Bush will begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding mandate than he held for the first. The Washington Post (11\/4\/04) similarly pointed to Bush’s clearer mandate, implying that the election of 2000, in which Bush failed to get even a plurality of the popular vote, was a mandate of sorts, if an unclear one.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBroadcast media also took up the \u00a0\u00bbmandate\u00a0\u00bb theme. MSNBC host Chris Matthews announced at the top of his November 3 broadcast, President Bush wins the majority of the vote and a mandate for his second term. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (11\/3\/04) offered his assessment that Bush is going to say he’s got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t NPR’s Renee Montague (11\/3\/04) also relayed the White House’s spin, before quickly agreeing with it: The president’s people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOf course, there are many definitions by which Bush’s narrow victory would not be called a mandate. Columnist Margaret Carlson, writing in the Los Angeles Times (11\/4\/04), posed the question bluntly: What kind of mandate does he think he has with a 51 percent win? More journalists might want to ask the same question.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhile White House officials tout the total vote count for Bush as evidence of wide support, the increase in voter turnout and the size of the U.S. population also means that greater than usual numbers of voters opposed the victorious candidate. As Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher put it (11\/5\/04), It’s true that President Bush got more votes than any winning candidate for president in history. He also had more people voting against him than any winning candidate for president in history.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAnd Bush’s slim majority is not all that impressive for an incumbent; Ronald Reagan, for example, claimed 51 percent of the vote in 1980, while gaining 59 percent four years later. Lyndon Johnson was the choice of 61 percent of voters in 1964, as was Richard Nixon in 1972. In terms of margin of victory, Al Hunt observed in the Wall Street Journal (11\/4\/04), Bush’s victory was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIf a mandate is the same as an uncontested victory, then George W. Bush has that but so does just about every president, so it’s hardly newsworthy. It is understandable that the Bush administration would tout its victory as evidence of a mandate for pursuing its second-term agenda. Responsible journalists, however, should refrain from simply amplifying White House spin.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

L’\u00e9lection du 2 novembre pr\u00e9cipite la crise centrale du syst\u00e8me dans une crise de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 9 novembre 2004 Partout, on nous dit que GW est en grande forme. Lui-m\u00eame, aimable et souriant, ne cesse de nous le confirmer. En plus d’avoir l’intime conviction d’\u00eatre un grand pr\u00e9sident, GW est d\u00e9sormais convaincu d’\u00eatre un pr\u00e9sident tr\u00e8s… <\/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":[],"class_list":["post-66123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66123","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=66123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66123\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}