Un long article paru aujourd’hui, de Paul Harris, du Guardian<\/a>, nous donne une r\u00e9flexion sur l’effondrement de la popularit\u00e9 de GW Bush, \u00e0 cause de l’Irak certes mais aussi dans les domaines de la politique int\u00e9rieure. Harris situe ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne dans la perspective de l’histoire am\u00e9ricaine du XX\u00e8me si\u00e8cle, o\u00f9 les seconds termes ont en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 difficiles ou catastrophiques pour les pr\u00e9sidents r\u00e9\u00e9lus. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab But these are not ordinary times. Beset on all sides by the bloodshed in Iraq, rebellions in the Republican party and Democrat attacks on his domestic agenda, Bush faces the derailment of his second term only six months after his inauguration.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb It is a remarkable turnaround. After his 2004 victory, Republican advisers spoke of a Bush unshackled, freed by the fact he will not fight another election and buoyed by winning 12 million new voters to his cause. Bush boasted of spending political capital in a radical second term to transform America. No longer. Bush is confronting the nightmare of any American President in his second term: he is becoming a lame duck.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb At the centre of Bush’s troubles is the Iraq war. Nightly images of mayhem in Baghdad have pushed the jubilant scenes of the Iraqi elections to the back of America’s consciousness. For the first time, more now oppose than support the war. Even some Republicans are talking about withdrawal. The ghost of Vietnam stalks Washington’s corridors of power.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb But Bush’s troubles go deeper. His relentless plans to sell social security reform to the public have floundered. His energy bill is mired in trouble. Democrats have blocked the nomination of the radical John Bolton as UN ambassador. Once disciplined Republican senators and congressmen snipe at the White House on everything from the environment to stem cell research. It’s an old rule of thumb: the power of a second-term President peaks on the day after he wins the election. It’s all downhill from there, said Larry Haas, a former Clinton White House aide.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCette analyse est int\u00e9ressante mais elle ne met pas le doigt sur une \u00e9vidence qui diff\u00e9rencie le cas de GW de ceux des pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents seconds termes rat\u00e9s ou catastrophiques. Dans des cas comme Clinton avec l’affaire Lewinski, Reagan avec Irangate<\/em>, Nixon avec Watergate, m\u00eame Johnson avec le Vi\u00eat-nam, il s’agissait d’actes des pr\u00e9sidents eux-m\u00eames (ou de leur entourage rapproch\u00e9), qui entra\u00eenaient leur chute : eux seuls restaient en cause. Au contraire, la r\u00e9\u00e9lection de GW Bush a \u00e9t\u00e9 la reconduite d’une politique qui se pr\u00e9tendait nationale (bipartisane) apr\u00e8s 9\/11, d’une conception du monde am\u00e9ricaniste en pleine activit\u00e9 expansionniste, d’une strat\u00e9gie militaire maximaliste, d’une structure m\u00eame, d’action et d’h\u00e9g\u00e9monie am\u00e9ricaniste. L’effondrement de la position de GW et avec quelle rapidit\u00e9, c’est l’effondrement de tout cela en m\u00eame temps. C’est pourquoi la crise qui vient ne sera pas celle d’une pr\u00e9sidence et d’un Pr\u00e9sident mais celle d’une nation<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 26 juin 2005 \u00e0 08H45<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Un long article paru aujourd’hui, de Paul Harris, du Guardian, nous donne une r\u00e9flexion sur l’effondrement de la popularit\u00e9 de GW Bush, \u00e0 cause de l’Irak certes mais aussi dans les domaines de la politique int\u00e9rieure. Harris situe ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne dans la perspective de l’histoire am\u00e9ricaine du XX\u00e8me si\u00e8cle, o\u00f9 les seconds termes ont en… <\/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":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66543","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=66543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}