{"id":69707,"date":"2008-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-25T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/02\/25\/obama-mccain-ou-le-populisme-neo-protectionniste-contre-le-corporate-socialism-libre-echangiste\/"},"modified":"2008-02-25T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-02-25T00:00:00","slug":"obama-mccain-ou-le-populisme-neo-protectionniste-contre-le-corporate-socialism-libre-echangiste","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/02\/25\/obama-mccain-ou-le-populisme-neo-protectionniste-contre-le-corporate-socialism-libre-echangiste\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama-McCain, ou le \u201cpopulisme\u201d n\u00e9o-protectionniste contre le \u201ccorporate socialism<\/em>\u201d libre-\u00e9changiste"},"content":{"rendered":"

Il semble appara\u00eetre qu’un des aspects importants de la campagne \u00e9lectorale US, avec des effets effectifs et \u00e9ventuels d’une tr\u00e8s grande importance sur la situation mondiale, est un affrontement entre un populisme impliquant un tr\u00e8s s\u00e9rieux n\u00e9o-protectionnisme, et le libre-\u00e9change. Dans ces deux orientations, on distingue les deux probables candidats des deux partis, Barack Obama et John McCain.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWalter C. Uhler, analyste et commentateur ind\u00e9pendant, examine le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne sur son site, le 20 f\u00e9vrier<\/a>. Il appuie son approche de ces deux tendances qui s’affrontent, et des deux candidats qui les repr\u00e9sentent, sur la recension d’un livre de David Cay Johnston, Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)<\/em>. Ce livre analyse la politique syst\u00e9mique socio-\u00e9conomique du gouvernement US, les extraordinaires disparit\u00e9s antagonistes d’exploitation qu’il organise avec l’orientation d\u00e9sign\u00e9e sous l’expression fort bienvenue de corporate socialism<\/em>. L’expression d\u00e9signe la philosophie des grands conglom\u00e9rats US\/multinationaux \u00e9voluant d\u00e9sormais \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on des syst\u00e9mes socialistes d’antant, avec le soutien et les subsides des gouvernements. Le syst\u00e8me massif du corporate socialism<\/em>, qui met \u00e0 l’encan la situation sociale aux USA avec sa projection dans le monde par le moyen de la globalisation, est ainsi pr\u00e9sent\u00e9: \u00abMr. Johnston’s sobering conclusion: Under current government rules, destroying American jobs and creating jobs overseas is the single most effective way for manufacturing companies to increase profits. From the point of view of shareholders and executives, any policy other than moving equipment and jobs offshore as fast as possible is a waste of corporate assets.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl semble que les deux candidats qu’on juge actuellement favoris pour les pr\u00e9sidentielles, Obama et McCain, trouvent l\u00e0 un terrain particuli\u00e8rement puissant d’opposition radicale. L’int\u00e9r\u00eat de la situation est que l’affrontement des deux position situe clairement la position et les effets du libre-\u00e9change dans cette querelle, et pr\u00e9sente la justification du populisme n\u00e9o-protectionniste.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abSpeaking in Houston on February 19, 2008, Senator Obama declared: I want to take away those tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. We’re going to give them to companies that invest right here in America. Senator McCain did not address the issue during his February 19 victory speech, but he’s on record for asserting: It sounds like a lot of fun to bash China and others, but free trade has been the engine of our economy. Free trade should be the continuing principle that guides this nation’s economy.<\/em> [2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFree trade might very well be the engine of our economy, but that engine hasn’t done much to drive the average annual income of the bottom 90% of American workers. On the other hand, it has proven to be enormously lucrative for the financiers and factory owners who arrange the overseas deals.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abAccording to Johnston, when the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case of citizens from Toledo, Ohio who had their businesses and homes seized by the city, in order to give Chrysler the land it needed to rebuild its Jeep plant it sent a clear signal that the policy of the United States is that the government can take from the many to give to the few and those who object will not have their grievances heard by the courts<\/em> [p. 93] In the face of such legally sanctioned corporate socialism, the most effective response would be a widespread taxpayer revolt.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFinally, as if to guarantee that it’s the taxes of the bottom 90% that are used to subsidize their wealth-creating enterprises of the corporate socialists, the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress pushed through tax cuts that not only gave 53% of the savings to the top ten percent of income earners in the United States, but also 15% of the tax savings to the 300,000 people who constitute the top tenth of one percent on the income ladder. In 2005, their average annual income was $25,726,965.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOn February 19th, Barack Obama asserted that we’re going to rollback those Bush tax cuts that went to all the wealthy people, and we’re going to give tax cuts to ordinary families, people who are making less than $75,000. We will offset your payroll tax. Like Obama, Senator McCain once opposed Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. But, he’s flip-flopped during his run for President and now will uphold them if elected.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbConsequently, if David Cay Johnston is correct when he answers the question, Why are the rich getting so much while the middle class struggles and the poor fall behind? by concluding that the elites have captured the government and are milking it for their own benefit<\/em> [pp. 22-23], then free trading, tax cut flip-flopper John McCain hardly seems to be the candidate to roll back corporate socialism’s assault on the bottom 90% of the income ladder.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette analyse met bien en \u00e9vidence la bataille qui est en train de se nouer dans cette campagne autour du corporate socialism<\/em>, qui triomphe aux USA dans une mesure jamais vue et qui est en train de s’incarner gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 cette campagne dans la doctrine du libre-\u00e9change. Avec cette remarque: \u00abIn the face of such legally sanctioned corporate socialism, the most effective response would be a widespread taxpayer revolt<\/em>\u00bb, on tient peut-\u00eatre une clef de l’explication du succ\u00e8s actuel d’Obama. Son succ\u00e8s serait l’expression directe de cette \u00ab widespread taxpayer revolt<\/em>\u00bb. Obama tiendrait ainsi, pour l’argument, le r\u00f4le que tint Ross Perot comme candidat ind\u00e9pendant \u00e0 l’\u00e9lection pr\u00e9sidentielle de 1992 (19% des suffrages).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est \u00e9videmment un autre aspect essentiel de la campagne aux USA, \u00e0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l’aspect portant sur la politique ext\u00e9rieure (guerre en Irak). Cet aspect, favoris\u00e9 par la crise financi\u00e8re et \u00e9conomique, comporte une charge potentielle consid\u00e9rable de mise en cause du syst\u00e8me, dans le chef de l’activisme actuellement d\u00e9ploy\u00e9 par Obama. Insistons sur le fait que l’important est pour l’instant l’identification des tendances, donc des \u00e9tiquettes, quel que soit le destin des candidats, quelle que soit m\u00eame la politique de l’un ou l’autre en cas d’\u00e9lection. L’affrontement indirect actuel entre les deux tendances radicales adverses que repr\u00e9sentent Obama et McCain identifie le n\u00e9o-protectionnisme et le populisme comme les adversaires du corporate socialism<\/em> et, \u00e0 l’inverse, identifie ce m\u00eame corporate socialism<\/em> au libre-\u00e9change jusqu’\u00e0 faire de ce libre-\u00e9change le corporate socialism<\/em> par essence.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette installation dans le d\u00e9bat public d’affirmations aussi tranch\u00e9es est un fait important par la popularisation de l’affrontement qu’elle implique. Elle contribue d’une fa\u00e7on radicale au discr\u00e9dit du libre-\u00e9change et aura un \u00e9cho mondial dans la perception de la situation du syst\u00e8me, de ses orientations, etc. Cela vaut quelle que soit le destin de cette \u00e9lection, comme un acquis important des d\u00e9bats qui l’ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 marqu\u00e9e. Au-del\u00e0, bien s\u00fbr, si un Obama parvenait \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation d\u00e9mocrate, l’emportait en novembre et d\u00e9cidait de tenter d’appliquer cette politique hostile au libre-\u00e9change, qui a un soutien important \u00e0 la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants o\u00f9 de nombreux jeunes d\u00e9put\u00e9s d\u00e9mocrates ont \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9lus sur un programme anti-libre-\u00e9changiste, il s’agirait d’un d\u00e9veloppement capital pour les relations internationales.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 25 f\u00e9vrier 2008<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Il semble appara\u00eetre qu’un des aspects importants de la campagne \u00e9lectorale US, avec des effets effectifs et \u00e9ventuels d’une tr\u00e8s grande importance sur la situation mondiale, est un affrontement entre un populisme impliquant un tr\u00e8s s\u00e9rieux n\u00e9o-protectionnisme, et le libre-\u00e9change. Dans ces deux orientations, on distingue les deux probables candidats des deux partis, Barack Obama… <\/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":[3568,4141,3557,4063,6208,3340,7432],"class_list":["post-69707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-corporate","tag-elections","tag-libre-echange","tag-mccain","tag-obama","tag-presidentielles","tag-socialism"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69707","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=69707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}