Aujourd’hui, le site-vedette de la gauche US bien-pensante qui s’autorise parfois quelques fronde agac\u00e9es \u00e0 l’encontre de son champion, garda comme titre central de sa page : \u00ab PEACE PRIZE? White House Quietly Authorized 13,000 More Troops For Afghan War<\/em>\u00bb Le titre renvoyait \u00e0 cet article du Washington Post<\/em> du 13 octobre 2009<\/a> qui nous annonce que, sans rien nous annoncer, BHO a permis aux forces US en Afghanistan de se renforcer subrepticement, ces derniers mois, de 13.000 hommes. (Bien entendu, on trouve dans ces renforts, pour une bonne part, l’habituelle cohorte de la logistique, du soutien, etc., qui signifie que le Pentagone ne peut concevoir que, pour un combattant, on n’ait pas 6 ou 7 hommes en soutien logistique de ce courageux guerrier.) Bref, l’effet n’est pas des meilleurs: l’homme accepte le Prix Nobel de la Paix alors qu’il sait ou qu’on esp\u00e8re qu’il sait qu’il a d\u00e9j\u00e0 autoris\u00e9 un renforcement de la guerre en Afghanistan, subreptice et sans doute ignor\u00e9 de ces messieurs du Nobel, avant m\u00eame que ces m\u00eames Nobel lui balancent les lauriers du faiseur de paix. (A moins qu’il n’ait rien autoris\u00e9 du tout, apr\u00e8s tout.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tSur un autre site, \u00e9galement de gauche mais qui prend souvent moins de gants pour dire son fait \u00e0 Obama, Truthdig.org<\/em>, un article de E.J. Dionne est mis en ligne, en date du 11 octobre 2009<\/a>, o\u00f9 le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre commentateur se permet de sugg\u00e9rer \u00e0 Barack Obama, avec mesure mais fermet\u00e9, que le Prix lui fait obligation de s’occuper des pauvres de l’Am\u00e9rique. Dr\u00f4le d’id\u00e9e, E.J. Dionne mais soit, \u00e9coutons-le, qui nous explique comment le Prix Nobel finit par attirer \u00e0 Obama la vindicte des Am\u00e9ricains et, d’une certaine fa\u00e7on, contribue bien plus \u00e0 lui lier les mains qu’\u00e0 propulser encore plus haut sa popularit\u00e9:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abIt is a sign of our weird political moment that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama will probably hurt him among some of his fellow citizens. His opponents are describing the award as premature. The deeper problem is that the Nobel will underscore the extent to which Obama is a cosmopolitan figure, much loved in European capitals because he is the change they have been looking for.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMost Americans will probably be happy to have a leader who wins acclaim around the globe. But, paradoxically, a decision made in Oslo to honor Obama’s peaceable intentions may make it more difficult for him to reconcile a body politic roiled by years of cultural warfare, partisan animosity and ideological extremism.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPuis, E.J. Dionne parle de la col\u00e8re qui parcourt bien des quartiers et des terres d\u00e9favoris\u00e9s des villes et des campagnes US, et il admet certes qu’une partie de cette col\u00e8re est nourrie par ce racisme si peu recommandable, si d\u00e9testable, si violemment et justement d\u00e9nonc\u00e9 par tant de hauts esprits du temps. Mais quoi, il n’y a pas que cela.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abObama can’t do much about those against him because of his race. Even a 1 percent unemployment rate wouldn’t change the minds most scarred by prejudice. But there is a second level of angry opposition to which Obama needs to pay more attention. It involves the genuine rage of those who felt displaced in our economy even before the great recession, and are now hurting even more.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThese Americans are sometimes written off as angry white men. In analyzing anti-Obama feeling, commentators have taken to rummaging around the work of historian Richard Hofstadter during the 1950s and ’60s, focusing on his theory that status anxiety helps explain the rise of movements on the far right. The idea is that extremism takes hold in groups that feel their status is threatened by new groups on the rise in society.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe problem with the status anxiety theory is that it focuses on feelings and psychology, thus easily crossing into condescension. It implies that the victims of status anxiety should be doing a better job of accepting their new situations and downplays the idea that they might have something real to be angry about ? In fact, many who now feel rage have legitimate reasons for it, even if neither Obama nor big government is the real culprit. September’s unemployment numbers told the story in broad terms: Among men 20 and over, unemployment was 10.3 percent; among women, the rate was 7.8 percent.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAinsi E.J. Dionne en vient-il \u00e0 conclure en revenant au Prix Nobel qui, d\u00e9sormais, figurera en premi\u00e8re place pour argumenter en faveur de tout ce que ne fait pas Obama, en s’appuyant sur une sorte d’\u00e9trange l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 qui pr\u00e9tendait embrasser le contraire, c’est-\u00e0-dire la grandeur suppos\u00e9e de son action: \u00abWhat he can doand perhaps then deserve the domestic equivalent of a peace prizeis reach out to the angry white men through policies that address their grievances, and do so with an understanding that what matters to them is not status but simply a chance to make a decent living again.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAinsi en est-il bien selon ce que nous envisagions le 12 octobre 2009<\/a>: en voulant l’inciter \u00e0 poursuivre en actes ce qu’il nous annonce en paroles, donc en croyant le renforcer pour mieux le supplier<\/a> de faire rena\u00eetre notre American Dream<\/em>, les Nobel ont emprisonn\u00e9 Obama dans des exigences qu’il ne pourra pas rencontrer, \u00e0 moins d’une r\u00e9volte, d’un coup de force, \u00e0-la-Gorbatchev<\/a> qui assurerait par ailleurs, collateral dommage<\/em>, la fin du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme et de l’American Dream<\/em>. Mais cette sorte de r\u00e9volte ne s’improvise pas ni ne se pr\u00e9pare, elle se fait, tout simplement, comme le montra Gorbatchev et c’est apr\u00e8s<\/strong> qu’on a le Prix Nobel. Il est malheureusement de moins en moins \u00e9vident que cette sorte d’action d\u00e9cid\u00e9e et hors-norme soit la tasse de th\u00e9, ou Tea Party<\/em>, de Barack Obama.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 13 octobre 2009 \u00e0 15H26<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Aujourd’hui, le site-vedette de la gauche US bien-pensante qui s’autorise parfois quelques fronde agac\u00e9es \u00e0 l’encontre de son champion, garda comme titre central de sa page : \u00ab PEACE PRIZE? White House Quietly Authorized 13,000 More Troops For Afghan War\u00bb Le titre renvoyait \u00e0 cet article du Washington Post du 13 octobre 2009 qui nous… <\/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":[3612,2631,4027,8794,3483,6868,2622,3644,6208,6157,3477],"class_list":["post-71166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-american","tag-de","tag-dionne","tag-e-j","tag-gorbatchev","tag-huffington","tag-la","tag-nobel","tag-obama","tag-paix","tag-prix"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71166","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=71166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}