\tNous avons jug\u00e9 appropri\u00e9 de rassembler trois points de vue sur des sujets diff\u00e9rents qu’un fil commun rassemble, qui est celui de l’\u00e9tat des lieux du soi-disant Empire, comme on d\u00e9signe parfois les USA. Il s’agit, plus que jamais, du membre actif le plus pesant du bloc BAO, mais aussi le plus marqu\u00e9 par de terribles contradictions internes, qui progressent souterrainement par le seul fait de la dissimulation syst\u00e9matique op\u00e9r\u00e9e par la presse-Syst\u00e8me \u00e0 leur encontre, et qui constituent de ce fait des fissures b\u00e9antes dans la structure du pays dont la b\u00e9ance augmente sans qu’on y prenne garde, dont les effets divers peuvent se faire sentir de diff\u00e9rentes fa\u00e7ons et selon les occasions qui se pr\u00e9sentent sans la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’un rapport de cause \u00e0 effet ou d’une logique qui en permette la pr\u00e9vision. Ces occasions se manifestent en fait par le seul effet des tensions que divers \u00e9v\u00e9nements, y compris ext\u00e9rieurs, peuvent susciter. On est \u00e9videmment conduit \u00e0 reconna\u00eetre que la crise ukrainienne, avec ses multiples ramifications, est une de ces occasions, certainement la productrice de tensions d’autant plus d\u00e9structurantes qu’elles restent assez inattendues et ignor\u00e9es \u00e0 cause de la distance g\u00e9ographique du centre de cette crise, et de l’ignorance de ses conditions r\u00e9elles \u00e0 Washington. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t Parmi les trois \u00e9v\u00e9nements que nous mentionnons ici, la chronique de TomDispatch.com<\/em> que Tom Engelhardt consacre \u00e0 un article de Peter Van Buren (le 1er mai 2014<\/a>) est certainement l’expos\u00e9 le plus concret, le plus spectaculaire et le plus \u00e9mouvant de l’\u00e9tat de d\u00e9labrement structurel des \u00c9tats-Unis. Engelhardt pr\u00e9sente le texte de Van Buren par quelques mots de description du climat actuel r\u00e9gnant \u00e0 Washington et \u00e0 certains signes d’inqui\u00e9tude au cur m\u00eame du Syst\u00e8me. L’un de ces signes est le succ\u00e8s du livre de l’\u00e9conomiste fran\u00e7ais Thomas Piketty (fran\u00e7ais ! s’exclame Engelhardt), avec son livre<\/a> Capital in the Twenty-First<\/em> ; un autre est le constat de deux professeurs de l’universit\u00e9 de Princeton que les USA se sont transform\u00e9s discr\u00e8tement d’une d\u00e9mocratie en une oligarchie. (Le seul fait d’affirmer que les USA furent une d\u00e9mocratie au sens \u00e9videmment vertueux du terme, ainsi bien s\u00fbr que le cadre de l’universit\u00e9 de Princeton, indiquent que nos auteurs ne sont nullement des dissidents ; mais antiSyst\u00e8me, d’une certaine fa\u00e7on, par le fait m\u00eame d’une appr\u00e9ciation si radicale.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abNow, the stats on national and global inequality are everyday fare (and looking worse all the time). Meanwhile, the book of a French (French!) economist about how the U.S. is leading the way when it comes to inequality and possibly creating the basis for a future… yes!… oligarchy of inherited wealth is on the bestseller list and the talk of the town. And if that weren’t enough, a new study out of Princeton University suggests that, as Talking Points Memo put it, Over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power. As the two authors of the study write, The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Peter Van Buren est ancien officier du d\u00e9partement d’Etatt, participant notamment jusqu’en 2005 \u00e0 la reconstructuration de l’Irak qui s’av\u00e9ra en fait, observa-t-il plus tard, une d\u00e9structuration syst\u00e9matique. Il quitta le service du gouvernement pour devenir un whistleblower<\/em> en d\u00e9non\u00e7ant les m\u00e9thodes des USA en Irak. Dans son livre The Ghosts of Tom Joad<\/em>, il livre une sorte de carnet de route d\u00e9crivant l’Am\u00e9rique de l’effondrement, offrant un spectacle aussi pitoyable que celui de l’Am\u00e9rique de la Grande D\u00e9pression sans qu’il ait \u00e9t\u00e9 besoin du choc catastrophique de la Grande D\u00e9pression, l\u00e0 aussi par une d\u00e9structuration et dissolution souterraines, ville par ville, bourg par bourg (\u00abThis Land Isn’t Your Land, This Land Is Their Land An Empire in Decline City by City, Town by Town<\/em>\u00bb). Effectivement, Van Buren commence son texte en citrant comme r\u00e9f\u00e9rence et comme r\u00e9minescence l’Am\u00e9rique tragique de la grande D\u00e9pression : \u00abAs America’s new economy starts to look more like the old economy of the Great Depression, the divide between rich and poor, those who have made it and those who never will, seems to grow ever starker. I know. I’ve seen it firsthand.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Justin Raimondo, lui, s’attache \u00e0 son sujet favori : l’isolationnisme, qui est le mot d’ordre constant des libertariens dont il est l’un des plus ardents repr\u00e9sentants. Il s’appuie sur un nouveau sondage qui lui appara\u00eet comme un coup de tonnerre, un tsunami isolationniste. Il est vrai que le sondage NBC\/Wall Street Journal<\/em> (voir notamment le Washington Post<\/em> du 1er mai 2014<\/a>) donne effectivement un r\u00e9sultat r\u00e9ellement isolationniste<\/strong> : pour la premi\u00e8re fois depuis 1995 (depuis que ce sondage est effectu\u00e9), les partisans d’un d\u00e9sengagement (isolationnistes) sont majoritaires, et tr\u00e8s largement (47%), contre 30% partisans du statu quo<\/em> et 19% partisans d’un engagement accentu\u00e9… Les isolationnistes \u00e9taient 34% en 1995, 32% en 1997 et 14% en 2001. Justin Raimondo, sur Antiwar.com<\/em> le 2 mai 2014<\/a> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abYet another national poll shows Americans want their government to be less active overseas. In 2001, the same pollsters asked people the same question less than a week before 9\/11: 14 percent gave the less active answer. That more than a decade of constant warfare has soured many Americans on interventionism should come as no surprise, but who expected a<\/em> quadrupling<\/em><\/strong> of anti-interventionist sentiment?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis comes as a shock to the War Party, and to their base in the Washington Establishment: while they no doubt realize broad support for their foreign policy agenda has largely evaporated, this isolationist tsunami should have them in panic mode. And, indeed, there are a few stories about this, including one all about some self-proclaimed expert who says isolationism is endangering World Peace, or something to that effect. But in general Washington’s reaction to this poll has been like their reaction to all the other similar polls with similar results that have been released in the past few years or so: indifference.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe quadrupling of isolationist sentiment in the years since 9\/11 shows the importance of playing the long game. This was the strategy we here at Antiwar.com adopted in the days and months following that signal event, in which it seemed the country and indeed the entire Western world had gone mad. Like medieval monks preserving the last remnants of literacy and human civilization did you ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz? against a new Dark Age of militarism and mayhem, we held the fort and counted on being proved right in the end.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAnd now we are coming very near to the end. That’s what the rise in anti-interventionist sentiment augurs: a political showdown between the War Party and its many enemies on the right as well as the left. Whether this involves the person of Senator Paul, or some other political figure, is hard to tell at this point. However, the mere fact that the Senator’s name is now popular shorthand for a foreign policy of minding our own business is a sign of the times. The elites want intervention, and the people want peace. A showdown is coming so stay tuned to this space.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Le troisi\u00e8me de ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments, compl\u00e9ment des deux autres certes, c’est la possibilit\u00e9 d’une alliance populiste droite-gauche, qui pourrait par exemple trouver leurs symboles dans deux personnages politiques allant dans ce sens, le s\u00e9nateur r\u00e9publicain Rand Paul et la s\u00e9natrice d\u00e9mocrate Elisabeth Warren. Dans les extraits ci-dessous d’une interview par Amy Goodman, de Democracy Now!<\/em>, du 28 avril 2014<\/a>, on peut lire ce que Ralph Nader dit des possibilit\u00e9s d’une telle alliance, notamment et y compris au niveau l\u00e9gislatif. Dans sa question, Goodman nous rappelle la personnalit\u00e9 et la carri\u00e8re de Nader…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAmy Goodman<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abFor the rest of the hour, we’re joined by Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, corporate critic, attorney, author, activist, former presidential candidate. For well over 40 years, Ralph has helped us drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, work in safer environments. His devotion to political reform and citizens’ activism has fueled a number of critical policy victories and the creation of generations of watchdogs and activists to carry them forward. In recent years, Ralph Nader’s name has become synonymous with challenging the nation’s two-party political system. He ran for president in 1996 and 2000 as a candidate on the Green Party ticket, again in 2004 and 2008 as an independent.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbNow, he’s out with a new book; it is called Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. It highlights the common concerns shared by a wide swath of the American public, regardless of political orientation. These concerns include resisting mass surveillance, opposing nebulous free trade agreements, and punishing criminal behavior on Wall Street. Throughout, Ralph Nader argues in favor of transcending divisive partisan labels and instead working in concert to pursue shared interests, all the while offering practical solutions rooted in collective organizing…<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tRalph Nader<\/em><\/strong> : \u00abYes. You’ve got to think of politics in America now as two stratas. On the top, dominating the left-right emerging alliance, are the corporate powers and their political allies in the Congress and elsewhere. And what we’re seeing here is a corporate strategy of long standing that fears a combination of left-right convergence on issues that would challenge corporate power. So, they really like the idea of left-right fighting each other over the social issues. They really work to divide and rule these left-right public opinion and representatives. And so far, they have been dominant, the corporatists.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut they’re beginning to lose. And we have enough historical evidence to show that the tide is running against them. For example, on the minimum wage fight, that comes in 70, 80 percent in the polls, which means a lot of conservative Wal-Mart workers think they should get a restored minimum wage, at least to what it was 46 years ago plus inflation adjustment. That would be almost $11 an hour.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe left-right alliance is coming through at the state legislative level on juvenile justice reform and addressing the whole problem of prisons in our country. Newt Gingrich and others have started a group called Right on Crime. And the progressive forces are working hand in glove with right and left state legislatures, and they’ve gotten through some bills in over a dozen legislatures.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe third area where it’s breaking through, the left-right alliance, is to block the further expansion of these globalized trade agreements. The Pacific trade agreement, which is being negotiated with Asian countries by President Obama, is not going to be blocked under an opposition in the House of Representatives to fast track. In other words, Republicans and Democrats, I think, have about a majority of the House, even defying their leadership in the Democratic and Republican Party, Boehner and Pelosi. They have enough votes right now to block a fast-track, zip-through-the House trade agreement. And that’s a left-right.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbA little over a year ago, there was almost a majority vote in the House to block the NSA from dragnet surveillance. That was a bubbling up of public opinion, going from the grassroots all the way to the House of Representatives, in defiance of Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSo we’re seeing this emerge. And if we really want to get things done in this country, long-overdue redirections, then we better pay attention to this emerging left-right alliance that I describe in detail. There are 25 areas of left-right convergence in this country, and they represent a majority. That’s why I called the book Unstoppable. And all we need now is to start the conversation level locally, have it bubble up into the mediathe media sort of likes this idea of unlikely allies, especially at the local leveland have it move into the political stream and then put it on the table, all these issues, for the electoral campaigns that are coming up.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’int\u00e9r\u00eat de ces diverses situations est qu’elles sont aujourd’hui directement connect\u00e9es<\/strong> \u00e0 une crise ext\u00e9rieure aussi colossale de celle de l’Ukraine. On retrouve d’ailleurs, vis-\u00e0-vis de l’Ukraine sp\u00e9cifiquement, le m\u00eame sentiment du refus de l’engagement, encore plus accentu\u00e9 que dans le sentiment g\u00e9n\u00e9ral d\u00e9crit par le sondage. (Voir le 12 mars 2014<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t… L’int\u00e9r\u00eat de ces diverses situations est qu’elles sont aujourd’hui directement connect\u00e9es<\/strong> \u00e0 la crise int\u00e9rieure du pouvoir washingtonien, notamment dans la mesure, indirecte mais tr\u00e8s puissante, o\u00f9 la plupart des sentiments, statistiques, constats de dissolution, etc., qu’on y trouve, rencontrent des attitudes inverses dans la direction washingtonienne, disons dans la nomenklatura<\/em> ossifi\u00e9e du District of Columbia<\/em>. Et l’on comprend \u00e9galement que le v\u00e9ritable \u00e9l\u00e9ment dynamique actuel de cet ensemble de constats antagonistes et de contradictions, c’est la crise ukrainienne, et l’intention absolument affich\u00e9e de la direction washingtonienne de pousser autant que possible sinon \u00e0 un affrontement, dans tous les cas \u00e0 une dramatisation extr\u00eame o\u00f9 Moscou devrait au moins perdre la face, c’est-\u00e0-dire, au bout du compte, pousser \u00e0 un affrontement<\/strong> en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 puisque la Russie ne peut en aucun cas c\u00e9der.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOn comprend alors que c’est sur ce terrain-l\u00e0 de la crise ukrainienne que se r\u00e9v\u00e9leraient dans les \u00e9v\u00e9nements eux-m\u00eames, que s’op\u00e9rationnaliseraient si l’on veut, la contradiction et l’opposition dont nous parlons plus haut. De ce point de vue, on pourrait effectivement voir se renouveler l’exp\u00e9rience de l’\u00e9pisode syrien d’ao\u00fbt-septembre 2013, o\u00f9 le pr\u00e9sident US voulut lancer une attaque, h\u00e9sita au dernier moment devant les \u00e9chos statistiques d’une opposition furieuse du public, rechercha le soutien du Congr\u00e8s pour voir se dessiner un d\u00e9saveu de ce m\u00eame Congr\u00e8s (voir le 10 septembre 2013<\/a>), tout cela conduisant \u00e0 une impasse catastrophique o\u00f9 la stabilit\u00e9 et la l\u00e9gitim\u00e9 de son administration, voire la sienne, pouvaient \u00eatre mises en cause jusqu’\u00e0 une crise institutionnelle majeure, enfin, pour \u00eatre sauv\u00e9 sur le fil par Poutine et sa proposition de destruction de l’armement chimique syrien (voir le 12 septembre 2013<\/a>). Certes, on pourrait \u00e9voluer vers une situation de cette sorte, dans tous les cas pour les USA, \u00e0 propos de la crise ukrainienne, ce qui serait une justification de la conclusion de Raimondo, \u00ab The elites want intervention, and the people want peace. A showdown is coming. So stay tuned…<\/em>\u00bb ; une telle \u00e9volution semblable \u00e0 celle d’ao\u00fbt-septembre 2013, sauf que, cette fois, Poutine ne serait pas l\u00e0 pour sortir Obama du pi\u00e8ge mais plut\u00f4t, s’il a l’esprit d’humeur machiav\u00e9lique, pour l’y attirer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 2 mai 2014 \u00e0 16H06<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Les fissures b\u00e9antes de l’Empire Nous avons jug\u00e9 appropri\u00e9 de rassembler trois points de vue sur des sujets diff\u00e9rents qu’un fil commun rassemble, qui est celui de l’\u00e9tat des lieux du soi-disant Empire, comme on d\u00e9signe parfois les USA. Il s’agit, plus que jamais, du membre actif le plus pesant du bloc BAO, mais aussi… <\/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":[2],"tags":[15782,3359,3285,10119,1242,7653,3140,5303,916,4337,2895,2730,1492,3867,1296,4164,945],"class_list":["post-73859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-buren","tag-chambre","tag-congres","tag-dissolution","tag-isolationnisme","tag-nader","tag-paul","tag-populisme","tag-poutine","tag-raimondo","tag-rand","tag-russie","tag-sondages","tag-syrie","tag-ukraine","tag-van","tag-warren"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73859","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=73859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}