De defensa

Il y a un peu moins d’un an, nous nous étions attachés avec le plus grand intérêt à un texte de Harlan K. Ullman, le 29 mai 2009, au point de lui emprunter une expression que nous avons depuis souvent utilisée, qui représentait alors, selon lui, ce qu’avait été le gouvernement de GW Bush : “le gouvernement de l’idéologie et de l’instinct”. Ullman opposait ce gouvernement à un éventuel “gouvernement de la raison” qu’aurait voulu instituer Barack Obama. Déjà, en mai 2009, il n’était pas très optimiste. Qu’en pense-t-il dix mois plus tard? Le pire possible.

Dans une chronique pour UPI, reprise par Spacewar.com le 17 mars 2010, Ullman fait une rapide analyse de la situation du gouvernement US. Il compare implicitement la gravité du moment actuel de l’histoire des USA à trois autres moments clé de cette histoire: 1776 (la déclaration d’indépendance), 1861 (la Guerre de Sécession), 1942 (l’entrée en guerre des USA face au Japon et à l’Allemagne), – trois moments clé avec les hommes d’Etat que réclamait le destin pour les affronter (les Founding Fathers avec Jefferson, Lincoln, F. D. Roosevelt). Aujourd'hui, rien, vraiment rien n’incite à l’optimisme.

«Today, those who believe the U.S. government is broken or dysfunctional are correct. Yes, debt and deficits will lead to a disaster unless checked. Healthcare must be fixed or repaired to assure both physical and national financial well-being. And if the United States doesn't get Pakistan right, success in Afghanistan will be illusive, if not impossible.

»But the forcing question is whether the country is serious in taking on each or some of the above as our predecessors were in 1776, 1861 and 1942. On that the jury is out and may not convene in our lifetime. Is there anything that can be done to avert disaster?

»First, while it is politically correct to call for bipartisanship and non-partisanship, on tough issues with profoundly different and opposite ideological views, neither will follow. The gaps are too wide. For example, to some, the free market is meant to be free. To others, markets require regulation. Congress cannot decide on how to make a Solomonian division of that baby.

»Second, in the absence of real non-partisanship, it would be useful to focus on what is really the serious center of gravity for each of these tough problems. For example, in healthcare, the health of the American public is the largest factor from which solutions can follow. Yet, by most measures, the national health is poor given the huge percentages of obesity, preventable diseases and other controllable factors. We know and talk about this perhaps heaviest drain on the health system. If the United States were serious, it would do something about it.

»Similarly, in terms of the wars the country is fighting, it is clear that Pakistan is vital to success. Yet, the United States has been incapable of providing the capacity for the Pakistanis to succeed both on the military and economic fronts. The reason is that despite the rhetoric, the United States is not really serious.

»Politicians of both parties and branches of government will of course argue they are doing their level best. But, they will complain, it is the system, the government or the opposition that make progress impossible. Where then is a Jefferson when needed most -- at a time that this government sadly has become destructive?»

Notre commentaire

Vous avez pu lire 49 % de cet article en lecture libre.
Cliquez ici pour pouvoir lire l'ensemble