Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
Tout le monde a salué, salue et saluera le vote de la Chambre des Représentants du 21 mars 2010 en faveur de la loi sur les soins de santé comme une “victoire historique” de Barack Obama. Encore faut-il savoir de quoi l’on parle, et le savoir d’une manière critique. Le site WSWS.org, qui s’y entend en fait de “manière critique” lorsqu’il s’agit d’Obama (vieille fureur des trotskistes contre tout ce qui se rapproche de la tromperie “social-traître”), s’y emploie dans un texte de David North et Joe Kishore, du 27 mars 2010.
On nous rappelle le climat qui a entouré et suivi ce vote d’une part, le contenu et les tendances de cette loi présentée comme un grand pas en avant de l’humanisme social aux USA, ainsi que les forces qui y président d’autre part. L’ivresse vient vite sous la plume de nos commentateurs. Une bonne dose des réalités sordides qui baigne tout ce dont ce système sordide accouche n’est pas malvenue.
«In the aftermath of the passage of the health care bill, there have been various acts of right-wing vandalism and intimidation against congressional Democrats who voted for the legislation last week. Death threats have been issued by phone and email, and bricks have been thrown through the windows of Democratic Party offices in New York, Ohio, Kansas and Arizona.
»These acts are largely the work of fascistic elements—in many cases, borderline lunatics—whose sociopathic conceptions are inspired and incited by the reactionary tirades that are the daily and standard fare of talk radio in the United States.
»According to press reports, more than 100 Democratic members of the House of Representatives attended a closed-door meeting on Wednesday with the FBI and the US Capitol police. They discussed what one of those present called “serious concern” about security both in Washington and in their home districts during the spring recess, which has just begun. […]
»There is no doubt that Obama’s health care legislation enjoys the support of the most powerful sections of the financial and corporate elite. While marketing the legislation, for popular consumption, as a “reform” that will provide coverage for millions who have been uninsured, it has always been understood within the elite that the central purpose of the legislation was to substantially reduce the costs of providing health care for the broad mass of the working population.
»Indeed, it has been the veiled and ambiguous references to reducing Medicare payments, eliminating “unnecessary tests,” etc., that has fueled widespread popular suspicion that the Obama administration was not telling the people the truth about the purpose and ultimate effect of its proposed “reform.” Moreover, the fact that Obama rapidly abandoned his commitment to a “public option”—which had been proclaimed by liberal supporters as the absolutely essential prerequisite of any serious reform of the health care system—shattered the political credibility of the entire enterprise.
»The growing public hostility led to the electoral debacle suffered by the Democratic Party in the “liberal” bastion of Massachusetts, the one state where the type of individual “mandate” included in the overhaul had already been tested. The Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy went to a Republican who vowed to provide the “41st vote” against the health care bill.
»In the immediate aftermath of the election—which was widely recognized as a devastating repudiation of Obama’s legislation by the Democratic Party’s working class constituency—the administration and the Democratic congressional leadership executed a dramatic shift in strategy and tactics.
»The Obama White House, which had justified its gutting of the “public option” and countless other concessions in the name of “bi-partisanship,” declared that it would press for the passage of the legislation without any Republican support. Significantly, however, this shift was not accompanied by the repudiation of previous concessions. Instead, Obama proceeded to make further concessions to the most reactionary elements within the Democratic Party itself, including on the issue of abortion.
»Within the House and Senate, the Democratic leaders—who normally do not dare visit the restroom without begging the Republicans for permission—suddenly assumed a stance of vehement determination. Having for decades insisted that no law could be enacted without a “super-majority” of 60 votes, they suddenly devised a strategy in which a majority of one would be sufficient to pass the bill. What was the source of the newfound courage of the Democrats? Quite simply, their masters on Wall Street and in the most powerful corporate boardrooms made it clear that they wanted the legislation passed.»