Reagan, un vrai libéral ?

[Brock]

la bonne soeur qui m'a appris l'orthobaffe et les table de multiplicoudepied avait tendance a venir par derriere l'eleve penche sur son devoir, et a rugir d'un coup "ah mais tu vas me faire facher" tout en baffant avec les deux mains sur le derriere du crane (pour pas faire trop mal) de gauche a droite en cadence, ca avait un petit cote traumatisant qui a du avoir un effet

[h16]

Mais même avec une tête de lard comme toi, ça marche. Comme quoi.

[Brock]

tu vas me faire facher.

[h16]

[G7H+]

Un article intéressant sur la politique étrangère de Reagan : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010…reagan?page=0,0

Je conseille les pages 3 et 7. Extraits :

  Citation

"Reagan Frightened the Soviet Union into Submission."

Hardly. Reagan's role in winning the Cold War lies at the core of the American right's mythology. The legend goes like this: Reagan came into office, dramatically hiked defense spending, unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative (his "Star Wars" missile shield), and aided anti-communist rebels in the Third World. Unable to keep pace, the Kremlin chose Gorbachev, who threw in the towel.

[…]

Contrary to the conservative fable, it was this second-term dovishness that played the crucial role in enabling Gorbachev's reforms. From virtually the moment he took office, Gorbachev was desperate to cut military spending, which by the mid-1980s constituted a mind-bending 40 percent of the Soviet budget. But within the Politburo, vast unilateral cuts would have been politically impossible; Gorbachev needed an American partner. And once he found that partner in the less-menacing second-term Reagan, Gorbachev was able to convince his Kremlin colleagues that the Soviet Union could risk losing its Eastern European security belt without fearing Western attack. In the words of longtime Soviet Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Dobrynin, "If Reagan had stuck to his hard-line policies in 1985 and 1986 … Gorbachev would have been accused by the rest of the Politburo of giving everything away to a fellow who does not want to negotiate. We would have been forced to tighten our belts and spend even more on defense."

  Citation

"Obama Is the New Reagan."

He could be. In a hundred ways, Obama and Reagan are different. But there are parallels between the moments in which they came to power. Like Reagan, Obama took office in an environment that severely constrains the ability of the United States to launch new military campaigns. For many contemporary conservatives, being a Reagan disciple means acting as if there are no limits to American strength. But the real lessons of Reaganism are about how to wield national power and bolster national pride when your hands are partially tied.

Obama must be equally shrewd at a time when he has no choice but to retreat from Iraq and eventually Afghanistan. That means more than ritual incantations about flag and country; it means rhetorically challenging those who unfairly attack the United States. From a purely foreign-policy perspective, publicly confronting Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez when they malign the United States, or calling out universities that ban military recruiters from campus, might seem useless. But for U.S. presidents, there is no pure foreign-policy perspective; being effective in the world requires domestic support. If Obama does not want to be Jimmy Carter, if he does not want Americans to equate his restraint with their humiliation, he must be as aggressive as Reagan in finding symbolic ways to soothe Americans' wounded pride.

Even more importantly, Obama must rebuild U.S. economic strength. Although Reagan boosted the defense budget, he saw the contest between the United States and the Soviet Union fundamentally as a struggle between political and economic systems in which the dynamism of American capitalism was the West's trump card. As a liberal taking office in the wake of a financial collapse, Obama is rightly concerned not only about capitalism's dynamism, but also its stability and decency. Still, the crucial insight is that power in world affairs rests on economic strength. Obama needs to remind Americans that their most successful Cold War presidents -- Reagan included -- saw the conflict as a primarily economic struggle. Soviet communism threatened the United States less because the Red Army might overrun Western Europe than because, for a time at least, it represented a serious competitor for the hearts and minds of people across the globe.

In that regard, it is not jihadi fanaticism that has taken the Kremlin's place. After all, even in the Muslim world, barely anyone really believes that al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Iran's ruling clerics can build a society prosperous and stable enough to challenge the West. The better analogue is China's 21st-century authoritarian capitalism, which has built a record of political stability and economic dynamism that has captured the imagination of people (and governments) throughout the developing world.

In the nascent economic and ideological struggle between the United States and China, wars that Washington cannot possibly pay for -- and which leave the country more reliant on foreign central bankers -- don't make America stronger; they make it weaker. Of course, the United States and China are far more economically interdependent than were the United States and the Soviet Union. But within every interdependent relationship lies a balance of power, and Obama's leverage over China will depend in large measure on his ability to stop hemorrhaging money, lives, and attention in the Muslim world so he can rebuild the political and economic institutions that form the foundation of U.S. national strength. Do that, and the American model can triumph again, peacefully. Ronald Reagan -- if not his contemporary right-wing admirers -- would understand.

[ikichi]

  Zax a dit :

Alors que l'armée doit être gérée par l'Etat pour les libéraux.

Je ne sais très bien comment marcherait la défence nationnale sans état, mais le but est bien de privatiser tout le bazar…

Pour ce qui est de Reagan j'aurais dit par instinct qu'il ne l'était pas assez. Mais quand j'ai appris qu'il s'inspirait de Bastiat ça m'a fait hésiter. Soit c'est lui qui est mieux que je pensait soit c'est Bastiat qui n'est pas aussi bien que ça.

[xara]

  ikichi a dit :

Je ne sais très bien comment marcherait la défence nationnale sans état, mais le but est bien de privatiser tout le bazar…

Pour ce qui est de Reagan j'aurais dit par instinct qu'il ne l'était pas assez. Mais quand j'ai appris qu'il s'inspirait de Bastiat ça m'a fait hésiter. Soit c'est lui qui est mieux que je pensait soit c'est Bastiat qui n'est pas aussi bien que ça.

Soit comme souvent, il y a un gap entre la rhétorique employée et la réalité, la seule particularité de Reagan étant qu'il ait utilisé une rhétorique franchement libérale à maints égards.

[Dardanus]

  ikichi a dit :

Je ne sais très bien comment marcherait la défence nationnale sans état, mais le but est bien de privatiser tout le bazar…

Cela c'est plutôt la défense nationale sans orthographe. Mais le but est peut-être aussi de privatiser l'orthographe…

[ikichi]

Les états unis auraient dû battre l'urss avec une armée totalement privée. Ca aurait été classe.