USA 2008 : le pari de The Economist

The Economist vient de faire son choix dans l'élection présidentielle américaine.

Au départ il hésite un peu entre les deux candidats : "For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption."

 

The Economist dresse d'abord une longue liste d'arguments en faveur de McCain :

"At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. [...] Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. [...] Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies."
"His support for free trade has never wavered."
"His gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one."
"Once he reaches the White House, [...], he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; [...] Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems."

The Economist défend même sa colistière Sarah Palin : "It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion."

En fait, The Economist critique surtout McCain sur son âge (72 ans) : "how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?", et le fait qu'il ait axé sa campagne essentiellement sur l'aile droite du Parti Républicain : "Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right."

 

Ensuite, The Economist s'attaque à Obama :

"Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk."
"So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left."
"Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions."
"But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole."
"Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well." Admettons ! Mais qu'est-ce que ce serait, sinon ? :)

 

Donc en résumé : beaucoup de raisons de se rassurer avec McCain, beaucoup de risques avec Obama. Et la conclusion est donc :

"So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble [Trad : un pari]. [...] But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."

 

Mais bon, il faut leur pardonner :
En 2004, il était trop politiquement incorrect de soutenir Bush. The Economist avait alors soutenu Kerry.
Cette année, il est tout simplement beaucoup trop politiquement incorrect de ne pas soutenir Obama.