17.9.04

There's something rotten in the Kingdom of Kristol

Les néo-conservateurs sont-ils au bord du schisme ? Un nouvel article de Francis Fukuyama, l'auteur de "La fin de l'histoire et le dernier homme" fait en tout cas beaucoup de bruit.

Un extrait choisi:

Of all of the different views that have now come to be associated with neoconservatives, the strangest one to me was the confidence that the United States could transform Iraq into a Western-style democracy, and go on from there to democratize the broader Middle East. It struck me as strange precisely because these same neoconservatives had spent much of the past generation warning-in The National Interest's former sister publication, The Public Interest, for example-about the dangers of ambitious social engineering, and how social planners could never control behavior or deal with unanticipated consequences. If the United States cannot eliminate poverty or raise test scores in Washington, dc, how does it expect to bring democracy to a part of the world that has stubbornly resisted it and is virulently anti-American to boot?


Affaire à suivre, donc !

links to this post

Links to this post:

<\$BlogItemBacklinkCreate\$>

2 commentaires

Blogger O. a écrit...
Du même Fukuyama :

"It is perhaps in light of experiences like these that Milton Friedman, dean of free-market economists, said a couple of years ago that his advice to former socialist countries 10 years earlier had been to 'privatise, privatise, privatise.' 'But I was wrong,' he added. 'It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatisation.' The cost of learning this lesson was high."

Pourquoi je cite ça ici, moi... ?

Sans doute parce que le "châpeau" de l'article dit :

"Francis Fukuyama shocked the world with his 'End of History' thesis that the market would take over the role of mighty nations. But 9/11 changed all that. Now, in this exclusive article, the world's foremost economic philosopher argues that our very survival depends on stronger government".

Ah oui, l'article :
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1253530,00.html
à 11:08 PM
 
Blogger melodius a écrit...
Je crois que personne ne niera que la "privatisation" à la soviétique est un fiasco. Les apparatchiks se sont tout simplement appropriés toutes les ressources(ou, de manière plus précise, ont modifié le fondement juridique de leur usurpation). Donc oui, Friedman a raison, la priorité aurait dû être l'introduction de la "rule of law", suivie d'une privatisation au bénéfice de la population.
à 5:32 PM
 

Enregistrer un commentaire

<< Retour à l'accueil