Outils pour utilisateurs

Outils du site

Justin Vaïsse, Histoire du néoconservatisme aux Etats-Unis - Site Web compagnon

Chapitre 2 : “De la guerre froide à l'implosion du libéralisme américain”
(pages 31 à 60)

→ Continuer vers le Chapitre 3 - Le premier âge du néoconservatisme
→ Revenir vers le Chapitre 1 - Prologue
→ Retourner à la page d'accueil

Page 31 Note 1 (p. 190) Bibliographie complémentaire sur les intellectuels de New York
L'approche peut commencer avec le documentaire de Joseph Dorman de 1997, disponible en DVD (Arguing the World) et dont a été tiré un livre, DORMAN, Joseph, Arguing the World – The New York Intellectuals in their Own Words, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000, 222 p., se poursuivre avec l'article de HOWE, Irving, “The New York Intellectuals: A Chronicle and Critique”, Commentary, octobre 1968, p. 29-51, ainsi qu'avec PELLS, Richard, The Liberal Mind in a Conservative Age, American Intellectuals in the 1940s and the 1950s, Middletown, Connecticut, Wesleyan University Press, 1989, 468 p., BLOOM, Alexander, Prodigal Sons : The New York Intellectuals and Their World, NY, Oxford University Press, 1986, 461 p., WALD, Alan M., The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the anti-Stalinist Left from the 1930's to the 1980's, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987, 440 p. et JUMONVILLE, Neil, Critical Crossings: The New York Intellectuals in Postwar America, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1991, 291 p.

Page 33 Note 3 (p. 290) Citation Irving Kristol sur la fièvre du radicalisme
“Joining a radical movement when one is young is very much like falling in love when one is young. The girl may turn out to be rotten, but the experience of love is so valuable it can never be entirely undone by the ultimate disenchantment.”

Page 34 Note 6 (p. 290) Approfondissement sur Hook, Burnham et Schachtman
Lien vers le texte chapitre_2_-_hook-burnham-schachtman.doc

Page 35 Note 13 (p. 291) Bibliographie complémentaire: “Les livres de James Burnham”
BURNHAM, James, The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World, NY, John Day, 1941 (L'ère des organisateurs, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1947, 261 p.) ; The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, NY, John Day, 1943 (Les machiavéliens : défenseurs de la liberté, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1949, 291 p.); The Struggle for the World, NY: John Day, 1947 (Pour la domination mondiale, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1947, 334 p.); Containement or Liberation? An Inquiry into the Aims of the United States Foreign Policy, NY, John Day, 1953 (Contenir ou libérer, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1953, 330 p.).

Page 36 Citation de george W. Bush sur la guerre contre le terrorisme
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Page 37 Note 20 (p. 291) Bibliographie complémentaire: “Sur l'évolution du libéralisme aux Etats-Unis au XXe siècle”
Sur l'évolution du libéralisme au 20e siècle, voir notamment YOUNG, James, Reconsidering American Liberalism – The Troubled Odyssey of the Liberal Idea, Boulder, Westview Press, 1996, 437 p. ; COPPOLANI, Antoine, “La résistible évolution du libéralisme américain : du consensus libéral au mouvement néoconservateur”, in FRECHET, Hélène (dir.), La démocratie aux États-Unis et en Europe, 1918-1989, Paris, Editions du Temps, 1999, 284 p. ; GARRY, Patrick, Liberalism and American Identity, Lawrence, Kansas University Press, 1992, 224 p. ; HARTZ, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America, NY, Harcourt Brace & Co., 1955, 329 p. ; LOWI, Theodore, The End of Liberalism : the Second Republic of the United States, NY, Norton, 1979, 331 p. ; TOINET Marie-France, KEMPF Hubert, LACORNE Denis, Le libéralisme à l'américaine – l'État et le marché, Economica, Paris, 1989, 312 p.

Page 38 Note 22 (p. 291) Manifeste de l'organisation Americans for Democratic Action (1947)

Pages 39 et 40 Notes 25, 26, 27 (p. 291) Citations d'Arthur Schlesinger sur Reinhold Niebuhr
“Reinhold Niebuhr revived for my contemporaries the historic Christian insights into the mixed nature of human beings. Original sin came to seem a powerful explanation for the anomalies of the human condition. Democracy had to take account of the human propensity for self-pride and self-delusion. The children of light had to learn to live with darkness. Recognition of human frailty offered democracy a more solid foundation than a belief in human perfectibility. 'Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible,' wrote Niebuhr; 'but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.' ”
“Despotism is never so much to be dreaded as when it pretends to do good: who would act the angel acts the brute.” “In our democratic tradition, the excessive self-love which transforms power into tyranny is the greatest of all dangers.”
“The most appalling social injustice in this country.”

Page 44 Note 32 (p. 292)Citation d'Irving Kristol sur McCarthy
“For there is one thing that the American people know about Senator McCarthy: he, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesmen for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing. And with some justification.”

Page 46 Note 40 (p. 292)Citation de Godfrey Hodgson sur la distinction entre le libéralisme et la gauche
“To draw a distinction between the Left and the liberals may sound sectarian or obscure. It is not… What I mean by the 'Left' is any broad, organized political force holding as a principle the need for far-reaching social and institutional change and consistently upholding the interests of the disadvantaged against the more powerful groups in the society. The liberals were never such a force. What I mean by the liberals is those who subscribed to the ideology I have described: the ideology that held that American capitalism was a revolutionary force for social change, that economic growth was supremely good because it obviated the need for redistribution and social conflict, that class had no place in American politics. Not only are those not the ideas of the Left; at the theoretical level, they provide a sophisticated rationale for avoiding fundamental change. In practice, the liberals were almost always more concerned about distinguishing themselves from the Left than about distinguishing themselves from conservatives.”

Page 48 Note 45 (p. 292) Bibliographie complémentaire: “Références sur l'histoire du conservatisme”
Sur l’histoire du conservatisme depuis la seconde guerre mondiale, voir NASH, George H., The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, Wilmington, Del., ISI, 1996 ; EDWARDS, Lee, The Conservative Revolution : The Movement that Remade America, New York, The Free Press, 1999 ; HODGSON, Godfrey, The World Turned Right Side Up : A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America, Boston, Houhgton Mifflin, 1996 ; MICKLETHWAIT, John, WOOLDRIDGE, Adrian, The Right Nation : Conservative Power in America, Londres, Penguin, 2004 ; KESSLER, Nicolas, Le Conservatisme américain, Paris, PUF, « Que sais-je? », 1998. Pour un panorama plus récent, voir BERKOWITZ, Peter (dir.), Varieties of Conservatism in America, Stanford, Hoover Institution Press, 2004.

Pages 49 et 50 Note 48 (p. 292) Citation d'Irving Kristol sur la National Review
“When National Review was founded in 1955, I regarded it as an eccentricity on the ideological landscape – it seemed so completely out of phase. Essentially it continued the polemic against the New Deal that characterized American conservatism, as represented by the Republican party, throughout the 1930s and 1940s. As a child of the Depression who was outraged at the spectacle of idle factories, unused resources and vast unemployment all coexisting, I could not take seriously the seemingly blind faith in 'free enterprise' that was the primal certainty of National Review. I simply found this point of view irrelevant. So did practically everyone else at the time – at least the 'everyone else' I knew or read.”

Page 50 Citation du premier éditorial de la National Review
”[…] stands athwart history, yelling Stop !”

Page 51 Note 50 (p. 292) Bibliographie complémentaire: “L'évolution du libéralisme au cours des années 1960”
Sur l'évolution du libéralisme dans les années 1960, les mouvements contestataires et la Nouvelle Gauche, voir notamment GRANJON, Marie-Christine, L’Amérique de la contestation. Les années soixante aux États-Unis, Paris, Presses de la FNSP, 1985, 655 p. ; KASPI, André, États-Unis 68 - L'année des contestations, Paris, Complexe, 1988, 191 p. ; UNGER, Irwin, The Movement: A History of the American New Left 1959-1972, NY, Harper & Row, 1974, 217 p. ; enfin MATUSOW, Allen J., The Unraveling of America : a History of Liberalism in the 1960s, New York, Harper & Row, 1984, 542 p.

Page 53 Note 53 (p. 292) Citation de Jeane Kirkpatrick sur la Nouvelle Gauche
“Against a belief in growth and abundance the new left advocates expansion of the wilderness and technological slowdown; against the allocation of role on the basis of individual achievement, the new left advocates role allocation on the basis of ascriptive group traits; against an active international role, the new left urges withdrawal; against resolute anticommunism, it recommends accommodation with communist expansion; against appreciation of American political, economic and social achievements, the new left asks that we meditate on our collective guilt.”

Page 55 note 56 (p. 292) Citation du leader étudiant Mario Savio
“Last summer I went to Mississippi to join the struggle there for civil rights. This fall I am engaged in another phase of the same struggle, this time in Berkeley. The two battlefields may seem quite different to some observers, but this is not the case. The same rights are at stake in both places—the right to participate as citizens in democratic society and the right to due process of law. Further, it is a struggle against the same enemy. In Mississippi an autocratic and powerful minority rules, through organized violence, to suppress the vast, virtually powerless majority. In California, the privileged minority manipulates the university bureaucracy to suppress the students' political expression. That “respectable” bureaucracy masks the financial plutocrats; that impersonal bureaucracy is the efficient enemy in a “Brave New World.” In our free-speech fight at the University of California, we have come up against what may emerge as the greatest problem of our nation —depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy. We have encountered the organized status quo in Mississippi, but it is the same in Berkeley.”

Page 56 Note 58 (p. 293) Citation de Seymour Martin Lipset et Paul Seabury sur les événements de Berkeley
“The Berkeley Revolt is not just another California curiosity. The new style of campus political action may affect other campuses, and eventually our national political life. […] The student leftist movements are growing and probably will continue to grow as they demand totally moral solutions to issues of racial discrimination, and foreign policy. The indifference to legality shown by serious students can threaten the foundations of democratic order if it becomes a model for student political action.”

Pages 59 et 60 Note 63 (p. 293) Citation de Jeane Kirkpatrick sur les courants politiques de son temps
“The harshest political conflict of our times has taken place among persons who, as late as 1964, were all found within a broad liberal consensus. The shattering of that consensus occurred in conjunction with the rise of the counterculture and the emergence of neo-conservative [sic] re-evaluations. The traditional American liberal position had, and has, specific content which differentiates it from European left liberalism, from counterculture (New Left) romanticism, from the old right stinginess and isolationism, from new right stridence and tendency to bigotry, and from neo-conservative cautions. As compared to European liberal-left doctrines, traditional American liberalism is pragmatic rather than rationalist, optimistic rather than perfectibilist, religious rather than secular. As compared to counterculture romanticism, it emphasizes reason more than feeling; doing more than being; achieving more than enjoying; producing more than consuming. As compared to the old right traditional [sic], liberalism is internationalist rather than isolationist, generous rather than mean. As compared to the Wallaceite right it is inclusive rather than exclusive, tolerant rather than bigoted, flexible rather than rigid. As compared to neo-conservative perspectives it is more optimistic than pessimistic, more active than resigned, more daring than cautious. The differences between neo-conservatism and traditional liberalism are, I believe, more a matter of mood and degree than of values […]”

→ Continuer vers le Chapitre 3 - Le premier âge du néoconservatisme
→ Revenir vers le Chapitre 1 - Prologue
→ Retourner à la page d'accueil

chapitre2.txt · Dernière modification: 2018/05/13 20:03 (modification externe)