Contenu du sommaire : L'immigration au coeur du débat

Perceived as a democratic victory after several years in minority opposition, the midterm elections of November 2006 expressed strong resentment against republicans. Democrats did not produce a platform that stirred voters' interest. As republican dominance in Congress has come to an end, one should not overestimate the strength behind the new democratic majority.

The subject of undocumented migration has produced national alarm in the United States. Mexicans now constitute the largest ethnic group in the newest wave of migrants, and together with the rest of the “Latino” population, have impacted the American lifestyle, displaying the ability to mobilize, and occupy political positions in different levels of government. The subject of migration is part of the national agenda in both countries. In the context of the war against terrorism, and the fear of threats to the American national identity, the extreme positions that criminalize undocumented migration and propose the construction of walls along the border tend to find a balance point. The challenge for Mexico is attacking the causes of migration and obtaining a shared vision about its costs and benefits.

After the deep divide over the Iraq war that witnessed the explosion of tensions that had been simmering since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Europe now face tough questions about what holds them together or drives them apart. However, despite long-standing differences and delicate shifts in outlook, the United States, Europe and Canada still can be considered a “transatlantic community” They still have fundamentally similar approaches to identity, values and interests. Now, and for the foreseeable future, these structural pillars can withstand the storms of political discord.

As Sunstein's “incompletely theorized agreement” helps explain, one can hardly expect unanimity in agreement, nor a single completely thought-out reason for agreement, for even the barest majority in a democratic government will have reached its conclusion for many different reasons. A derivative concept, namely “incompletely theorized disagreement”, is a distinctive characteristic of the relationship of the United States and Europe. Whether they do or not agree on various issues such as the use of force, Iraq, climate change or the death penalty, to name but a few, they constitute themselves as a transnational community and do only differ within this broad agreement, especially over the question of how to deal with those who are not part of the transnational community they have created. So the truth is that there is no fundamental disagreement between America and Europe, none at least that may verify any incompletely theorized disagreement.

The United States will be unable even to win the support of other democracies if it is unable to understand and acknowledge the interests and priorities of others. Because of its own aspirations for global leadership and occasionally differing perspectives, France is a particular test for America in this regard. Learning to appreciate its relationship with France could help the United States profoundly in dealing with the rest of the world.

The lasting confusion between Gaullism and anti-americanism that showed during the French-American rift over Iraq is illegitimate and should be clarified once and for all. French anti-americanism only sheds light on the domestic and international weakening of French institutions, particularly the President. The new presidency may however turn that trend backward. Exploring the roots of neoconservatism allows fascinating comparisons between US conservatism and French politics. Although Iraq has created a break in Transatlantic relations, uncovering deep cultural differences buried during the Cold War, the challenges of globalisation and world peace should inform common thinking and cooperation between Europe and America.

Dealing with social issues in the US has for over forty years rested on excessive resort to midlevels of political power and local arenas as the preferred basis of commercialized public services, whose merchandization resulted from the exigencies of global metacapitalism. Current reforms aim at establishing an institutional order carrying neocapitalists values and made of fragmented local territories. However in the name of free choice, such order aggravates the dislocation of American society. Social issues thus seem much dependent on change in local affairs and institutions, suggesting us to explore the territorial dimension of social changes.