NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Latin American, contrary to what some would have you believe, has become decidedly pragmatic, electing center-right candidates with fair consistency. The implications would be?


What’s Left of the Latin Left (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/opinion/31mon3.html?th&emc=th)


Published: July 31, 2006
Ever since Hugo Chávez won Venezuela’s presidency and began presenting himself as a regional leader, the Bush administration has been proclaiming that he would push Latin America back to the left. But the left has been losing ground in recent elections, and there are signs that just being associated in voters’ minds with Mr. Chávez is a liability.

For a time, Mr. Chávez’s influence seemed powerful. In 2002, Ecuador elected Lucio Gutiérrez, another military populist, but later deposed him over an unconstitutional power grab. President Evo Morales of Bolivia is a radical populist who leans heavily on Mr. Chávez for advice, oil and money.

But in Peru, Alan García defeated Ollanta Humala, a self-proclaimed Chávez acolyte and particularly frightening demagogue, after framing the choice as “Chávez or Peru.” The Mexican election is still being contested, but there is little doubt it got so close after Felipe Calderón unfairly accused his opponent Andrés Manuel López Obrador of being an aspiring Chávez.

In Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica and other countries where the presidents are moderate social democrats, they have more in common with their center-right than with Mr. Chávez.

This is hardly what the left used to be in Latin America. In fact, Latin America has never been more centrist and pragmatic. The only voters who have chosen radicals live in perpetually ill-governed nations where the mainstream has failed them.

The Bush administration, whose clumsy opposition to Mr. Chávez played into his hands, has learned from its mistakes. It has handled Bolivia carefully and enjoys good relations with most of the moderate leaders.

One reason for Mr. Chávez’s failure to ignite a leftist revolution may be that his prominence has little to do with his policies. The high price of oil allows him to spend freely at home and to buy gratitude abroad by selling oil cheaply and on credit.

His very personal defiance of President Bush is his other attraction. That draws a stream of ideological tourists to Caracas. But as Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s former foreign minister, points out, if they really wanted to support someone helping the poor, they would go to Chile.

... sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/americas/06/year_of_elections/html/nn1page1.stm

We have, in recent memory, the victory of 4 leftists - Hugo Chavez of Venesuela, Ms. Bachelet of Chile, Alan Garcia of Peru, and Evo Morales of Bolivia. (Please don't kid yourself - Garcia of Peru is a centre-left candidate) We have the victory of 1 righist, who's position was never really in danger - Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. And we have an insanely close, disputed election in Mexico.

It may make some feel better to point, make a witty rhyming comment and say the left is losing in Latin America, but it's not true. Why it's so hard to accept though, is an interesting question.

What the article fails to mention is that the Latin American center-right would be seen like pinko-commies in the US.

Latin America has become decidedly more pragmatic, but more because after a century of suffering them they have become wary of messianic figures (as popular as they may be) than about liking an economic system over the other.

What the article fails to mention is that the Latin American center-right would be seen like pinko-commies in the US.That might have something to do with the fact that it isn't an article. It's an editorial.

What the article fails to mention is that the Latin American center-right would be seen like pinko-commies in the US. Quite true. "Right" can mean a lot of different things in different contexts. Lucky for Lagos and Bachelet that Chavez makes them look right wing:D

lol.

it doesn't matter if they are left or right. only if they kiss the ass of the US

If by any chance a comunist was elected, and pledged alliegence to the US, the americans would consider him an excelent leader.

That might have something to do with the fact that it isn't an article. It's an editorial.
Great...we give opinions on opinions...

Great...we give opinions on opinions...

You might. I just laugh at the evident ignorance.

You might. I just laugh at the evident ignorance.
Oh shush, you live in Brazil, and everyone knows Brazil doesn't count.

Oh shush, you live in Brazil, and everyone knows Brazil doesn't count.

Um, dois, três, quatro, cinco, seis, sete . . .

Um, dois, três, quatro, cinco, seis, sete . . .
Oh punny;)

Quite true. "Right" can mean a lot of different things in different contexts. Lucky for Lagos and Bachelet that Chavez makes them look right wing:D

Left and right also mean different things depending on whether you mean in theory or reality.

COMMENTARY: Latin American, contrary to what some would have you believe, has become decidedly pragmatic, electing center-right candidates with fair consistency. The implications would be?


What’s Left of the Latin Left (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/opinion/31mon3.html?th&emc=th)


Published: July 31, 2006
Ever since Hugo Chávez won Venezuela’s presidency and began presenting himself as a regional leader, the Bush administration has been proclaiming that he would push Latin America back to the left. But the left has been losing ground in recent elections, and there are signs that just being associated in voters’ minds with Mr. Chávez is a liability.

For a time, Mr. Chávez’s influence seemed powerful. In 2002, Ecuador elected Lucio Gutiérrez, another military populist, but later deposed him over an unconstitutional power grab. President Evo Morales of Bolivia is a radical populist who leans heavily on Mr. Chávez for advice, oil and money.

But in Peru, Alan García defeated Ollanta Humala, a self-proclaimed Chávez acolyte and particularly frightening demagogue, after framing the choice as “Chávez or Peru.” The Mexican election is still being contested, but there is little doubt it got so close after Felipe Calderón unfairly accused his opponent Andrés Manuel López Obrador of being an aspiring Chávez.

In Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica and other countries where the presidents are moderate social democrats, they have more in common with their center-right than with Mr. Chávez.

This is hardly what the left used to be in Latin America. In fact, Latin America has never been more centrist and pragmatic. The only voters who have chosen radicals live in perpetually ill-governed nations where the mainstream has failed them.

The Bush administration, whose clumsy opposition to Mr. Chávez played into his hands, has learned from its mistakes. It has handled Bolivia carefully and enjoys good relations with most of the moderate leaders.

One reason for Mr. Chávez’s failure to ignite a leftist revolution may be that his prominence has little to do with his policies. The high price of oil allows him to spend freely at home and to buy gratitude abroad by selling oil cheaply and on credit.

His very personal defiance of President Bush is his other attraction. That draws a stream of ideological tourists to Caracas. But as Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s former foreign minister, points out, if they really wanted to support someone helping the poor, they would go to Chile.

Chavez is a pimple on Uncle Sam's ass. The best way to deal with him is to keep an eye on him but let him bloviate. Eventually the people of Venezuela will see through him and deal with him appropriately.

If he starts doing anything stupid, like arming terrorists in neighboring countries (or elsewhere), we can respond as the situation warrants.

Chavez is a pimple on Uncle Sam's ass. The best way to deal with him is to keep an eye on him but let him bloviate. Eventually the people of Venezuela will see through him and deal with him appropriately.

If he starts doing anything stupid, like arming terrorists in neighboring countries (or elsewhere), we can respond as the situation warrants.

He's too busy trying to woo an other South American Leader...

Yeah. You know what I'm talking about.

He's too busy trying to woo an other South American Leader...

Yeah. You know what I'm talking about.

Actually he's too busy stealing medals off of the other US 'enemies'. Like Iran just gave him their highest Honor possible or something like that.

Like I said before Chavez is just silly, he just talks and talks. If he stopped with his OMG US OUT TO GET ME, attitude maybe he could do something good.


And it looks like Mexico is heading for a possible civil war.

And it looks like Mexico is heading for a possible civil war.
A bit ahead of schedule, but about time for another one.

... sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/americas/06/year_of_elections/html/nn1page1.stm

We have, in recent memory, the victory of 4 leftists - Hugo Chavez of Venesuela, Ms. Bachelet of Chile, Alan Garcia of Peru, and Evo Morales of Bolivia. (Please don't kid yourself - Garcia of Peru is a centre-left candidate) We have the victory of 1 righist, who's position was never really in danger - Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. And we have an insanely close, disputed election in Mexico.

It may make some feel better to point, make a witty rhyming comment and say the left is losing in Latin America, but it's not true. Why it's so hard to accept though, is an interesting question.
I think it's important to distinguish between the hardliner left of Chavez and company and the moderate left of Lula da Silva and company. Chavez is a demagouge, and to anyone not blinded by ideology, a potential threat to Venezuelan democracy. Folks like Lula da Silva on the other hand are far more amenable to compromise, and do not aspire to become President for Life and such.

What Latin America needs for development to really take off is a few good years of stability. The region's been plagued by chaos since the earliest days of independence, coups, demagouges, little wars, superpower confrontations, drugs and Nazis have all been destabilising factors. If the regional governments can cement themselves as permanent, even if they must elect moderate leftists, then the potential for development will really take off. If tariffs are eliminated towards Latin American goods in the US, the region could have a gigantic economic boom, to rival even the current Chinese boom. A Free Trade Agreement of the Americas would be beyond awesome!

South America should concentrate on rooting out corruption and gangsterism before it worries so much about left/right political theories. It would probably do a whole lot better if it did.

Of course it won't. Mostly because it is a sort of africa lite.

If the regional governments can cement themselves as permanent, even if they must elect moderate leftists, then the potential for development will really take off.
We don't want permanent governments, we want permanent apparata of state - elections, constitutions, laws etc. The non Andean countries and Chile have general stabilised as democracies over the last 20 years, with more economic stability resulting in the last five or so. (These things take some time to bed in.)
As such the Mercosur states are now in a position to begin to develop internally. The next five to ten years will be highly significant for the region.

If tariffs are eliminated towards Latin American goods in the US, the region could have a gigantic economic boom, to rival even the current Chinese boom. A Free Trade Agreement of the Americas would be beyond awesome!

A free Trade agreementthat really is a free trade agreement would be beneficial, and probably welcome. The FTAA proposal was a very long way from this. It was to remove all tariffs here to US goods, but only to remove selected tariffs in the US. As such, it was wisely rejected by the Mercosur nations.

The trade with the EU is just as important to the region as the trade with the US.

Potentially more important for the near future are the commercial, economic, cultural, technical and educational links being formed with India, China and South Africa

But I have noted that Brazil, at least, is attempting to keep the Doha round alive in bipartisan talks and negotiations. I hope they succeed.

I have been waiting for a reason to post this picture.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=7/18415443864.jpg&s=f10

Socialism sucks sweaty hairy....

A bit ahead of schedule, but about time for another one.

Good, maybe they will stay there for once? Perhaps get someone with courage and a will to reshape Mexico into a better country.

I have been waiting for a reason to post this picture.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=7/18415443864.jpg&s=f10

Socialism sucks sweaty hairy....
So... do you have anything... constructive to say?

So... do you have anything... constructive to say?

Socialism sucks?

Socialism sucks?
...No, I believe you misheard me. I said "constuctive" not "the skinhead crap that I listen to and fight over at school"...

Good, maybe they will stay there for once? Perhaps get someone with courage and a will to reshape Mexico into a better country.
No, more people will leave. It doesn't matter how corageous one person is, the effort will have to come from everybody.

No, more people will leave. It doesn't matter how corageous one person is, the effort will have to come from everybody.
Believe me, DM only doesn't care about the state of Mexico, he only wants to [HICK VOICE]keep them damn spicks out of our heartland![/HICK VOICE] :rolleyes:

...No, I believe you misheard me. I said "constuctive" not "the skinhead crap that I listen to and fight over at school"...

Since when has hating socialism been a 'skinhead' thing? Hell, I'm not even white......

I hate socialism because it's a cancerous boil on the ass of the world.

No, more people will leave. It doesn't matter how corageous one person is, the effort will have to come from everybody.

You mean they can jump 20 ft walls?

Why aren't they part of Mexico's olympic team :eek:

Believe me, DM only doesn't care about the state of Mexico, he only wants to [HICK VOICE]keep them damn spicks out of our heartland![/HICK VOICE] :rolleyes:


Actually, to be more exact, it's the disrespect they show to our laws, and the welfare mentality they bring with them.....

I've got no problem with a legal alien, it's the illegal ones I don't like.

Yep, I'm racist all right....wanting foreigners to come here legally is WRONG! :rolleyes:

You mean they can jump 20 ft walls?

Why aren't they part of Mexico's olympic team :eek:
*sigh* ...Case-in-point...

Anyways, the people who I generally come into conflict with over my political views are ignorant skinheads, who you happen to sound identical to. For some reason, I don't know what you look like...

We don't want permanent governments, we want permanent apparata of state - elections, constitutions, laws etc. The non Andean countries and Chile have general stabilised as democracies over the last 20 years, with more economic stability resulting in the last five or so. (These things take some time to bed in.)
As such the Mercosur states are now in a position to begin to develop internally. The next five to ten years will be highly significant for the region.


I'm making a common American mistake on that one. I forgot that in the US, our definition of 'government' is different from everyone else's. We use the term to denote the apparata of state

A free Trade agreementthat really is a free trade agreement would be beneficial, and probably welcome. The FTAA proposal was a very long way from this. It was to remove all tariffs here to US goods, but only to remove selected tariffs in the US. As such, it was wisely rejected by the Mercosur nations.

The trade with the EU is just as important to the region as the trade with the US.

Potentially more important for the near future are the commercial, economic, cultural, technical and educational links being formed with India, China and South Africa

But I have noted that Brazil, at least, is attempting to keep the Doha round alive in bipartisan talks and negotiations. I hope they succeed.
Which is why I said 'a' Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Not 'the'. I feel the current proposal is insufficient on the part of the US, and I wholeheartedly applaud Brazil's attempt to keep the Doha round alive.

Actually, to be more exact, it's the disrespect they show to our laws, and the welfare mentality they bring with them.....

I've got no problem with a legal alien, it's the illegal ones I don't like.

Yep, I'm racist all right....wanting foreigners to come here legally is WRONG! :rolleyes:
Hey, they aren't hurtin' anyone. Why you bitchin'? Racist. :)

In other news, good night, ever'body...

Hey, they aren't hurtin' anyone. Why you bitchin'? Racist. :)

In other news, good night, ever'body...

Yeah, like that Principal in Florida who was killed by an illegal 15 year old kid driving a van.

Grrr...

*sigh* ...Case-in-point...

Anyways, the people who I generally come into conflict with over my political views are ignorant skinheads, who you happen to sound identical to. For some reason, I don't know what you look like...

Well I've got no problem with LEGAL aliens-if they are here to work (And not to commit mischeif) I welcome them. There's a huge shortage of workers here IN texas, and I'd LOVE to hire some good workers. Unfortunately, all we have are flakes around here-myself and the boss end up working 60-70 hours a week.

You mean they can jump 20 ft walls?
If they are motivated enough, sure. But there'll be no need.

Why aren't they part of Mexico's olympic team :eek:
They can't do it in a single jump.

Yeah, like that Principal in Florida who was killed by an illegal 15 year old kid driving a van.

Grrr...
Yeah, or those people killed by the 89 year old who then went shopping.

Yeah, like that Principal in Florida who was killed by an illegal 15 year old kid driving a van.

Grrr...
Or the fourteen year old American-born kid who killed a seven year old in Canton a couple of years back. Kids can be stupid, regardless of where they're from.

What the article fails to mention is that the Latin American center-right would be seen like pinko-commies in the US.

Latin America has become decidedly more pragmatic, but more because after a century of suffering them they have become wary of messianic figures (as popular as they may be) than about liking an economic system over the other.
Ha! Even the USA Dems are a fair step to the right of most of the worlds rightists. Australia is home of the proletariat, land of the equal in comparison to USA (even considering recent events).