Honestly, it's no wonder Chavez-friendly populists keep winning elections in Latin America; the south-of-the-border right seems to be comprised almost entirely of morons. Did they seriously nominate a "banana magnate" who "had promised closer U.S. ties" and happens to have been Ecuador's richest man? How hard could it have been to paint this dude as an American puppet who would only serve the interests of a narrow elite?
« But Why? | Main | DeLong Delivers »
Maybe a Coup Would Work
26 Nov 2006 07:41 pm
Comments (34)
"How hard could it have been to paint this dude as an American puppet who would only serve the interests of a narrow elite?"
Not hard at all, since that's precisely what he is.
I cannot handle this post title.
Didn't Noboa call Bush a "dimwit" or was that the other guy...?
They're not morons, Matt. Politics is *beneath* these guys. Which is why they hope to abolish it.
Cf. the reactionaries in Stendhal's "Charterhouse of Parma," none of whom had read more than half a dozen books in his life.
Okay, so maybe they *are* morons.
Honestly, it's no wonder Chavez-friendly populists keep winning elections in Latin America.
Actually Noboa was the populist candidate in this race, attempting to buy off the poor with promises of handouts. Correa is more of a brainy leftist, a serious reformist with a PhD is Economics, not a Chavez-style populist. Correa has said he doesn't consider himself part of Chavez's Bolivaran revolution. My sense is that Lula provides a better analogy.
This election was actually a pretty close thing. And it's not like Mexico succumbed to the siren call of leftism this time around (much as I might have wished it). The right wing always has built-in advantages, even in poor countries. Those advantages aren't always enough, but they're always there.
"And it's not like Mexico succumbed to the siren call of leftism this time around (much as I might have wished it)"
Yeah, we seem to have infected them with a particularly insipid strain of political discourse. Calderon at times seemed to be channeling John Cornyn.
Damn--that sucks. :-D. I was looking forward to seeing Cousin Al put the "banana" back into "banana republic.
The right wing alternatives in Brazil and Mexico at least are not morons. In Mexico they are neo-liberals but fairly responsible ones (not ones likely to plan a military coup, which has never happened in Mexico anyway since the revolution). In Brazil they are formerly center-left (now center right) types who are about as neo-liberal as the PAN. Today those two countries have in spite of all their challenges, a remarkably sane 2 pair of left-right alternatives. Not that you would know it from watching CNN, where we are informed that Mexico is populated by and led by criminals.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603270009
The south of the border right is entirely composed of morons. The north of the border right isn't terribly different, we just seem to be producing more morons or we are just too damn rich to keep people from feeling the economic pain that trumps culture war politics and such.
Matt, when was the last time you been following Latin American politics?
Chavez style politicos do not fare really strongly in Latin America... They are elected in Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, the three of them living through a hydrocarbon windfall.
Elsewhere they lose. About 60 percent of Latin America are Mexico and Brazil, where center-right and "center-left light" presidents were elected recently. Colombia, Peru and Chile have center or right-of-center governments.
The whole "Latin America shifts to the left" is in my honest opinion, bullshit that has been passed by liberals to please liberals during the winter years of their discontent. Now that the Dems have won one at home, could they please stop making up stories about Latin America?
"Colombia, Peru and Chile have center or right-of-center governments."
Michelle Bachelet is center-left, not center or center-right. Not the most left-wing of Socialists, but a Socialist nevertheless.
"Latin America shifts to the left" is on the whole accurate. Not the *extreme* left in the majority of cases, but nevertheless left of center in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and other nations (including, now, Nicaragua--and, yes, I know Ortega didn't win a majority of the popular vote, but a win is a win). It is Mexico, where the center-right won, which is the exception.
it's no wonder Chavez-friendly populists keep winning elections in Latin America
Hmmm. People in Mexico and Peru wold be surprised to read that, since the candidate who got tagged "ally of Chavez" lost those elections, largely because the populations of those countries didn't want to be allies of Chavez. But, hey, if winning elections in Bolivia and Ecuador keep the far lefties happy, more power too 'em...
"I REJECT these defective results! They must be REVISED!"
A quote from... Andrés Manuel López Obrador?
But, hey, remember that to the far left, elections are optional. Even if you lose, if you are on the extremist left, you can still swear yourself in as President.
Just a factoid: "revision" in British English usage is not the same as in American English usage. In American English, it means to "revisit and change or modify." In British English it can mean that, but it is often used to mean the same thing as "review."
Probably the reason the Latin-American right is so incredibly tone-deaf and pro-American is that the American right provides them with all their money, either indirectly or directly.
Other than that, the support bloc of the right in Latin America seems to consist, as it should, of the wealthy and powerful and those who admire the wealthy and powerful. Only in the U.S. does the right-wing manage to capture an anti-elite vote, and it's a bizarre and unnatural thing, certainly not something to watch for in other countries.
In Chile, the richest man in the country (owner of the privatized national airline and several TV stations) recently ran for president and lost by a comfortable margin. To some extent, I'm sure his wealth and power leveraged him some support, but there's also the factor that Chileans disinclined to vote for the left generally think that the richest guy in the country would make a good leader. They chose him over a non-billionaire with a populist image who came very close to winning the Presidency in the last election.
It should be pointed out that in Latin America, The right ARE American puppets that only look out for the interests of the elite. Theres no need to paint them, they don't even try and hide it.
I don't really blame Chavez for anything he'd done. He had ot deal with right wing fascists who made no secret of their willingness to use violence to take power. That he defeated them without the need to resort to any actual totalitarianism or violence himself is something that should be commended. Had he either allowed the coups to take place, or used his power in the army to destroy his opposition, blood would have flowed and he did what he had to do to stop it. His enemies wouldn't have showed the nmercy he has thus far shown.
It should be noted, by those of you who claim Mexico 'chose' a center right leadership, the extreme illigeitacy of that claim. At best they might have won there, but probably fell back on the undemocratic nature of mexico to steal an election. Pretending the people chose the government currently occupying mexico is absurd, as is pretending that the corrupt and dictatorial right leaning governments were actually represnative of their populace's.
Latin America didn't shift toward the left, it shifted towards Democracy. The people there have been on the left for a good, long time now.
I live in Ecuador, and you are wrong. Our right wingers are morons, but not in the way you think. The right did not nominate Noboa for anything. There is no such thing as a right alliance. Noboa created his own political party and nominated himself. He didn't lost because people thought he was a puppet for the U.S. In fact, this is the first time I hear such thing. Considering how dirty the fighting got between Correa and Noboa, if Correa could have said that, he would have done that and yet he never did. Noboa lost simply because he has no charisma and looks like Danny DeVito's version of The Penguin.
I wonder how many days have all those posters claiming the right in Latin America is a puppet for American interest have spent in Latin America in their lives, combined. And how many of you, smart Amurickan liberals can actually speak the language, bothered to converse with a Latin American and so on.
The views by Soullite and neil remind me of progressive school eight grade history classes... Shallow as a puddle.
The idea that the right in Latin America is financed by US economic interests is laughable. Perhaps true for Nicaragua and other minnows. For the countries where 90 percent of Latin Americans live, that is a joke.
The idea that Bachelet is a socialist is also laughable. Her Minister of Finance is a Harvard professor that used to write papers advocating the adoption of the dollar as currency in Latin American countries in crisis. Bachelet and the vast najority of Chilean political class and society has more commitment to free trade than any of the political parties in the United States.
Take Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Peru, and you will have more than 80 percent of Latin American population and economic activity, and in each of those countries there is a vast majority of the electorate that is fully committed to the so-called neoliberal policies, including opening of the economy, prudent fiscal policies and conservative monetary policy.
If you are not able to see that, you do not know the basics about Latin America.
I don't think you have a "vast majority" anywhere on the planet clamoring for neoliberal economic policies. I thought about qualifying this statement with a few obvious points that jumped out when I read this and it seemed beyond counterintuitive. Then again you didn't offer one shred of proof of this rather incredible claim, so I'll just say if you think Latin America is awash in Chicago School economic fever you know the basics about it.
Ed, I happen to be Brazilian and I make a living off following Latin American developments. The only thing incredible is that the US press reports what is happening in not more than 20 percent of Latin America as an all-engulfing regional trend, and the American public is clueless enough to buy it.
On Brazil, if someone tells me that more than 20 percent of the Brazilian Congress is in favor of rolling back privatizations OR against anti-inflationary measures OR against prudent fiscal policy, this person might as well think that Javanese is the official language in Brazil or that Brazil is the name of a state of Pakistan.
Colombia has a very strong consensus in favor of neoliberal policies. It has elected President Uribe with a mandate to pursue a free trade agreement with the US and to use a heavy hand against the hugely unpopular insurrection factions.
The vast majority of Peruvian and Mexican voters stood against Humala and Obrador, the candidates backed by Chavez.
Soullite,
More than 60 percent of the Mexican electorate chose to vote against the left-leaning candidate.
Is that so hard to understand?
You are throwing around a bunch of loaded terms. Probably no one anywhere is going to say they are against "prudent fiscal policy". The Brazillian congress is a pack of thieves and I'm 100% aware that they are deeply mired in the whole system and could care less what popular opinion is. Lula certainly didn't rise to power preaching the power of the market. Colombia is a basketcase, failed state that basically only exists around Bogata. None of this seems to point toward a Southern America enthralled with neoliberal economic snakeoil.
Ed,
On Brazil. Brazil is running a primary surplus of more than 4 percent of GDP. There is no serious constituency in Brazil against such policy. That is what my "loaded term" means. As for your comment about politicians in Brazil not being responsive to popular opinion, it seems that you are losing it, your only argument seems to be throwing the stereotypes.
On Colombia. To call Colombia a failed state or basket case only shows you are absolutely clueless about the country. There is nothing else to discuss. Colombia is a functioning state, with a booming economy, vibrant cities, and it has managed to maintain relatively strong institutions while the state fights a very impopular insurgency.
"At best they might have won there, but probably fell back on the undemocratic nature of mexico to steal an election. Pretending the people chose the government currently occupying mexico is absurd, as is pretending that the corrupt and dictatorial right leaning governments were actually represnative of their populace's."
This is really wrong. The "undemocratic nature" of Mexico? They've been having reasonably fair elections for decades, and real competition since at least 2000. It is now a democracy with some irregularities, which irregularities may be somewhat greater or somewhat less than those in the United States. This sounds like Glenn Beck, who ignorantly trashes Mexican institutions in order to score domestic political points.
I think there is a vaguely left electoral majority in Mexico, which fails to elect a left or center-left president because there are two left of center parties. But popular support for the PAN is real. I probably wouldn't vote for them if I were Mexican, but they got the power they have by winning elections in spite of PRI dominance, not by rigging the system with corporate or military power.
EconBras: What you are saying is much closer to the truth than most of this thread, but I do think that it is a stretch to say that PT rule in Brazil is some kind of right or dead-center development. PT has obviously moderated since coming to power and accepted neo-liberal reforms, but it is still the major Brazilian left alternative with a left constituency. If you're going to admit that the left alternative (whether you call it "center-left" or "center-left light") has won control of Congress in the U.S. then I think you'd have to say that the left alternative has also done pretty well in Brazil (even though it is indeed, like the American Democrats, an establishment left which has accepted free trade). FHC may have resigned himself to the fact that he is known by some as a right or center-right figure, but I think Lula would be at least amused to hear people calling him and his party right-wing. Mature democracies in Latin America have accepted some version of neo-liberalism, but so has almost every developed market democracy in the world. The PSDB is the closest Brazil can come to a viable right-wing version of neo-liberalism, which says a lot.
Or perhaps all you are saying is that most Latin American voters are not casting their votes for Chavez types, as some American liberals may beleive. In which case I agree.
To Jeremiah:
On Mexico.
I would not call the PRI left-of-center by any measure. It is populist old right. And the legitimate parents of neoliberal policies in Mexico (see Salinas de Gortari, Zedillo)
On Brazil.
The policy differences between Lula (PT) and Cardoso (PSDB) are very small, if there is any, and that is understood by any Brazilian that cares about politics. For instance, the flagship policy initiative of Lula's government, the transfer program called Bolsa Familia, is a renaming and expansion of a Cardoso government initiative.
That Lula represents the continuity of neoliberal policies was something that international financial markets did not quite get it when he was first elected, which caused some turmoil and allowed many Brazilian players to make a kill. By the time Lula was reelected, he was the favorite candidate for Wall Street (one of the only differences between Lula and Alckmin is that the latter would take a more populist line in favor of devaluing the exchange rate, which would hurt profits for international investors on Brazilian bonds).
The mantra when talking with policy wonkies in Brazil is that the last election was not even entertaining because both leading candidates offered more of the same.
There was indeed a left candidate in Brazil, Heloisa Helena, with a program to rollback neoliberal reforms, and it received less than 10 percent of the votes in the presidential election.
Jeremiah:
You caught my drift right. My main point is that most Latin Americans are NOT signing up for Chavez style policies.
Those who pretend otherwise are usually Amurickan libruls, of the type that want LA to confirm their biases to make them feel righteous when standing against Bush.
Where I wrote "more populist line in favor of devaluing the exchange rate", please read "more pro-industrialist line in favor of depreciating the exchange rate"
You caught my drift right. My main point is that most Latin Americans are NOT signing up for Chavez style policies.
They're also not buying the Washington Consensus, which for all intents and purposes is dead in Latin America.
Brazil and Argentina have largely rejected the IMF, a fact that seems to be proof positive of the failure of the IMF in Latin America.
Randy Paul,
The Washington Consensus is a set of propositions characterizing the consensus among policymakers in Latin America and IFIs circa early nineties.
Below is the list of reforms:
* Fiscal policy discipline;
* Redirection of public spending toward education, health and infrastructure investment;
* Tax reform – Flattening the tax curve: Lowering the income tax rates on proportionally high tax brackets (typically above median income), and raising the tax rates on the proportionally low tax brackets (typically below median income); lowering the marginal tax rate;
* Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
* Competitive exchange rates;
* Trade liberalization – replacement of quantitative restrictions with low and uniform tariffs;
* Openness to foreign direct investment;
* Privatization of state enterprises;
* Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,
* Legal security for property rights.
Perhaps the only Washington Consensus reforms that has not been integral part of Brazilian government policy is "Competitive exchange rates" and the one on low interest rates.
Alas, Brazil and Argentina are the two governments more willing to push for a GREATER involvement of the IMF in emerging markets (while the industrialized countries have been pushing for a reduced role).
While some privatizations were wise and accepted albeit grudgingly (CVRD comes to mind) Petrobras will not be privatized nor will Banco do Brasil.
Precious little of this has hapened:
Redirection of public spending toward education, health and infrastructure investment;Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Competitive exchange rates;
With regard to tax policy, noncompliance is a major problem in Brazil. The upper class have effectively accomplished the lowering of their tax rate through that (e.g. the placement of assets overseas), so why anyone would think raising taxes on incomes below the median is a "reform" is beyond me.
As for trade liberalization, Washington doesn't seem to realize that it's a two-way street re: tariffs on orange juice, sugar and ethanol, not to mention the farm subsidies (still no movement on the cotton subsidy loss from Tio Sam)
Regarding exchange rates, the real was held artificailly overvalued until the collapse in 1998. Even now Lula would love to have a strong dollar to augment the amount of reais already pouring in from the trade surplus.
Interest rates are still fueled by fear of inflation.
As for the IMF, Brazil paid off the IMF obligations early not just to save on the interest, but also because the IMF is manifestly unpopular there while it is absolutely detested in Argentina. I cannot understand why you make the statement that Argentina and Brazil would push for greater involvement in emerging markets now is beyond me.
Comments closed December 10, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"His rival Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador's wealthiest man, rejected poll results and said he could demand a revision of the ballots if necessary after official results are released later on Sunday night."
"I REJECT these defective results! They must be REVISED!"
Posted by John Emerson | November 26, 2006 8:07 PM