The Low Price of Power

Pamela Constable offers a pretty solid retrospective on Augusto Pinochet. This, however, jumped out at me:

Pinochet, who died Sunday at age 91, was a man with a mission. He genuinely believed he was doing the right thing, carrying out a grim duty in order to save his country from evil. In every speech and interview, the strongman of Santiago returned to the same theme: his sacred, patriotic calling to rid Chile of communism, whatever the cost.

This is a cliché that people don't tend to think about, but it's important to qualify that claim. Pinochet believed it was his calling to rid Chile of Communism, whatever the cost to other people. He wasn't eager to pay a price personally, or to have members of his circle do so. Indeed, though Pinochet's corruption was hardly on a Mobutu-style scale, it's clear that he and his retainers profited personally from his dictatorship. And when he left office, he didn't throw himself on the mercy of the people, pleading justification but willing to accept whatever verdict -- pay any price -- they might render. Instead, he had himself made a senator for life to obtain immunity from prosecution. Once that stopped working, he adopted a number of other methods to try -- successfully, in the end -- to avoid bearing the cost of what he'd done.

This line of thought is, of course, entirely typical of the authoritarian mindset. You hear it in contemporary political disputes about torture and about the use of brutal force abroad. We must do what it takes to succeed whatever the cost. Always suppressed is the proviso -- whatever the cost to other people.

Comments

You also see, in connection with American state-sponsored torture, the same concern displayed by Pinochet to avoid prosecution. It was no accident that one of the first acts of this administration was to opt out of particpating in trhe international war crimes tribunal . . .

Posted by rea | December 12, 2006 10:00 AM

And when he left office, he didn't throw himself on the mercy of the people, pleading justification but willing to accept whatever verdict -- pay any price -- they might render. Instead, he had himself made a senator for life to obtain immunity from prosecution.

It's been pretty annoying to keep seeing right-wingers keep on defending Pinochet (or at least, arguing that he's not as bad as Castro/Hussein/whoever) on the grounds that he allowed a peaceful transfer of power. Okay, so he did something intelligent. So what? And I chose the word "intelligent" intentionally, because it sure looks like he did what he did in a well-calculated choice of how to avoid the consequences of his regime, not out of a high-minded concern for peace or one line he wasn't willing to cross. Do the conservatives defending him that not understand that?

Posted by Cyrus | December 12, 2006 10:19 AM

Its not whether or not they understand, they won't care anyway. Pinochet has been labeled a hero and must be talked about as one. Conservative pundits are wedded to a great man theory of history. And not just that really, but the great man must have no faults. Its why you had the Bush cult of personality, the Regan worship and even the Nixon apologists. Its why you'll have conservatives trying to keep the past whitewashed so we don't see the faults of past leaders or past actions of the United States. I mean they even tried to resurrect the failure of McKinley.

Posted by Rob | December 12, 2006 10:27 AM

It's a bit like defending a murderer by pointing out that he saved someone's life once, unlike all those other bad murderers.

Posted by neil | December 12, 2006 10:31 AM

For a look on what the cult of personality looks like from the Chilean side, where Pinochet wasn't just some abstract dilemma, see El Mercurio liveblogging his funeral and eulogies.

Posted by neil | December 12, 2006 10:33 AM

his sacred, patriotic calling to rid Chile of communism, whatever the cost.

Pardon the Godwin's law violation so early in the thread, but didn't Hitler feel the same way?

Indeed, though Pinochet's corruption was hardly on a Mobutu-style scale, it's clear that he and his retainers profited personally from his dictatorship.

Also, while he wasn't the best President in our history (and his foreign policy team really Cheney'd up, big time), don't people pay attention at least to Eisenhower's speeches anymore? They are teh good, as the kidz say ... at least people should ask, as the forensic types do, "qui bono?":

One thing about Pinochet's regime (and all those "free trade"/"free market" schemes that have followed the blueprint Uncle Miltie and the Chicago Boys -- sounds like a rock group, don't it? -- provided for Pinochet) is that while Pinochet and his immediate associates may have only benefitted mildly, the sell-off of state resources, which were then mismanaged to milk huge profits, benefitted a small number of investors at huge costs to everyday people of Chile (the changes certainly didn't pass the Rawls' test, so to speak). That a few could benefit so much does raise the question of conflicts of interest, and even if the interests being conflicted were only tangentially related to the power structure, they still provided enough incentive for the power structure to remain, no matter how odious it was.

That concentrations of wealth benefitting the few while the vast majority is made to suffer "the pain of transitioning to a free market" with a supposed long term benefit being of what the pain is the cost (even as "in the long run, we're all dead" as Keynes would point out) is not a bug but rather a feature is obvious from the Pinochet experience, yet few seem to want to point this out (also, there's the question of the liberal paradox, even assuming the transition is worth it: c.f. that paradox to the question of why do so-called free markets so often require a reduction of freedom to impliment?) ... to get lost as to whether Pinochet was personally corrupt dodges the bigger issue of the inherent corruption and coersion involved in so-called free markets.

Posted by DAS | December 12, 2006 10:35 AM

Curiously, right-wingers seldom praise Daniel Ortega for his willingness to peacefully hand over power.

Posted by William Burns | December 12, 2006 10:44 AM

Shorter WaPo: it's OK to torture and kill thousands, as long as you create a booming economy.

A Dictator's Double Standard

Augusto Pinochet tortured and murdered. His legacy is Latin America's most successful country.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006; Page A26

AUGUSTO PINOCHET, who died Sunday at the age of 91, has been vilified for three decades in and outside of Chile, the South American country he ruled for 17 years. For some he was the epitome of an evil dictator. That was partly because he helped to overthrow, with U.S. support, an elected president considered saintly by the international left: socialist Salvador Allende, whose responsibility for creating the conditions for the 1973 coup is usually overlooked. Mr. Pinochet was brutal: More than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured, mostly in his first three years. Thousands of others spent years in exile.

One prominent opponent, Orlando Letelier, was assassinated by a car bomb on Washington's Sheridan Circle in 1976 -- one of the most notable acts of terrorism in this city's history. Mr. Pinochet, meanwhile, enriched himself, stashing millions in foreign bank accounts -- including Riggs Bank, a Washington institution that was brought down, in part, by the revelation of that business. His death forestalled a belated but richly deserved trial in Chile.

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

Posted by RT | December 12, 2006 10:47 AM

Pardon the Godwin's law violation so early in the thread, but didn't Hitler feel the same way?

Godwin's Law applies where one attacks a fellow online interlocutor's argument by comparing a point in the argument to Hitler. It does not apply where one is comparing one murderous dictator to another.

Posted by dj moonbat | December 12, 2006 10:49 AM

If a bad leader can become a good leader by handing over power, perhaps Bush could secure his legacy in that way?

Posted by neil | December 12, 2006 10:49 AM

Matthew, you are on fire lately.

There's a few intellectual cobwebs still to clear away -- property in fishes? bah; and "equality of opportunity" should be struck from the vocabulary of any intelligent person -- but overall you are becoming one of the most sharpest political writers out there.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 12, 2006 10:55 AM

Matthew, what you describe is what I call "The Hard Men (or Women) of the Right Syndrome": the willingness to advocate "hard measures" -- torture, dictatorship, racial profiling, internment, etc. -- in the name of some "greater good" is inversely proportionate to the likelihood that the person doing the advocating will be personally affected by those measures.

Posted by Roberto Rivera | December 12, 2006 11:03 AM

I've been emailing with Jonah Goldberg back and forth today and he posted one of my letters here, to which both he and JPod responded. I just can't believe that Jonah can, with a straight face, say that there is more love for Castro on the left than there is love for Pinochet on the right. The best he can do is point to bozos like Oliver Stone, not exactly indicative of the vanguard of progressive thought. In contrast, NRO has an entire symposium of Pinochet adoration and defense. I'm sorry, but you won't find Harpers or the New Yorker publishing glowing articles about Castro when he dies. Not only is it true that the right is more sympathetic with Pinochet, they are downright proud of it. They are just on the wrong side of history.

Posted by Gabriel | December 12, 2006 11:18 AM

Also, it's not really like Pinochet thought that the torture and killing of human rights and labor agitators was a cost that Chilean society had to bear as a side-effect of fighting Communism. These things were benefits.

Posted by dj moonbat | December 12, 2006 11:20 AM

I second lemuel pitkin, and I wonder what happened to you Matt to make you stop accepting all the bullshit that passes for news coverage in this country. Was it a single event, an epiphany, or was it the accumulation of hundreds of opinion pieces and the like spouting absolute drivel?

For a while there a few years ago I thought you were heading down the conventional pundit path, but lately you have been, as lemuel said, on fire.

It reminds me of that line from your favorite rock band, Led Zeppelin (ha ha). "There are two path you can go by, but in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on." I don't care about your crappy taste in music and movies as long as the commentary is top notch, which it has been lately.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | December 12, 2006 11:32 AM

Isn't part of the Right's need to keep Pinochet respectable tied to the fact that they always point to Chile's pension system as a precedent and model for what they propose for Social Security? If Pinochet becomes tagged as a murderous authoritarian tyrant, then would not that raise some doubt that it would be in the best interest of the people to model our pension system after his?

Posted by TRS | December 12, 2006 11:32 AM

J-Go, in the post linked by Gabriel:

I don't have time to run through the soundbites of various scholar-statesmen from the Democratic leadership like Pat Leahy or various members of the Congressional Black Caucus. But come on! Hasn't some blogger compiled a good list of pro-Castroisms from the left? If not, someone should get on the stick.

Such self-parody. Such certitude, in the lack of any evidence. Such blind prejudice and laziness.

Good work, Gabriel.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 12, 2006 11:36 AM

"This line of thought is, of course, entirely typical of the authoritarian mindset. You hear it in contemporary political disputes about torture and about the use of brutal force abroad. We must do what it takes to succeed whatever the cost. Always suppressed is the proviso -- whatever the cost to other people."

Ah, the Shrek principle (from the part where John Lithgow's character says "some of you may not return with your lives, but that is a price I am willing to bear").

My wife implicates this all the time when she asks me to take out the half-full trash or unload the dishwasher at 11:00 PM rather than do it in the morning when it's not time to go to bed. "I'm just being a little OCD," she says. "It's grating on me to know that the trash is going to have to go out tomorrow, or that there are dishes to load."

I usually point out that it is surprisingly easy to have something "grate" on you to the point that it needs to be done now (even when it doesn't) WHEN YOU AREN'T THE PERSON THAT WILL BE DOING IT.

Posted by Joe | December 12, 2006 11:36 AM

This notion of people not internalizing the costs of a certain course of action is not confined to the Right, of course. We liberals routinely discount the complaints of the rich over the unfairness of certain forms of taxation (i.e., all of them). I don't feel very bad about discounting their concerns, but we really ought to be aware that (nearly) everybody engages in this kind of thinking.

Posted by dj moonbat | December 12, 2006 11:43 AM

If Pinochet becomes tagged as a murderous authoritarian tyrant, then would not that raise some doubt that it would be in the best interest of the people to model our pension system after his? - TRS

Not just the pension system, just about every aspect of the "neo-liberal", "world is flat", neo-global-feudal world view is modeled after Pinochet's "miracle of Chile"(TM). Please do see Greg Palast on the subject ...

Posted by DAS | December 12, 2006 11:45 AM

I'm sorry, but you won't find Harpers or the New Yorker publishing glowing articles about Castro when he dies.

Not glowing articles, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a 'symposium' of some sort in Harper's.

In any case, we might well have the chance to find out fairly soon.

Last month I was talking to a friend of mine who is an older (65-ish) English guy and an unreconstructed Marxist Communist, and he said, literally, "I love Fidel." Anecdotal, but I imagine that sentiment survives pretty well among a certain older lefty crowd. In fact, I've had similar conversations here in Chicago, about Castro specifically, with ex-Rising Up Angry / Heartland Cafe folks. (Chicago reference, don't worry if you don't get it).

So it does exist. Numbers? don't ask me.

Posted by live | December 12, 2006 12:00 PM

If Pinochet becomes tagged as a murderous authoritarian tyrant, then would not that raise some doubt that it would be in the best interest of the people to model our pension system after his?

You gotta be kidding.

Posted by neil | December 12, 2006 12:01 PM

It seems like a symposium on Castro's rule is a bit more logically defensible than a symposium giving Pinochet credit for the achievements of the the decade of democratic governments which followed his rule.

Posted by neil | December 12, 2006 12:05 PM

Also, there's the whole Che t-shirt thing. I wonder if we will start seeing Pinochet t-shirts now that he is dead.

Posted by live | December 12, 2006 12:08 PM

Yesterday I saw a distraught-looking woman walking down the street, clutching a newspaper to her chest like a shield, on the cover of which was a blowup of the General's face.

I preferred the state newspaper's cover myself.

Posted by neil | December 12, 2006 12:17 PM

Pinochet may be a brutal dictator but he's got nothing on Emmanuel Goldstein, our true enemy.

Posted by jg | December 12, 2006 12:23 PM

Mathew Yglesias' argument is not entirely convincing. You can be willing to bear costs, if necessary, without voluntarily assuming them when it is not necessary. Pinochet was at personal risk, he was very nearly assassinated at one point.

Posted by James B. Shearer | December 12, 2006 4:07 PM

Matt says authoritarians feel that: "We must do what it takes to succeed whatever the cost. Always suppressed is the proviso -- whatever the cost to other people."

Pinochet was a member of the bourgoise right? Haven't they been eliminated before in communist countries? That could have partly been Pinochets motivation for stopping communists at all costs. The horrors of the soviet union, whether or not they and other states were true communists has tainted communists forever. I don't blame people for fearing they might get the whole "Soviet-Union Deluxe" package instead of true communism.

Why can't we condem torture but still cheer fighting communists?

Posted by pjgoober | December 12, 2006 4:12 PM

Well, pjgoober, to pull another Godwin:

Why can't we condemn the Holocaust but still cheer fighting Communists?

Posted by Zephyrus | December 12, 2006 4:59 PM

The topic of torture is particularly relevant to the "pay any price" rhetoric. We frequently hear the "ticking time bomb scenario" used to justify torture, but never at the individual level. Maybe there could be a situation where the use of torture could save thousands or even millions of lives. What sort of coward would refrain from doing so simply because torture was illegal and he would go to jail? Let every person who tortures someone know that jail is the inevitable result and we'd soon see who the real "heroes" are.

Posted by James Killus | December 12, 2006 7:36 PM

Well, pjgoober, to pull another Godwin:

"Why can't we condemn the Holocaust but still cheer fighting Communists?"

Because that would have resulted in the Nazis taking control of Eurasia. Do you have another smashing rebuttal?

Posted by PJgoober | December 12, 2006 11:14 PM

Read 'For La Patria', or any of Brian Loveman's books(esp. 'Politics of Anti-Politics' and 'Constitution of Tyranny') on Latin American militaries for an overview of the psychology indoctrinated in the Officer's corp.

Ambiguous "threats to the internal order' are constantly cited as a cause for Latin American golpes, which is really what gets me worried about the War On Terror; the more we start becoming paranoid about the 'homeland' (La Patria), the more we ape the behavior in Latin America. The key provision being that suspension of Habeas Corpus and other civil liberties is built into their Constitutions, and now we seem to be fucking with that aspect as well. The parallels frighten me, but I'm probably being paranoid, right?

Posted by xjerryx | December 13, 2006 1:18 AM

pzic mgtdba oyrsuc rwksblz grlzybt yrsg cmrahw

Posted by hcyi slfz | June 11, 2007 6:13 PM

vzjcxlywn tlyaud cagfdhlmr ugkvqrcwj rcamh xkfd kfletzd http://www.pfmgusj.owagjsbi.com

Posted by otjdszpy adisrtvgl | June 11, 2007 6:13 PM