Helms' Vision of Freedom

Senator Mitch McConnell and Heritage Institute President Edwin Feulner both praise Jesse Helms for a career of work on behalf of "free markets and free people." Of course, if you were a right-wing Latin American dictator, Helms was also for you. For example, Alex Massie reminds us of Helms' support for Argentinian aggression against the Falklands Islands:

"The tilt toward Britain will destroy the coalition we must have if we are to prevent a Communist takeover of Central America," said North Carolina Republican Jesse Helms, the lone opponent of a Senate resolution endorsing a pro-British policy.

Elsewhere in Republican presidents thankfully not being nearly as crazy or stupid as Helms in national security matters, he also "condemned President Nixon's historic 1972 trip to Beijing as 'appeasing Red China.'"

Comments

Among his targets is Charles A. Gillespie Jr., the Reagan Administration's nominee to be the United States envoy to Chile, replacing another Helms target, Ambassador Harry Barnes, in Santiago, the officials said. Mr. Gillespie, a career diplomat, has served most recently as the American Ambassador in Colombia.

Asked about the nature of his objections to Mr. Gillespie, Senator Helms told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the diplomat was insufficiently ''pro-Pinochet,'' a reference to Augusto Pinochet, Chile's conservative leader. An aide said he could not confirm Senator Helms's opposition on that point.

Real freedom lover, that Jesse Helms...

Posted by calipygian | July 4, 2008 10:50 PM

he also "condemned President Nixon's historic 1972 trip to Beijing as 'appeasing Red China.'"

This is some serious foresight on Helms' part, given the dramatic success and expansion of communism since Nixon.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | July 4, 2008 10:57 PM

Maybe he didn't know that the Communist Party of Argentina supported also the invasion. Just like they supported General Videla's coup in 1976, calling him a "democratic dictator" in order not to jeopardize the trade relationship between Argentina and the USSR. Those guys have a tradition on standing on the wrong side of issues.

They changed their opinion soon afterwards, when Videla decided that the only good communist was a dead communist.

Posted by Alejandro | July 4, 2008 11:04 PM

"Byrd... survives..."

Posted by Jesse Helms | July 5, 2008 12:04 AM

I like how his death was announced by the Jesse Helms Research Center. Tough times for the center, as their research is now done. (to wit: "Hey Jesse, y'all dead? "Nah")

I'm just sad he couldn't live to see President Obama.

Posted by David B. | July 5, 2008 12:45 AM

Support of the Argentine military dictatorship over Britain was something of a cause celebre in American right wing circles, for ideological reasons as they preferred the form of government Argentina had at the time.

Posted by Ed | July 5, 2008 6:02 AM

Well, to be honest, the international Left supported the Argentine invasion at the time too. I have no love for the Videla regime. I do think however that the Malvinas Islands more legitimately belong to Argentina than to Britain. Under Argentine rule they would be integrated into the nation rather than being a colony; since I disapprove of nations owning colonies, I think Argentine rule over the islands is justified, and British rule is not.

Posted by Hector | July 5, 2008 8:26 AM

Yes, Helms was a real right-winger for not supporting Thatcher's Britain in the Falklands crisis. That makes a lot of sense.

Posted by confused | July 5, 2008 10:37 AM

Yes, Helms was a real right-winger for not supporting Thatcher's Britain in the Falklands crisis. That makes a lot of sense.

Posted by confused | July 5, 2008 10:37 AM

Yes, Helms was a real right-winger for not supporting Thatcher's Britain in the Falklands crisis. That makes a lot of sense.

Posted by confused | July 5, 2008 10:38 AM

"I do think however that the Malvinas Islands more legitimately belong to Argentina than to Britain. Under Argentine rule they would be integrated into the nation rather than being a colony; since I disapprove of nations owning colonies, I think Argentine rule over the islands is justified, and British rule is not"

Except that virtually no one on the "Malvinas" actually wants to be "integrated into the Argentinian nation". They like their "colonial status" just fine. Because, you know, they are all English-speaking people of British descent, and not some bunch of oppressed Latinos desperately looking forward to be liberated by Mrs Kirchner.

Geographic proximity is a rather poor measure for legitimacy in the age of popular sovereignty, methinks.

Posted by Patrick | July 5, 2008 10:53 AM

I think that people too easily forget about Helms' long-standing associations with Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson.

"All I know is that D'Aubuisson is a free enterprise man and deeply religious."

Posted by AJB | July 5, 2008 12:41 PM

I do think however that the Malvinas Islands more legitimately belong to Argentina than to Britain.

What Patrick said. I dearly love Argentina. Truly. One of my favorite places on Earth.

But the problem is it isn't moral to force people who don't speak your language and don't share your customs and don't want to live under your rule to live under it, just because of geographic proximity. Especially since these sorts of arrangements inevitably lead to ethnic cleansing (see China's colonization of Tibet with Han Chinese).

There are plenty of thorns in nations' side throughout the world. For instance, Gibraltar. But picking the thorn is usually worse than leaving it in.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 7, 2008 1:48 AM