Bush Goes South
Thursday morning at Noon (PST) I'll once again be guest-hosting the national public radio news magazine To The Point. You can listen here or here in So Cal here it live on 89.9 FM.
The topic: GW Bush's trip this week to South America.
The overwhelming consensus around that junket is already in before it happens: too little too late.
When Bush came into office in 2000 he vowed that Latin America and Mexico in particular would be his administration's foreign policy priority. Things didn't quite work that way and now lame duck Bush is hobbling down south trying to gussy up the American image -- and offset the counter-influence of a rising Hugo Chavez.
I think we can anticipate some pretty turbulent demonstrations of repudiation against Bush. My admired friend, and former Mexican Foreign Minister, Jorge Castaneda writes that if Bush were smart (!) he'd go to Disneyland instead. Someone, says Castaneda, ought to stand up against the false alternatives of Chavez, but it ain't Bush:
George W. Bush is the least appropriate person on Earth for this mission; he is immensely unpopular in Latin America -- not since Richard Nixon's trip to Caracas in 1959 have so many protests been likely -- and since Sept. 11, 2001, he has neglected the hemisphere. Many snicker that if he defends democracy in Latin America as well as he has in Iraq, only God can help Latin American democrats.
Something similar, in the end, to what Porfirio Diaz said a century ago.
I'm less convinced, however, but who Castaneda nominates to be the stand-up guy in Latin America -- newly seated Mexican President Felipe Calderon:
The good news is that there is someone who can do the job, if he receives political cover and international financial support for the task. Mexico's Felipe Calderón is ideally suited to engage Chávez and the Castro brothers in the inevitable ideological fisticuffs. He believes in human rights and democracy, and he understands macroeconomic policy and the need for effective anti-poverty programs. He also knows he has to get along with his northern neighbor.
Calderón, young and a forceful debater, is a better option than Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, which shares a border with Venezuela. Brazil's left wing would not allow Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to take on Chávez, even if Lula wanted to. Chile is a splendid example of the success of sensible, socially minded policies, but President Michele Bachelet has proved unwilling to sing their praises. And while Oscar Arias of Costa Rica has the personal prestige and experience, his country does not.
This seems like excessive exuberance on Jorge's part. Calderon has yet to prove himself, to distinguish himself from the previous autarchs that the Mexican political class has produced.
But Castaneda's underlying and broader point should be well-taken. Latin Americans deserve to have a better choice than either Bush or Chavez.
We've sort of beaten this them to death on this blog, and let's continue. If it's not to your fancy, then you can simply beat it. But opposing Bush and all of what he stands for should not lead to validating such a questionable figure as Chavez.
The natural missing link here, the guy who could and should tower over the other two is Brazil's Lula. Lula's problem, however, is that he actually has to govern a rambunctuous nation of 185 million people, rife with the deepest of inequalities, class divisions, institutional corruption and positioned right in the squeeze of the global economy.
Much of the left has been disappointed that Lula's governing Workers' Party hasn't expropriated the capitalists, seized the land, and thrown a king-sized banana cream pie at Bush.But, as I said, Lula actually has to run a government and hang on to governing majority. Nor does he quite have the torrent of petro-dollars to slosh around with that his Venezuelan counterpart does.
What Brazil does possess is world-class diplomatic skills. And Lula has already made it clear to Bush that he's not going to be easily enlisted in an opportunistic anti-Chavez campaign. Lula has a very specific agenda to discuss with Bush: Brazil wants an end to U.S. ag subsidies that affect Brazilian exports and it wants an expanded voice for Latin America in the UN. That's if anything will be heard over the din of the coming protests likely to erupt wherever Bush lands.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“Chile is a splendid example of the success of sensible, socially minded policies”
WTF?
March 7th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I’ll bow to your superior knowlege of Latin America (and that of Randy Paul) but, for the life of me, I can’t see Castenada’s “Irrational exuberance” for Calderon who has, shall we say, a slight legitamacy problem which seems to have been noticed by the voters down there (if only our electorate had been so discerning!).
If Lula is waiting for Bush to get rid of Agricultural Subsidies he might as well wait for Godot as well! With Bush more embattled by the day he’ll need every Republican on board that he can get and I don’t think that means alienating the farm staters. Hell, when even Hagel is mentioning the “I” word I think a “Reform” bill that cuts AG supports is the last thing that will come out of this WH.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“Castaneda has yet to prove himself, to distinguish himself from the previous autarchs that the Mexican political class has produced.”
You obviously meant Calderon…
March 7th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Thats what happens when you go down the road of the nouvau riche Latin American ex-leftists turned decent liberals with big houses and interests to protect who wake up to find htemselves bourgeois….You end up holding the water of the ballot stuffing thief, who perhaps decent lefters are relieved that a “populist” was beat in Mexico even if everybody knows Calderon’s hands are dirty. Its all well and good to be a critic of Chavez, however one puts it – I disagree but whatever….but one loses all crediibility as a critic of M Chavez when saying kind words, or even considering kind words about Calderon.
Kirchner and Lula have expressed not just an unwillingness to “contain” Chavez, but stand in (sometimes critical) solidarity with Venezuela. No amount of fantasist rhetoric form neoliberal implementers who carry water for election thieves will change that.
I actually admire Lula, and think his reasonings behind not moving farhter left has to do with the notion of capital flight. He hasn’t gone far enough, but he is the best that Brazil has had in a while. No one believes in expropriating all the capitalists any more. The towering heights would be enough, and Brazil is a very democratic society, perhaps the most in the world, with numerous associations and civil society groups participating in their governance.
And they like Venezuela.
This is no longer about a questionable figure like Chavez. We have our views there. The only way of framing this is that it is about complez “really existing” politics vs. infantile projections of “two lefts” in Latin America and about that leading holders of such a Wolfowitzian fantasy into even thiking of supporting Calderon or some other thief or inconsequentialist.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
How Calderon stole the election:
http://newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=2633
March 7th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,171 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
HARRIS, Blake, 22, Specialist, Army; Pueblo, Colo.; First Cavalry Division.
MAYO, Barry W., 21, Pvt., Army; Ecru, Miss.; First Cavalry Division.
MOYER, Ashly L., 21, Sgt., Army; Emmaus, Pa.; 630th Military Police Company.
PARR, Brandon A., 25, Sgt., Army; West Valley, Utah; 630th Military Police Company.
PEEK, Michael C., 23, Sgt., Army; Chesapeake, Va.; 630th Military Police Company.
RUSSELL, Ryan D., 20, Specialist, Army; Elm City, N.C.; First Cavalry Division.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Thanks Reg for the catch now corrected.
Cummings: That Calderon “stole” the election is something far from conclusive. Very far. The Mexican election council is about the cleanest institution in the entire country. In any case, both Calderon AND his primary rival AMLO both have a credibility crisis as neither one got much more than 1/3 of the vote. Indeed, AMLO’s civilian revolt has totally fizzled precisely because of the lack of his own legitimacy and his robust failure to provide a viable political strategy in the post-election period beyond the initial dramatics of the Mexico City sit-in ( a ploy that horribly backfired as millions of Mexicans got really pissed off that they couldnt transit back and forth to work).
I love your faux indignation about leaders with big houses and swimming pools. I think you know too much about Lula’s past to pin that on him. Castaneda for his part didnt wake up in the ruling class one day.. he was born into it, his father was a former foreign minister… and so what? Jorge was one of the pivotal figures who took many many risks to help bring down the PRI one party state. Big House or not (and Ive been to his house btw and it aint so grand) he stood up boldly to the PRI dictatorship of the 70’s and 80’s and was a major, major figure in the democratization movement.
Lula’s position on Chavez is actually more nuanced than you suggest. Indeed he’s not willing to play on Bush’s agenda during this trip, but he has rather forthrightly spoken up about some of Hugo’s anti-democratic tendencies. Lula’s a mensch and a true democrat. Unlike Chavez who is building a grubby and servile personality cult around himself.
What’s intriguing about your standard from-the-left critique Cummings is that while you condemn the rather obvious failure of market economies and bourgeois liberalism your radical alternative seems to be rather short on viable historical examples. I am more agnostic than radical these days — with or without a Big House and A Swimming Pool. Yes the Wolfowitizian fantasy is bankrupt. But any more so than the Castroist, the Sandinista, the Soviet, the Chinese, the Vietnamese model? I dont think so.
That’s the quandry of the Left. And I know all the hypothetical answers — and by rote. Problem is, they are hypothetical. But living in Canada supported by a nice, plump bourgeois liberal welfare state — even if you live in a modest flat and not an Official Big House– sure does provide the luxury of hypothesizing on behalf of others.
Im gonna go way out on a limb and say if most Third Worlders could choose to live either like morally corrupt Canadians or as revolutionary Cubans(or fill in the blank) it would be a very easy call to make. Montreal here we come!
Of course, those are NOT the choices immediately available. What we get is a quandry. At least some of us do. Poor saps like Lula who actually get elected are the ones who have to figure out to maintain some shred of principle while dealing with the gruesome realities of the global economy.
You suggest (correctly) that Lula must prevent capital flight but nevertheless should nationalize the “towering heights” of the Brazilian economy. Really? The Brazilian state, by the way, already controls several key industries.. let’s start with the oil and gas sector. But Im sure Lula would love for you to send him a list of those industries he should expropriate — especially those which you believe would NOT cause capital flight!
I know YOU would be happier if he did that. It would make him a more legit socialist. But on what real basis do you make such sweeping demands? Sounds to me like a knee-jerk ideological notion, precisely the sort that defies economic restrictions and limits.
How would Lula deal with the key agricultural sector? Which nationalization model would you have him choose? Creation of collective farms? Creation of co-ops? Handing out of small parcels to the landless? Would any of this guarantee increased production? I don’t know. Do you? Right now Brazil has trouble feeding the poor. Would nationalized ag feed them? Which socialist ag model can you point to that has worked better than the market?
These are questions that Im so happy I dont have to resolve any more (even though as a college student I solved them 1,000 times at least rhetorically)………..
Finally, I find it curious (to say the least) that we have reached a point on the left that the modifier “decent” is used as something derogatory. Fabulous.
But, alas, you are right. Indecent guests have proved to be quite very problematic in the swimming pool.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I doubt that U.S. agribusiness interests are seriously threatened by the only likely *good* outcome of this trip: a lowering of trade barriers on Brazilian biofuels. There isn’t enough farmland in America for biofuels to substitute for petroleum in all its current uses. And American farmers know it.
Brazil is far better positioned for competitive biofuel supply. It straddles the equator, and gets a lot of rainfall — a much better location for high-yield photosynthesis. Converting rainforest to pasture for cattle hasn’t worked out very well, but using that same land for biofuels has. I don’t think there’s much danger of the political dynamics typical of petrostates taking hold in Brazil, because it already has a fairly well diversified economy — it even has an aircraft industry — and a reasonably healthy democracy compared to, say, Nigeria, or Venezuela.
“Energy independence” is a shibboleth. We need to focus on better dependence, not independence. Trying to use American farmland for biofuels is not only impossible in the long run, but would just increase food prices in the meantime. Bush may fail with his other agenda items on this trip, and probably deserves to, but could still come back with something good.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I’m not gonna comment on your first paragraph. Clearly you take your sources to be more reliable than mine and vice versa. There is far more of a case to be made than Bush in Ohio in 2004…
Calderon is seen as an election thief because video was produced showing ballot stuffing – but thats all I’ll say on that. Everything else said on that issue is and ideology in its purest form.
Even if one accepts that Calderon is a golden boy…why hold water for him, or hold water for someone who helped implement disastrous neoliberal reforms and acted as a theorist, wittingly or otherwise for the State Department’s failed Latin America strategy. I mean, you can dislike Chavez without supporting divide and conquer, right?
In terms of Brazil I meant commanding heights – and that is in the future. – and agriculture should definitely not be nationalized – but co-ops should be encouraged and regulations should be in place tot prevent large agribusiness from undercutting smaller farmers…
Many of Lula’s lupporters would like to see in regards to heavier industry, insurance and banking (while leaving sectors open to compeition)
Beyond that I’m not gonna get into that debate, because you probably misread the context of my remark – which was admiration for Lula.
“Decent” is a perjorative going back to Michael Walzer’s disgusting essay in Dissent in 2002 “Can there be a Decent Left?”
March 7th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
“Energy independence†is a shibboleth.
Very true…and “peak oil” is also a myth.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Finally, I was NOT AT ALL pinning the Big House sort of thing on Lula…more on Castenada and Petkoff, etc.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Your source, Cummings, is one Al Giordano — long-time blogger and conspiracy theory promoter who enjoys a zero track record in journalism. Now, I dont pay much attention anymore to NLR (though their NLB imprint published my book on Chile) but it was sort of a new low for them to feature Giordano. I mean, we’re now gonna put the publisher of Narc News into the same venue as a Perry Anderson? Whoa!
I know the origin of the “decent” epithet and….? If Walzer is wrong, then why buy into his paradigm and denounce libs and social dems as horribly decent?!?! Arent they, in spite of their foibles, your relative allies in this world? Or are we back to Stalinist Third Period crap about defeating “social fascists?” You’ll remember how that worked out in Germany.
I notice you have no answers to my “quandry” questions. I dont expect you too. And to read Castaneda as nothing more than toady for the State Dept line is to really understand nothing about him.
Anyway, and I hate to do this to you, but below find a link from a Giordano piece that LIONIZES Castaneda as Foreign Minister and precisely places him as an antagonist to the State Department! LOL. Mind you, I think that Giordano’s reporting is useless… but there is a wonderful irony in this, isnt there? —>
Here’s the link: http://www.narconews.com/mextransition1.html
And, oh yes, former guerrilla Teodoro Petkoff is your enemy because he is in opposition to Chavez. Im sure his mansion towers over the humble abodes of all those patriotic Venezuelan Army officers who have been appointed to office by Chavez! What a laugh!
Do you think Venezuelan society would be enriched if you could make Petkoff and his magazine — the ONLY intellectual journal in the country– disappear? Your red-hot anger toward all those “decent” lefties here, in mexico, in Venezuela etc would be so much more convincing if you could more readily identify yourself with some other model you think is working better.
Those neo-lib ideologues and operatives certainly merit condemnation. I understand that. The only thing Ive seen that is worse is the way the Cuban state rents out parts of its own organized, muzzled, disempowered working class to foreign private investors! You might hate the Mexican bourgeosie, but Fidel doesnt. Mexican private investors operate Cubana airlines ans pays the Cuban government about $350 USD a month (in hard currency) for each worker. The Cuban state then pays the worker about 250 pesos — or $25 USD a month. It’s neo-liberalism but without wages. What a deal.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Al Giordano is not my only source – I just think thats the best account of it, and unless you can clue me in on where he’s wrong, I hold to that. There a numerous others who aren’t “bloggers” or “conspiracy theory promoters” (what conspiracy theories does Giordano ascribe to?)
Liberals and Social Dems are my allies to a certain extent, but not when they tell me we arenot THEIR ally, as did Walzer and his crowd. I like Dissent, but the Stalinist tactic is Walzer’s in demarcating “Decency” for leftists after 911, and using phrases like “blame America first” pioneered by Lynne Cheney.
The quandry was touched on…but I don’t have the energy to go into detail…..I do think there are alternatives to a “market economy” that have yet to be imagined, or are being implemented and planned gradually everywhere. Unfortunately Castaneda thinks its more important to fight for the market economy than to imagine or experiment with something different.
Its also real funny that suddenly former “good guy” Kirchner is now a wearer of blackhats. But Castaneda is not a recipient of NED funds…no …no way.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Oh, by the way, I believe the BIGGEST private capitalist investor in Cuba is from your homeland… at least Sherritt claims to be —>
http://www.sherritt.com/Responsibility/Communities/Communities_-_Cuba.html
Their enterprises, indeed, all foreign enterprises operate the same way in Cuba as described above. They partner with the Cubam government to engage in super-exploitation of the work force.
I have no idea if Castaneda gets funding from NED and apparently neither do you– though you are quick to slap him with that.
My point remains the same: you insist on polarizing the debate when you can’t viably produce the other, alternative pole.
Let’s say Castaneda DOES get NED support? And then what? That’s it? You’re finished? He would be tainted but lefists who support the Cuban government which in turns partners with Canadian monopolies to rip off Cuban workers, well, hell they’re as pure as the driven snow.
BTW, I havent said a negative word about Kirchner.
I know Castaneda has tweaked him. He might be wrong and/or he might be right. I certainly suggest Jorge is wrong about Calderon. But I dont think you have to agree with someone 100% or even 50% to admire other aspects of their work or persona.
Viva Sherritt!
March 8th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Marc’s exchange with jcummings, to me, represents the dilemma that leftists find themselves in today: How to reconcile the dreams of social justice and socialism that animated us during the 60s with the real capitalist world we find ourselves in today. Nobody will be surprised if I say that I find Marc’s nuances more helpful than jcummings’ left rhetoric. Although I probably appreciate jcummings more than most here do–he is sincere, and reminds me of my idealistic youth as a 60s radical, I really am glad that we still have people like that, sorry if that sounds ageist–he and many other leftists have yet to really face what the fall of Communism really meant for that dream. In my view, it represents the failure of an ideal, not just a mismanagement or misinterpretation of an ideal. That does not mean that red in tooth and claw capitalism is an acceptable alternative, because it isn’t. But leftists have got to figure out how to reconcile the dynamism of capitalism with the socialist ideals of justice and equality. That is the task we face, and no amount of political correctness or left rhetoric will help us tackle it.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:21 am
P.S. Cummings: Well, you got my curiousity up and I Googled Castaneda and NED to see what I could see.
Oops, you’re 0 for 2 tonight. Turns out that left pro-Chavista Mark Weisbrot relies on Castaneda as a source for exposing the machinations of the U.S. to support the anti-Chavez coup in turn supported by NED. If Jorge’s on the payroll he’s got a lot of ’splaining to do.
here’s the link –>
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6849
All this reveals what I consider to be the really immature kee-jerk side of your whole trip:
anyone to your perceived is a “decent” imperialist pig AND probably on the NED payroll even if they’re not. Wow.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:32 am
I was being metaphorical…though his “two lefts” concept is used in the NED “journal for democracy” or what have you…I think he wrote an essay for them too..it is in print and in my university library – I will find out this afternoon.
I’m glad Canada invests in Cuba. I thought you were for FDI?
I know you haven’t been negative about Kirchner, but Castaneda seesm to imagine a Buenos Aires/Caracas/Havana “axis” – when if anything Kirchner is far more critical (see Iran episode) of Chavez than most Latin American leaders – but have similar policies vix-a-vix US and western finance institutions, hence shared interest in anti-Bush rally, etc.
I’d love some NED funding.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Is Castaneda related to the great hoaxer Carlos? They both have very psychedelic ideas.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Two links – one which is down/subscribers only – are among the top ten at google for Castenanada and NED – one in which Carl Gershman, maximum leader of NED, hosts a talk by Jorge.
http://www.fpa.org/calendar_url2420/calendar_url_show.htm?doc_id=411868
March 8th, 2007 at 8:48 am
From a subscriber link:
Conference participants included Jorge Castaneda (National Autonomous University of … president of American Standard and a member of the NED board. )
And no, NED doesn’t automoatically pollute someone – I find Fukuyama interesting sometimes….BUT – it shows a singleminded dedication to US power.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Marc correct me if I’m wrong but how can Mexico be governable when it has had a series of low level insurrections (Chiapas, Oxaca) going on? Maybe the PRD demos have fizzled out for the time being but it seems clear to me that people down Mexico way have very little faith in the electoral process and for good reason.
As for Lula and Kirchner, let me suggest that they have a new player to woo them. China. Our Asian friends are in the basic resource gathering business these days and have not overlooked Latin America. I think Bush will find this trip very interesting. Same way Nixon found Peru.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
jcummings and Marc, considering NED’s track record I’d be suspicious of anyone from there. Just like you’re suspicious of people from AEI Marc.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Thanks RLC.
Esp. for mentioning Calderon’s Tianenman style repression of the uprising in Oaxaca.
RLC is right about Sino-Latin American relations. A multipolar world is coming, and America is being chastened. Tht makes the world a safer place.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Turner sais:
“I doubt that U.S. agribusiness interests are seriously threatened by the only likely *good* outcome of this trip: a lowering of trade barriers on Brazilian biofuels. There isn’t enough farmland in America for biofuels to substitute for petroleum in all its current uses. And American farmers know it.”
If that is so, why does big agribusiness consistently lobby for maintaining the high tariffs against the much cheaper and more efficient Brazilian ethanol? I would think that they would be worried about a more efficient and cheaper product coming into their market.
Also, why is this *good* outcome so likely? Every time that Brazil has broached the subject before the US holds up it’s hands and says that tariff reduction would be up to the US congress and as far as I know Archer Daniels Midland is still pimpin’ them congressional ho bags.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
John it is simple really. Agribusiness is the big beneficiary of the Agprice supports mechanisms and when you throw in the ridiculous water subsidies (courtesy of the Bureau of Land Reclaimation and non-enforcement of the acreage limitations) and a policy of looking the other way on labor standards – including legal right to work here – and big time agriculture is a license to print money.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Marc,
Just got back a couple of hours ago and am running on fumes (and a little leftover limoncello
), but with regard to the farm subsidies issue, the three critical areas for Lula are cotton, sugar and ethanol.
With regard to cotton, the WTO has made a ruling that the US cotton subsidies are illegal and that unless they were ended by some time last year, Brazil could retaliate with sanctions on imports from the US. Brazil, btw, brought the action on behalf of not only itself, but also, for countries like Mali and Burkina Faso that could not otherwise pay for it themselves. So far no movement on cotton.
Concerning sugar, Brazil also got a decision against the EU on their subsidies, but has not yet sought to pursue the US.
As for ethanol, advantage to John Mc over Michael Turner. There is a 50 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol and the support for the tariff is bipartisan. One of the biggest supporters of ethanol from corn is Dick Durbin. Ethanol from corn is largely inefficient, especially compared to sugar.
As for Lula, it’s worth remembering that the PT (the Partido Trabalhadores or Workers’ Party) which he founded, railed and railed against Cardoso’s attempts to alter the pension arrangements of government employees. What did Lula do as president? He changed the pension laws. The old pension laws allowed women to retire at age 48 and men at 52 at full salary with raises for cost of living: hardly a fixed income.
The PT needs Lula more than Lula needs the PT. That may enable him to be a little more flexible and be his own man.
A few words with regard to nationalized industries in Latin America. Nationalizing industries and large government run industries often reflect more about nationalism and wielding power and influence than they do about left or right. The right-wing Brazilian generals who ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985 invested heavily in government spending on Pharaonic projects in pursuit of grandeza. Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, now privatized and employing many more people, was started by Getúlio Vargas, hardly a leftie. Pinochet kept CODELCO nationalized in order to feed his military and perhaps to line hos own pockets.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Cooper,
This is a clear case of conflict of interest. My guess is you’re putting your apparent friendship with Castaneda above reason and good judgement.
Castaneda, and I have never been to his house, and don’t care if its big or not, is a deluded idiot when it comes to his Latin America critiques nowadays. His 2-left theory on the Latin Left is thoroughly ridiculed and put down by academics within in the region, though misinformed wannabe experts on Latin America in the U.S. buy into it simply because the man has credentials. Any observer without a hidden agenda (in Castaneda’s case promoting neoliberalism) can see that the left in the region is not black-white but very much multi-colored — no one Latin leader has the same approach NOR is Chavez petrodollars swaying his leftist allies to be like Hugo. Don’t believe the hype, err, Castaneda. Evo aint’ copying Chavez and even Chavez is not exactly Castro. You listen to Evo, and he is usually trying to put himself closer to Kirchner when it comes to political style. More important, each country in the region has their own reality and requires a different approach — certainly poor Bolivia is not the place to try out neoliberal reforms as done in apathetic Chile.
It makes me about want to vomit to see you quote Castaneda with such effusive praise given your past criticism of Chile’s neoliberal model. That should be the obvious clue that the man is deranged. Were you insincere in your past views on Chile’s model, or are you over-the-hill and blind like your dear friend Jorge?
March 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Welcome back Randy, and thanks for the loan of your soapbox. On Lula, today’s LA TIMES had a page one article praising him for his “pragmatism” and saying that he is now a darling of Wall Street. Frankly when I hear a Latin leader praised in lower Manhatten I get a little worried. Maybe there is nothing to fret about. But I really don’t think those good folks at Wall and Broad care that much about the peoples in the area. And there does seem to be some agitation over just how much the average Brasilian will benefit from the ethanol trade.
Dick Durbin has to be for Corn Ethanol. I doubt you can be from Illinois and oppose it anymore than Robert Byrd can be against Coal as a fuel despite the difficulties there re greenhouse gases. That is just part of the system that sees different interests represented in Congress as the founders intended. We’d need a whole different system to eliminate that.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
RLC, agitating about Wall and Broad, and talking of a whole different system. Arise ye wretched of the earth, comrade! Seriously though, its good to see some socialism creeping through from a liberal.
Thing about Lula is that while his government is orthodox financially, it is still more progressive, broadly speaking than previous Brazilian governments – and the society’s vast social movemens and networks of solidarity, associations, fraternal clubs, outside of either state or capitalist influence mitigate this much more than America, a very “unaffiliated” society, so to speak. Plus, often the “positive” talk from Wall Street towards a developing (even large economies like Brazil are considered “developing”) economy is often a veiled threat, along with a psy/war ploy, not dissimilar to the whole separate Lula from the rest of Latin America/two lefts crowd.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:06 am
BRIAN JONES: I Ctrl + F’d “Chile” and only found your response to Castaneda’s outrageous remarks about Chile’s “sensible, socially minded policies.” Thanks!
One thing: I wouldn’t be so hard on Marc. AFAICT, he wasn’t defending that. He just included it in the quote.
But while Chile really is peripheral to this thread, I’m actually glad Marc let Castaneda’s words ramble on until they got there.
Because this “economic miracle” nonsense has to stop. It’s a lie. So is this “socialist” notion that gets into peoples’ heads. There’s not one ounce of socialism in Chile.
Problem with Bachelet is that she’s symbolically as far removed from her country as a presidenta could hope to be, but she’s the image people run away with. Socialist, pro-Woman, doesn’t believe in God … so people poised from a distance seem to confuse Bachelet with what Chile is while in reality Chile closely resembles a feudal state.
In the meantime, people would have you believe Chile is a fluffy, delicious, socialist omelette whipped together with a few eggs Pinochet had to crack.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:13 am
My question for Cooper is does he support Bush trying to strong-arm Latin leaders like Lula to “stand-up” to Hugo Chavez, like reports have him doing? Does he support the (undeclared) mission of Bush’s trip – to counter Chavez? Is it worth the dirt in Castro and Chavez’s eye to lure Cuban doctors out of Venezuelan slups by dangling US visas?
Cooper doesn’t have to like Chavez, but lets hope he won’t justify the cynicism and hypopocrisy behind Bush’s trip – nor and pathetic new “aid” programs (that when not ending up in US Corporations accounts or the Colombian military, actually are just miniscule copies of what Castro and Chavez are already doing with health, literacy, home mortgage assistance, etc.)
Marc’s original piece, purpotedly on Bush going to Latin America, quickly turns into a try-out for what President will “stand-up”against Chavez. That not one appears up to the task should tell us something.
Cooper dares us socialists to claim a model that we approve of. Trouble is there are 0 of ANY stripe. If some place had achieved perfection history would have ended already. But I will take Vietnam and Malaysia over the Philippines and Thailand any day. The ex-Soviet states are just getting back to the social and economic status the USSR had, but with 3x the social problems. Poland has some crazy homophobe racists running their country. Cuba has the highest human development of any country in its league and Chavez has doubled the incomes of the poorest 50% since 2003.
I love Lula and expect better things out of him these last few years but he has been a failure thus far – economically more than anything else. To believe that toeing the Wall Street line is more important than pursuing investment-led growth is a sad statement on where we are in 2007. But Evo, Correa, Kirchner and the rest are giving Latins hope again.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Richard,
I enjoyed your input and hope you and Reg will continue. The account remains open!
BTW, I work at Broadway and Pine, about a block from Wall Street and I praise Lula, but I also praise his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Cardoso started the Bolsa Escolar to pay poor families a stipend to keep their children in school as opposed to having them work.
He also privatized CVRD as I mentioned above, which has increased the number of jobs in that firm and he privatized Telebras, the state-owned phone company. Telebras was so bad, people could wait 1-2 years to get phone service. Not anymore.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Randy privatisation by itself is neither good nor bad. The old A,T,&T was “Private” but the company ethos was “Provide Universal Service at the lowest Cost” and it worked. The “Phone Company” had more in common with civil service jobs than the private sector as any industrial sociologist would tell you.
I don’t know enough about Brasil but I was aware that the juntos down there used nationalization as a panacea and screwed up. I also know that Bolivia “Privatized” its water works with disasterous results. All I’m saying is the fact that Wall St likes Lula is not an automatic plus in my book and – frankly – given the impact on the real economy of “Finance Capitalism” here a real question mark.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I believe that there are certain essential services that should not be privatized such as water.
What the military did in Brazil was create a mountain of debt to banks one of the few good side effects of which was their washing their hands of governing for what appears to be good.
Wall Street liking Lula is not an automatic plus in my book either, however, before he was elected, the hysteria that surrounded his possible election was rampant on Wall Street. I’m guessing that saying that Wall St. likes him is a way of saying that their fears were largely unfounded.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:22 am
The sell off of Telebras was primarily responsible for the Brazilian financial crisis of 98-99. Any assessment of its pro and con has to take that into account. Also, Brazil handled the deal pretty well – the deal was equipped with lots of regulation to assure certain service and coverage requirements of the State were being met. Service has improved for the most part, but prices are growing fast.
The old junta in Brazil did quite a bit of nationalization, as did most countries in the 60s and 70s. Looking back, this period saw the fastest economic and social growth on record in Brazil. Any leader since then would die for the economic and poverty reduction results they achieved through strong state sector involvement (i’m not justifying what was a murderous and oppressive political regime). But I’ll take Keynesian economics over neoliberal any day. The results speak for themself.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Any leader since then would die for the economic and poverty reduction results they achieved through strong state sector involvement
Built on a mountain of debt that took years to recover from and also created many white elephants like the Angra dos Reis nuclear plant and the Trans Amazon highway as well as huge pensions that resulted in Minas Gerais at one point devoting 70% of its state spending to pensions. My wife has an aunt who gets a pension of some 10,000 reais a month (about US $5K; her full salary before retiring). She was able to retire at 48.
The problems that Brazil had with state pensions as well as pinning the then overvalued real to the dollar and the simultaneous Asian financial crisis were far greater contributors to Brazil’s 1998 crisis.
Unbundling the real to the dollar, by the way was a smart move. The real has been the strongest currency against he dollar for the past two years.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
[...] prez arrives in Brazil to start tour.” Journalism professor Marc Cooper puts down some of his typically polished commentary. Leftside rattles off with some lightly less-polished analysis, including an incredible photograph [...]
March 9th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
When I was in High School (back in the Mezozoic!) I remember the chat that Brazil was the “Country of the Future” to which the witicism was “Yes, and it always will be.” I recall that the leader of the time was a mercurial figure named Quadros who eventually resigned office and was shortly followed by the juntos.
Lester Thurow of MIT had a great idea once of the difference between “Establishment” and “Oligarchies”. In Thurow’s world some countries were rule by Establishments. These people made decisions or influenced policies based on what they believed would benefit their societies. They were not necessarily right (see the UK) but their motives were. In oligarchies the ruling elites based policies on what would benefit them. In Thurow’s categories Brazil and Argentina were prime examples of the latter. Particularly Argentina which, it is hard to believe now, was one of the ten richest countries in the world in 1930!
I think that helps to explain a lot of Latin America and its “Lost Decades.” But then I’m just an ignorant American who can’t even speak any spanish except for the patois anyone learns who lives in Southern California!
March 9th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Anyone else notice that a group of Mayans are asking their shamans to “Purify” their sacred lands after they are “Defiled” by a visit by Bush.
I wonder if those guys are for hyire. I know some “Sacred” lands along the Potomac that could use some fumigating. . . .
March 9th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Built on a mountain of debt that took years to recover from and also created many white elephants like the Angra dos Reis nuclear plant and the Trans Amazon highway as well as huge pensions
It is true that debt piled up, but the oil crisis and inflation hit everyone hard, including in this country. As for pensions, Lula has reformed them a bit, but they are still more generous than we have in this country. Brazil should be proud of that, and US citizens disgusted.
The problems that Brazil had with state pensions as well as pinning the then overvalued real to the dollar and the simultaneous Asian financial crisis were far greater contributors to Brazil’s 1998 crisis.
Yes, not allowing the Real to float prior to the Telebras sell-off was a major mistake. Investors made bids in dollars in 98, then paid in Reals over the next few years, resulting in a 40% undervalue of the assets. The Brazilian people got screwed due to Cordoso’s trying to please the markets.
As for the Mayans in Guatemala, it is going to be interesting how Bush’s visit to “pay homage” to the region’s indigenous goes down. It might even overshadow the fact that the country’s government ties to death squads and organized crime is coming to light. The news with our right-wing buddies in Colombia is no better.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
‘Leftside,’ it’s MISTER Cooper to you. In the meantime, I invite you and your ridiculous bi-polar litmus tests (or Bush or Chavez– Or Vietnam or the Phillipines) to go get bent.
In the meantime, I’ve made a little list on my desk. At the very bottom, right where it says “nothing more in the world left to do,” I have made the following notation: “Prove your credentials on Latin America to Leftside.” Patience, son.
To Brian Jones: No vomiting allowed on this site. In the meantime, you need to take a sedative…or at least a Pepto-Bismo. When I reproduce someone’s comments, it does not mean that I endorse them. I think what Castaneda says about the need for Lat Americans to be presented an alternative leadership to that of Chavez is absolutely necessary. I disagree with him on Calderon and, in addition, he’s much warmer on the Chileans than I am (well, like me he’s been married to one so maybe that explains it!).
I do respect his forthrightness however in saying what he supports — I admire his honesty. Meanwhile, most of his critics, including the ones on this board, can only tell us what they oppose (’neoliberalism,” Bush, imperialism, yada yada yada etc). What are they for? Socialism? Great, And Ghandi was for western civilization though he could never actually see it. It would be nice to have a debate with some actual facts in it. i.e. Castaneda’s support for what he calls the “global market economy” is off-base and therefore we propose…. what?…. exactly?
That’s a question that I freely admit to not being able to answer. I wish I could but I can’t. So long as I can’t, Ive resolved to show some more tolerance for those proposing solutions I dont agree with. Telling Chileans they’d be better off with a Cuban or Vietnamese system is as ridiculous as selling them the nostrums of Milton Friedman.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I’ve seen socialism work, in many provinces and municipalities, including my own, across Canada. Not complete revolutionary socialism (until the world is ready) but democratic, non-authoritiarian socialism. Is that so obtuse?
The only talking aout what one is against talk camouflouages the real problem with Castaneda – NED aside (a point that I’ve proven) – however he (and Marc) phrase their probably sincerely held views – the overall result of this framework is continued US hegemony over Latin America. Everyone talks about Venezuela being so powerful…we’ll see what happens….he is only so powerful in the minds of his critics and his inner circle. To most , he is a product of a very new process, as is Lula – the new post- Monroe Latin America.
Castaneda wants to hold it back. This goes beyond economics.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
A multipolar world is coming, and America is being chastened. Tht makes the world a safer place.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
JCummings makes the essential point behind all this… safer and more humane
Forgive me Mr. Cooper, for this newcomer trying to determine the nature of your hatred for the new right-wing boogeyman in Latin America (Chavez). As you well know, dislike of left-wingers in Latin America seems to lead to “action” and I believe all of us have a right to worry about it. Forgive me for caring about the depth of your sincerity. And forgive me for having the nerve to see some hope in a 21st Century model that has shown the ability to lift millions out of poverty quickly through the reclaimation of the most important resouce on earth – from Exxon and Chevron.
You obviously beleive something must be done, that someone must stand up to the Bolivarians. So I would hope asking whether you support current (visable and not) US efforts that apparently align with your own beliefs is not out of bounds. I wasn’t asking you to choose Bush or Chavez… but asking what you would do if you were Bush. There is an important difference between being against something, and advocating the use of US power to do it. I know its easier to avoid such questions…
March 10th, 2007 at 9:17 am
A last word: I hate bringing in Marc’s past since he genuinely did heroic work in Chile…but can you imagine, as a translator for Allende, how yo’d react to people who would state that Allende should forget socialism and implement “market economics?”
March 10th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Marc: I appreciate your response, and sorry if I came off harsh toward ya. I prefer a double shot of Johnnie Walker whiskey with a Pacena beer follow, then, settle back to a cool Chilean red wine. Fine, now. (this alcohol receta is sort of a homeopathic antidote to Castanenda-induced vomiting).
What am I for? I am for whatever works to reduce inequities in society, lower poverty, protect and conserve the environment, preserve and cherish cultural diversity, social justice, the usual list of liberal ideals. Problem is I don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-all approach to reaching those objectives. Renowned economist Joseph Stiglitiz seems to have a good handle on how to approach the development problematico, though. The globalization train has left the station but it does not mean we should get on board and lay tracks that allow it to take us over the cliff. We need some brakes, and control, and intelligent routing and planning. Out of careful thought and study, usually a mix of public and private, in other words measured governmental intervention in the interest of the general public when prudent and necessary, springs the formula in progress for the varied development needs of countries.
I think Bolivia, for example, is not being foolish, as Castenada would be wont to criticize, for boosting state control over its gas and other natural resources. For Bolivia, and Bolivians, it makes all the sense in the world to maximize their revenues from the country’s main source of wealth to invest in social issues and improve development in other areas of the economy. Its highly preferable to begging to the US and other “developed” nations for aid and loans that put them deeper in debt. Bolivia needs to do whats best for Bolivia and NOT what Bushwackers in Washington say they must do to guarantee the previously outrageous profit margins of foreign multinationals (many of whom, according to UNCTD, are proven adept at cheating and getting around the taxes that are applied if applied). Should the US nationalize its gas fields? No, its level of development does not demand such a measure, but the US is itself not alien to assessing a heavy tax bill on business activities.
To wind up this long ramble, I believe the answer is not extreme left or right, communism or free market orthodoxy, but a happy medium somewhere in between depending on each country’s needs and characteristics. In Chile’s case, it went off the deep end with its extreme worship of the market, and only now is beginning to make tentative steps to reverse the resulting legacy of social inequities.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I was down there recently and like everywhere else in the world the South American’s despise Bush.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Well Bush always claimed to be a uniter.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Bolivia, by following the wicked ways of Chavez and nationalizing their hydrocarbons industry, have increased their GDP by 6-7%. That is equivalent to an extra $900 Billion dollars a year. The money will all go to the poor and working classes. Does Mr. Cooper join Bush in saying this is foolish and does not help the poor?
June 9th, 2007 at 12:05 am
raising money…
I do think your right on the spot here, i am going to bookmark your site to see if other people have different views…
June 30th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Harrison…
As the proud owner of a laptop computer, you’ll want to keep your…
July 12th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
fast loan cal…
…
September 1st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Jessie…
you have a very nice blog and very informative article…
December 10th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Yhanks youd0008dd05a861bd1e87fcc2f1f662beb
January 31st, 2008 at 7:37 am
Great boysac97398206d7b14768534ec3f7bd93f4
February 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
watch nude paris hilton porn sex tape…
Recently leaked footage of the new Paris Hilton sex tape…
May 10th, 2008 at 2:07 am
0fb3dc21abf2…
0fb3dc21abf2a985e5af…