Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Washington Still Has Problems With Democracy in Latin America
Imagine that Barack Obama, upon taking office in January 2009, had decided to deliver on his campaign promise “to end business-as-usual in Washington so we can bring about real change.”
Imagine that he rejected the architects of the pro-Wall Street policies that had led to economic collapse, such as Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and the stable of former Goldman Sachs employees that runs the U.S Treasury Department, and instead appointed Nobel laureate economists Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz to key positions, including the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve.
Instead of Hillary Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential primary because of her unrelenting support for the Iraq war, imagine that he chose Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.) for secretary of state, or someone else interested in delivering on the popular desire to get out of Afghanistan. Imagine a real health-care-reform bill, instead of health-insurance reform, that didn’t give the powerful pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies a veto.
It goes without saying that President Obama would be vilified in the major media outlets. The seething hostility from right-wing blowhards such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be matched by more mainstream media outlets, who would accuse the president of polarizing the nation and “dangerous demagoguery.” With almost all of the establishment media and institutions against him, Obama would likely face a constant battle for political survival — although he might well triumph with direct, populist appeals to the majority.
This is what has happened to a number of the left-of-center governments in Latin America.
• In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa was re-elected by a large margin in 2009, despite strong opposition from the country’s media.
• In Bolivia, Evo Morales has brought stability and record growth to a country that had a tradition of governments that didn’t last more than a year — despite the most hostile media in the hemisphere and unrelenting, sometimes violent opposition from Bolivia’s traditional elite.
• Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez survived a U.S.-backed military coup attempt and other efforts to topple his government, winning three presidential elections, each time by a larger margin.
All of these presidents took on entrenched oligarchies and fought hard to deliver on their promises. Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president in a country with an indigenous majority, re-nationalized the hydrocarbons — mostly natural gas — industry and created jobs through public investment, as well as getting a new, more democratic constitution approved. Correa doubled spending on health care and cancelled $3.2 billion of foreign debt found to be illegitimate. Chávez cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by more than 70 percent after getting control over the country’s oil industry.
These presidents faced another obstacle that Obama wouldn’t have — they had to fight with the most powerful country in the world in order to deliver on their promises. This was also true of President Nestor Kirchner in Argentina (2003-07), who had to battle the Washington-dominated International Monetary Fund in order to implement the economic policies that made Argentina the fastest growing economy in the hemisphere for six years.
Of course, Hugo Chávez has been the most demonized in the U.S. media — but that is not because of what he has said or done but because he is sitting on 500 billion barrels of oil. Washington has a particular problem with oil-producing states that don’t follow orders — whether they are a dictatorship like Iraq, a theocracy like Iran, or a democracy like Venezuela.
All of these leaders — including President Lula da Silva of Brazil — had hoped that President Obama would pursue a more enlightened policy toward Latin America, but it hasn’t happened. It seems that Washington, which was comfortable with dictators and oligarchs who ran the show for decades, still has problems with democracy in its former “backyard.”
30 Comments so far
Show AllDon't you get it he lied! This article implies he is left leaning and needs a push. Wake up!
This article implies no such thing. Read it again and think about what has been said.
Dear Mark, Funny you should point this out. I've enjoyed your articles for years about this topic. Do you think we could get anyone in the MSM and the corridors of power to stop cashing their checks long enough to read it? For the last 15 yrs one of my true pleasures of daily reading has been following the courage of many Latin American leaders and contrasting it with the utter cowardice and b.s. of our own in the good ol' U.S. of A. Thanks for the great work. I'll look forward to reading more about how real democracy works and how fake democracy tries to impede it at every turn. Sincerely, Linkwray
The DNC would never have let Obama get anywhere near the 2008 primaries if they thought there was a 1% chance that he would take any of the actions Weisbrot mentions.
Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and any other candidate that has any trace of true opposition (to Republicans) potential is immediately sidelined by the DNC.
The DNC is not going to run candidates who are not magnets for corporate money.
Ah, a man after my own cynical heart.
No, this is not cynicism. It is fact.
"For all sad words of tongue or pen
The saddest are these: It might have been."
-John Greenleaf Whittier
I thought surely Weisbrot was building to a climax in his 4th paragraph when he related how the right wing media would demolish a president who actually stood for the interests of The People. Instead of relating the obvious, that this has in fact happened when Obama did NOTHING to improve the status of "the common man/woman," Weisbrot shifts to the progress being made in South America. I'm glad he pointed out how incentives from the top can improve life at the bottom; but he might have made the point that since Obama is vilified in the media now, imagine the good he might have done to have earned that status! (And certainly I am grateful for those leaders in South America who genuinely serve their constituencies.)
Instead, we get all the appearance of contrast in the media war that maintains the semblance of two parties (holding diametrically opposed views), when in reality, all of the desires of the elites are being met by this Manchurian candidate, the great betrayer in a time when Deliverance was long overdue.
It no longer matters what Obama does, thast seems to be hard for some to understand. He has been rejected as surely as Bush was.
Hold up on that praise for South America till things are really accomplished and are successful long term. We've seen the current crop of rhetoric and policies before, more than once.
You're kinda late to the dance on this one, mightmite. The music started and all the front row seats have already been sold. Enjoy, though, by all means necessary.
Nope, I was here when the dance started, many years ago, thats why I dion't get too excited about thses reports of "wonderful" "new" and "only looking out for the people" reports.
Seen it before, more than once.
What I saw of Chavz's regime is now two years out of date, but he looks to be no different than his predecessors.
But I could be wrong, only time will tell. So far, I'd still say, wait and see.
mightmite- sorry but was refinishing furniture all day. Anyway, you typed up some b.s. or didn't read the article. I thought all day about what the U.S. would be like if we lifted 50% out of 45 million out of poverty. = That's 22.5 million potential new customers for my starter furniture series. Well, I 'll just have to open another branch in Latin America. See, as a progressive, I understand people and commerce and markets and real growth. You,on the other hand don't, but you have seen it all before. Please keep waiting and seeing. Meanwhile, I'm working on a new board game. It's called Monopoly.
That was great!!!
I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about, but anybody who thinks the CIA, the FBI, The Justice department, the military will allow democracies to flourish in South America is not living on this planet-----especially when these countries are showing signs that poor people might become middle class and can demonstrate what a real democracy looks like?
That would not be in the best interest of the ruling class. That means that it will not happen.
You want people in this country, getting poorer every day, to realize they live in an oligarchy, and see how much better life for the poor can be in a democracy?
I sure as hell do, but I don't count for much. The time will come when the US will be a totalitarian police state. It will be as difficult to get a visa for travel from the US as it used to be in the USSR.
Faces change. Names change. People, revolutions, wars, never ever change.
0 is rejected as Bush was for doing what Bush did.
He has not fallen so low in polls, but if he continues with massive betrayals of his base for another two years, he may.
..
Let historians praise successes after a long term. Let those who live during times of successes praise early and often, and offer support while successes are in formation.
I went to see Oliver Stone's "South of the Border" on Friday night and he shows via his interviews with Chavez, Morales, de Kirchner and Correa said.
The film is only playing in small art house theaters on the East and West coast (it has already opened in South America and Europe). If you have Netflix, put it in your que!
Oblama: Toastmaster in Chief of the USA
Depravity Central has problems with "people power" wherever they may arise--at home especially. Studying the media's behavior elsewhere helps us to see how it acts as an ally of Empire. I would posit, and echo Orwell, modern Empire cannot exist without the indoctrination and manufacturing of consent instituted by the Propaganda System. Such a System can only be overcome by participatory democracy and the solidarity it promotes, and the unique historical circumstances of non-English speaking America helps making such movements possible.
Have you sent your child to school with an alternative curriculum in hand? It matters little whether the school board accepts/rejects it. Because school boards simply don't matter.
Even if the board accepted it, the child would only wonder next if the board will continue to accept it. Soon the child will realize the greater lesson - that the board simply doesn't matter.
Because the parent's action empowered the child to break through the walls of oppression and see the people as masters of their own destinies. "Authorities" become servants who bow respectfully. The child will understand this intuitively.
Washington still has problems with democracy in the United States. Governace happens between legislators and lobbies well-armed with money to give out for politcal campaigns. Democracy in America today is a battle between the Republicans and Democrats to attract or hold on to huge corporate contributions. Ordinary Americans are treated as onlookers, or if they see their congresspersons, as just visiting.
Americans need to spread democracy to the United States.
Yep. The US has problems with democracy in Latin America. And the Middle East. And Africa. And the Caribbean. And the Orient. And the Pacific. And... Hell, the US has a problem with democracy everywhere even in the US.
Great post; so true!
And where doesn't the US have problems? Scratch the surface and there ain't much underneath. Big show, lot of hot air, big mouth,always admonishing the entire world...any wonder the Yanks are so disliked? You lead by example, not by annihilation.
In fact, Washington has had problems with democracy since (before?) the founding. It was thought that the common people could not be trusted to govern themselves, which is why we were not designed as a democracy. So we were really designed as an oligarchy with the political trappings of a representative republic.
A year or two after the founding war veterans were on hard times and Shay's Rebellion tested the resolve and power of the central government.
Washington (George) was so fearful that he wrote to his friend Harry Lee: "You talk...of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where the influence is to be found, or if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no government. Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."
And empire was born.
Washington has problems with democracy period. This is the era of corporate oligarchy and if we don't stop it soon our entire planet is toast.