Brazil Looms Larger

[Benton D Struckcheon]

The US views Latin America as its backyard. Brazil is beginning to feel the same way about South America, where it is the biggest and richest country...
The anti-imperialism of the most progressive among Brazil’s senior civil servants is like Pomar’s. He thinks that, irrespective of the political convictions of its backers, a movement founded on this anti-US rhetoric could spur social change: “Every attempt to build a socialist bloc in Latin America has run into two obstacles: the power of the Latin American bourgeoisie, and that of the White House. Brazil’s integration initiative will not eliminate outside interference, but will reduce its impact, and give national politics greater autonomy.” The tough stance of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) — founded in 2008 — probably helped to foil Bolivian and Ecuadorian coups in 2008 and 2010. When the Venezuelan opposition and the US challenged the validity of the election of Nicolas Maduro, Unasur supported Hugo Chávez’s designated heir. “In the past, issues of that kind were settled by the Organisation of American States — that means by the White House,” said Pinheiro Guimarães. Secretary of State John Kerry recently referred to Latin America as the “backyard” of the US (4)...
South American countries are rich because of natural resources (of which they are now in a position to regain control), but are struggling to diversify their economies and build up their means of production. During the recent presidential election campaign in Venezuela, Maduro complained: “Our country does not have a real national bourgeoisie ... the sectors involved in economic activity are highly dependent on American capital.” (Rentier behaviour is the norm.) He appealed to anyone who could help Venezuela to “lay the foundations of a productive economy” (5) — a message addressed to the “nationalist private sector” but which he may hope will reach Brazil, where industrialists are supposed to be more progressive...
In April, Pinheiro Guimarães gave an example of regional solidarity: “Under the Lula government, something extraordinary happened: a subsidy from Brazil made it possible to start building a transmission line between the hydroelectric plant at Itaipu and Asunción” (11), ending the power cuts in Paraguay’s capital. The business leaders of São Paulo drew other conclusions: “Labour-intensive sectors in Brazil, such as the textile and garment industry, would improve their competitiveness relative to their Asian competitors on Brazil’s domestic market if they were to offshore part of their production operations to Paraguay,” where “wage costs are around 35% lower” (12).

Source: Le Monde Diplomatique

[Catherina]

1. So capital from the US is being replaced by capital from the South, as the author pointed out.

So capital from the US is being replaced by capital from the South, as the author pointed out. "Is this exploitation or solidarity?"

The last sentence in your excerpt had a note, #12, that I took the liberty of translating.

“Labour-intensive sectors in Brazil, such as the textile and garment industry, would improve their competitiveness relative to their Asian competitors on Brazil’s domestic market if they were to offshore part of their production operations to Paraguay,” This is one of the findings of the study to be released today by the Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo (Fiesp), pointing to a pair of jeans, for example, for which the cost would be reduced by 35% if produced in neighboring Paraguay.

Fiesp wants to bring entrepreneurs to consider installing factories across the border. Therefore, the study took into account four variables in the composition of costs: labor, supplies, maintenance and interest. Paraguay is cheaper for all four. The country electricity cost are more attractive and so are wages that are on average 35.5% cheaper. Even with the reduced rate for the Brazilian industry in force since February this year, the Paraguayan kilowatt hour is 63% cheaper.

Another advantage Fiesp pointed out is the tax system of the neighboring country, which is simpler and has a smaller percentage in the final product cost. In Brazil, the impact of social and labor charges on the payroll is 100%. In Paraguay, it's 31%. So at the end of the production chain, a pair of jeans costs on average $ 7.75 to be produced in Brazil, while in the neighboring country it costs U.S. $ 5.73.

....

The textile industry is emblematic because if those who settle in Paraguay prosper, it will open a path to sectors with similar structures such as footwear, leather, furniture and metals," he says.

...

https://conteudoclippingmp.planejamento.gov.br/cadastros/noticias/2013/4/3/fiesp-mostra-vantagens-de-se-levar-industrias-ao-paraguai

Don't do it. Don't outsource anything. Don't play that game Brazil. Remember your friend Chavez and his warning about "neocolonial logic". Take care of your workers first and foremost. There's more to life than making a profit providing cheap jeans for the world.

And this timely invitation.

Obama to welcome Rousseff: a “new era” starts in Brazil

A communiqué released today by the White House said, “The President and First Lady will host Dilma Rousseff, President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, for an official State Visit with a State Dinner at the White House on October 23,” in what the United States hopes will mark the start of “a new era in relations”, as announced by Vice President Joe Biden, in Rio de Janeiro.



“President Barack Obama has asked me to invite your president to come to Washington for the only state visit which will take place this year,“ Biden said in a speech that sought to convince Brazilians of the mutual interest underlying closer trade ties and investment.

“The year 2013 is the beginning of a new era of relations between Brazil and the United States,and also the Americas”, Biden said; he shall be meeting Rousseff on May 31 in Brasilia.

Rouseff’s vist to the US will be the first state visit in Obama's second term; it will also be the first state visit of a President of Brazil to the United States since 1995.

Biden said it was time to leave the past behind and focus now on what both economic powers-the first and the seventh in the world, can now do together. ”Imagine what these two dynamic economies (USA and Brazil) could do with more trade and investment,“ he said.

...

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/05/29/obama-to-welcome-rousseff-a-new-era-starts-in-brazil

[Judi Lynn]

4. Hope 2013 will be a year of even greater Latin American solidarity.

Thanks for taking the time to provide the translation.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. Yes, to some extent Brazilian capital will replace American capital.

Not totally, the US economy is way too powerful for that. But you don't need total replacement, you just need enough from South American sources that the countries there can play Brazil off against the US and by doing that, gain the freedom to continue without having to constantly worry about interventions from the US.
Or Brazil, for that matter. Both are a lot bigger than any of the rest, so if you're one of the rest, you don't want either dominating completely. Your foreign policy should tilt more to Brazil, as they have so far shown themselves to be more respectful by far of independence for the rest than the US. But that can change, and probably will as Brazil gains more power.

In other news, a little less black/white pie-in-the-sky dancing socialist Unicorns and a little more reality-based nuance would be nice around here.

[ocpagu]

12. It's a complex issue.

I'm pretty sure that there's more to life than selling jeans, but I'm not sure Brazil can afford not playing that game. As big as Brazil is, it's not the one who set the rules, nor it has enough power to change them alone. And, we are living in post-globalization era. There's no way a country can establish its own rules and ignore the global context. It's suicide. Brazil has to play by the rules of the game or... be swallowed. I'm a socialist, I do believe changes are needed, but I'm also a realist and I do know socialism won't be coming next Sunday. And we know that the left is not the only one playing that game.

Peace Patriot identified a "raise all boats" philosophy behind this Latin American leftist movement. I would say she nailed it. This is not a anti-capital movement. Chávez himself called the private sector cooperation to create a strong national private sector, a "nationalist bourgeoisie". Maduro recently reinforced that invitation.

A country without a strong national private sector is a weak country, and it's likely to be hostage of foreign powers and interests, an easy target for manipulation and interference. One just has to look at the fragile democracies of Central America to realize that. Chávez knew that. That's why he tried to forge an alliance with the Brazilian private sector even before Lula was elected. Chávez never believed in the suppression of the private sector. Quite the contrary, he openly advocated for a reform of the Venezuelan private sector, aimed at the creation of a strong domestic industry.

I understand the moves by the Brazilian textile industry, and outsourcing is far from being the best option. But the article fails to present the context - it's not a question of competing for international markets, but of survival inside our own domestic market: China has literally destroyed our textile industry. We can't compete with China even in our own domestic market. Entire cities, big cities, such as Americana and Santa Bárbara d'Oeste, whose economy was based in textile production went bankrupt in the last 20 years, some of the biggest Brazilian textile companies are gone. And it's just one example. The same applies to several industrial sectors as well.

That's why I say there's no option. This is very grave problem for Brazil, in particular, because of the characteristics of our economy. Brazil is not a exportation-oriented economy. Unlike Mexico, our industries serve our domestic market. Mexico has a much smaller economy than Brazil and a far less advanced industrial sector, but they export dozens of times more. Brazil's economic growth is based in strengthening its domestic market (Brazilian consumers buying Brazilian products), exportations represent a very low percentage of our GDP.

What would happen if our private sector was left on its own? We know already. We've seen it during Cardoso's government. Inflation eroding the purchasing power of the working class, unemployment reaching 1 in each 4 Brazilians, inequality rising, poverty rising, the filthy rich getting richer and richer. As the article points, Cardoso was such a disgrace that at the end of his second term there were even farmers, bankers, millionaires voting for a "radical", "communist" union organizer... and Lula became president.

What Lula decided to do is going to the dance floor, but choosing his partners. He won't challenge the importance of capital, but he'll decide whose capital he wants to deal with. As the article says, Brazil has the world's largest development bank. There is a reason why Brazil's BNDES funds more projects than the World Bank. It is more requested. And why?

Because, unlike the World Bank, Brazil won't impose conditions to lend money to anyone! Brazil won't tell Venezuela it needs to adopt austerity or a specific amount of surplus or inflation targets before releasing funds for building a road or a dam. Brazil won't condition privatization to release money for a country. And, if you want to know my opinion, it's a wonderful thing.

There's no way we can compare Brazilian actions with US' or foreign powers' regarding Latin America. We just have to see how Brazil reacted when Evo nationalized Bolivian oil, including Petrobrás' assets. Instead of bullying, threatening, suing... Lula openly recognized Evo's right to nationalize his country's oil. Can you imagine Obama doing such a thing? Or any European leader for that matter?

There are several, several examples such as this. That's the difference between Brazil and the US. The private sector will try to get profits by any costs, as in the US, but they won't set the tone. We are not a corporatocracy. That's why our private sector is more trusted. Not only in Latin America, in Africa and elsewhere too. Brazil is known for respecting the sovereignty of its neighbors and their decisions. If any of them decides to forbid Brazil of exploiting some market niche, Brazil will simply accept their decision.

Brazil is trying to replace US capital with local capital, yes. And it is a good thing! So does Venezuela. That's why Chávez and Maduro prefer to lend from Brazil's BNDES. That's why Chávez proposed a regional bank. That's why Brazil, China, India, Russia are trying to create an alternative to IMF and World Bank. That's the core of all this movement. Creating an alternative to Breton Woods. Brazil is not a socialist country yet, and perhaps it will never be. But it's even farther from being a neoliberal government, as a more "purist" left sometimes says. It is heading towards a state capitalism.

[Catherina]

13. I was hoping you'd weigh in

I recognize it's a complex issue and that to win the game, you have to play it. I also recognize revolutions aren't won overnight or with just a few players.

"There's no way a country can establish its own rules and ignore the global context. It's suicide."

Agreed. With distress and under duress.

This is not a anti-capital movement.

To the regret of many on the Left however, everyone on the Left also realizes that the first step to moving to the Left s getting the imperial boot off your neck. This is why I have no problem watching right wing countries like Guatemala become members of PetroCaribe. Things happen in steps and the seeds you lay today may bear fruit tomorrow. It's also why I don't jump and thrown boulders at Chavez for playing with the private sector, though I will, at every opportunity, remind his opposition that he was more patient and tolerant of them than any socialist revolution required. Personally, I think that was very very smart. And it shouldn't be forgotten that Chavez, naively enough, started out as a neoliberal until he understood what that game was.

I tried not to be too harsh in my statement about Brazil's outsourcing for the same reason I won't attack countries striving towards socialism for any mistakes, or better yet deviations, they make. Hah lol my friend. I'm actually counting on Brazil, on Dilma, to keep its head and out-google-dimensional-chess countries that seek to ruthlessly exploit. As long as she keeps caring for her citizens and moving things to the Left, I'm not only happy but grateful.

What you wrote about how "China has literally destroyed our textile industry".. I hear you. And I am trusting people like Dilma to take a little of that poison to turn it into a vaccine while understanding that China didn't do it at gunpoint. They muscled in using the debt the US holds to them.

"going to the dance floor, but chosing his partners"

No complaints there. If anything, just applause for this necessary step in a transition. I understand where Brazil is going with all of this and I support it as long as,down the road, after Dilma is gone, the mechanisms that Brazil puts in place to advance equality, aren't used to exploit.

That's the big danger.

However, I trust Dilma, with the support of ALBA, CELAC, UNASUR, to also implement the necessary trigger mechanisms to prevent that.

The worst part to getting to your destination is all the steps it takes. And sometimes, many times, the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line, especially when there are minefields and obstacles in between.

Brazil has my *pragmatic* and sincere support. It's going to take all of them, together in solidarity, to get there. I see how the imperial powers have been trying to fracture that solidarity and how there are weak links. I don't think Dilma is one of those weak links- she's been anything but! I have reservations, hopefully unnecessary ones, about Bachelet but that's a whole other thread.

It's a delicate, deadly dance. Right now, I trust Dilma to keep those horny boys at charming, laughing arms distance so the more serious boys have a chance. As long as she dances *with them who brung me*, like I believe she will, I'll keep fiddling

[Peace Patriot]

2. Well, if that don't beat all! Dilma Rousseff--horribly tortured by U.S.-supported fascists...

...when she was young, elected president of Brazil as the Workers Party candidate, and overwhelmingly popular, now to be feted at the White House!

This would be Obama's "good angel" which has also spoken to him about supporting the Colombia/FARC peace negotiation (and maybe about Colombian president Manual Santos' call for legalization and the end of the "war on drugs" and maybe about the diceyness of supporting the coupsters in Venezuela). His "bad angel," however, far from giving up, has won many victories, including U.S. support for the rightwing coup in Honduras, U.S. support for the rightwing coup in Paraguay, U.S. troops on the ground in both countries, U.S. support of the coupsters in Venezuela despite warnings from his "good angel," the CIA's nefarious activities throughout the region ("Give the CIA everything it wants"--Barack Obama, quoted in the latest issue of the New Yorker, re: drone assassinations), continued reactivation of the U.S. 4th Fleet (mothballed since WW II, rebirthed by the Bush Junta) in the Caribbean, coverup of what may be vast Bush Junta crimes in Colombia, appointment of Bush Junta operative, William Brownfield, as "drug czar" of Latin America (gawd) and appointment of Chiquita "death squad" International's lawyer, Eric Holder, as Attorney General of the U.S. (gawd x 1,000), among other things.

Rousseff mostly heeds her "good angel," so this ought to be an interesting fete-ing.

Hard not to be cynical about U.S. intentions (for instance, "dividing and conquering" the vast, leftist democracy movement that has swept South America). But it would be a mistake to underestimate Rousseff. Those who have done so are still in a state of bewilderment as to what hit them. And she is rock solid on "raising all boats" in Latin America (the policy originally promulgated by her mentor, Lula da Silva, and Hugo Chavez), no matter the slaverings of the Brazillian business class over sweatshop labor in Paraguay. They hate her and the Workers Party, of course, but they and their ilk are way outnumbered in countries with real democracies, like Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia and Uruguay, where socialists have the upperhand (soon to be re-joined by Chile with the re-election of re-radicalized, socialist Michele Batchelet this November after an ugly but short hiatus of rule by the 1%). (Three female presidents in South America, all socialists! Brazil, Argentina and soon Chile. That will be something!)

(That iconic photo of Chavez, Correa and Morales, in colorful Bolivian ponchos, with their nut-brown faces, will be supplemented with an equally stunning photo, sometime soon, of the new trio, Rousseff, Fernandez and Batchelet, the icons of women's equality and social justice in Latin America.)

[Judi Lynn]

3. I had to go get that photo after seeing your post:

[center]

- and the other one, too -



It pained the little dweeb to have to sit with beloved presidents.

[Catherina]

11. Wonderful picture. Thank you n/t

[Catherina]

14. Hard? It's it's impossible. Look at this dishonest reporting

US VP Biden says Brazil-US relations enter new era
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:15 PM EST Updated: Friday, May 31, 2013 4:04 PM EST

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) - Stronger trade ties and closer cooperation in education, science and other fields should usher in a new era in U.S.- Brazil relations in 2013, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Friday.

Biden made his remarks after meeting with President Dilma Rousseff and Vice president Michel Temer on the last leg of his three-day visit to Brazil.

...

The Oct. 23 visit will be an important diplomatic acknowledgment of Brazil's growing influence - and also a shift back toward the middle for Brazilian foreign policy under Rousseff.

Her predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, supported the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's late president Hugo Chavez, both of whom Rousseff kept at arm's length.

...

http://www.wjbf.com/story/22470477/us-vp-biden-says-brazil-us-relations-enter-new-era

Kept at length? What? Excuse me?

Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, has decreed three days of
national mourning to commemorate Hugo Chávez's death.

Roussef said Chávez's death "saddened all of Latin Americans ...leaving a vacuum in hearts, history and battles".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/hugo-chavez-death-reaction-live

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called Hugo Chavez's death "an irreparable loss" and hailed him as a "great Latin American" and "a friend of the Brazilian people."

"We recognise a great leader, an irreparable loss and above all a friend of Brazil, a friend of the Brazilian people," she said before leading a minute of silence at a meeting with rural leaders in Brasilia.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/brazils-president-dilma-rousseff-says-chavez-death-irreparable-loss/1083859/

Arms length lol. I thank the stars above for the internet so we we're not at the mercy of the corporate press.

At the side of the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, president Dilma Rousseff said this Thursday (9) that South America must reaffirm its "capacity of solving its own problems". And, without naming countries, condemned "hegemonic pretensions" and "foreign interference".

...

"Our countries are showing this vocation to create a common future that unites our entire region, that contributes to a multipolar and multilateral world without the spirit of confrontation, without hememonic pretensions and without foreign interference", she said.

..

In her speech, Dilma said that the regional union of South America is a "dream" that has been conducted by both countries. "This has a huge political meaning", she affirmed to the press, after meeting with Maduro and ministers from both countries.

...

Before talking to the press, Dilma and Maduro met for about two hours and said that they talked about the countries' relations, mainly regarding trade, energy, culture and agriculture. Dilma said that in 2012, the exchange of products and services between the countries reached US$ 6 billion. During his speech, Maduro highlighted the importance of technical cooperation with Brazil to increment food production in his country.

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110816606

[Socialistlemur]

5. South American countries aren't rich

There's a bit of a mistake in that text. South American countries aren't rich. They are either poor or at best average. They have a long tradition of bad governance, and it doesn't matter if its from the left or the right. Geography and ethnicity also hurts. For example the brazilians are Portuguese speaking and are not necessarily loved by Argentinians. This is why Mercosur is suffering and it's becoming irrelevant. On the other hand Venezuelans and Colombians are at each others' throats, and I have seen debates between Mexicans and Brazilians which remind me of WWI. This is even if we exclude the democracy versus autocracy and left versus right divides. A lot of this union and solidarity talk is mostly hot air from what I can tell.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

7. Reality!

Don't do this too much. Someone might actually learn something.

[ocpagu]

9. Pffff...

Try again.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

10. Actually, your reply to him directly was quite good,

and exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. I can do without the usual propaganda puffery that constantly gets posted around here, on both sides.
Carry on.

[ocpagu]

8. Impressive. Every sentence in your paragraph is wrong.

"South American countries aren't rich. They are either poor or at best average"

Most are middle-income economies. The living standard of South America is closer to the developed world than those of Sub-Sahaaran Africa or South Asia, for example. Some countries, like Argentina, have the same level of development of Western countries such as Portugal. It's naive to say these countries are poor. They are unequal. It's very different.

"They have a long tradition of bad governance, and it doesn't matter if its from the left or the right"

Stereotyped, patronizing, high-handed and arrogant bullshit. A simple comparison between governance in Latin America and governance in Europe or US will show that quite well. I understand some people think that governing for the 1% and screwing the working class is good governance... sorry if we don't agree with your mindset, but it certainly doesn't mean you're right.

"For example the brazilians are Portuguese speaking and are not necessarily loved by Argentinians. This is why Mercosur is suffering and it's becoming irrelevant."

So... Mercosur is "becoming irrelevant" (?) because Brazilians speak Portuguese and are not loved by Argentinians? Oh, boy. Why aren't you writing for The Economist yet?

I'm Brazilian, my father's family is Argentinian. I've spent my life between both countries. They love our language, our music, our food, our beaches, our mood. We love Buenos Aires, Bariloche, and barbeque. We don't need passports or visas to visit each other. There are minor rivalries, i.e. soccer, but that's it. Few countries in the world have close, brotherly relations such as Argentina and Brazil.

"On the other hand Venezuelans and Colombians are at each others' throats, and I have seen debates between Mexicans and Brazilians which remind me of WWI"

This is conjectural. Most Venezuelans have nothing against Colombians and vice-versa. Same applies to Brazil and Mexico. Mexico also has a strong cultural influence in Latin America, that reaches Brazil. From TV program "El Chavo del Ocho" that is a cultural reference for the childhood of millions of Brazilians to the contemporary soap operas, to popular culture and culinaire. Most Brazilians have a good impression of Mexico and I'm pretty sure the same applies to Mexico relating to Brazil.

"A lot of this union and solidarity talk is mostly hot air from what I can tell"

None is so blind as those who will not see. Keep thinking this "union and solidarity talk" is whatever you wish it to be. The fact is: it's real, it has been for some time, it's clear, it's open, it's palpable. And it's working.

[ocpagu]

15. Interesting article by Le Monde...

...as usual in their output. It gives some food for thought.

"The US views Latin America as its backyard. Brazil is beginning to feel the same way about South America, where it is the biggest and richest country."

We need to have in mind that Brazil is a country of continental size. It shares borders with all the countries in South America but Chile and Ecuador. The state where I live has more inhabitants than Argentina. So it has a natural, inherent, influence over its neighbors - the same way that, in a smaller scale, Argentina exerts influence over Uruguay or Venezuela over Bolivia. Brazil will be pushed to the position of leader for its own weight. It's more a natural process than a planned strategy or a foreign policy based on myths (such as American exceptionalism) or declared intention of interference (as the Monroe Doctrine). The Brazilian foreign policy is based in multilateralism, cooperation and non-interventionism - but not by the means of empty speeches, like US, Brazil's commitment to these principles are palpable int its foreign policy. So... I'm not sure Brazil views South America in the same way US views Latin America. Also, because, as opposed to US, Brazil is part of South America, it has a common history with its neighbors and they share common values.

The recent wave of South American countries recognizing Palestine, after Brazil's lead, is a good example of the "natural influence" I'm talking about. Brazil didn't need to buy, threaten or bully its neighbors' governments to be followed. The same way Brazil didn't need to ask Argentina for more space in their oil industry. Argentina offered it:

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_20443197/argentina-wants-bigger-brazil-role-oil-market

Brazil's actions in funding South American governments are, frequently, a demand that comes from South American governments themselves. Chávez was the one who asked Brazil to join the Bank of South initiative.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aCVX3i2gP5AQ

I understand there is the permanent risk - and the temptation from some sectors of the Brazilian society - of transforming Brazil into a United States of South America. But, so far, Brazil's neighbors themselves don't seem to be bothered by that. Including the countries from the Bolivarian Alliance which have had no problems with Brazil's foreign policy so far. And they are not the kind of countries that avoid talking openly and honestly for diplomatic etiquette sake.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

16. Point of historical order

The Monroe Doctrine was originally meant to stop European intervention in Latin America. It was actually welcomed by Bolivar and other Latin American leaders when it was laid out.
In 1895 Grover Cleveland used it to check a British attempt at bullying Venezuela into accepting their version of where the border with Guyana should be (this was at Venezuela's request), telling them that if they didn't submit the dispute to arbitration they could face war with the US.
The turning point in how it was used came not so much in the War of 1898, but in another episode involving Venezuela (damn country's always causing trouble!) in 1902 when Teddy Roosevelt tacked on what he called the Roosevelt Corollary which stated a US right to intervene if a country was misbehaving internationally.
It's been pretty much downhill ever since. Carter, as noted in my sig, was the only President since Cleveland to recognize Latin America's right to an independent course. The absolute worst offender wasn't any of the moderns most people think of, but Woodrow Wilson, who intervened multiple times in the Mexican Revolution for no reason other than that the regimes didn't fit his personal definition of a correct republic.
Wilson was also the one who controversially got us into WWI and sent American soldiers to fight on the White side of the Russian Civil War after that revolution as well. He also had a large hand in botching the Treaty of Versailles and therefore setting the stage for WWII.
Of course he's revered in this country for his alleged justice in his foreign policy dealings.

Sorry for the rant on Wilson. Merely thinking about him gets my blood to boiling.