And it's actually hard to choose among Latin American presidents for "most interesting." There's Evo Morales, the "Nelson Mandela" of Latin America, a 100% Indigenous elected president in what was virtually an "apartheid" country (Indigenous not allowed to walk on the sidewalks, etc.); Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil, who was imprisoned and tortured by the U.S.-supported fascist junta, when she was young; Michele Batchelet, just re-elected president of Chile, who was also tortured by U.S.-backed fascists, and lost her father to torture; Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, president of Argentina, who, with husband Nestor Kirchner (when he was president; now deceased) told the IMF/World Bank to ~!@#$ off. And more. (...that gorgeous fellow, Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, who gave refuge to Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy in London; Daniel Ortega, president of Nicaragua, and leader of that revolution--fought off Ollie North and Ronnie Raygun; Nicolas Maduro, former bus driver, elected president of Venezuela, mentored by Hugo Chavez. And more. As I said, hard to choose...)
Interesting that Mujica was also tortured by U.S.-backed fascists. That's a badge of courage these days as to getting elected in Latin America.
Just legalized marijuana--made it a state industry!
Gives his salary to the poor!
Runs a flower farm!
Really, why can't we come up with these kinds of politicians--leaders who have suffered, leaders who have worked for a living, leaders who identify with the poor and who are passionately determined to create a better society? I have my own notions as to why we have such a dearth of intelligence and compassion in our country's leadership (consider the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, for instance). But we all need to ask this question and look for answers.
Why are our leaders either as dull and 'programmed' as 'Manchurian Candidates" or outright fascist wackos? We have so few, to point to, who are even good, let alone interesting, leaders, and none of those few have a chance in hell of becoming president.
Just imagine. Just imagine a presidential candidate, here, who is tiny in stature and looks like a Hobbit! Who advocates (gulp...) LEGALIZING the demon weed. Who has zero interest in wealth. Who gives all his money away! Who would be completely content to grow flowers! Who would adopt 30 children when he himself is 78 years old!
I mean, what would the CIA do with such a candidate? What would ES&S/Diebold do with him? What would our "police state" boondogglers do with him? What would our jerkwad corporate media do with him?
We might well, in truth, elect such a president but he would never be allowed to run the "military-industrial complex." The vote would be "trade secreted." Or he would be set up with a "honey trap," or he simply wouldn't live to enter the White House. Most likely, our people would never hear of him at all, or only in negative, sniping, smearing fashion. It takes half a billion dollars to become president of the U.S., and the consent of the MIC/CIA (which dictates the media line). Maybe it's possible, with the internet, for someone, say, who declines all donations over $50, to get into a position to run for president--but then there are all the OTHER safeguards against any advocate of the poor and believer in a just society going the distance and actually becoming "commander in chief."
It's NOT POSSIBLE. It's not even possible for an FDR (advocate of the poor from a wealthy family) to become president today. (Talk about "interesting"! What an interesting fellow he was!) It simply ain't gonna happen; can't happen; will be blocked.
Sad, sad, for our democracy. But at least we have South America as an example of what CAN be done when people pay attention to their election systems and get organized. Look at what they've suffered, and yet they've managed to re-establish democracy. Ours is a particularly difficult system to reform, and has its own unique and humongous problems. But still...
...it's no wonder that the corporate media is fawning over Nelson Mandela (who never challenged the economic system) and has nothing but bile to throw at the great socialist leaders of South America--those named above and more--who have not only fought racial and sexual prejudice and exclusion, but are fighting for economic justice against a U.S.-run world system of gross exploitation, monopoly and war.
Mandela was a great man, for sure--and probably had no choice but to yield to the capitalists and the banksters. I'm not arguing with his choice. But I will say this: Martin Luther King did not make such a compromise (which is probably why he was murdered, that and his opposition to the Vietnam War). In jail for 29 years, as Mandela was, and you may well figure "one step at a time." Mandela inspired me and multi-millions of others. I'm saying nothing against him. What I'm saying is that there is a REASON the MIC/CIA and their media worship Mandela and revile Latin America's leftists. And that reason is MONEY--looting of natural resources, deregulation, control of economic policy, greed. They'll go along with racial desegregation as long as greed is still okay.
When Evo Morales nationalized Bolivia's gas resource, and began paying poor people pensions from those revenues, he became an "enemy," though he had ended apartheid in Bolivia. The same with these other leaders, who are part of the greatest democracy movement on earth, AND the greatest economic justice movement! They deserve high praise and they will never get it from the corporate media. The corporate media convulses in FEAR of anyone like Mujica, or Chavez, or Morales, or the others, becoming president HERE. They are the propaganda arm of those determined to prevent such a thing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
