|
ratings. Fernando Lugo was at 92% just after his election as president last year in Paraguay. 92%! I mean, that has to be some kind of record. Chavez, Morales and Correa are all in the 70% range--and that is especially remarkable for Chavez, the longest in office, with non-stop venom from the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies and from all of our Bushwhacks and their Democratic echo chamber (even Obama--jeez!*). Morales and Correa have just won big votes for their Constitutional reforms (Morales, 60+%, Correa, nearly 70%). And Morales just weathered a Bushwhack fascist coup plot, this last September.
They are popular because they are good presidents--good managers, with both practical and visionary qualities. Fernando Lugo hasn't been tested yet, but he certainly did an amazing thing, bringing all of Paraguay's fractured political parties and interest groups together, to win the election--the first leftist government ever to be elected in Paraguay. Chavez, Morales and Correa have all been tested in office--at times savagely tested by their own fascist elites and by the Dark Lords of U.S. foreign policy. The word for them is SOLID. Solid accomplishments. Solid backing of their people. And solid ALLIANCES--having each other's backs, ability to cooperate for the common good. Time-tested alliances.
If Hillary Clinton thinks she can "divide and conquer" this group of South American leaders--which includes others as well (Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, and soon El Salvador; and, on certain core issues, Chile and Guatemala)--she is in for a rude awakening. She can chip at the corners. She cannot turn back the tide of this truly amazing democracy and social justice movement. Neither U.S. bullying nor bribery will work any more. And neither Obama nor Clinton are stupid people. Maybe they'll get with it--and realize, at last, that respect for the sovereignty of Latin American countries, true support for--and not lying hypocritical bullshit about--democracy, and economic cooperation--not dominance and exploitation--are the right course, and the best course, and, really, the only course open to us.
I don't know how the people who cry "dictator" about Chavez--and sometimes about Morales and Correa as well--can look at these photos, especially the top two, above--and maintain their delusion. Is any of these leaders a "dictator"? Dictators simply don't behave like this--joining hands in such obvious friendship and trust. Dictators are too egocentric, too self-involved, too paranoid about their own power, to convey such sincere regard for other leaders. And when you feel such friendship, regard and respect, for others, and from others, it acts as a check on your own "inner dictator" (--a part of our souls that we must all deal with). Would Chavez torture somebody, or do anything at all "dictatorial," with Fernando Lugo--the beloved "bishop of the poor"--looking over his shoulder; or the saintly Evo Morales? Would Rafael Correa get all caudillo-like and get provoked into a war, with Chavez pulling him back? Would any of these men even break the law--let alone become "dictatorial"--with friends like these to answer to? Then there are the women--also part of this friendship pact--Michele Batchelet, who was tortured by Pinochet; Cristina Fernandez, who has shown such solidarity with the 'mourning grandmothers' of Argentina. Somewhere I picked up on remarks these two women have made--teasing remarks about the male leaders and their tendency to let their testosterone get the better of them. (I think the situation was Colombia/U.S. provocation against Ecuador and Venezuela, last year.) They have acted as peacemakers (as has Chavez).
Of course, a photograph doesn't tell you everything (and can sometimes lie). But, together with all the evidence, these photographs tell us of a vast change in South America, coming from the people, which is producing the best leadership the continent has ever had. They are in accord with each other. They check each others' "inner dictators." And they have good and worthy goals--including maximizing both democracy and opportunity for their people.
Those who cry "dictator" are either blind, uninformed dupes, or they are liars.
---------
*(As for Obama, something I want to note: He has definitely scaled down the rhetoric, on Chavez, from "dictator" and "authoritarian demagogue" to--what was it?--"harmful to the progress of the region"? Something like that. JFK did something similar, while he worked backchannels to Krushchev and Castro, to achieve an end to the Cold War. His public rhetoric was his cover with our war profiteers, and he gradually scaled it down, to his final speech at American University, which was not a Cold War but a World Peace speech. The CIA was monitoring his backchannels, and that's why they killed him--according to James Douglass in his book, "JFK and the Unspeakable." He makes quite a compelling case for it. I mention this to convey the DANGER to a U.S. president of wanting peace and justice. We need to parse Obama's words carefully, to figure out what's really going on. His speech to the Miami mafia is another example. Couched in typical Monroe Doctrine rhetoric--and a lot of bluster about Chavez and "the need for U.S. leadership"--he made an opening to Cuba. And, need I say, we should at least consider watching Obama's back on this matter. Al Giordano at Narco News apparently thinks something similar--that Obama really is trying to change things, but must tread carefully. I was impressed with his analysis of Obama's Miami speech. And he is no dreamy-eyed amateur. His investigative subject--the U.S. "war on drugs"--is one of the toughest, most dangerous and most revealing topics, as to U.S. foreign policy.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
