By undermining democracy, a leftist government may be defending its leftism, but its betraying its Constitutional duty and the reason it was elected for. By defending itself as a political ideology, it is attacking the country's core itself.
Yes, that's great, thanks for giving us the orthodox scoop on leftist governments. Let me tell you one
thing that can be gleaned from American foreign
policy throughout the entire Twentiety Century:
the moment you carry out your Constitutional duty and stay true to the purpose of your election, you will be toppled.
hey have a duty to defend and strengthen the democratic institutions they themselves helped create, even if (specially if) that undermines the power of any unique party line.
Aside from the fact that your priorities and notion
of democratic institutions may not necessarily
be equal to those of the regime, that's pretty much true. But, again, if you bring in some "real"
democracy (to the extent that it's irrefutable by
even the scheming American press without
having to invent pure lies), you probably are doing more than hurting the power of the party
line -- you may be hurting your power to do
anything useful, period.
Sure, they didn't work, but they could all have been seen as dangerously progressive by "imperialist right-wing Americans". Nationalization of oil, free universal education, massive scholarships and social help, universal employment, government subsidies and protective tariffs to replace imports with national production ,radically strenghtening the OPEC and using it directly against American interests raising oil prices...
Aye, Venezuela is certainly one with which they
didn't tamper too much, to my knowledge. However, I think matters get pretty sensitive when
you tamper with your number one oil provider, which I believe Venezuela was around that time.
Maybe not. It's certainly slipped down a few
notches since then on the oil importer chart.
My guess is that as long as the oil is a-flowing
in some shape or form, the US couldn't give a
rats' about nationalisation or social reforms.
Furthermore, it's obvious that there weren't the
kind of US corporate interests in Venezuela that
there were in countries like Chile, Cuba, and
Guatemala (dictatorship by United Fruit).
Incidentally, these same countries happen to be
the scenes of the most bloodstained coups,
all organised by the US.
They were terrified of the Soviet menace, not the progressives. These progressives didn't like the soviets and promised the US (expensive) oil, so they were political allies.
I seriously doubt that this had a whole lot to do
with it. I suppose they could've courted favour
with the US by openly denouncing the Soviets,
but almost anybody knows that the International
Communist Conspiracy is a fabrication. Guatemala inthe 1950s, for example, had absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the
Soviet Union, yet Arbenz's regime went down in
a hailstorm of CIA-invented lies about "Communist infiltration", "Soviet beach-heads",
Any self-respecting person versed in the basics of Latin American politics knows that Presidents in these young democracies love to undermine democratic institutions in defense of their political ideology and/or personal power.
Yes, I never denied that this is true, and I'm sure
that this applies to Chavez as much as anyone
else. It also applies to the American leadership,
just less overtly (but then, why bother with more?
a population systematically cultivated with
ignorance and apathy and indoctrinated with
the belief that "Democrats and Republicans" are
a "democratic" dichotomy - it's a dictator's dream).
"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]