Good Left, Bad Left

[Judi Lynn]

Good Left, Bad Left
Compliance and Defiance in US Press Coverage of Latin America
By Kevin Young
Saturday, July 17, 2010

On the one side are countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, where voters have given much greater power to their populist presidents, partly by allowing them to extend their time in office and sometimes eroding the function of Congress and the Supreme Court, institutions portrayed as allies of the old oligarchy. On the other side are nations of varying ideological hues, including Brazil, Latin America's rising power, where resilient institutions have allowed for more diversity of participants in politics, ruling out the so-called participatory democracy that Mr. Chavez, the Venezuelan president, has been eager to promote in the region.

—Simon Romero in the New York Times, June 2009 <1>

In the past decade Latin America has witnessed the election of roughly a dozen left-leaning presidents of varying ideological inclinations and leadership styles, who have been propelled into power by some combination of grassroots citizens’ movements and deep popular disillusion with the neoliberal policies of previous pro-US leaders. Faced with this tide of protest against the US and US-allied leaders, the US government has tried to limit its loss of control over the hemisphere. One strategy for doing so has involved promoting what it considers the “good,” responsible Left and isolating the anti-democratic, “bad” Left. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the difference during a visit to Brazil this past March, when she criticized Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez for undermining democracy and called on him “to restore private property” and “return to a free market economy.” Clinton contrasted Venezuela with the good Left, saying that “e wish Venezuela were looking more to its south and looking at Brazil and looking at Chile” <2>.

The major press organs in the US, including the more liberal ones, have echoed this characterization, often drawing the contrast even more sharply. News articles and editorials in the New York Times have distinguished between those who “aggressively push a leftist agenda” and “Brazil’s more moderate, leftist approach,” while insisting on the need for a “counterweight” to “Chavez and his protégé, the Bolivian president, Evo Morales” <3>. The Washington Post has contrasted the region’s “fervently anti-American leaders” with “democratic Brazil” <4>. The Christian Science Monitor has implicitly pitted “the region’s hard-left, Chavez-led bloc, which also includes Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Cuba,” against Brazil, Argentina, and others <5>. The New York Daily News recently expressed outrage that democratic Brazil had joined “Venezuela’s revolutionary strongman and narcoterrorist Hugo Chavez” and “Bolivian dictator-in-the-making Evo Morales” in pursuing diplomatic and commercial relations with Iran (efforts which, in their manifest common sense and efficacy in promoting peace, stand in bold contrast to most Western politicians’ saber-rattling over Iran’s nuclear program)<6>.

The aggressive, authoritarian Left is embodied by Hugo Chávez, who is held responsible for the entire region’s leftward shift; the election of left-leaning leaders has nothing to do with the fact that Latin America is the most unequal region in the world, that it has long been dominated by the US and domestic oligarchies, and that most Latin Americans disagree with the neoliberal economic policies promoted by Washington and the international financial institutions. With the help of a few “poodles” like Evo Morales, Chávez has duped tens of millions of people into supporting his agenda by “buying support” among irrational populations who are “largely blind to results,” while sending anyone who disagrees with him to the Gulag <7>. The June 2009 military overthrow of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya occurred in part because “the Honduran president had lately fallen under the spell of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez,” who presumably tricked Zelaya into raising the country’s minimum wage and implementing other measures beneficial to Honduran workers and the poor <8>. News coverage following the coup rarely failed to emphasize Zelaya’s friendly relations with Chávez, but usually omitted all discussion of Zelaya’s socioeconomic policies <9>.

Press discussions of Latin American economic policies likewise contrast the “profligate state spending” and “nationalization of industries” under the bad Left with the “middle-of-the-road policies” of the good Left in Uruguay, Brazil, and elsewhere. Chávez’s “pathological mismanagement has run the economy into the ground,” whereas the good Left (and the good Latins, more generally) have “embrace(d) globalization” and consequently expect strong growth in their economies this year <10>.

These sharp binary distinctions between good and bad Left contain an element of truth: Venezuela’s Chávez and Bolivia’s Morales have been the most outspokenly anti-imperialist and have also made the boldest attempts to break from neoliberal economic doctrine by regulating or nationalizing big business and increasing social spending. But in many ways the US press exaggerates the contrast and distorts basic realities. First, Venezuelan and Bolivian citizens do not rate their governments more harshly than most Latin Americans rate their governments—and in fact, by most measures they deem their countries to be considerably more democratic, egalitarian, and respectful of human rights than the regional average. Any objective comparison of the human rights records of US friends and foes would certainly fault US allies Colombia and Mexico far more than Venezuela and Bolivia <11>. Second, in the realm of economic policy, the real contrast is not between “socialist” and “middle-of-the-road policies,” but between different variants of capitalism; Venezuela and Bolivia are still fundamentally capitalist, though they have found ways to mitigate some of capitalism’s most destructive consequences (and incidentally, those very policies have produced relatively strong economic growth as well) <12>. And finally, the US press exaggerates the degree of diplomatic separation between Venezuela and Bolivia, on one hand, and countries like Brazil, on the other. For example, during several recent crises, including the Honduran coup and the wave of right-wing violence in Bolivia in fall 2008, Latin American governments have united to condemn the affront to peace and democracy (while Washington has wavered) <13>. Brazil’s Lula has recently defied the US by opposing sanctions against Iran and helping to negotiate a peaceful uranium transfer deal.

More:
http://www.zcommunications.org/good-left-bad-left-by-kevin-young

[Peace Patriot]

1. As if a government that supports the bloody narco-thugs running Colombia--

with $7 BILLION in military aid!--has the moral right to distinguish between "good Left" and "bad Left"! It is beyond the pale, as to utter hypocrisy. And it seems to make no difference who ES&S/Diebold tells us we elected, the massive support for fascists and criminals in Latin America, and the demonisation of democratic leaders--leaders elected with far, far, FAR more transparency than our own--continues unabated.

-------------------

This is a quite interesting and well-founded article but it does fail in one respect: It considerably underplays the very strong alliances among Latin American Leftist leaders (whether "good" or "bad"--in Washington's Wonderland) and ignores some strong evidence that the "good Left/bad Left" distinction is a Washington fantasy--or rather, a Washington strategy ("divide and conquer") and desire. For instance, Lula da Silva has long been a strong friend and ally of Hugo Chavez. I first took note of it in 2006. At that time, when Chavez was running for his second term, and a coup around the election was in the planning stages (a second coup attempt), the Bushwhacks sent their dictate to South American leaders that they "must isolate Chavez." Nester Kirchner (president of Argentina) replied, "But he's my brother!" Lula da Silva headed for Venezuela, and, two weeks before the election, appeared with Chavez in a state event--the ribbon-cutting for the new Orinoco Bridge. His endorsement could not have been clearer. Da Silva now meets with Chavez on a monthly basis to discuss common projects and policies. They share MANY goals--among them, Latin American sovereignty and independence, social justice and a policy of "raising all boats" (the big, richer countries like Brazil and Venezuela helping the smaller or poorer countries like Bolivia, Paraguay and Honduras). Da Silva has had Chavez's back on many occasions. When Chavez was reviled here for inviting Iran's president to Venezuela, Lula da Silva soon invited Iran's president to Brazil. (So much for the "good Left"!). And da Silva has stated, of Chavez, that, "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!!" He also called Chavez "the great peacemaker" (for averting a U.S. instigated war between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela).

Lulu has also learned some things from Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. For instance, he insisted on Brazil's majority control of new oil projects, and use of the profits to benefit the poor, just like Chavez has done in Venezuela. One more thing: When the Bush Junta reconstituted the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean (mothballed since WW II), Lulu stated that it is "a threat to Brazil's oil," and it was Lulu and Brazil who proposed a common defense for South America, in the context of UNASUR, their prototype common market.

The article does mention da Silva's very strong support of President Zelaya in Honduras but it doesn't push hard enough into the full truth: that Lulu clearly perceives Washington's "divide and conquer" strategy against Latin American sovereignty, independence and real democracy, fully understands what the demonisation of Chavez and other "bad Left" leaders is all about, and has acted, time and again, to back Chavez and others up and to defeat that U.S. strategy. It is not just a few instances of Lulu aligning with Chavez and the Left. What is happening in Latin America is a big, solid block of opposition to U.S. bullying, domination and exploitation, and a democratic social and political revolution without precedent. It is an historical marvel. Washington's stale, mean, murderous, hypocritical and oh-so-typical, nauseating response is to try to DESTROY this DEMOCRACY movement in any way that it can, from the militarization and occupation of Colombia--one of the worst human rights violators on earth--to the coup in Honduras, where hundreds of Leftists have been murdered, from the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars lavished upon rightwing groups throughout the region, to the Pentagon's surrounding Venezuela's oil coast and northern oil provinces with U.S. military assets--in a military buildup that has a haunting resemblance to Vietnam--to "Big Lie" crapola of every kind, including the "good Left/bad Left" nonsense.

The article is a bit too bland, and "Foreign Policy" magaziny, for my taste. It is somewhat bloodless--and yet there is much blood on the landscape in Latin America, fresh blood in Colombia and Honduras, also in Bolivia. In a way, I think it argues too much with our government's fancied "good Left/bad Left" meme and gets into this syndrome of trying to analyze the corpo-fascist press absurdities about Latin America. Both the U.S. government and the controlled press are EGREGIOUSLY LYING about Latin America, and, if I am right, the Pentagon is planning its next oil war there--and these lies are the preliminary psyops. At the very least, the U.S. is greatly escalating its military presence in Latin America as a THREAT. The corpo-fascist 'news' monopolies are actively, deliberately covering this up, and their so-called journalists merely reflect the hysterical greed of the super-rich--our multinational corporate/war profiteer rulers--in their hatred and marginalisation of the poor MAJORITY who have managed to elect governments that act in the interests of the MAJORITY.

This has never been so well summed up than by the Honduran coup general, who said that their coup was intended "to prevent communism from Venezuela reaching the United States." (--quoted in a report on the coup by the Zelaya government-in-exile). Has the truth ever been so inadvertently spoken--in code? Communism = TRANSPARENT elections. Communism = decent wages. Communism = universal free medical care. Communism = universal free education through college. Communism = a punch in the nose to Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Monsanto, Chiquita, et al. Communism = the poor MAJORITY having a voice. Communism = FAIR trade! Communism = the military generals of a sovereign country serving their country and their people and not the U.S. corporate rulers and war profiteers. HE surely does not want "communism" to derail his gravy train!

[Mika]

2. To many Americans, communism = a centrist corporate prez like Obama. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

3. The vast majority of Americans support Social Security, Medicare and other federal

programs, such as environmental protection, consumer/product protection, labor laws, federal enforcement of fairness and justice such as the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, federal funding of civic infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals, medical clinics, schools, universities, etc.) and other "New Deal" ideas or extensions of "New Deal" ideas, including regulation of the banksters and other powerful private entities and fair taxation. So I wonder if it's true that "many Americans" equate these things with communism. I think it's a tiny, "tea-bagger" minority that does so, and that most Americans--the vast majority--equate them with the "New Deal"--that is, with the federal government acting in the interests of the majority, when local governments won't, or can't, do something, or when other circumstances warrant such action. I would agree that many Americans probably equate Castro and the Cuban revolution with a dictatorial/"centrist" government, because they have been so propagandized on Cuba, and also because they unfairly extrapolate from Stalin and Russia's repressive system, and Mao and China's mystifying system, to Cuba--also due to propaganda and lack of facts and lack of thought. But I really don't think that this "Obama is a communist" thing is prevalent. It is just being pushed by the corpo-fascist media--the way they give a Big Trumpet to other outlandish, far rightwing ideas, in order to make very modest (and almost non-) gains for the poor and lower middle class, in health care, for instance, seem extremist.

It is hard to know what most Americans think. What are the reliable sources? But I have followed a wide range of opinion polls and other indicators--especially during the leadup to the Iraq War--and I was astonished at the discrepancy, for instance, between what the polls were saying and the portrait of the American people that the corpo-fascist press was creating, on a number of issues, including the Iraq War, torturing prisoners, Social Security, transparent elections and other issues. Huge discrepancies--with the polls often backpaged, but, in one case, right there on the front page next to Judith Miller's lies about WMDs in Iraq.

I have thus grown very wary of the impressions we are given of the American people by the media. They are very hard to resist, because that's what it is--impressions planted in our subconscious brains, not facts, not reality. They even ignore their own polls! And they assault us with these images day in, day out, 24/7. We begin to think of ourselves, as a people, WHAT THEY WANT US TO THINK--that most Americans are stupid, uninformed, unthinking. I don't believe this any more. I think it is a deliberate tactic aimed at demoralizing the majority. It may be true, on some specific 'memes' about Cuba--that Americans swallow a lot of it unthinkingly--but the propaganda on that has been so relentless, so pervasive and of such long standing, that the human brain doesn't have much of a chance against it. You really have to go out of your way, and make quite an effort, to find out the truth--and since Cuba is no threat to us or to anybody, there isn't much reason to look into it, for most people. Iraq, on the other hand, was a world crisis--with the U.S. becoming a rogue nation, invading another country based on a pack of lies, and without UN Security Council backing. Nearly 60% of Americans opposed that invasion (Feb '03, all polls). Torturing prisoners was also a crisis of shocking proportions--shocking to many in the military, for instance, and to many Americans. (64% of Americans opposed torture "under any circumstances"--NYT, May '04.) The Bushwhacks gunning for Social Security--trying to privatize it--also got peoples' attention. It was an immediate threat.

Americans do tend to bounce from one threat to the next, because our minds, our democracy, our ideals and everything we hold dear have been under such intense assault. But, when our attention gets focused, some amazing things happen. For instance, while about 50% of Americans were still under the illusion that Saddam Hussein had "something to do with" 9/11, nearly 60% of them opposed invading Iraq. Half of those opposed it outright; the other half would only support it if the UN did (i.e., there was international consensus that action must be taken). In other words, they didn't trust Bush. So even in the midst of that massive brainwashing campaign, most Americans were struggling to sort out the truth. Some of them still believed that Saddam had "something to do with 9/11" but obviously thought it was minor and not cause for war (unless everybody agreed that Iraq was a further threat). And, thinking back to the intensity of that brainwashing campaign, that is amazing. Evidently, Americans--who tend to be complacent, cowed, depressed and feeling powerless most of the time--kick the gears of their brains into motion and start thinking things through, in a crisis. This is not evidence of stupidity. It is, instead, evidence that Americans CAN overcome intense efforts to brainwash them--a sign of hope. And, reviewing the media at that time, you WOULD NEVER HAVE GUESSED THAT MOST AMERICANS OPPOSED THAT WAR. The media presented a completely false picture of American opinion.

I think that this portrait of Americans, that the media promotes--of stupid, racist, commie-hating cretins--is THE most insidious propaganda technique I have ever become aware of. It is intended to make people despair of change, to give up. It is intended as divisive, but more than this, it is intended to induce depression and lack of political action and organizing. Why waste your time trying to inform or organize Americans, if they are mostly stupid, racist, commie-hating cretins? Why waste your time joining in community with other Americans, to overcome this corporate war machine that our country has become, if most Americans are self-destructively content with being its slave labor and cannon fodder? 'You are all alone in your progressive views. No one agrees with you. Everybody else loves war. Everybody else loves being looted. Might as well look out for Number One and forget everybody else. They are too dumb to bother with. You are falling asleep...falling, falling, falling.... See the Tea-Baggers marching against you, millions and millions of them, like the brooms in the Sorcerer's Apprentice... they are everywhere, hideously mindless broomsticks, all identical, hating diversity, outvoting you with the help of Diebold/ES&S, millions and millions and millions of them scaling the purple mountains' majesty, marching through the amber waves of grain, coming to get you; resistance is futile, give it up; buy gold...'

:rofl: :patriot: :rofl:

[yurbud]

4. good left=obedient to Wall Street bankers. bad left=not