I read it while sitting on the patio eating my cornflakes.
It seemed innocent enough. Lying there like a boa sunning itself on the shoulder of the road.
The words in The Economist briefing paper seemed almost neutral:
It seemed innocent enough. Lying there like a boa sunning itself on the shoulder of the road.
The words in The Economist briefing paper seemed almost neutral:
Venezuela’s parliament, dominated by supporters of President Hugo Chávez, rushed through a controversial education law under which school lessons will be based on “Bolivarian doctrine”.
I wonder how an American expatriate living in Mexico in 1940 would have reacted to a short news blurb: "Today Germany announced plans to build a work camp at Auschwitz"?
The analogy is not entirely accurate. President Chávez is merely interested in killing the past to ensure his future.
Latin America is going through tough economic times -- as is the rest of the world. In past worldwide economic downturns, Latin America has suffered much worse than Europe or the United States. The usual result: loan defaults accompanied by currency and banking disasters.
This time, the Latin American countries who have adopted and applied liberal democratic economic principles are actually doing much better than most nations. No bank failures. No toxic financial instruments. And it appears that they will survive the downturn with their middle class credentials intact.
There are problems. Anti-poverty programs have suffered. But their financial structures are sound. Or most of them are.
The biggest success story, of course, is Brazil. Brazil was well on its way to creating a strong economic base under President Cardoso. When the leftist Lula de Silva, a close friend of Fidel Castro, replaced him, the world watched to see which economic path he would choose.
He chose wisely by applying liberal democratic principles. And Brazil was the better off for it.
Brazil continued to prosper -- making Brazil the mentor for other center-left governments. Chile, Uruguay, and Peru could easily have abandoned liberal economic principles. Instead, they chose to follow Brazil.
Along with Mexico and Colombia, those four countries have central banks that target inflation. And those policies have paid off.
That has been the general tale of success. Latin America is no longer a series of military coup-ridden, central-government-controlled economies.
Well, mostly not. There is Argentina, which has staggered from success to disaster like some populist prodigal son not yet fed up with eating swine pods. And Bolivia and Ecuador wander in the authoritarian wilderness.
But none are as worrisome as their coeval: Venezuela.
I call him Curly (of Three stooges fame). Felipe calls him a Latin American Mussolini. I fear Felipe is far closer to the truth.
We are speaking of that buffoon of the comic opera: Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, smiter of neoliberalism, globalism, and the United States; father of dodgy Bolivarian socialism; president of Venezuela, and yet-to-be-certified crackpot.
I suspect no one would pay much attention to Chávez if he had confined his Cuban-inspired fascist policies within the borders of Venezuela. After all, if the people of Venezuela elect a president who takes away their free press and restricts their economic and political freedoms, who are we to tell them that he doesn't even make the trains run on time.
Of course, he didn't stop there. Like most bully dictators, he picks on his neighbors: Colombia, in his case, by funding narco guerrillas. And then tries to use his big economic tool, oil, to get his neighbors to follow his bidding.
There have been victories. Honduras's Congress and Supreme Court told Chávez's buddy and authoritarian-wannabe, President Manuel Zelaya, that he would probably be happier pursuing a career in time share sales in Nicaragua.
The question is whether there will be enough left of Venezuela's civil society to move on to another government when the majority tires of Chávez. Venezuela's economy is beginning to suffer in the same way Cuba's economy has suffered -- from the imposition of economic principles that simply do not work.
But why should a blog centered around Mexico care what Chávez does?
Because Mexico came very close to becoming a Chávez ally. Three years ago, the Mexican presidential candidate who came in second was a strong supporter of Chávez. The fact that his party almost self-destructed in July's election is some comfort. But the July victors (the PRI) bear watching.
Before they were sent into the political wilderness, the PRI had a rather authoritarian streak. It is the successor party of the coalition that came out on the winning side in the Mexican Revolution, and had the honor of introducing the losers to the honor of a firing squad death.
They took the revolution part of their name very seriously. These are people who thought the Soviet Union had a good thing going.
In the 70s they traded ideology for old-fashioned corruption. That is what eventually lost them the presidency two elections in a row.
And now the party will be back in power in Congress in December.
The chances are extremely good that the PRI will take the same route as President Lula. They will support leftist policies, but they will rely on liberal democratic principles to get there. And that is what they say they are going to do.
If so, we should all wish them Godspeed.
In the 70s they traded ideology for old-fashioned corruption. That is what eventually lost them the presidency two elections in a row.
And now the party will be back in power in Congress in December.
The chances are extremely good that the PRI will take the same route as President Lula. They will support leftist policies, but they will rely on liberal democratic principles to get there. And that is what they say they are going to do.
If so, we should all wish them Godspeed.
