The rise of Leftist presidencies in Latin America

Another great, but poorly publicized irony, of the Bush administration that the violent reaction to his goverment will leave Latin America even futher Left leaning than at any other time since the early 60’s.

Ortega, the great Nicaraguan commie enemy of the Reagan years, just got elected President, and you barely hear a word of it.

This is a new, socially conservative Ortega, though. He recently championed a law banning all abortions.

I thought abortions already were banned there, and that they had scores of government forensic gynecologists who go around examining vaginas for signs of abortions.

No wait, that’s el salvador. Nm.

I don’t think you can “blame” that on Bush. This has been ongoing for some time, and Clinton’s IMF/World Bank neoliberal economics based foreign policy wasn’t much different in South/Central America (though I don’t recall Clinton backing any failed coups).

Countries throughout Latin America have been hosed by the switch to the economic policies pushed by the US, and have been digging their way out of the resulting hole of their own accord, often banding together where before they did not.

lol what wont you motherfuckers blame on Bush?

“The buck stops here”. Ever hear of it?

Reagan started it, but Bush, Clinton, and Bush continued the neoliberal IMF shit that wiped the floor with the South American and Asian developing economics. Surprise, surprise, they’re voting more to the left.

Far more disturbing is that the US - in response to the overwhelming threat of south america invading the united states, I guess, led by the undead corpse of Stalin or something - is training South American militaries again. That worked out real well last time with the El Salvadoran death squads.

I thought it started before Reagon, in the 60s… I’m pretty fuzzy about this period of Latin American history though.

Because military training = DEATH SQUADS.

Actually, in Latin America it pretty much has.

I think there was an institution “The School of The Americas” that was pretty infamous as a CIA/DoD training facility for foreign officers and they taught some very brutal tactics. Our bloody history in Central and South America stretches back to the 50s in fact. After we pulled off the relatively bloodless (if unnecessary) coup in Iran, the first time in American history we covertly attempted to covertly overthrow a foreign government, we trotted over to Guatemala and tried the same thing again with very hideous results. Rinse and repeat until the 70s when Senate hearings clipped the wings of the CIA. Remember all the whining about the intelligence services not having all the tools they needed to “fight terror” back in 2001? Well, they did have those tools once before and there’s a reason daddy had to take that t-bird away.

Reagan was more of a throwback than a continuation of a tradition. The neocons, and this is back before I had any idea what they were called, were pushing the idea of the Evil Empire, a still potent and powerful Soviet Union bound and determined to conquer the world. Now most of America, and certainly the world, felt Russia wasn’t a serious threat anymore and reacted with horror to this attitude. And, in fact, it turns out they invented their own handy facts and distorted the few realities they bothered with. My favorite story is about how they came to the CIA with information that the Soviets were behind just about every terrorist and revolutionary group in the world. When the CIA tried to tell them these were stories /they’d/ planted in European media as part of a psyops program they were told to shut up and go away. Having a big bad wolf around rallies the public and it served Reagan well.

So we ended up back in the coup, dictatorship and guerilla war business. Another big “win” for us was Afghanistan. This gives you an idea, in retrospect, of just how much frigging trouble neocons have caused for us and now we’re supposed to let them assess and fix the aftershocks, the blowback, from the first round of mistakes?

The rise of socialist administrations in Latin America has practically nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the region’s bitter reaction to globalized economic policy. Since the enaction of NAFTA, it’s been a hot debate whether neoliberalization is helping or hurting Latin Americans, but the strong perception down there is that the news has been all bad.

The new presidents score easy populist points with their Bush-bashing, but “Bush” per say has not been an issue in the campaigns. The issues have been corruption, rejection of neoliberal reform, IMF-Worldbank indebtedness/dependency, and plain-and-simple reclamation of “people’s sovereignty” in the face of globalization’s perceived damaging encroachment.

That’s per se.

I know, I colloquialize it because the last 4 or 5 times I used it in writing (incuding in a collegiate International Relations class) readers had no idea what the fuck I was saying.

Just say “in and of him/her/itself”, then. Deliberately fucking up for clarity is kind of condescending.

I blame Reagan for everything which began in the late 50s and 60s also. DAMN YOU RON!

I don’t think the IMF crushing of the third world started until Reagan. Maybe I’m wrong here.

I don’t think that South America’s move towards Leftism, the topic of title of the thread, began when the IMF started “crushing the third world”. See: United Fruit Company, El Presidente Guzman, Che Guevara, The Cuban Revolution, Juan Peron, and frankly a bunch of other shit. That should get you caught up to the mid-60s or early 70s when Ronnie was governor of CA.

I was responding to the “Clinton did it, no Bush did it” thing going on above. Yes, we have an appalling history in the region going back to basically the founding of the country.

You misunderstood me Jason, I didn’t mean to imply that Clinton “did it”, but that he also did it, like every other american president since perhaps WW2 (or whenever the IMF/World Bank style practices begain) – i.e. you can’t lay the “blame” on either the Republicans or the Democrats.