Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Why I Didn't Join In On The Hagiography of Margaret Thatcher





How many times have I heard people on the right speak disgustingly of those who glorify leftist icons like Che Guevara.  The pearl-clutchers are appalled that anyone would admire murderous leftists like Che Guevara.


Except:

This historic account in the New Yorker show how cozy Madam Thatcher was with the murderous Pinochet of Chile.  It's amusing, isn't it, that we don't hear anything about her relationship with Chile's dictator.  We only hear of how rotten it is for lefties to wear t-shirts with Che Guevara's image on them.

Hypocrisy of the 10th magnitude:


From The New Yorker:

"In a tribute Monday, President Barack Obama said she had been “one of the great champions of freedom and liberty.” 

Actually, she hadn’t. 

Thatcher was a fierce Cold Warrior, and when it came to Chile never mustered quite the appropriate amount of compassion for the people Pinochet killed in the name of anti-Communism. She preferred talking about his much-vaunted “Chilean economic miracle.” 

And kill he did. Pinochet’s soldiers rounded up thousands in the capital’s sports stadiums and, then and there, suspects were marched into the locker rooms and corridors and bleachers and tortured and shot dead. Hundreds died in such a fashion. One was the revered Chilean singer Víctor Jara, who was beaten, his hands and ribs broken, and then machine-gunned, his body dumped like trash on a back street of the capital—along with many others. 

The killing went on even after Pinochet and his military had a firm hold on power; it was just carried out with greater secrecy, in military barracks, in police buildings, and in the countryside. Critics and opponents of the new regime were murdered in other countries, too. In 1976, Pinochet’s intelligence agency planned and carried out a car bombing in Washington, D.C., that murdered Allende’s exiled former Ambassador to the United States, Orlando Letelier, as well as Ronni Moffitt, his American aide. Britain regarded Pinochet’s killing spree as unseemly, and sanctioned his regime by refusing to supply it with weapons—that is, until Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. 

 In 1980, the year after Thatcher took office, she lifted the arms embargo against Pinochet; he was soon buying armaments from the United Kingdom. In 1982, during Britain’s Falklands War against Argentina, Pinochet helped Thatcher’s government with intelligence on Argentina. Thereafter, the relationship became downright cozy, so much so that the Pinochets and his family began making an annual private pilgrimage to London. During those visits, they and the Thatchers got together for meals and drams of whiskey. In 1998, when I was writing a Profile of Pinochet for The New Yorker, Pinochet’s daughter Lucia described Mrs. Thatcher in reverential terms, but confided that the Prime Minister’s husband, Dennis Thatcher, was something of an embarrassment, and habitually got drunk at their get-togethers. 

The last time I met with Pinochet himself in London, in October, 1998, he told me he was about to call “La Señora” Thatcher in the hopes she could find time to meet him for tea. A couple of weeks later, Pinochet, still in London, found himself under arrest, on the orders of Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón. During Pinochet’s prolonged quasi-detention thereafter, in a comfortable home in the London suburb of Virginia Water, Thatcher showed her solidarity by visiting him. There, and in front of the television cameras, she expressed her sense of Britain’s debt to his regime: “I know how much we owe to you”—for “your help during the Falklands campaign.” She also said, “It was you who brought democracy to Chile.” 

 This, of course, was a misstatement of such gargantuan proportions that it cannot be dismissed as the overzealousness of a loyal friend. Pinochet himself finally died in 2006, under house arrest and facing over three hundred criminal charges for human rights abuses, tax evasion, and embezzlement. By then, he was alleged to have over twenty-eight million dollars stashed in secret bank accounts in various countries, with no sign that it had been legally earned. At the end, Pinochet’s only defense was a humiliating claim of dementia—that he couldn’t remember his crimes. His final heart attack came before he could ever be convicted. During the years of what could be called Chile’s return to democracy, after 1990—when Pinochet was forced to step down from the Presidency he had seized following a referendum on his rule, which he lost—little was done to truly exorcise Chile’s demons, much less judge them. Pinochet retained the command of the armed forces, and when he stepped down from that role, in 1998, he retained a senatorship-for-life, which gave him immunity from prosecution. 

Until his detention in Britain, the Presidents who ruled “democratic” Chile continued to tiptoe around the fact that the country’s chief former tormenter continued to dictate the terms of the national discussion about the recent past. Following his return home, after sixteen months, however, Pinochet was stripped of his parliamentary immunity, criminally indicted for some of his coup-era crimes, and spent much of the remainder of his life under house arrest. But it took Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s President from 2006 to 2010—the daughter of a general who opposed the coup and was tortured until he died of a heart attack in detention—to end the tradition of deference."






In addition to Thatcher's admiration for the rightwing murderous dictator, Pinochet, this is how she handled the apartheid regime and Nelson Mandela.


"When she denounced Nelson Mandela’s liberation movement as a “typical terrorist organization” and rejected calls for sanctions against South Africa’s white minority government, Margaret Thatcher found herself on the wrong side of history. Characteristically, she never admitted error. 

In 1987, just seven years before the fall of apartheid, a Thatcher spokesman scoffed that it was “cloud cuckoo-land” to suggest that Mr. Mandela would ever win power. In the same year, Mrs. Thatcher clashed repeatedly with the Brian Mulroney government as she bitterly fought Canada’s efforts to introduce Commonwealth sanctions against South Africa."

The rightwing can have their love fest for Margaret Thatcher on the occasion of her death, but they also need to look at the hypocrisy of overlooking her horrendous bad judgement in backing the rightwing murderous dictator, Pinochet, as well as her choosing to be on the wrong side of history in South Africa's stuggle with apartheid.


30 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Latin America has a bloody history. Just ask all your democrat heroes like Teddy Kennedy who hugged Danny Ortega and his murderous Sandinistas.

Or try this on for size...

Why is President Obama in bed with a Brutal Regime that Violates Women's Rights?

Why does he send the Egyptian regime teargas to gas the people in Tahrir Square we were cheering just a few short years ago?

This is a tu quoque. See how easy it is to play this game when discussing world leaders?

Nobody said Thatcher was perfect, so you're burning down strawmen.

Silverfiddle said...

You're a bitter, stubborn ideologue, Shaw, and you love the ideological trenches, I'll give you that.

Again, it falls upon others to provide balance:

Here are three articles, written by people who were not fans of Thatcher, that puts the apartheid issue into perspective:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-south-africans_n_3045670.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-apartheid-mandela

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22069896

If anyone were to read the press, especially the British press, one would notice that there were no "hagiographies," even from those who worked for her or admired her, so Shaw is a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen (apologies to WFB).

Is anyone here so naive to think Thatcher's government was the first, last and only one to do business with bad people?

Pinochet's economic success sowed the seeds of his downfall.

I know what went on there, and I am sympathetic with the artistic left, but I also know that the country suffered violent leftwing factions that also murdered at will, and Allende encouraged and abetted them.

On South Africa, the record is clear that Thatcher worked quietly to get the regime to change, and some credit her with helping get Mandela released.

But it would have been better to the "style over substance" left if she had mounted the Parliament building and operatically condemned the regime at the top of her lungs, even if it had resulted in Mandela dying in prison and the regime digging in its heels even longer than it did.

Ducky's here said...

Nothing mattered to her except economic growth.

Regardless of the dislocation caused and regardless of the lack of equity in the disposition of that wealth.

She and Saint Ronnie laid the foundation for the massive equity bubbles developed under Greenspan and his fantasy of the self correcting market.

We have much to thank her and Saint Ronnie for.

She was a friend of Robert Mugabe also. Pinochet, Mugabe, the South African apartheid regime ... by your friends shall you be known.

Quite a legacy ... but what do you expect from a commie rag like The Nation. No respect for the towering friends of freedom.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

She obedient to the smiling nutbag Ronald Reagan. An obedient female. By all accounts the second coming of the Virgin Mary to the right. No wonder they love her.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF: "You're a bitter, stubborn ideologue, Shaw, and you love the ideological trenches, I'll give you that."


Silverfiddle, that's an hilarious accusation coming from someone who wrote this generalization about everyone on the left, just because a great many Brits demonstrated their real feelings about Thatcher at her death:

Silverfiddle 3 days ago −
"The dancing apes and hooting loonies who were celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death showed their true colors:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/artic...

The left sure is good at tearing things down and destroying things, I'll give them that."


"Of course he couldn't praise Thatcher. That would have had the hooting loonies at MSNBC slashing their wrists."


"I saw the nastiness from the pigs and cockroaches that infest the left.

I guess to them it would have been better to leave Britain mired in malaise and double-digit inflation.

This is why the fight never ends, and why I've ultimately tired of it.

Leftists are obstinate in their purposeful ignorance of the facts."




So I, whom you characterized as a pig AND a cockroach--I am, afterall on the left and you didn't qualify your slur-- wrote in a blurb on my side bar that not everyone in Britain loved her, that I disagreed with her policies, but admired her success in becoming the first prime minister of Britain.

And now after the initial love/hate fest has settled down, I decided to include some facts on why she wasn't so universally loved.

Your reaction to my stating facts and history is to call me bitter? Then to change the subject and talk about Ted Kennedy and President Obama?

Yes, we understand how world leaders get in bed with brutal, murderous dictators. Except it's very evident that many rightwingers only see this sad fact of world politics when the left is guilty of it, and turn a blind eye when their heroes mix it up with dictators and killer regimes.

Documenting facts about an influential world leader is not the work of pigs and cockroaches or a bitter person, it's what the right does when someone on the left dies.

PS. You of all people to become indignant and bitter about my post.

You devoted a worshipful blog post to Andrew Breitbart. Remember him? The guy who, on the occasion of Ted Kennedy's death called him a piece of living excrement, among other hideous things?

Quite cockroachey of him, wouldn't any decent person say?

Breitbart wasn't just some hooligan on the street rejoicing in a politician's death, he was the spokesman of a very large segment of the right, a person very much involved in the GOP, and you loved him.

I've not engaged in anything near what Breitbart and his admirers said then. I posted a piece on Thather that dealt with reality, which we all know, has a liberal bias.

(And I didn't even include Robert Mugabe, another murderous dictator Mrs. Thatcher admired.)

Bitterness, in this case, I think, may be on the part of a person forced to witness the truth.

Shaw Kenawe said...

From the link that Ducky provided:

"Never have I witnessed a gap between the mainstream media and the public quite like the last twenty-four hours since the death of Margaret Thatcher. While both the press and President Obama were uttering tearful remembrances, thousands took to the streets of the UK and beyond to celebrate. Immediately this drew strong condemnation of what were called "death parties," described as “tasteless”, “horrible” and “beneath all human decency.” Yet if the same media praising Thatcher and appalled by the popular response would bother to ask one of the people celebrating, they might get a story that doesn't fit into their narrative, which is probably why they aren't asking at all.

I received a note this morning from a friend of a friend. She lives in the UK, although her family didn't arrive there by choice. They had to flee Chile, like thousands of others, when it was under the thumb of General Augusto Pinochet. If you don't know the details about Pinochet's blood-soaked two-decade reign, you should read about them but take care not to eat beforehand. He was a merciless overseer of torture, rapes and thousands of political executions. He had the hands and wrists of the country's greatest folk singer Victor Jara broken in front of a crowd of prisoners before killing him. He had democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende shot dead at his desk. His specialty was torturing people in front of their families.

As Naomi Klein has written so expertly, he then used this period of shock and slaughter to install a nationwide laboratory for neoliberal economics. If Pincohet's friend Milton Friedman had a theory about cutting food subsidies, privatizing social security, slashing wages or outlawing unions, Pinochet would apply it. The results of these experiments became political ammunition for neoliberal economists throughout the world. Seeing Chile-applied economic theory in textbooks always boggles my mind. It would be like if the American Medical Association published a textbook on the results of Dr. Josef Mengele's work in the concentration camps, without any moral judgment about how he accrued his patients.

Pinochet was the General in charge of this human rights catastrophe. He also was someone who Margaret Thatcher called a friend. She stood by the General even when he was in exile, attempting to escape justice for his crimes. As she said to Pinochet, "[Thank you] for bringing democracy to Chile."

Kevin Robbins said...

One of the guesses Chalmers Johnson had on our 9/11 for the source of the blowback was Chile. That's because our overthrow of the Allende government came on that date.

And yes, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama have been complicit in carrying out a lot of the same realpolitik. Unfortunately we can only vote for the choices we have.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Kevin,

My answer to SF was to point out that he and his friends on the right love to condemn the left for their alliances with far left regimes, but to my knowledge, I've never read anything on their blogs about the cozy alliances between far right regimes and the political right in this country.

The fact that I read nothing on rightwing blogs about Thatcher's overly solicitous response to people like Pinochet, Mugabe, and the apartheid government in South Africa shows me that they're willing to overlook such realpolitik and the condemnation it deserves when their heroes engage in it, but are unforgiving where the left is concerned.

Thatcher was no better than any liberal politician when she got into bed with murderous regimes. But you won't read that on any blog praising her as though she were the second coming of Churchill.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw:

I can only assume you're misread my comments.

The dancing apes and hooting loonies who were celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death

"Of course he couldn't praise Thatcher. That would have had the hooting loonies at MSNBC slashing their wrists."

"I saw the nastiness from the pigs and cockroaches that infest the left.


My Pigs and cockroaches comment is clearly directed to the small subset of people dancing in the streets at someone's death, and to those taking an especial pleasure in it through their writings. I will state categorically that I do not place you in that category.

So, unless you were dancing in the streets of London, or if you appear regularly on MSNBC, you are mistaken. I was not talking about you.

Perhaps I need to use more Bold Face, ALL CAPS, and italics...

Your initial comments about her were as gracious as a lefwing ideologue could get, I guess you had an attack of remorse, or maybe you feared the opprobrium of you fellow progressives?

People are free to celebrate and write all they want, and others are free to respond. You take issue with that?

On Breitbart, again you drag out the strawmen. No one said he was a saint either. In fact, we relished his puckish "shove it in their face" style. Finally. Finally! Someone on the right was smashing it back into the loony left's smirking faces!

So yeah, he earned the angry, whiney mewlings from the likes of Ducky, and I'm sure, somewhere in the great beyond, he's laughing his ass off at it.

Also Shaw, I perceive you have a problem detecting the tone of other peoples' writing.

There is no indignation in what I said. I take no offense at anyone's opinion, no matter how inartfully or dyspeptically stated.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I merey attempt to provide some balance, since your diatribe was very unbalanced.

She's not a saint, no reasonable person has said so, and like all public political figures, she must be viewed by the totality of her actions and in the context of the times she lived in.

So, you may consider this a political knife fight, but I look at it more as getting the complete picture, but it's your blog, so you're entitled to your unhinged lefwing slamfest. Have a ball.

I realize I am futilly shouting at the deaf.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

If Silverfiddle really gets out of line we can thump him for associating with an ayatollah (me).

Filthy heathen!

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: You should listen to Ducky. The real hatred for maggie comes from her enthusiastic embrace of free market capitalism. Some sins cannot be forgiven.

Neoliberal economics had made them the the free-market envy of South America. Policies, btw, continued by Socialists such as Michelle Bachelet, to the great benefit of the nation. Oh, the horrors!

And I don't know who Chalmers Johnson is, but he's a fool if he thinks Muslims give two shits about what went in in South America back in the 1970's, or if they were even aware of it, other than for use as a post-facto propagana tool to get the left on their side.

Silverfiddle said...

The results of these experiments became political ammunition for neoliberal economists throughout the world. Seeing Chile-applied economic theory in textbooks always boggles my mind. It would be like if the American Medical Association published a textbook on the results of Dr. Josef Mengele's work in the concentration camps, without any moral judgment about how he accrued his patients.

Friedman's economic theories compared to Mengele and the holocaust?

It is hysterical rantings like this that discredits the left.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Chalmers Johnson. You out to read his work:

Johnson believed that the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, he applauded the dissolution of the Soviet Union: "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so."[9] At the same time, however, he experienced a political awakening after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the U.S. and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy. Of four books he wrote on this topic, the first three are referred to as The Blowback Trilogy.

Shaw Kenawe said...

That should have read "You OUGHT to read his work.

skudrunner said...

Free market capitalism does not work, government controls on the market, punishing success and increase regulations are the only ways to insure growth and create jobs.

If you need an example of how bad free market capitalism combined with a president who was strong enough to work with both parties you just need to look at the records of Reagan&Clinton compared to the incompetent incumbent.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Ducky's here: She and Saint Ronnie laid the foundation for the massive equity bubbles developed under Greenspan and his fantasy of the self correcting market. We have much to thank her and Saint Ronnie for.

That sums up my feelings regarding Thatcher.

Silverfiddle: Friedman's economic theories compared to Mengele and the holocaust? It is hysterical rantings like this that discredits the left.

Sounds like a righteous comparison to me. IMO a good example of a hysterical ranting would be comparing Christians who preach love for our gay brother and sisters and acceptance of their right to marry to crazy cult leaders Jim Jones and David Koresh.

Silverfiddle said...

Dervish: If you compare an economic theory, and a successful one that has lifted millions out of poverty (been to Chile lately?), to the slaughter of millions of Jews, yes, you are deranged, unhinged, and a raving lunatic given to sick comparisons that mock history.

Good job doubling down on the nuttiness while disrespecting the suffering of millions.

It is Friday. Maybe there's a full moon tonight...

Silverfiddle said...

And Shaw, to respond to the title of your post. I would never expect someone on the left to "join in on the hagiography of Margaret Thatcher."

I thought your initial comment was tastefully subdued.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Silverfiddle: If you compare an economic theory, and a successful one that has lifted millions out of poverty...

According to Naomi Klein, "Pinochet and his Chicago Boys did their best to dismantle Chile's public sphere, auctioning off state enterprises and slashing financial and trade regulations. Enormous wealth was created in this period but at a terrible cost: by the early 80s, Pinochet's Friedman-prescribed policies had caused rapid de-industrialisation, a tenfold increase in unemployment and an explosion of distinctly unstable shantytowns".

Deranged and unhinged are words I'd use to describe someone who uses the word "successful" to describe this result. People made money, yes, but they were already well off (so they weren't "lifted out of poverty"), and they didn't number in the millions either (we're talking about a small number of plutocrats).

FreeThinke said...

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."


~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Every form of tyranny is bad, but of all known forms extant today Marxism-Communism-Socialism and Islamism are the worst.

Pinochet was anti-Communist, ergo Pinochet was a [relatively] good guy compared to the murderous Communist Despots.

To a conservative and supporter of true free-market Capitalism [not this Crony-State-Oligarchical perversion of Capitalism we live with today] LIBERTY trumps SAFETY -- and even JUSTICE -- most-if-not-all the time.

Because without Liberty there can be no safety, no justice, no prosperity, no upward mobility -- no HOPE -- PERIOD!

There is no help for those who believe otherwise -- however good their intentions and benevolent their motives might be.

Silverfiddle said...

Dervish: OK, so it is clear you don't know what you're talking about.

I suggest you go to an authoritative site and look at economic data.

Compare it to Venezuela. You'll be shocked.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Pinochet was anti-Communist, ergo Pinochet was a [relatively] good guy compared to the murderous Communist Despots."


Surely you jest. There was NO liberty under Pinochet. It appears the philosophy here is this very ancient one:

"He's a murderous, rotten s.o.b., but he's OUR s.o.b.

It also appears there is some justifying going because he's a rightwing dictator.

I'm not sure the families of those who were slaughtered under Pinochet would have felt they died a nicer death because he was an anti-Communist tyrant.



"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." --C.S. Lewis



Shaw Kenawe said...

Newly published U.S. documents indicate that Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet planned to use violence to annul the referendum that ended his brutal regime.


(Photo: AP Photo, File)
SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — Newly published U.S. documents indicate that Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet planned to use violence to annul the referendum portrayed in the Oscar-nominated film "NO" that ended his brutal regime.

The formerly top-secret documents posted by the independent U.S. National Security Archive on Friday also show U.S. officials warning Chilean leaders against violence if Pinochet tried to use force to stay in power.

But Pinochet, "planned to do whatever was necessary to stay in power," just a day before the Oct. 5, 1988, referendum, according to a Defense Intelligence Agency document based on information from a Chilean Air Force officer.

"Pinochet reportedly told advisors: 'I'm not leaving, no matter what,'" the document said.

The documents also show that U.S. officials and agencies backed the anti-Pinochet campaign, even though the U.S. government had worked to undermine the socialist administration of Salvador Allende that Pinochet overthrew in a 1973 coup and initially supported his government.

They portray Pinochet as furious after the vote results.

In a last attempt to retain power, the strongman who once compared himself to the greatest Roman emperors asked the members of the military junta to meet in his office in the presidential palace at 1:00 AM," says a report by the Department of Defense titled: "Chile: plebiscite goes forward as Pinochet apparently loses."

A CIA source at the meeting describes Pinochet as being "nearly apoplectic" about the results.
--USAToday, February 2013

Anonymous said...

There has never been anything that couldn't be and hasn't been justified in the name of religion and conservatism.

ORAXX

Shaw Kenawe said...

Thersites was bow legged, lame, and his shoulders caved inward. His head was shaped like a sugar loaf, coming to a point. Atop his head tufts of hair sprouted up. Homer mentions that he was a vulgar man whose "head was full of obscenities, teeming with rant." Thersites incurred Odysseus wrath when he called Agamemnon greedy and Achilles a coward. Odysseus struck Thersites upside the head with the royal scepter of Agamemnon. Later, Achilles struck Thersites upside the head for mocking his sorrow at the death of Penthesilea. No one grieved for Thersites when he spat out teeth and fell to the earth dead.


To the troll, Thersites:

After having plagued this blog for months and months, and having been deleted thereafter, it is passing strange that you still have a burning need to come here and deposit your excremental thoughts.

I suggest THIS for your chronic malady.

Les Carpenter said...

Ah yes, Thersites, the traveling troll. A fitting link.

On another level methinks FreeThinke pretty well nailed it.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Silverfiddle: OK, so it is clear you don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you go to an authoritative site and look at economic data. You'll be shocked.

Nope. I'm not shocked. Chile's economy is doing much better today, but this it due to the government's strong socialistic policies, and not a result of Friedman's neo-liberal economics (which resulted in the the catastrophic banking crisis of 1982).

As noted by Wikipedia, "the democratic center-left governments of the 1990s... made a strong commitment to poverty reduction. In 1988, 48% of Chileans lived below the poverty line. By 2000 this had been reduced to 20%. This was achieved through a 17% increase in the minimum wage, a 210% increase in social spending targeted at the low income sectors of the population, and across the board tax increases, reversing the Pinochet tax cuts of 1988 and bringing in a further 3% of GDP in tax revenue. Overall, social spending and redistribution accounted for 40% of the poverty reduction, with economic growth doing the rest".

OECD economist Javier Santiso explains that by the time of sustained growth, the Chilean government had "cooled its neo-liberal ideological fever" and "controlled its exposure to world financial markets and maintained its efficient copper company in public hands".

It is nothing more than a libertarian fairy tale to suggest that Friedman's neo-liberalism is responsible for Chile's economic improvement.

Silverfiddle said...

Chile's economy is doing much better today, but this it due to the government's strong socialistic policies, and not a result of Friedman's neo-liberal economics (which resulted in the the catastrophic banking crisis of 1982).

Wrong again.

Chile is an economic powerhouse of the south, and socialism isn't what did it.

Indeed, free-market conservative Heritage Foundation ranks them #7 in the world for economic freedom, ahead of the United States.

Go look at the economic data and government metrics. I wish we had it so good here in the US.

Yes, Chile has a nice safety net, and unlike our bloated, wasteful government, they do it efficiently.

Their social programs are due to efforts of politicians on the left, who were smart enough to know not to kill the economic goose that lays the golden eggs.

Chile is a good example of right and left working together.

Had they followed the failed socialist policies that Venezuela and others have, there would be no money to fund beneficial social programs.

FreeThinke said...

WOW, SIlverFiddle!

Since this country of ours seems to be on its last legs -- determined to commit economic, moral, intellectual and spiritual suicide -- perhaps Chile is the place to which we ought to emigrate?

The Last Great Hope of the Western Hemisphere?

CALL THE MOVERS! ;-)

____________________

Since just about everybody who ever accomplished anything politically or militarily was or is a dirty lowdown, rotten, no good son-of-a-bitch and a prick by SOMEBODY'S definition -- and ALL of them qualify as MASS MURDERERS -- I think it well behooves the prudent individual to back the SOB that most closely appears to protect one's OWN best interests.

SUICIDALISM, which is what the left has all-too-successfully promoted in the names of Equality, Mercy and Justice, is for the WAZOOKS!

Look at the Great Heroes of the Left -- and that necessarily includes such figures as George Washington and the other Founding Rebels, Andrew Jackson, Saint Abraham Lincoln, the U.S.Military, -- AND Adolf Hitler -- along with the usual assortment of Powerfully Putrid Perpetrators we revile routinely.

Collectively, these dirty rotten scoundrels have been responsible for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DEATHS and a legacy incalculable Agony, Disability and Deprivation for the many millions more who survived their vicious attacks and conquest, but were rendered destitute.

Paradoxically, many millions more have had to die in the desperate attempt to curb the inroads made by these aggressors and stanch the waste of blood and treasure.

It has been ever thus and ever more shall be so. We are innately BARBARIC, BRUTAL and BELLIGERENT.

That being a given I'll take a Pinochet as a protector of MY best interests - and those of the prospects for humanity in general -- over a Fidel Castro, a Che Guevara or a Daniel Ortega any day.

Pinochet's apparently desperate and ultimately pathetic attempts to hold on to power prove only the adage that POWER CORRUPTS and ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

Power is ADDICTIVE.

Until we learn that The Love of Power, ITSELF, is "The Enemy," humanity is DOOMED to repeat endlessly the vicious cycles that comprise the parade of events we call History.



Les Carpenter said...

Indeed FreeThinke. Understanding and consistently holding to ones RATIONAL self interest challenges mankind. Always has. Likely always will.

Power is addictive. Rational leaders umderstand this and therefore exercise it sparingly.