MovieChat Forums > Missing (1982) Discussion > Chile today

Chile today

posted 17 years ago by lazarillo
17 replies | jump to latest

Growing up between America and Chile, I've had to hear a lot of misinformation about what happened in that country since 1973. Many in America think that, by backing Pinochet,they "saved" that country from Communism and made it the most sucessful country in Latin America today and a model for all the rest. Well, Chile is one of the most sucessful countries in Latin America today, but this has little to do with the Pinochet coup. It always was one of the wealthier countries even before Allende and Pinochet, and it's sucess today owes A LOT less to Pinochet than to the fact that it has been controlled since 1990 by a moderate center-left government (the current president Michele Bachelet was once imprisoned and exiled by late dictator) which has avoided both the socialist AND free market excesses of the rest of Latin America.

Ironically, Pinochet is held up as role model for the American right simply because he DIDN'T completely destroy the Chilean economy like the right-wing dictatorships in neighboring Argentina and Brazil, who tried to force the same radical free-market idealogy on their people, but with much more disastrous results. American conservatives seize on Pinochet's very modest success (or non-failure), even to the extent of justifying the overthrow of democracy and massive human rights violations, because frankly they have very little to brag about in the rest of Latin America.

As for Pinochet's Chile being some kind of role model, Pinochet was overwhelmingly voted out of office as soon as he allowed a free election and spent the end of his life under house arrest and being prosecuted for his crimes. His "economic miracle" didn't seem to mean a whole lot to most chilenos. And I would say it is Allende, not Pinochet, who has become a role model for Latin America--witness the recent elections of Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Ortega in Nicaragua, and Correas in Ecuador.

The GREATEST irony is that Pinochet's economic policies probably WERE better than Allende's (at least to some extent), but the US gave Allende's "democratic socialist revolution" more credit than it deserved by sabotaging it and helping to overthrow it rather than allow it to fail on its own. As a result, Allende has begat Chavez, who is a LOT worse. On the other hand by relying on a bunch of corrupt tin-pot right-wing dictators, of which Pinochet is the best of a bad lot, to enforce their "free" market economic policies, America has discredited these very same policies even to the extent that they might actually benefit Latin America. The Chilean coup of 1973 was a tragedy in every way, and American conservatives should really stop patting themselves on the back about it.

[–] MovieMan0283part2 16 years ago

It says a great deal about (many) conservatives that for all their bleating about democracy, when push comes to shove all they really care about is creating a good environment for business. They are more pro-business than they are anything else, including pro-military: in one of the last GOP debates, McCain used the line "for patriotism, not profit" as a dig at Romney, and the folks at the National Review were all up in arms. What happens when any Iraq veteran stops being a cardboard G.I. Joe in their eyes, by criticizing the war or even admitting that bad stuff happens over there sometimes? The entire right-wing attack machine goes into motion. Which party has been running Vietnam vets (the exception being McCain, who is loathed by the hard right) for office in the past 8 years, and which party put in power a bunch of 'Nam avoiders who calmly send off young Americans to die for their abstract ideologies (or, more cynically, their oil companies)?

At least in many other countries, the right tends to be honest in its attachment to elitism, business interests over individual happiness, and order above all. Here in America we have to stomach conservatives claiming to stand for everything they in fact disparage. Sickening.

(And no, these comments don't apply to all on the right. I myself am somewhere in the middle, and probably leaned more to the right 6 or 7 years ago...before the war.)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 16 years ago

1. "is their anything wrong with favoring business above most everything else?" As you note, it's a means to an end. The conservative ideology treats it as an end in itself, and like all other ideologies, loses sight of the big picture.

2. I think the Iraq war was fought for (somewhat abstract) geopolitical reasons more than for oil, though obviously Iraq's geopolitical value is tied in to the fact that it has oil. I didn't say the U.S. government cares only about business and meant to imply with the "more cynically" aside that this was not necessarily my view, but I see that did not come across.

3. "The Left is just as fake and friendly as any right wingers." Somewhat agreed, though their mechanations take on a different tone and color. And it's a subject for another post.

4. "I am Jack's signature." Funny, I just watched that movie again for the first time in years. Relevant too, I guess, in that it (or at least its characters) combines a kind of anti-corporate Leftism (anarchism I suppose, though Project Mayhem is run in an authoritarian manner) with a conservative sense of lost honor and dignity, and a neutered masculinity that finds its voice through redemptive violence and aggression.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 16 years ago

1. Tax cuts in a time of war, for one. It seems to be gospel on the Right that revenues increase when the rich pay less in taxes (higher productivity, etc.) Tax cuts made sense in the 80's when certain people were paying 3/4 of their income to the government. Of course that will sap productivity. But here we are, 25 years later, running deficits, with overextended, underfunded troops and it's unfair to renege on Bush's golden tax cuts? The big picture is that someone is always losing. In this case, I'd argue, it should be the billionaire rather than the guy getting shot at.

2. This I very much disagree with. The public rationale for the Iraq invasion changed day to day, depending on the mood of the Bush administration and whomever they were making their case to. Behind the scenes, neoconservatives like Wolfowitz were not primarily concerned with weapons and the international balance of power, but rather in promoting democracy, with America leading the world in lieu of the UN and promoting its values pole to pole. A noble goal perhaps, but also unrealistic, especially in conjunction with *beep* planning. If you look at the voices clamoring loudest for war, and at the president's own outlook, it becomes clear that those most enthusiastic were the ones with the sharpest ideological bent - the neoconservatives, many of whom had been on the Left and switched sides without giving up their messianic worldview. The war on Iraq had much more to do with this sense of mission - crusade, even - than it did with WMD, terrorism, or yes, even oil.

3. The hard Left and the Democratic Party don't have as much overlap as the hard Right and the Republicans (this wasn't always true in the former's case and may be starting to unravel in the latter's). What you say definitely has some truth to it -- and in my experience, there is a huge element of snobbery on the part of many liberals, who consider themselves enlightened and cosmopolitan while looking down at 99% of the country. But the dishonesty I'm speaking of on the Right has to do with misrepresentation of motivations. A movement concerned primarily with order speaks the language of liberty. There are definitely libertarians on the right but the more I see of the Republicans the more convinced I am that libertarians have less sway in the party than those with an authoritarian, traditionalist bent.

4. Glad to hear it! (which Tyler though?)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 16 years ago

1. My economic knowledge is limited, so I can't really go in-depth here. In the past I've read arguments in favor and against the recent tax cuts. Very generally, the former seem to be based more on an idealistic belief (the supply-side ideology) than hard facts. I do know it's counterintuitive to suggest that tax cuts directly lead to higher revenue and that in fact every time there have been dramatic tax cuts in recent years, the government has begun running deficits. Was it mitigating circumstances that resulted in this phenomenon (Reagan's arm buildups in the 80s, 9/11 and the resulting wars)? And if so, should they have been considered before/after tax cuts went into effect? I'm not sure. But it does seem that the only real advocates of counterintuitively cutting taxes while simultaneously demanding increased spending is tha same old supply-side lobby that would ask for lower taxes if the tax rate was at 2%. That makes me suspicious.

2. I don't doubt that "democratizing" Iraq was a means to an end, but it also seems to have been an end in itself, if you look at the people involved. Again, that's noble in theory, but it also turns out to have been too risky and vague to have been worth the cost in blood, treasure, and goodwill, even if it had succeeded. And it doesn't have seem to have. Is Rumsfeld partly to blame? For sure. Sadly, there's enough blame to go around, winding up finally at the feet of the President himself, who was derelict in his duty (not just on Iraq). It was his job to run a tight ship and keep it on course and he's done a piss-poor job of that. Worse, he refuses to acknowledge his misdeeds except in vague statements ("mistakes were made") that he later obscures even more on 60 Minutes.

3. Actually, I believe it was Pauline Kael who is quoted thusly. Which is unfortunate, because it misrepresents her even if it's true -- she always attacked pretentious liberal pieties and smug elitism.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 16 years ago

1. Well, it's an age-old argument with good points on both sides, but "in terms of social issues, research, education, etc." how will you spending your own money deal with these problems any better than it would deal with military/arms race?

2. That would be nice, but it wouldn't retroactively justify the invasion. Nor would it even come close to retroactively alleviating the poor decisions made, the disregard shown for people who actually knew what they were talking about, and the sheer arrogance of going forward with a solid plan. What's more, it (sadly for the Iraqis even more than for us) doesn't seem like it is going to end up OK. No, it was not the UN's responsibility to rebuild the country given that it was not their decision to invade. We can't go around the world, messing things up, giving the UN a hard time for not following our lead, and then go running back to them bawling our eyes out and asking for their help. As Colin Powell said, "You break it, you buy it." I do think we have some sort of obligation to the Iraqi people, but I wonder how that obligation is best fulfilled and I'm honestly not sure anymore. I'd love to get out of there, but is that really the responsible action at this point? Is no redemption possible? More importantly, what do the majority of Iraqis want? I would love to see a referendum on the issue. We played the major role in creating the situation they're now in, and if they want us to leave we should, but if they don't and want our help extricating themselves (obviously the government does, but I don't know whether or not the majority of the people really do), well, then it's a trickier situation isn't it? Again, I know people serving in the military, the situation over there is a mess, and the Bush administration has shown appalling leadership to the present day. Have you seen the documentary No End in Sight? It's an excellent look at what went wrong, and doesn't offer any easy way out. For the record, I don't think either candidate has proposed a wonderful solution to this deep problem.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 16 years ago

1. There's waste in the defense industry too, or as Judd Hirsch says in that immortal classic Independence Day, "What, you really think they spend $3,000 on a toilet?" As for "welfare cases who are too lazy to get jobs" don't forget it was a Democrat who signed welfare reform and announced "the era of Big Government is over" (a Nixon in China moment, kind of like Bush ushering in a new era of Big Government, but that's another story). To each his own, though. Enough on this subject, it's more the second one that intrigues me.

2. You and I both know that the Coalition of the Willing was a rather lame attempt to hide the fact that this was essentially a unilateral venture. The other countries never really committed very much in the first place and while it may be annoying that they got cold feet, their departure hardly made much of a difference in our effort. You seem like a smart guy but one who is taking too many GOP talking points at face value. Not just the welfare crack, but "a few goat herders who were accidentally bombed that CNN loves to have stories on." Aside from whatever offense someone may take from this comment, it doesn't at all seem relevant to the situation at hand. Accidental bombings of civilians were occurring during the ground war and air war, the "Shock and Awe" phase of the campaign that ended 5 years ago. Unless I'm missing something, the civilians dying these days are usually being killed by other Iraqis (or else contracters like Blackwater who operate with immunity) and any blame directed at the U.S. is aimed at a lack of control over the situation. And when soldiers did kill innocent people, it was in urban centers during firefights (like that notorious incident a few years ago, can't remember the name of the locale). Last time I checked goat herders aren't holing up in Baghdad homes. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, just pointing out that your arguments don't seem to have much to do with the present situation.

I'm interested in what your intel source says -- what does he mean by the war ending in 2011? No more violence? U.S. troops out of the country? Efficiency in the Iraqi government and armed forces? All of the above? I ask because there seem to be so many criteria for victory - some people say we've already won in that we knocked down Saddam Hussein's government and set up a new one. Obviously the surge has produced a decrease in violence, but it's deeper aim was to create the room for the Iraqi government to step up and take control of the situation. On what basis does your friend see this happening (non-confidential basis, of course).

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 16 years ago

I don't think we judge the actions of our military by comparing them to what terrorists are doing, but by holding it to a somewhat higher standard. These "ridiculous" stories aren't so ridiculous to the Iraqis, and therefore they can't be ridiculous to us. Their concern is our concern in as much as a negative image (whether fair or not) will return to haunt us. You need to look at the situation with a bit more complexity. Sometimes the U.S. military is in the right, sometimes it's not. Sometimes stories of civilian casulaties are exaggerated and blown out of proportion, sometimes they're not...and sometimes the media is seeking to sensationalize an incident while at others (or even, believe it or not, simultaneously) they are doing their duty in reporting the news. What your friend is saying doesn't seem to gibe with the present dilemma since we've had years to train and equip the Iraqis and the problem seems to be their willingness to fight, not our willingness to prepare them. As for a "few" soldiers, how many is a few? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Will violence against them cease, as it did in Japan and Germany?

Your analysis of the war seems to be disarmingly simplistic. The situation over there is a hellhole (albeit improved from a couple years ago) and I don't think liberals or conservatives have the answer right now. Nor do I of course.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lazarillo 16 years ago

For somebody with limited knowledgeeconomics you're right on about supply-side. Cutting taxes CAN raise tax revenues, but it doesn't always. If you cut marginal taxes from 95 to 90% it very well might work, but if you cut them from 35% to 0% it's obviously not going to. There is some real theory behind supply-side economics, but right-wing politicians like it so much because of its simplistic appeal--we cut on taxes on the rich AND have more tax revenue (pay the minimum on your credit card AND get out of debt). And when the evidence isn't in their favor--Clinton raises taxes on the wealthy and his term ends with a huge surplus; Bush cuts them and leaves us with a large deficit--well, they just blame it on something else in the economy ("earmarks", the War on Terror, etc.)

America has simply had too much of these right-wing policies (they're not "evil" policies per se but you eventually go to the well once too often), but Latin America kind of has the opposite problem. Supply-side economics won't help them (the rich already evade most taxes there), but they actually could benefit from some privatization and deregulation and other right-wing prescriptions. The right wing there is not nearly as good as manipulating the poor as the right wing here is, but they're also actually even more callous towards them. The poor Latin Americans therefore don't trust the elites at all so you get these corrupt left-wing "populists" like Hugo Chavez who are a whole different problem than anything we have in the US.

The other problem is that the US has often tried to force their economic policies on Latin America, which is another reason there's so much resistance to them. They did the same thing in Iraq at the beginning with equally disastrous results, but they seem to have given up trying to remake that country in their own image. But, hey, at least in Iraq the US overthrew a brutal dictator rather than a democratically-elected government like in Chile. Believe it or not, that's progress.

[–] kag2 14 years ago

Lazarillo, your initial analysis is very perceptive. I might add that sadly, many that disdain right-wing thugs (Pinochet, Argentine Junta, Samoza, etc.) often have little problem with left-wing thugs (Castro, Che, Chavez, etc.) and vice versa. Both sets of thugs desire control-freak power, harrass or shut down oppositin media, use or desire to use secret police, and rob people of their freedoms.

I was in Chile in 2006 and asked dozens of ordinary people about free expression and voting. They all pointed to 1994, and seemed grateful to have regained their freedom.