Quite. The Right are as bunch of immoral swine who will inflict misery and death for decade after decade on the hapless populace for no other reason than naked self-interest as defined by the Right (which is not the same as the real interests of the nation).
And you feel this is something to boast about.
Regard the complete, unashamed moral bankruptcy of it all. Regard it with awe.
This.
Your post is so asinine and heaped up, unfought ignorance it does not merit a response.
I am sending out for an emergency delivery of eyerolls though.
Good grief. This is one of the most tortured arguments I’ve ever heard. Yes, the left has its Stalin and Mao and other horrorshows. The right has Hitler and Mussolini. We’re not responsible for Stalin, you’re not responsible for Hitler–but both Stalin and Hitler demonstrate what happens when a political ideology (left and right respectively) is taken to a utopian extreme and is supported through violence.
As for Honduras, it looks to me like a power play by the SC. If the president is CIC, what business is it of the SC to tell him whether he can fire a general? Isn’t it the general’s business to obey his boss or resign? The SC appears to be appropriating the powers of Congress.
The president comes across as a piece of work, too, but not nearly as ominous as the SC or the military in this game.
You are sending that to the **smiling **poster no? 
Correct.
Your defintion of the left as consisting of only the left-leaning members of this board is an interesting (if bizarre) one. But if it helps your argument to narrow the scope thus then by all means go for it.
People don’t realize we aren’t talking about the United States here, this isn’t a country with a well developed and enshrined democracy. Many Latin American states have a less developed democratic system in 2009 than we had in 1776. Mind that for at least a hundred years prior to our declaring independence we had practiced various levels and forms of democracy in the colonies and back in the mother country. Sure it was not a complete franchise but it was a form of democratic decision making. We also had many great thinkers and philosophers in the English-speaking world to draw from, as well as leaders who were generally idealistic and committed to actually making democracy work.
In Latin America it is very typical for persons both on the left and the right to see themselves as modern day versions of Cincinnatus, strong men who are the only ones who really know what is best for the country. In reference to an earlier poster I don’t think anyone is denying the horrors perpetrated by right-wing, military-backed dictators throughout Latin American history. However that is not what we are talking about in this thread and is not what Zelaya sought to become, he was attempting to become a dictator in the Chavez or Castro mold, not the Pinochet one.
In a country with an unstable democracy I don’t really have any issue with the military stepping in, yes, that often results in the military essentially consolidating power. However it’s a choice between dictatorship of one type and dictatorship of another type. Many of the worst dictators in history were elected and accumulated power from within the political system, it is a sign of a gravely flawed system that it is even possible for such a thing to happen. The logistics of getting an “enabling act” passed in the United States through legal channels would essentially mandate that an individual have support of 38 of the States and both houses of Congress for a long enough period of time to pass a constitutional amendment that essentially gutted the present U.S. Constitution. The likelihood of that is so unlikely as to seem preposterous.
This specifically shows one of the core concepts of our democracy: that while yes, majority rule is important, putting significant “checks” on the majority to protect against the power of faction is important as well. Any system in which a temporarily widely popular demagogue can undermine the entire political system is obviously a flawed one. Our founders recognized this very danger and that is why sweeping systemic changes require a very lengthy process to implement in addition to requiring a supermajority of the States.
In unstable political systems in which dictatorship is only a few votes a way, I truly do not think we are looking at anything comparable to the United States. Military intervention is certainly injurious to democracy but certainly not any more injurious than the alternative. Further, there is a history of military-backed coups that ultimately result in a turn to true democracy (see Romania, as an example.)
While I think Zelaya’s removal by the military is highly unfortunate it is no more or less unfortunate than his installing himself as dictator through legal (or semi-legal) channels. What will be interesting is seeing where it goes from here, there are at least claims that true free elections will be held in November. Those could be just as empty as Zelaya’s promise of truly free elections but at this point I don’t think we can say for sure until there are more developments.
So we unwashed Latin American masses are not yet ready for democracy?
I find the general content of your post infuriating and insulting.
Democracy is Democracy. if Zelaya violates the law he must be impeached by Congress and replaced by the Vicepresident, not kidnapped by the military at midnight dropped in other country and some other man “elected” by congress to be the president.
You can not defend democracy by military coup.
So, no, then? Can’t bring it, and its my fault you can’t. Uh-huh. Got it.
When “democracy” gives you Hugo Chávez, then no, you are not ready for Democracy.
Which is not to say that you shouldn’t be working on it, or to say that you should suffer a military coup. After all, even if you aren’t “ready” for it, you won’t be ready for it if you don’t develop the ideals through incremental gains in understanding how to make it work. While Chávez (among others, Evo Morales being another example) is currently making a mockery of democracy in Venezuela, in the long run, Venezuela will be better off understanding how to make democracy work having been through the process of being ruled by a strongman who was elected to the position.
After all, Germany had the same thing happen in 1933; their current effort at democracy is doing much better than their initial effort after the downfall of the Kaiser.
It’s when the people of the nation begin to respect the rule of law, and accept that their grievances will best be addressed through the rule of law, as opposed to the tyrrany of large masses of people, that democracy flourishes.
Please note, btw, that the “you” in the first sentence is not necessarily aimed at Argentina. That country seems to have learned a valuable lesson from its prior excursion into democratic government and the reactionary dictatorship that followed. And it should also be noted that it isn’t just South and Central America which struggle with implementing democratic governments; Iran’s current struggle shows that the mullahs have not quite yet figured out how to run a democratic theocracy.
When democracy gives you George W Bush, Richard M Nixon, etc you are ready for democracy?.
Who decides which country is “ready for democracy” and which are not?
Democracy is **democracy **warts and all, you dont fix Chavez with military coups, you fix him by defeating him in the ballot box!.
Military coups are to be reviled, there is NO justification for them, the military obeys the democratically elected government.
If congress impeaches the president, the VP is the new president, he can order the military to arrest the impeached ex-president.
Seriously I do not understand how you can not see something so simple.
Further thoughts:
When you depose a democratically elected leader, because he was going to turn dictator, you are just helping him and his cause.
“See?”, he and his ideological successors will say, “we must forge a dictatorship of the (proletariat/right thinking people/holy ones), democracy will not work because the enemy will just depose us via Coup like before, they are hypocrites who only defend democracy when it produces the results they want”
If democracy gives you lemons, you make lemonade and start fighting democratically, you stage marches, you strike, you boycott.
You DO NOT violate the constitution in order to save it.
Well, many right wingers in Latin America and in the USA told us that Chavez was going to send the tanks to the districts that elected members of the opposition on the last elections that took place several months ago.
I’m still waiting.
That’s just arrogance, plain and simple. Who appointed you arbiter of what the people of Venezuela are allowed to choose? Is it democracy only when the people choose a leader other countries approve of?
WTF?! Whether one likes Chavez or not – and I don’t – you can hardly chose a better example of a democratically elected leader in the whole fuckin’ world!
Venezuela’s held more elections and referendums (never mind survived a failed coup with the nod of your own epic failure of a democratically elected leader, Bush) during Chavez’ term than any other nation – never mind that they were also closely monitored by all sorts of international organizations, Carter’s CfP included…and the legitimate results confirm over and over that he is the leader the Venezuelans have chosen.
So either get yourself Venezuelan citizenship and go do something about it or go suck an egg.
As for the rest of the thinly veiled [or brazenly open in some cases] “white man’s burden” bullshit as expressed by a number of right-wing posters here, well, can’t really say what I think of them in this forum…but you’re all welcome to take a guess.
:rolleyes:
Please note I did not disagree with you. You seem to be fighting shadows here. 
Oh, and George W. Bush and even Richard M. Nixon are not an indication that we aren’t ready for democracy; neither is to democracy what Hitler was, or even what Chávez is (though there are some similarities there with Nixon :eek:).
umm.
Didnt you say “When “democracy” gives you Hugo Chávez, then no, you are not ready for Democracy.”?
then you dont agree with me.
Obviously Bush/Nixon < Hitler.
As for Chavez, I dont like him, but most Venezuelans do, so who am I to judge?.
I will remind you that Hitler was a “democratically elected leader.” The fact that you get into office democratically is of little importance. It’s what you do once you are there that matters. Manipulating the system to ensure you stay there is only slightly less unfortunate than simply abolishing the system and refusing to move.
This is what eventually has to be learned, just as Mexico had to learn that you don’t really have a “democracy” when you have a single-party state. It was quite ironic to see the picture of Presidente Zelaya with Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chávez and Rafael Correa. Each of these leaders has taken steps to modify the government of their nation to empower their political base and/or ensure their ability to stay in power longer than originally allowed by the relevant constitution. In short, they have gotten into power through democratic means, then attempted to subvert the very democracy that elected them. That’s NOT how democracy works. Indeed, in this country, we chuckle about people who make up conspiracy theories about such things happening here (such as the purported desire of President Clinton, later President Bush, to obtain a third term). We chuckle about it because we know that it cannot happen here; we’ve learned that democracy works best when you aren’t changing the rules to ensure that them as have the power gets to keep it.
Yes, we disagree about that, but I’m referring to your screed thereafter about what is going on in Honduras. I’ve been on record from the beginning as saying that the military coup is both illegal and bad for Honduras and democracy. The fact that democracy in Central/South America is having some growing pains does not mean that military fiat is the only, or even an acceptable alternative.
ETA: And as I’ve said, it isn’t Chávez’ policies that make him undemocratic; it’s his efforts to alter the government so he can stay in power as long as he wants.
Could you please point me to specific undemocratic acts commited by Evo Morales?
Trying to reform the constitution to allow for multiple reelections does not in itself constitute an undemocratic act if pursued by legal and democratic means.