PCCapeman, that’s good to know. I knew he was kind of a jerk, but it’s helpful to have a few specifics.
Daniel
I was in the middle of writing a reply when it occurred to me that I had a much more informed and passionate resource available. Here is what Mrs. Bricker had to say, only slightly edited to conform to GD standards:
The question to ask would be – did you live in the DR in the 70s or from 86 to 96? Obviously, your ire against Balaguer comes from your left slant…if Juan Bosh had remained in power in 63 the DR would have ended in a Cuba – does anybody understand that the country, having freed itself from a dictatorship, knew nothing more than that and that it could have very easily transitioned from a right-wing dictatorship to a left-wing dictatorship which was (is) the style of all left-wing/communist governments of the time. Just to illustrate how things were “progressing” during the Bosh’s 7 months, at the National Palace, for the presentation of credentials, the populist Bosh decided that, instead of toasting with champagne, which is customary, they would toast with coconut water!! Of course Bosh was, in the eyes of the left, a darling – toast with coconut water in public and save the champagne for their private parties.
Critics say there were political assassinations in the 70s, that those people were killed because they were Balaguer’s opposition. The reality is that there was a group of guys in the DR – with the best intentions, I am sure, because, back then the guys who were communists “at the base” did believe in communism and were prepared to live the dream – who were nothing but anarchists – a group that, no matter who had been in power, would have had to be “taken care of.” Sad, yes…political reality, also yes. These men didn’t oppose Balaguer; they opposed the idea of a democracy “US style” – they wanted Cuba and the USSR and they were prepared to do whatever for it…
Balaguer had two options during the regime: either fold to it – which EVERYBODY did, despite the cries of innocence and non-participation of people now, or be killed. Balaguer had been in the public eye much longer than Trujillo himself…he wrote and delivered a speech against the US occupation when he was only 18 or 20 years old – and was already well know as an intellectual when Trujillo came to power. What would have happened to a man like him if he had opposed Trujillo? I guess the many Trujillo opponents who died would have said “do what we did, die for the cause” but, what if he didn’t want to die – like the majority of the population didn’t? It is true that the DR was owned by “Trujillo & Co” in those days – Congress even voted a law that made the use of shoes obligatory only because Trujillo owned a shoe factory – but, isn’t that the same thing the communists did in the USSR, where all means of production were owned by the so called “people;” the way it is done in Cuba, where the few means of production there are are controlled by the party – did you know Cubans are not allowed to stay in the very luxurious beach hotels the government owns even if they can pay for their stay? Fidel doesn’t want them to savor the “terrible” capitalist lifestyle…
The truth is never before or after Balaguer did the DR enjoy prosperity – the kind that brings peace to the population and helps them reach their dreams. In the 70s the peso had the same value as the US dollar. The DR had no outstanding foreign debt – there was actually gold in the Central Bank’s vaults! People ate, went to school. All the former Trujillo companies were given to the State and remained as places of employment to thousands of Dominicans. People could walk safely on the street. That was when the first steps were taken towards the development of the tourism and free zones industries – which for decades have supported the country. Instead of selling all the land Trujillo owned, Balaguer had a communist idea and implemented the agrarian reform in the country, giving possibly millions of poor farmers a little plot to call their own and live on. We are little, isolated and, to an extent, almost a tribe, but we were safe and we were growing. The group that was trying to violently destabilize the country were opposed, yes …was Balaguer, or any other president for that matter, supposed to let them roam unmolested? And, by the way, vox populi said that it wasn’t Balaguer ordering anybody’s head to fall – he knew I am sure, but that it was the military that organized and executed, being them, as they were, still a very Trujillo-style organization.
And the 86-96 period? Progress was even more evident then. Balaguer inherited a mess from the socialist PRD, a mess created by corruption and blatant theft by even the president. The mess created unrest that resulted in the killing of more that 300 people in less that one week at the hands of the military – which had orders to shoot to kill at protesters – because of the government proposed signature of a very onerous agreement with the IMF. Balaguer won the 86 elections, despite what anybody wants to say to the contrary…one of the biggest political rallies the DR has ever had was a Balaguer rally that congregated more than a million people – there is photographic evidence of this. He won and renegotiated with the IMF under the DR’s terms; started one of the most ambitious public works projects ever in the DR, paid for by the government, from governmental austerity plans, not with loaned money, a plan that was highly criticized but that employed thousands of poor Dominicans, increased the circulation of money, put food on tables and mobilized the economy. Confidence in the country was so high that billions of dollars flowed in foreign investment in all areas of the economy. The country was living in peace, so much so that the 1990 campaign was so festive even children were peacefully campaigning for their candidates. And Balaguer won those elections, again, despite what the Bosh crowd said. And again won in 94, despite Peña Gomez’s protests of having being robbed of the presidency…he had lots of followers, but he never won an election…in a brilliant political move, Balaguer made sure he never did, preferring to help Leonel win rather than allowing Peña Gomez, who stole 2 years of presidency from Balaguer, to ever become president. Balaguer told Leonel at Leonel’s inauguration in 1996, that he was handing him a country that was, like an airplane, ready for take off…and it was true. Those years were very different politically from the 70s and Balaguer knew it better than anybody else. There was NO political persecution of any kind in the country. Balaguer had found that his most vocal political opponents could be silenced and brought to the fold by giving them a government job, a house and a car – the perfect example being Virtudes Alvarez, who was heading a “mother’s association” that was a pain in the government’s side and suddenly realized how well things were going after Balaguer helped her get out of the slump. Some people would mention a man named Narciso Gonzalez, nicknamed Narcizaso, as proof of the oppressive nature of the government. Narcisazo was a university professor who wrote an article in the state university’s newspaper under the childish title “10 reasons Balaguer is worst than the devil” (it could have been 100 reasons, I don’t remember and I never read the article) and a few weeks later disappeared not to be found again. What the accusers/critics forget to mention is that the newspaper in question never before or since had any influence on public opinion – probably only a few university radicals read the paper regularly. They also fail to mention than Balaguer did have then more vocal opponents that DID make public opinion, well known people, as opposed to Narcisazo. And the one thing they refuse to say is the Narcisazo had severe depression problems who took medication for his condition; who had a large family which was difficult to maintain with his meager teacher salary and who had numerous debts. Given all this, did the government had anything to win from his disappearance, at a time when news go around the world in one second and when nothing can be hidden from the public anymore?
I guess the Left in all countries need a scapegoat – just like here W. or Karl Rove is the scapegoat. Balaguer still is the DR’s scapegoat – and irresponsible politicians, who want to blame others for the problems they themselves cause will be invoking Balaguer’s name as the culprit for generations. But I am sure that, when all is said and done; when those who benefited from the Trujillo regimen in the same manner as Balaguer did but who lack the balls to admit to it the way he did, when they are gone; when historians can objectively look at the past and weigh in all circumstances, and when politicians learn that blaming Balaguer is not going to exonerate them, then Balaguer himself will be exonerated and seen as the world-class statesman, the intellectual, writer and exceptionally brilliant mind his was.
And as for your happiness over the increase of left-leaning governments in Latin America…I am just bracing for the moment all the people who voted for Evo, Chavez, Umala and the rest of the new communists realize that they have been lied to once again…when they realize that they are as poor as they were before but that the little freedom they once had has disappeared and their countries are in even worse shape than they were; when they realized that the only ones who have benefited from the new ways are the ones in government. Latin America is not Europe…there are many people in our countries who have nothing to loose but their lives – and, with our Latin temperament, only chaos will follow. I wonder if you will be willing to go help when things get out of shape…or, better yet, whether you will be able to pack your bags and move to Caracas, La Paz or Havana to prove how good these left-leaning governments are…this is where communists of yore were better than the pseudo-communists of today: they were willing to put their butts where their mouths were. Their comrades of today like to talk from the safety and security a democracy like the US’s or the DR’s (still) provide. Clever, I guess…
Interesting question. Individual instances are undoubtedly colored by one’s political leanings, although I have no problem condemning Jackson or Byrd.
Strom Thurmond fathered a child with a black woman, and denied that child his entire life because of politcial expediency - pretty unforgiveable to me.
But so did Thomas Jefferson - he even, more ironically, wrote that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including liberty, and yet owned slaves - owned the mother of some of his children and owned his children by that woman. Yet I don’t condemn him entirely. Maybe because I was taught all my life about the great things he did.
LHoD’s post reminds me of something else - owning responsibility makes a great difference. I have much more respect for somebody who says, “yes, I did that back then, and it was wrong,” over somebody who refuses to answer a question unless and until the evidence is overwhelming. Bush’ hiding his drunk driving arrest because he “wanted to set a good example for his daughters,” still makes my hackles rise every time I think of it. His silence on his service record does the same.
I moved to the DR for my senior year of HS – 1974 to be exact. Of course, prior to that, I had visited the island many times since childhood. My family has business here that date back to 1905; if fact the centenary anniversary of said company (of which I am no longer a stockholder) was all over the papers back in Oct of last year.
Anyhow, enough with the personal information – point being I am very well acquainted with this country, as much as Mrs. Bricker if not more, as I am quite sure that I am A-Older by quite a few years, and B-Currently reside here as opposed to her.
As for your pro-Balaguer manifesto/work of fiction/harangue, it’s well worth printing and using for toilet paper. BTW, I’ve been largely absent from the SDMB/Internet as a whole for the past few months for personal reasons that I need not reveal here. Obviously I am not bringing that up to ask you if you missed me, but rather because it’s only taken two days of posting for someone to call me a “commie.” Considering the usual sources, I always get a chuckle out of that, card –carrying member of the PSOE as I am.
Short on time as per usual (not that I’m into writing scrolls anyway) so how about we let The Encyclopedia Britannica fight some ignorance – namely yours and your esteemed wife’s:
Enjoy.
These days I’m so jaded I’m inclined to see personal redemption as irrelevant. It’s not that I don’t value it, it’s just that I feel I’ve been lied to so consistently I’ll leave it up to a Higher Power to know what these jokers really think. Restitution goes a long way toward convincing, but how do I know it’s not all an act, the charade of a cunning sociopath? I don’t mingle in the same circles these people mingle. I’ve never been even loosely aquainted with a high-level politician in my life. What do I know about their personal redemption? Jack.
I can only evaluate their behavior, and hope that it suggests a trend when it looks positive for some extended period. If an offending pol works hard to lead the way I’d want my representative to lead, I’m not sure I could reasonably ask for more.
Well Rick, then I suppose this means that I can get head on into the fracass. 
I’ve rarely seen a rosier picture of Balaguer’s years in the presidency. Darnit, it sounds like the man was a saint! You Rick, of all people, should know that the truth always lies somewhere in between.
Now, let’s start with saying that I agree with your wife that the governments that we had in between Balaguer’s terms were the very example of disastrous administrations. No argument, none, aucun, nessuno, ninguno. In fact I caught myself saying a couple of times that I would have prefered Balaguer over Hipólito Mejía. That’s how bad it was. Mejía, Jorge Blanco and in a lesser degree Guzmán Fernández were crooks of the worse kind. Mejía had the added disadvantage of been 1 point of the IQ short of a vegetable. But let’s not pretend that because Balaguer was “less bad” he was any good. It’s like saying that Dahmer wasn’t so bad, if by jolly we had Pol Pot to compare him with.
After Balaguer’s death our congresscritters, in an effort to suck up to Balaguer’s followers, decided to grant him the posthumous title of “Father of Dominican Democracy”. After I finished rolling my eyes all the way to the nape of my neck I thought it over. You know what? They were right. Balaguer was indeed the “Father of Dominican Democracy”, as we know it! Our system is nothing but his legacy. Whatever has befallen us can be linked one way or another back to him.
Balaguer was not in for financial gain. In fact he used to say “la corrupción se detiene en la puerta de mi despacho” (Spanish for “the buck stops here”). And it did. He had a messianic complex, he was in for the power and at no time did he redeem himself. He did whatever it took to stay in power, and when he was no longer wanted at the National Palace he made sure that through manipulations his legacy continued. He corrupted a lot of people around him and the rest didn’t need anything but his permission to do it.
Unlike the “Spanish commie” above I do respect you. But don’t get your head too big, I grant almost any human the same respect. I think that you are just sadly, and hugely, misinformed. Have you, at any time, taken the time to consult sources other than the obviously biased opinion of the esteemed Ms. Bricker? If not I will give you some things that you should look into and you can then come back for a more informed and balanced debate. For somebody with your opinion on democracy, the constitution, etc. there seems to be a big disconnect in this case.
1.- Juan Bosch was elected in a free, democratic election. What made him a bad choice? The fact that Domincans can’t be trusted to elect their leaders? Or is it that they have to elect a leader with the leaning that you approve?
-
Balaguer once said (post-Trujillo) “the constitution is just a piece of paper”. Do you agree with his view?
-
Balaguer was a repeat offender when it came to disrespect the will of the people.
1n 1994, again using the same tactics Balaguer “defeated” Peña Gómez. This time the fraud was so obvious that to prevent the inevitable bloodshed, and under pressure from Uncle Sam, he promised to cut his term short and allow for elections in 1992. He was banned from participating by law.
-
When it came to anti-hatianism and racism Balaguer wasn´t far from Trujillo. Read his book La Isla al Revés (Upside Down Island). He just toned it down for the new generation´s sensitive ears.
-
Lest you think that in his personal life he was some kind of saint, consider this: Balaguer had been said to have had sons and daughter that he never publicly acknowledged. With his maid. One of them, Alexis Joaquín Castillo (notice the middle name), who was Attorney General during one of his terms, and who was the son of Balaguer´s long-time maid, was rumored to be his son. He always declined to clear the matter. AJC, was always said that only Balaguer should respond to that. After Balaguer´s death AJC took Balaguer´s surname. Ask your wife, whom I understand is a lawyer, what it takes for somebody to be acknowledged as somebody’s child posthumously.
As a side note, should your wife want to impeach Moya Pons´s credentials, let me tell you that e book from which I have quoted is based on his a text book who is officially approved to be taught in schools in the Dominican Rep. Even during the Balaguer´s years.
Never mind the myriad of misspellings and grammatical errors I am sure you will find. I am too lazy to cleanup this post.
And the last time we debated this point you never replied to my post:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5178319&postcount=36
I don’t have a need to condemn anyone personally or politically once and for all to begin with. I continue to see people in shades of gray – even when tinged with a sort of pond scum green.