# \*sigh\* No, Manuel Zelaya is not an "anti-American socialist" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681 "2009-10-05T15:51:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/1 "2009-10-05T15:51:30Z")
I can’t believe I need to point that out, but that silly meme keeps popping up from conservaDopers – even usually rational ones like **Sam Stone** – in threads such as [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530757) on the ongoing [Honduras constitutional crisis.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis) Manuel Zelaya is not a “socialist.” He’s a **businessman.** Nor is he “anti-American.” N.B.: The characterizations “socialist” and “anti-American” do not automatically apply to any leader who , for whatever political or strategic reasons, makes an alliance with Chavez or Castro. [Manuel Zelaya:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya) > [@](#): > > **Background** > > Zelaya was born the oldest of four children in Juticalpa, Olancho. He attended Niño Jesús de Praga y Luis Landa elementary school and the Instituto Salesiano San Miguel. He studied civil engineering in The National University of Honduras (UNAH), but left after four years with 11 courses completed, in order to engage fully in the agri-forestry business sector .[4] Two of his brothers remain alive: one is Carlos Armando and the other is Marco Antonio. Zelaya’s mother, Ortensia Rosales de Zelaya, has been described as his best campaigner. He has engaged in various business activities, specifically timber and cattle, which were handed down to him by his late father. He is now a landowner in the department of Olancho. His family first lived in Copán, then they moved east to Olancho. > > In 1987, Zelaya became manager of the Honduran Council of Private Enterprise (COHEP), as well as the National Association of Wood Processing Enterprises.[5] The COHEP occupies a particularly important role in Honduran politics, as the Constitution delineates that the organization elects 1 of the 7 members of the Nominating Board that proposes members of the Supreme Court of Honduras.[6] > > **Political career** > > He joined the Liberal Party of Honduras (Partido Liberal de Honduras, PLH) in 1970 and became active a decade later. He was a deputy in the National Congress three consecutive times between 1985 and 1998. He held many positions within the PLH and was Minister for Investment in charge of the Honduran Social Investment Fund (FHIS) in a previous PLH government. During the government of Carlos Roberto Flores Zelaya introduced an Open counties programme to decentralize decision making and return power to the local communities. He used both the official division according to Municipality and another method which categorised people according to their indigenous or traditional communities, with said categorisation creating 297 different groups and he planned to revive this scheme during his presidency.[citation needed] > > In the 2005 presidential primaries, his faction was called Movimiento Esperanza Liberal (MEL). He received 52% of the 289,300 Liberal votes, to 17% for Jaime Rosenthal Oliva and 12% for Gabriela Núñez, the candidate of the Nueva Mayoría faction.[7] During the election campaign Zelaya promised to double police numbers from 9,000 to 18,000. He also promised to initiate a programme of re-education amongst the Mara Salvatrucha gangs.[citation needed] > > \ > > **Presidency** > > General opinions about his presidency were negative. An Angus Reid survey in October, 2008 showed a 25% approval rating.[21] > > Political opponents have expressed their opposition to both his foreign policy, particularly his alliance with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, friendship with Cuba’s Raúl Castro and his adhering Honduras to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, as well as for his periodic criticism of the United States, and periodic confrontations with the business sector.[citation needed] > > On February 22, 2008, Zelaya called on the United States to legalize drugs, in order, he said, to prevent the majority of violent murders occurring in Honduras. Cocaine smugglers have routinely used Honduras as a transit point between Colombia and the US. Honduras, with a population of 7 million, suffers an average of 8 murders a day, an estimated 70% of which result from the international drug trade, arms traffic, and the trade in people. He also said that Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico face the same problem.[22] > > On July 22, 2008, Zelaya revealed that he was seeking to incorporate the country into the ALBA. In fact, he said that the country had been “observer member” “four or more months”.[23] > > The Economist gave Zelaya mixed reviews for his first year in office, saying that “Despite success in fulfilling some of his campaign promises […] Zelaya’s lack of a coherent programme has limited the government’s ability to address Honduras’s long-standing problems,” and that “introducing far-reaching reforms will be difficult” in the face of vigorous opposition and “simmering social tensions.”[24] At the time of his ouster, the newsmagazine said “Mr Zelaya’s presidency has been marked by a rise in crime, corruption scandals and economic populism”.[25] > > In 2008, Zelaya’s popular approval dropped amid the 2007–2008 world food price crisis and worsening drug-related violence that gave Honduras one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America. [26] Say what you will about his record, but it is not that of an “anti-American socialist.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/2 "2009-10-05T21:34:30Z")
Zelaya has also been called “antisemitic,” BTW. FWIW, he responded to the charge in a [recent interview from the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa:](http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/5/ousted_honduran_president_manuel_zelaya_speaks) > [@](#): > > ANJALI KAMAT: President Zelaya, I want to turn to some of the news reports that came out when you first came into the Brazilian embassy. The Miami Herald on September 24th quoted you as talking about the presence of Israeli mercenaries. And I wanted to ask you about this, because this has now become a big issue, with the Anti-Defamation League and the Wall Street Journal accusing you of being anti-Semitic. Can you respond to these allegations? > PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I believe that that is a campaign that is just trying to smear my image as a politician. In my government, I was criticized for including important leaders from the Honduran civil society who practice the Jewish religion. Mr. Jaime Rosenthal and Yani Rosenthal were some of my principal economic advisers and are, in fact, fluent in Hebrew. > I don’t believe in racial or religious discrimination at all. I’ve always shown solidarity with the Jewish diaspora and always taken a stand against the crimes against humanity that were committed during the Holocaust. I believe that tolerance has always characterized my time here on earth in the last fifty-seven years, and I think that speaks eloquently and certainly rebuffs any of those accusations. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/3 "2009-10-06T01:04:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Zelaya has also been called “antisemitic,” BTW. FWIW, he responded to the charge in a [recent interview from the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa:](http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/5/ousted_honduran_president_manuel_zelaya_speaks) Arrant nonsense, of course. The idea that an allegation of actions by Israeli mercenaries can be construed to be some sort of crypto-anti-Semitism is laughable. As is the idea that the ADL represents the interests of Jews, rather than being an instrument of neoconservatism. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/4 "2009-10-06T01:43:19Z")
How would anyone get the impression that a man who is allying himself with Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime could possibly be an anti-American socialist? And what’s a few ‘periodic criticisms of the United States’ between friends? Did you even read your own cite? He also sought to join the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, a left-wing organization of countries which has as its core members Cuba and Venezuela. Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega also joined - Veritable Thomas Jeffersons, all. So… Your evidence that he’s not a socialist includes his alliance with socialists and/or communists, his miserable record for economic development, and his almost complete lack of support at home for his current policies, and confrontations with business leaders and with America. Also, his administration was corrupt. What was I thinking? ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/5 "2009-10-06T01:59:33Z")
Riiight. \*Of course \*Zelaya is a socialist, just look at his party: > [@](#): > > The [Liberal Party of Honduras](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_International) (Partido Liberal de Honduras) is a liberal party in Honduras that was founded in 1891. The party is a member of Liberal International. The PLH is identified with the color red while its principal rival, the National Party of Honduras (PNH), is blue. > [@](#): > > The principles that unite member parties from Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe are: respect for human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty-democracy, social justice, tolerance, **free market economy** , **free trade** , environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity. > > [Liberal International - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_International) Yep, classic socialist. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/6 "2009-10-06T02:09:38Z")
You mean… the party that was in open revolt against him? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/7 "2009-10-06T02:19:17Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > How would anyone get the impression that a man who is allying himself with Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime could possibly be an anti-American socialist? And what’s a few ‘periodic criticisms of the United States’ between friends? **Lots** of countries’ leaders have criticized the U.S., especially over the last 8 years. Doesn’t make them “anti-American.” Neither does allying with Chavez or Castro. People (and countries) do have the right to make their own friends, for their own reasons. Your enemy’s enemy might be your friend, but your enemy’s friend is not necessarily your enemy; to the contrary, he might be the mutual friend who can make peace between you – if you give him a chance. For that matter, Chavez himself is “anti-American” only by **America’s** choice. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > He also sought to join the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, a left-wing organization of countries which has as its core members Cuba and Venezuela. The main point of [ALBA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alternative_for_the_Americas) is to provide an alternative to the proposed [Free Trade Area of the Americas,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Area_of_the_Americas) which, like NAFTA, inevitably would be U.S.-dominated. It is not “anti-American” for Latin American countries to want something all their own, it is simply common sense – NAFTA has not been that great a deal for Mexico, after all. It is not the first such attempt, either; there are also [Mercosur](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercosur) and the [Andean Community,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andean_Community_of_Nations) which are in the process of merging into a [Union of South American Nations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations) (which I expect ALBA will merge with sooner or later, if only Hugo Chavez and Alvaro Uribe can stand living in the same house). Are they all, all anti-American? > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega also joined - Veritable Thomas Jeffersons, all. [Morales](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales) is, certainly. As for [Ortega,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_ortega) he might have come to power by revolution in the beginning (which would have been completely anathema to Jefferson :rolleyes:), but he won the presidency **fair and square** in 1984, and again in in 2006 when the Nicaraguan people had a chance to look back to his government and those before and after it and compare. What more do ya want?! > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > . . . his miserable record for economic development . . . Which is conspicuously **not** characterized by trying to do anything in Honduras like Castro did in Cuba, or even Chavez in Venezuela. Oh, wait! I forgot! [He tried to open tentative discussions on **re** -nationalizing Hondutel!](http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/continued/4679/the_honduran_connection/) Blatant Marxist! :rolleyes: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > . . .and his almost complete lack of support at home for his current policies, and confrontations with business leaders and with America. Also, his administration was corrupt. None of which has anything to do with socialism, and all of which can be said of countless by-no-definition-socialist leaders and governments. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/8 "2009-10-06T21:35:47Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > As is the idea that the ADL represents the interests of Jews, rather than being an instrument of neoconservatism. The ADL doesn’t have anything to do with neoconservativism. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/9 "2009-10-07T08:22:00Z")
Actually, he’s not a socialist. He’s a populist. If he’d thought that painting himself blue would garner him more votes and higher ratings, he would have gone cyan. And he’s a wannabe dictator, which is why his former party wants him out: he’s betrayed their ideology in his search for perpetual presidency. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/10 "2009-10-07T09:11:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > How would anyone get the impression that a man who is allying himself with Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime could possibly be an anti-American socialist? And what’s a few ‘periodic criticisms of the United States’ between friends? Well, probably reading beyond ideological sources that you seem to rely on would have helped. Anti American is a fair cop, but socialist isn’t. As Nava write, populist and nascent dictator is probably fair as well. Of course, > [@](#): > > So… Your evidence that he’s not a socialist includes his alliance with socialists and/or communists, his miserable record for economic development, and his almost complete lack of support at home for his current policies, and confrontations with business leaders and with America. Also, his administration was corrupt. > > What was I thinking? Hard to tell, although it seems up the typical alley as it were. The grab bag above is just plain muddled. I mean, “also his administration was corrupt…” What the bloody hell that has to do with Anti American or Pro American escapes. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > For that matter, Chavez himself is “anti-American” only by **America’s** choice. That seems like quite the stretch. While the Americans certainly pushed, Chavez wanted to go there. > [@Nava](#): > > Actually, he’s not a socialist. He’s a populist. If he’d thought that painting himself blue would garner him more votes and higher ratings, he would have gone cyan. And he’s a wannabe dictator, which is why his former party wants him out: he’s betrayed their ideology in his search for perpetual presidency. Bingo. No party in the Honduran dispute seems covered up in glory one might add. Seems particularly unhelpful though to start seeing communists behind every tree, rather than simply going for “erratic populist with yearning to dictatorship.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/11 "2009-10-07T10:28:01Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Actually, he’s not a socialist. He’s a populist. If he’d thought that painting himself blue would garner him more votes and higher ratings, he would have gone cyan. And he’s a wannabe dictator, which is why his former party wants him out: he’s betrayed their ideology in his search for perpetual presidency. > [@wmfellows](#): > > Bingo. > > No party in the Honduran dispute seems covered up in glory one might add. Seems particularly unhelpful though to start seeing communists behind every tree, rather than simply going for “erratic populist with yearning to dictatorship.” The way I see it is that by their deeds one should see who deserves pragmatic support, and when one sees the deeds of the ones that claim that Zelaya was a “wanna be dictator”, the deeds show that one should actively oppose the current actual dictators. [http://www.alternet.org/politics/141967/i\_debated\_the\_honduras\_coup\_with\_lobbyist\_and\_clinton\_confidant\_lanny\_davis\_--\_here's\_how\_he\_lied/?page=entire](http://www.alternet.org/politics/141967/i_debated_the_honduras_coup_with_lobbyist_and_clinton_confidant_lanny_davis_--_here%27s_how_he_lied/?page=entire) > [@](#): > > Now Davis finds himself defending another de facto regime, in Honduras, that is engaging in “grave and systemic” political repression, suspending due process, harassing independent journalists, killing or disappearing at least 10 people and detaining hundreds as “constitutional.” > > And all the while he has touted himself as a (Honduran) constitutional expert. > > The Honduras coup occurred on June 28, when soldiers working on behalf of a the small group of business and political elites who now control the country, kidnapped democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya and sent him into exile. > > Since then, the military-backed regime of Roberto Micheletti has argued to the world that it was acting constitutionally, even though nearly every country in Latin America, along with the European Union, isn’t buying it. > > Only in the U.S. is there a debate as to whether the Micheletti government is legal – largely thanks to the lobbying efforts of Davis. > > Davis’s argument is based on a disingenuous description of the legal and political maneuvers by Zelaya’s opponents in the Supreme Court and Congress prior to the coup. He calls these power grabs constitutional. > > Never mind that several clear violations of Honduras’ constitution occurred on June 28, including the detention of Zelaya by the armed forces (in violation of Articles 293 and 272), his forced deportation (a violation of Article 102) and Congress’ decision to destitute the president (this is not within its constitutional attributions). > > But the best response to this position – in addition to pointing out that Davis’s description of events is so selective as to be false (see below for details) – is that throughout Latin America’s long history of coups, those who executed them usually counted on legal and political backing. Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile, for example, had both. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/americas/06honduras.html?\_r=1](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/americas/06honduras.html?_r=1) > [@](#): > > The number of violations and their intensity has increased since Mr. Zelaya secretly returned to Honduras two weeks ago, taking refuge at the Brazilian Embassy, human rights groups say. > > The groups describe an atmosphere of growing impunity, one in which security forces act unhindered by legal constraints. Their free hand had been strengthened by an emergency decree allowing the police to detain anyone suspected of posing a threat. > > “In the 1980s, there were political assassinations, torture and disappearances,” said Bertha Oliva, Cofadeh’s general coordinator, in an interview last week, recalling the political repression of the country’s so-called dirty war. “They were selective and hidden. But now there is massive repression and defiance of the whole world. They do it in broad daylight, without any scruples, with nothing to stop them.” > > Amid the crackdown, a delegation of foreign ministers from the Organization of American States is scheduled to arrive in the capital, Tegucigalpa, on Wednesday in an attempt to restart negotiations between representatives for Mr. Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti, the de facto president. > > In advance of the meeting, Mr. Micheletti lifted the decree Monday. > > The abuses could have a chilling effect on presidential elections scheduled for Nov. 29. The de facto government and its supporters argue that the elections will close the chapter on the coup and its aftermath, but the United Nations, the United States and other governments have said that they will not recognize the vote if it is conducted under the current conditions. > > “Elections are a risk because people won’t vote,” said Javier Acevedo, a lawyer with the Center for Research and the Promotion of Human Rights in Tegucigalpa. “The soldiers and police at the polls will be the same ones as those who have been carrying out the repression.” > > Investigators from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights visited in August, and found a pattern of disproportionate force, arbitrary detentions and control of information. Funny thing is that as much as the de facto regime claims that they lifted the decree, the fact is that all the equipment seized from the opposition media must be requested back to the government by legal means. In effect, continuing to gag any opposition voices while the de facto government requests to the world that the coming elections be recognized. One should stop claiming that it is raining when when the real dictators are peeing on the people. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/12 "2009-10-07T11:35:32Z")
This needs no translation: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/Oc3uznWCK6g/hqdefault.jpg "Efectivos policiales desmantelan las antenas del Canal 36 de Honduras 28/09/2009 2/2") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc3uznWCK6g) Honduras police dismantling the transmission antennas of Channel 36. Even the alleged “wanna be dictator” acts from Zelaya pale in comparison to that, not to mention the beatings, arrests and murder coming from the actual dictators. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/13 "2009-10-07T13:24:10Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > And he’s a wannabe dictator, which is why his former party wants him out: he’s betrayed their ideology in his search for perpetual presidency. Bear in mind that, if the **nonbinding** poll Zelaya wanted had gone forward, and if the proposal (one of several) for abolishing the presidential one-term limit had been approved, it still would have had to go through the normal constitutional amending process and would not have taken effect until Zelaya were out of office. IOW, he would not have benefited personally. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/14 "2009-10-07T13:44:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The way I see it is that by their deeds one should see who deserves pragmatic support, and when one sees the deeds of the ones that claim that Zelaya was a “wanna be dictator”, the deeds show that one should actively oppose the current actual dictators. The way I see it, neither side is particularly covered in glory, and nothing about Zelaya was particularly encouraging - whatever post-facto excuses are made about him. A careful, “return to democracy” line seems well warranted, taking neither particular side. That seems to be the general trend of global reaction. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Bear in mind that, if the **nonbinding** poll Zelaya wanted had gone forward, and if the proposal (one of several) for abolishing the presidential one-term limit had been approved, it still would have had to go through the normal constitutional amending process and would not have taken effect until Zelaya were out of office. IOW, he would not have benefited personally. Charming rendition. You left out the part where it was declared unconstitutional. I rather suggest it is pretty bloody naive (or disingenuous) to believe that he was not looking at own interests, packaged with plausible deniability. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/15 "2009-10-07T14:00:14Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > The way I see it, neither side is particularly covered in glory, and nothing about Zelaya was particularly encouraging - whatever post-facto excuses are made about him. > > A careful, “return to democracy” line seems well warranted, taking neither particular side. That seems to be the general trend of global reaction. I think you have a faulty level of equality, can you point at when Zelaya arrested, beat or killed people, or told the army and police to close opposition media? > [@](#): > > Charming rendition. You left out the part where it was declared unconstitutional. I rather suggest it is pretty bloody naive (or disingenuous) to believe that he was not looking at own interests, packaged with plausible deniability. Charming, you base that on the ones that laugh at the constitution and produce justifications out of thin air. When a bigger crime is committed to take care of an accusation, it is ridiculous to take the side of the bigger criminal. Even more so when the crime is ongoing and the accused has no power. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/16 "2009-10-07T15:47:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I think you have a faulty level of equality, can you point at when Zelaya arrested, beat or killed people, or told the army and police to close opposition media? It seems not unreasonable to suggest that he had not arrived at that stage yet. [/quote] When a bigger crime is committed to take care of an accusation, it is ridiculous to take the side of the bigger criminal. Even more so when the crime is ongoing and the accused has no power. [/QUOTE] I am taking no particular side, I stated several times neither side is covered in glory. I see neither as particularly in the right as such. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/17 "2009-10-07T16:32:31Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > It seems not unreasonable to suggest that he had not arrived at that stage yet. > > I am taking no particular side, I stated several times neither side is covered in glory. I see neither as particularly in the right as such. Before the coup that was a reasonable point, after the coup that is not reasonable. A bigger ongoing crime is happening, no one that appreciates democracy should remain just on a neutral position. More pressure is needed if only to save lives in Honduras and to restore basic freedoms. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/18 "2009-10-07T16:36:06Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > How would anyone get the impression that a man who is allying himself with Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime could possibly be an anti-American socialist? And what’s a few ‘periodic criticisms of the United States’ between friends? > > Did you even read your own cite? > > He also sought to join the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, a left-wing organization of countries which has as its core members Cuba and Venezuela. Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega also joined - Veritable Thomas Jeffersons, all. > > So… Your evidence that he’s not a socialist includes his alliance with socialists and/or communists, his miserable record for economic development, and his almost complete lack of support at home for his current policies, and confrontations with business leaders and with America. Also, his administration was corrupt. > > What was I thinking? Right, pattern your foreign policy exactly on American interests or you are anti-American. No matter if you are a small latin American country dealing with other countries in your sphere. People will not recognize that that Cold-War is over until all the Cold-Warriors are dead. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/19 "2009-10-07T17:06:34Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > It seems not unreasonable to suggest that he had not arrived at that stage yet. But it **does** seem unreasonable to **assume** it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681/20 "2009-10-07T17:10:15Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > The Charming rendition. You left out the part where it was declared unconstitutional. I know it was, and the provision of the Honduran constitution on which that conclusion was premised, which is itself a very interesting discussion. But how is that relevant? > [@wmfellows](#): > > I rather suggest it is pretty bloody naive (or disingenuous) to believe that he was not looking at own interests, packaged with plausible deniability. Then please explain the mechanism, constitutional **or** unconstitutional, by which Zelaya could have hung on for a second term, with his country’s military and the social elite dead set against that, and his personal approval rating with the general public none too high, as **Sam Stone** as pointed out. Zelaya probably has more of a power base **now** than before he was deposed. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-no-manuel-zelaya-is-not-an-anti-american-socialist/512681.md?page=2)