|
SlothfulCobra posted:I just don't get why these politicians in latin america keep getting into a pattern where they gotta keep personally running for reelection and not only is it no good for another party to take control, there's nobody from their own party that can be trusted to hold office. What happened to Lula. That's the reason, that's why they keep getting into that pattern.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I just don't get why these politicians in latin america keep getting into a pattern where they gotta keep personally running for reelection and not only is it no good for another party to take control, there's nobody from their own party that can be trusted to hold office. Margaret Thatcher was in power for 11 years. When she stepped down, there was no election, and instead the conservative party just picked someone else. Kohl was chancellor of Germany for 16 years, and Merckel has been chancellor for 14. François Mitterrand was president of France for 16 years. The father of the current Canadian prime minister served for 15 years (so we're compounding longevity in government with dynastic politics). I really don't get how someone thinks this is a "latin america" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:To be fair, there is something to say about how the Left often doesn't put focus on building a new generation of leaders and grow power hungry, but it isn't always without reason and fighting against term limits barely qualifies. The bolded part has always seemed like a really bad criticism to me because you can't build the kind of charisma we're talking about here. So unless you just so happen to find a once-in-a-generation talent and that person is actually a leftist, how exactly is the left supposed to accomplish what you demand? joepinetree posted:Margaret Thatcher was in power for 11 years. When she stepped down, there was no election, and instead the conservative party just picked someone else. Kohl was chancellor of Germany for 16 years, and Merckel has been chancellor for 14. François Mitterrand was president of France for 16 years. The father of the current Canadian prime minister served for 15 years (so we're compounding longevity in government with dynastic politics). The liberal capitalist world order is built on the unstated idea of Herrenvolk Democracy, and as such there are some enormous double standards that people unconsciously (or even consciously) apply to third-world democracies where poo poo that's portrayed as unacceptable over there routinely passes without comment back home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:16
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:François Mitterrand was president of France for 16 years. 14. Two septennats. Chirac then made a reform changing the septennat to the quinquennat, he had one of each, so 12 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
I dunno about you guys but I grew up hearing about how the alternance of power was a good thing and how voting for a candidate that we know for a fact sucks is good anyway because it's a "new" face in charge. Coincidentally, I grew up during the Lula years. It's one of those narratives created by the media to support their own candidates, which a lot of people don't question because we're raised to not think about or discuss politics more than once every two or four years, and even then we should keep our thoughts and opinions to ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 12:09
|
|
|
Dias posted:I dunno about you guys but I grew up hearing about how the alternance of power was a good thing and how voting for a candidate that we know for a fact sucks is good anyway because it's a "new" face in charge. Coincidentally, I grew up during the Lula years. America would probably be less of a mess than it is today if Obama was allowed run for a third term. Clinton seemed to be voter poison, he still seems well regarded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 12:37
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:America would probably be less of a mess than it is today if Obama was allowed run for a third term. Clinton seemed to be voter poison, he still seems well regarded. that mess created a resurgence of the left, which obama has and would've strangled in the crib
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The bolded part has always seemed like a really bad criticism to me because you can't build the kind of charisma we're talking about here. So unless you just so happen to find a once-in-a-generation talent and that person is actually a leftist, how exactly is the left supposed to accomplish what you demand? Like it or not these leaders will be stepping down eventually either due to the ballot box or death (hopefully due to old age). It isn't th fact that the replacements often lack charisma, but the fact that the replacement are simply ineffective at governing, campaigning, and/or aren't true believers. Doctor Jeep posted:that mess created a resurgence of the left, which obama has and would've strangled in the crib The Left resurgence would have happened regardless. The media has been smothering it in the crib for the past forty years. At best Obama winning would have slowed things down a decade longer at most. The tipping point had already been reached and even then so, while Obama would have won a third term I'm not sure that he would have won a fourth. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
things would be somewhat better right now if Obama had never existed, but not by much
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
Bleh, a third Obama mandate would probably mean no Bolsonaro so I'd take it. The left is "resurging" and meanwhile we're all getting rawdogged on the daily anyway. Basically, gently caress Zizek.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Dias posted:Bleh, a third Obama mandate would probably mean no Bolsonaro so I'd take it. The left is "resurging" and meanwhile we're all getting rawdogged on the daily anyway. Basically, gently caress Zizek. Given that Obama's state department people said that setting Lula free was a major blow to the rule of law and would contribute to impunity, I am pretty sure Lula would have been hosed either way, and I doubt Ciro or Alckmin would have been more popular.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:The Left resurgence would have happened regardless. The media has been smothering it in the crib for the past forty years. this is just suppositions piled on suppositions, the reality is that without hillary's loss you'd have the same old same old and a decade is a long time for things to be "slowed down", right now there is a chance to organize and effect some change, without that organization you can't do poo poo even if there's an economic meltdown and the playing field transforms when there's a shake up and cracks start to appear, to open them up you have to have people that know where the levers are and you need experience in orgs for that Dias posted:Bleh, a third Obama mandate would probably mean no Bolsonaro so I'd take it. The left is "resurging" and meanwhile we're all getting rawdogged on the daily anyway. Basically, gently caress Zizek. obama is the one who hosed lula & dilma, he would've probably preferred a "safe pair of hands" AKA some neolib scumbag, but between bolso and a left wing president who do you think he'd support
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Given that Obama's state department people said that setting Lula free was a major blow to the rule of law and would contribute to impunity, I am pretty sure Lula would have been hosed either way, and I doubt Ciro or Alckmin would have been more popular. Oh, we'd be hosed anyway but I think at least they'd wear a condom. I just disagree that this "resurgence" of the left caused by the rise of the alt right means Trump being elected means it was some sort of purge or whatever. It was a catastrophic defeat and I would take the hypothetical scenario in question free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Like it or not these leaders will be stepping down eventually either due to the ballot box or death (hopefully due to old age). It isn't th fact that the replacements often lack charisma, but the fact that the replacement are simply ineffective at governing, campaigning, and/or aren't true believers. No political entity can come up with a new major political talent every 4-8 years. The difference in Latin America is in the high stakes. In the US, if an incompetent politician headlines the ticket and loses, then they can try again with someone else in a few years. In Latin America, losing the election to a far-right authoritarian means becoming vulnerable to severe political repression, so a single loss matters much more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Dias posted:Oh, we'd be hosed anyway but I think at least they'd wear a condom. I just disagree that this "resurgence" of the left caused by the rise of the alt right means Trump being elected means it was some sort of purge or whatever. It was a catastrophic defeat and I would take the hypothetical scenario in question free. The far more likely scenario would have been the hypothetical Obama white house working overtime to differentiate lavajato from Bolsonaro, working overtime to insulate Moro from the fall out of vazajato and laundering his reputation. Liberals who have been somewhat shamed into admitting the unfairness of Lula's imprisonment would have the cover to go all out celebrating it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Given that Obama's state department people said that setting Lula free was a major blow to the rule of law and would contribute to impunity, I am pretty sure Lula would have been hosed either way, and I doubt Ciro or Alckmin would have been more popular. Is more like: Trump win emboldened and normalized Bolsonaros all over the world. Bolsonarism is pretty much a brazilian version of trumpism (with some local flavors, of course), I cant see it happening without it I mean, I dont think he would have been elected here if Trump didint opened that can of fascism first
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The far more likely scenario would have been the hypothetical Obama white house working overtime to differentiate lavajato from Bolsonaro, working overtime to insulate Moro from the fall out of vazajato and laundering his reputation. Liberals who have been somewhat shamed into admitting the unfairness of Lula's imprisonment would have the cover to go all out celebrating it. I don't think there would be a Bolsonaro and the neoliberal agenda wouldn't be emboldened enough to pull some of the poo poo they're pulling off, especially in the public education field, hiding behind their crass figurehead scapegoat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Is more like: Trump win emboldened and normalized Bolsonaros all over the world. Bolsonarism is pretty much a brazilian version of trumpism (with some local flavors, of course), I cant see it happening without it Bolsonaros way was paved by Obama, blaming it on trump somehow is revisionist nonsense. Brazil isn’t ok with fascism because of Trump, it’s because there are a ton of right wingers who literally, openly, pine for a return to a military dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Bolsonaros way was paved by Obama, blaming it on trump somehow is revisionist nonsense. How come Obama paved the way to Bolsonaro? I have no idea what you are talking about here And Im not saying Brazil became ok with fascism because of Trump. Bolsonarism feeds of the oldest middle class prejudices, fears and hates; it was all here before, thats true What Trump and his whole movement did was to provide a formula for that to be a succesful political movement, and create an environment where such bigotry and borderline open fascism is considered somewhat normal Bolsonaro got elected using the same mass social network manipulations Trump used; bolsonarism themes and slogans and tropes are mostly borrowed from trumpism (adapted to our reality, of course; Bolsonaro has the support of Trump himself and his whole alt-right media circle, etc etc. That was all decisive for making his candidature viable, thats what Im trying to say edit: without Trump paving the way for this new far-right, I bet brazilian middle class would have probably settled for some center-right old-politics fucker, which would be bad but business as usual. Then something like Trump happens and something like that here seems feasible too, and it was just a matter of applying and adapting Trump's strategies and rethoric for our local nazi idol Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Obama's administration was 100% behind the criminalization of pt and Lula. His ambassador to Brazil has spoken on how they viewed the Lula government as a threat. His deputy attorney general has bragged about helping put Lula in jail. The vazajato leaks point to both cooperation with the Americans and access to data they shouldn't have in places like Switzerland. Obama's state department people have bemoaned the release of Lula. Now, whether putting Lula in jail inevitably led to Bolsonaro or if it would have been Alckmin instead is a what if that will never be answered. But that the Obama administration was intent on taking out Lula there's no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Obama's administration was 100% behind the criminalization of pt and Lula. His ambassador to Brazil has spoken on how they viewed the Lula government as a threat. His deputy attorney general has bragged about helping put Lula in jail. The vazajato leaks point to both cooperation with the Americans and access to data they shouldn't have in places like Switzerland. Obama's state department people have bemoaned the release of Lula. Yeah, I forgot about those things I guess Obama helped a lot too
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:How come Obama paved the way to Bolsonaro? I have no idea what you are talking about here Basically what joepinetree said; right wing populists have had a winning formula for ages (I mean, the supporters of a well known German right wing populist literally fled to Brazil). There are leaked chats showing prosecutors coordinated with the US on charges against Lula, Obama was directly responsible for getting him barred from the elections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
It doesn't matter whether they're Dem or Rep, lib or con, American administrations will always be in favor of fascism in Latin America and opposed to democracy. For the simple reason that a properly right-wing fascist oligarchy will allow American companies to pillage resources and trample native workers, while a left-wing democratic government will not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
I don't think Trump losing the 2016 elections would have made a difference in the results of the BR elections. Fake news have existed for as long as there have been news and while its internet cycle has certainly taken notes from Trump's election, it wouldn't be at a different degree of technique. In my opinion, coming into the elections the Brazilian voter had three main concerns: the economy, public security and the political crisis of legitimacy. For the economy, there is a severe lack of economic literacy in Brazil (not that dissimilar to most of the world) so campaigning is just people shouting past each other and waving flags, this would actually have been the element that might have given Lula a win if he was allowed to run, as he was president during the most prosperous moment of Brazil's recent history and he'd get a lot of votes from people hoping for a return of that. For public security, Bolsonaro used a very passionate language, which is way more effective in influencing people than complicated solutions for a complicated problem. He certainly got points there, and not only from people hoping for a genocide of the 'Others', as he came off to many as the tough candidate against crime and corruption. As for the crisis of legitimacy, despite Bolsonaro being a politician with almost 30 years of scratching his balls and shouting absolutely vile poo poo, the media and the opposition let him get away with presenting an image of political outsider, rather than rightfully characterizing him as a typical lower clergy congressman, with all the petty corruption involved. Scrutiny over his underhanded deals is a very recent thing and mostly because he graduated from joke to president. Of course, there were a bunch of other factors, a very dishonest campaign with undisclosed finances, his stabbing letting him get away from debates and pass for victim, massive support (~60+%) from the growing Evangelical base, his rhetoric appealing to middle and upper class prejudices, etc, etc. I don't think Bolsonaro will have what it takes to win in 2022 as he continues to get smeared in poo poo and to fail at delivering economic results, but a president Moro is looking much more likely than a leftist ressurgence in Brazilibland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
In terms of Bolsonaro winning, the timing of Lula's arrest was also instrumental. Lula was first and Bolsonaro was 2nd by a little in most polls. Which means that the strategic anti-PT vote could have gone multiple different ways depending on run off projections. But when Haddad replaced Lula with just a few weeks to the election, the scenario flipped and became Bolsonaro first and Haddad second. So now the anti-PT but not necessarily pro-Bolsonaro vote only had one place to go. That is when Bolsonaro jumped from mid 20s to the 45-46% he ended up in the first round.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Do you Brazilians feel that US policy would be different toward Brazil if say Sanders became president?
punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Do you Brazilians feel that US policy would be different toward Brazil if say Sanders became president? He's the only one to call out Lula's imprisonment, so yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
So far as I know, parliamentary democracies work a lot differently from presidential democracies, and it seems like it's a lot harder to consolidate power away from democratic bodies in those. Other than that, wartime America was somewhat less than democratic, and it's anyone's guess how things would've gone if FDR was still alive and running after the war was over. Maybe MacArthur would've been even more of an rear end in a top hat. Aside from the issues involved with basing your government off of a single individual's charisma, reliance on one single charismatic person, that leaves less fertile ground for other charismatic people with the same political leaning to grow, since if there isn't a regular rotation of leaders, the only avenue for upward political mobility is challenging the establishment. That's a big part of the foundation of democracy, the fact that in theory anyone can work their way up to the top. If people can direct their efforts into the political system, they'll be less likely to try to find other ways around it. And if everything's balanced on one person, well that can't be sustained indefinitely. Not just because people die, but they just wear out over time, they get old, they get stuck in their ways, they get less able to handle the same workload. If your system is calcified around one dude, then bad things will happen when that one dude is no longer up to spec, so there's no avoiding the need for a replacement. uninterrupted posted:term limits are fascist policy that constrain democracy. What I find weirdest is the idea of jumping to calling it fascist to want a regular, institutionalized, changing of leaders. Like actual fascists don't go through the same rigmarole of eliminating potential limits to their power, and like there aren't a whole array of ways that somebody in power could distort the mechanisms of democracy to maintain their power, charisma or not. At the very least regular transfers of power are the most easily recognizable sign of some kind of democratic process from an outsider perspective, and if aspersions are already being cast about the process, then it's just another question mark. I'm pretty certain Putin's 20-year run at the head of Russia seems like a sign that something's not democratic there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Russia would not be a democratic state if it had term limits, hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
Russia has term limits, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
After PT was kicked out the return of the right was inevitable, but I maintain that bolsonarism is something different and draws to much fro trumpism and the new international far-right that supports him to be possible without itZearothK posted:I don't think Bolsonaro will have what it takes to win in 2022 as he continues to get smeared in poo poo and to fail at delivering economic results, but a president Moro is looking much more likely than a leftist ressurgence in Brazilibland. I dont share your optimism, his popularity is still growing. We have around 1/3 of the people that are true believers and wont be convinced he is doing a poor job no matter what, and then some millions more that believe is all the same and hey, at least crime rates are dropping Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:So far as I know, parliamentary democracies work a lot differently from presidential democracies, and it seems like it's a lot harder to consolidate power away from democratic bodies in those. Other than that, wartime America was somewhat less than democratic, and it's anyone's guess how things would've gone if FDR was still alive and running after the war was over. Maybe MacArthur would've been even more of an rear end in a top hat. yes, parliamentary democracies are different but they work the same as any other country in that they have leaders who are elected people over here aren't more politically intelligent cause they vote for a party instead of for one man, most of the time they vote for the man anyway since he's the face of the party, and if that face is weak then the party will get weak results as well as for the rest, vyelkin already answered it in his previous reply to you putin technically doesn't have a 20 year run, but if you're willing to let slide parliamentary democracies on a technicality then he should get to slide as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 12:50
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm pretty certain Putin's 20-year run at the head of Russia seems like a sign that something's not democratic there. simply breathtaking
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
i am in awe of the rhetorical masterstroke that is invoking Russia as you make your grand case as to why term limits and regular transfers of power is a critical part of a functioning democracy
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
Regularly transferring power to right wing governments is bad, actually
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What I find weirdest is the idea of jumping to calling it fascist to want a regular, institutionalized, changing of leaders. Like actual fascists don't go through the same rigmarole of eliminating potential limits to their power, and like there aren't a whole array of ways that somebody in power could distort the mechanisms of democracy to maintain their power, charisma or not. Yeah, that’s because you don’t believe in democracy. Making things ‘institutionalized’ is just an attempt to limit the power of the electorate and centralize it with a wealthy bureaucracy; all politicians have term limits and they’re called elections. Also if you’re making your country less democratic so the west questions it less you’ve learned absolutely nothing from the last 50 years of western intervention in Latin America. Bolivia had election fraud charges completely made up and people in this thread fervently supported them because they hated indigenous people have any influence in government whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/angryburrito/status/1221343515491233792 We all knew it happened, of course, but...good to have it out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 09:26
|
|
|
Incidentally, what exactly was it that went wrong with the first Garcia government in Peru? The stuff I've been able to read suggests that everything went pretty well until it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Incidentally, what exactly was it that went wrong with the first Garcia government in Peru? The stuff I've been able to read suggests that everything went pretty well until it didn't. You mean apart from that civil war and being exposed for running paramilitary groups and turning a blind eye to atrocities carried out by the regular military and police?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Any news on the results of the Peru election?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:28
|
|
