The Washington Post has a great article about two former dictators dead or near death, Pinochet and Castro, and discusses the substantive differences between the two in a manner similar to how Kaplan (and myself) have approached the issue before:
A Dictator’s Double StandardAugusto Pinochet tortured and murdered. His legacy is Latin America’s most successful country…
Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle—and that not even Allende’s socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.
By way of contrast, Fidel Castro—Mr. Pinochet’s nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond—will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.
The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet’s coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.
You bet.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « First Borat, now this?
- » How Panama became Independent
COMMENTS / 25 COMMENTS
Lexington Green added these pithy words on 16 Dec 06 at 3:33 pmVal Dorta’s excellent piece on Allende is worth looking at. So is Zenpundit’s post The Chilean Sulla. The discussion in the comments to this post on Samizdata was also very good.
Lexington Green added these pithy words on 16 Dec 06 at 9:11 pmShannon Love’s post also merits attention.
tequila added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 1:55 amHilariously bad. You actually have the balls to agree with this tripe?
The loathsome Kirkpatrick was proven drastically wrong when pretty much the entire Eastern bloc went liberal democratic (like other neoconservative boobs, she was also amazingly wrong about the level of threat posed by a decaying Soviet Union). Hell, her “thesis” was disproven even in one of her pet causes, Nicaragua, when Daniel Ortega handed over power peacefully (and unlike Pinochet, just won it back peacefully as well).
The idea that Pinochet was a great guy because Castro sucked is also retarded beyond measure. I can’t wait for the Post to bemoan the impending death of Saddam because postwar Iraq is so much worse off right now, or maybe because Hitler was worse. Pinochet tortured one out of every forty Chileans and sent one out of every ten into exile.
As for Chile’s economic miracle under Pinochet: what was Chile’s poverty rate in 1973, when Pinochet seized power? In 1990, when Pinochet left power (here’s a hint: it doubled, to 40% poverty in 1990 … what a miracle!)? By the way, how did that whole privatization of Chilean copper mines, the base of its economy the way oil is the base of Iraq’s economy, go under Pinochet? Oh, right, he never did privatize it. A true champion of economic liberty, that one.
As for Kirkpatrick, I’ll always remember her for two additional errors of judgement: the way she leapt to the defense of the right-wing thugs who raped and murdered the American Maryknoll nuns in El Salvador, which merely demonstrates her utter moral bankruptcy; and her advocacy that the U.S. remain “neutral” during the Falklands War, a policy that would have destroyed British faith in the American alliance and splintered NATO at the height of the Cold War—- all in order to save another murderous right-wing dictatorship in Argentina. You have to hand it to her: she was, wrong, yes, but wrong consistently.
theCardinal added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 3:30 amAs a person of Cuban descent the MSM attitudes towards Pinochet/Castro is nothing short of infruriating. I should note that Kaplan also brought up Pinochet in “Warrior Politics.” Here Kaplan took a less charitable view of Pinochet saying that he lacked “Machiavellian virture” due to his willingness to employ “excessive violence.”
subadei added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 4:11 amCardinal,
I don’t think the points above are an attempt to romanticize Pinochet as much as they serve to contrast the frameworks left behind by dictators. In other words, as bad as Pinochet was his regime laid the foundation for what would become a fairly successful democratic state.
theCardinal added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 5:33 amI agree – I did not intend for my comment to imply that. I just wanted to fill in some lines and buttress the arguments made. That being said I’d take Pinochet any day over Fidel – easy. In Miami, specifically the Cuban exile community, Pinochet, much like Franco before him, is kind of a hero. No one will ever say it in mixed company (non-Cubans) but they will toast him in private.
subadei added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 6:10 amApologies for my misinterpretation. In light of your post and despite my non-Cuban ancestry: Cheers!
davesgonechina added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 9:57 amI don’t see what the Chicago Boys and free marketing have to do with democracy. I’d point out that the Chinese have been madly in love with Milton Friedman (just like Pinochet’s economists) for a couple of decades, are still Communist and still not democratic. I’d say that Chile’s democracy comes from the fact it had one before it’s dictator, not because it’s dictator was right wing. And it’s economic success, if due to Friedmanomics, is ideologically promiscuous.
theCardinal added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 4:30 pmTequila –
I stated that given the choice between Castro and Pinochet I’d take latter. Who wouldn’t? Pinochet did not last a generation. He reluctantly gave up power, Fidel is reluctantly giving up living. Pinochet thought he would win a referendum but he didn’t and he left. Fidel will never, ever hold a referendum – nor will Raul – take that one to the bank. When Fidel came to power he bragged that he had disposed of the myth of the need for economic crises to foment revolution. The implication being that Cuba was more or less in good shape when he took over – look at it now. It will take generations for the Cuban economy to have the standing it did pre-Fidel (ranking near the top in Lan Am and even better shape than a current G8 country).As for the authoritarian/totalitarian debate – it is not as clean as presented. The former USSR is littered with dysfunctional or malfunctioning “democracies.” The transition was also less than clean in Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania or Slovakia.
Kirkpatrick is guilty of errors in judgement but I don’t know of any public figure that I admire that didn’t disappoint me at some point. Nonetheless here is the cold hard truth – while the death of four nuns in El Salvador was horrific – it was not worth pulling support from a gov’t struggling to beat back a communist insurgency. I was at a nun run school at the time of the murders and we were told about it practically every day for a year, but even then I understood. You can call me morally bankrupt but as a realist it is something that I have long been accustomed too.
staypuftman added these pithy words on 17 Dec 06 at 6:05 pm‘right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies’
Such a stupid comment completely misses the goal of American foreign policy, among other things like a sense of decency to those enslaved by Pinochet. Pinochet’s ‘miracle’ just gives the US-debt circus another creditor. Quite a miracle alright- as we give the tortured gift of neoliberal policies to the world and they become the backbone of our toiler paper currency. American govt could care less what the human rights records of our trading partners are…so long as they buy those treasury notes you could be running slave labor camps. If you think the goal of our modern american double headed dragon – neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy – is to create democracy and help people you are living in a delusion. They are designed to reinforce the dollar as the worlds fiat currency AT ANY COST.
Get real Curzon – you’re better than this.
Lexington Green added these pithy words on 18 Dec 06 at 12:48 am“The idea that Pinochet was a great guy because Castro sucked is also retarded beyond measure.”
He was a great guy because he stacked up a nice pile of dead communists who were trying to destroy his country. A very, very small pile, agreed, by the standards of 20th century dictators, but General Pinochet only killed and turtured as many people as necessary to win the civil war against the communist, then he stopped. So even thought it was a small pile of dead communists, when it was big enough he stopped. Pinochet was a man of moderation, clearly.
“...enslaved by Pinochet…”
The options were a Castro style dictatorship, with more deaths and economic ruin. or Pinochet. There was no third option. The Chileans lucked out. That is not being enslaved, if you are not one of a few thousand people killed or tortured, in other words one of the millions of other Chileans, it was rescue, liberation.
lirelou added these pithy words on 18 Dec 06 at 12:50 amKorea certainly didn’t have a democracy prior to their military regimes. Nor did Taiwan. Japan had developed some democratic institutions, but these appear to have been crushed in the 1936 coup attempt whose aftermath was to steer Japan towards war with the West. The catalyst in Japan’s case was defeat and occupation. Japan, with massive U.S. assistance, developed quickly. Korea, Taiwan, and even Singapore, developed more slowly. Still, the fact remains that these have all developed into both democracies, and economically viable states. The Jury is still out in the case of Communist countries. Key to political development in the forementioned capitalist states may be the fact that, even when under authoritarian regimes, they were forced to recognize the principal of democracy, and allow the existance of competing political parties that eventually staked out a role for themselves within the political process. From my cubicle, this factor appears to be missing in communist countries.
Rommel added these pithy words on 18 Dec 06 at 3:57 amI tend to agree with Lexington Green and a couple of others.
I realize it is sometimes controversial and horribly un-PC , but then again, most of us commenting here are beyond that mindset.
With all the mock horror and outrage (although obviously there are many who are sincere) at the atrocities Pinochet committed, the fact that many killed/tortured were dangerous and illiberal is sometimes glossed over or deemed irrelevant. Certainly, Pinochet was heavy handed and needlessly brutal but the points made about the legacy of economic prosperity and stable, democratic insitutions
are valid.Again, this might seem callous, but Iraq would benefit from a Pinochet. Indeed, the country practically begs for one. Maybe even an uberpinochet. While most in Chile were essentially good people who were not slaughtering their neighbors, Iraq is full of barbarians wallowing in innocent blood that might never be pacified if a stronghanded approach is not implemented soon. There is no need for systematic torture or Saddamist sadism but I have yet to see a realistic case made that elections, reconciliation conferences or any amount of coaxing not made at gunpoint will bring the Mahdi Army or Ansar al-Sunna peaceably into moderate, civilized Iraqi society.
snow added these pithy words on 19 Dec 06 at 6:48 am“If you think the goal of our modern american double headed dragon ““ neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy ““ is to create democracy and help people you are living in a delusion.”
Can you give any examples of what you would consider a better example of how a country should operate in this world? Real examples please, not utopian.
Kenneth added these pithy words on 19 Dec 06 at 7:22 amCan you give any examples of what you would consider a better example of how a country should operate in this world? Real examples please, not utopian.
That’s not really the thrust of his argument. He’s arguing that “promoting democracy” is just so much hype- which it is. The US behaves much as any other state would in its position. To assert otherwise would be to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading; ie, arguing that America is somehow “distinct” from past great powers like France and Britain. America promotes its own interests, or rather the interests of whatever groups have the most political clout within the American state, abroad- just like any other government. The only difference is that America has a massively powerful military.
snow added these pithy words on 19 Dec 06 at 9:39 amYes, you’re right Kenneth. The promoting democracy thing is mostly hype, though I think that a good number of people in the US including some in the government do believe it. I certainly agree with you that the US is acting in its own interests, as well it should, though I think it acts better than most countries would if they were in a similar position. I just wonder what better course of action Staypuftman would suggest, since he seems to hate neoliberalism and the bogeyman of neoconservatism. I’m curious as to what he thinks would be better.
Kenneth added these pithy words on 20 Dec 06 at 12:51 amI just wonder what better course of action Staypuftman would suggest, since he seems to hate neoliberalism and the bogeyman of neoconservatism. I’m curious as to what he thinks would be better.
Yes, I wonder.
Somewhat related, I find that both sides of the political spectrum are often guilty of imbibed the US with unrealistic qualities. The right often portrays it as angelic, while the left sees it as demonic. It is neither. Neither side really grasps the fact that politics is, high-blown rhetoric nonwithstanding, mostly amoral.
staypuftman added these pithy words on 21 Dec 06 at 6:48 pmSnow, you ask if there are real world examples of countries operating a more successful system than that of America? I guess this really depends on what you idea of success is. From a purely American, domination of the world, point of view, its an unabashed success. We dominate the planet in a way no other nation ever has and better than anyone else ever has. In that sense there is no ‘better’ alternative and your indirect assertion that ‘this system is working so why fix it?’ proves right enough. But your argument is only right, so long as your argument is bound by the past and present. But does that mean we couldnt do better in the future? Do you feel that this neo-bullshit direction we are being lead on is going to create a better world than the one we live in now? Thats the question Im asking myself.
I’ll have to answer Kenneth to finish answering you snow.
Kenneth – you’re asking me if I can dream up a better system than using military force to create a series of satellite economic colonies under the guise of freedom?
You first have to identify why neoliberal policies are necessary. To me it directly relates to the fact America makes nothing. This significantly diminishes the ability interest rate based policy can be effective (If you lower interest rates in the face of a service based economy, whos borrowing needs are more elastic than a manufacturing based system, it has a diminished effect – precisely why I think 0% interest rates took so long to turn the American economy around after 2001 recession). With the main monetary policy tool hogtied, America is forced into other less attractive options. The prevailing idea seems to be that since this monetary policy is no longer effective, the market has evolved beyond the need for this regulatory force – hence neoliberal policies dominate the landscape.
As these policies have been enacted and information technology matured simultaneously, the american manufacturing sector up and moved to china and other cheap labor pools. This created the massive trade deficits we now have, but luckily we are the worlds reserve currency so we can just run the printing presses. No one will let the lucrative american markets divebomb like they should to correct the imbalance, so they just buy our treasuries (at last count now run at something like $3-4 billion PER DAY). The current run on the dollar is directly related to this sick relationship – China even coughs about adjusting how much of this debt load they are willing to buy and America sends Paulson, Bernake and company over to China not a week later.
So the question is, could we do better than this? I could counter with, how could we do worse? We are mortgaging the country to China, South Korea and Middle East (with the oil imports) and leaving our future generations to pick up the tab – beautiful design. Or is this too left wing for you to handle?
If you want to fix this, America needs a currency worth a damn, which could be accomplished with balanced budgets and reducing this onerous military budget by not participating in stupid wars we dont need to be in (among other things). We could build an international coalition to help in our military adventures (something along the lines of what Thomas Barnett has suggested). We could reign in the trade deficits by becoming a net exporter of energy (build up our vast wind/solar resources along side developing clean coal). We also desperately need some type of legislation that would help steer some of the ‘cheap’ money multinationals are borrowing domestically to be invested domestically instead of just dumped into chinese manufacturing sector, which further exacerbates our trade deficits. Once deficits are reined in, we could stop shoving this neoliberal battering ram into the developing world out of necessity and come to in the international table on economically sound ground.
This neoliberal economic backbone and neoconservative military-based foreign policy has driven us to this point, do you want to find out where the end of the line is? Our current house of cards has a limit – where it is I dont know but I sure as hell dont want to find out.
What our country and the world needs is leadership that has the vision to steer us out of the neo-rut and into a sustainable future based on a sound currency, a smaller government and environmental protection. So long as people want to act as if Pinochet like dictatorships are the best way to creating democracy, you get a world like the one we have. You lead by example, not by the barrel of a gun.
Jason added these pithy words on 22 Dec 06 at 12:25 amSnow, I agree with your concern. I, however, don’t think America’s destructive trend is from lack of leadership. I think there is an intentional design to destroy America by those with the purse strings. Remember America’s Federal Reserve is a private corporation with international interests … its loyalty is not for the American people. The interests behind the Federal Reserve want the world to be divided into regions similar to the EU. They learned common Europeans loving their nation-states didn’t obey the central banker’s push for the European Union. They know the American people won’t either. The intentional taking away of our manufacturing base is designed to make Americans “dependent” in a world system of ‘inter-dependence”. In other words, there is an intentional design to reduce Americans into beggers who will welcome the dubious promise of prosperity that the North American Union will be touted to give. We are being destroyed by design.
snow added these pithy words on 22 Dec 06 at 3:06 amStaypuftman, how do we build a ‘currency worth a damn’? Return to the gold standard? I agree that the US needs to return to balanced budgets, but the US has an Islamofascism problem at the moment and having the military to deal with such things is critical. Also your idea of building an international coalition to conduct military operations sounds laughable to me. The US needs a strong military to get what it needs to get done in this world. That’s one area I would not like to see a cut.
And this idea of the US becoming a net exporter of energy is way off base. Solar energy and clean coal taking over from oil? Yeah, maybe in a couple hundred years. The fact is, we are still heavily dependent on oil and have the infrastructure to deal in oil. I’m all for energy independence, but the idea that with political will we can become independent in a few short years is not based in reality. To change over to alternatives and to restructure the infrastructure will take billions and years to accomplish. Better to find drill for new sources of oil, open more refineries, go all-out in building nuke plants and promote alternatives such as solar and clean coal.
Also, your suggestion for more legislation to steer multinational cash into domestic investments rather than foreign sounds bad to me. Do we need more legislation on corporations? Why not less legislation all around?
I agree with you that a sound currency, a smaller government and environmental protection are good things to strive for, but the way to get these things are far from easy.
snow added these pithy words on 22 Dec 06 at 3:14 am“I think there is an intentional design to destroy America by those with the purse strings.”
Where in the world do you have even a shred of proof on this, Jason? This idea that these bankers are intentionally trying to destroy America is ludicrous. We have enough enemies that hate us, but that doesn’t mean that absolutely everyone, including our own kind, are out to destroy America. No doubt there are those that would love nothing better than to see the US go down in flames and I do worry about the poor position the US is in in terms of China’s holdings or our currency and trade deficits, etc.
But to claim that this is the intention of the Fed is little short of ridiculous. Come on you guys. Get off the conspiracy theory bandwagon and come up with real solutions to difficult problems we face. I certainly don’t like the fact that Bush has created huge deficits, but that doesn’t mean I think he’s part of some evil cabal intent on destroying America (I’m not saying that you guys claimed this). I just think the conspiracy aspect totally takes away from the credibility of your arguments. I for one rarely believe in any type of conspiracy theory because in my reading and understanding, very few have even a shred of merit whatsoever.
Jason added these pithy words on 22 Dec 06 at 3:43 amSnow, the word “conspiracy” is in the dictionary. It denotes different interests colluding together for a specific goal. Says nothing about flying saucers and aliens. We have laws against “conspiracy”. Why? Because we all believe in aliens? No, because men chronically engage in conspiracy. You want facts to support we are being subverted by our own leadership? How about the quasi-secret conspiracy to integrate Canada, Mexico, and the USA as a precurser to the North American Union. A movement kept quiet beyond the consent of the American people by elites who have a very unpopular agenda in store for us. Hats off to Harvard man who gave some good evidence. If you really want to be in the know about global events you should check out the following:
usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Mar/23-209281.html
Then access this following article by its title through a google search:
Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Superhighway
by Jerome R. Corsi
Then stop being so un-apprised about the things that matter.
snow added these pithy words on 22 Dec 06 at 3:57 amJason, Harvard Man already mentioned those links and I watched/read them. You guys are reading something sinister into it all. There is no proof of a sinister intent. On the surface, a superhighway makes alot of sense in terms of aligning security interests and the movement of goods, but there’s no proof that underlying it all is some kind of evil cabal or sinister intent.
Jason added these pithy words on 22 Dec 06 at 2:41 pmSnow, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration. The Europeans did not show the requisite amount of enthusiam as desired. Everyone knows how Americans would feel about a North American Union. The obvious outcry is the reason why these moves are NOT presented to the people. Hey! I thought we lived in a democracy?
Well, maybe Bush wasn’t kidding when he “jokingly” referred to the US constitution as ” JUST A GOD DAMN PIECE OF PAPER”.
A good reason Bush—against the American will—does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks. We can argue about if the open influx of Chinese goods is great for America or not. But, what is VERY scary is the leaders seem to be doing a run-around the American people. That’s not too American. What do you think? Is there something fishy going on?
