First, there was Hugo Chavez - who we all know and loathe - but the thing that a lot of people don't pick up on is that "Chavismo" is not limited to Venezuela. Instead, Chavez launched a domino effect that has reverberated around Latin America. Radical Leftist/Socialist presidents have suddenly shot to power all over Latin America, dramatically re-shaping the region's political culture and making life very difficult for the U.S. Some have become moderate, accepted left-wing leaders, like Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Uruguay's Tabare Vazquez. However, many of them have lived up to their radical reputations. This brand of leader, who I would call the "Chavitos" (little Chavezs) have become one of the scariest trends in world politics. They include Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, and - most importantly- Bolivia's Evo Morales (who actually scares me MORE than Chavez himself).
Today, another country has fallen, and the latest Leftist to come to power could be the most important yet - because he is unlike the others and, in my mind, could represent the first incarnation of the second generation of Chavitos. The country is El Salvador in Central America- and the man is former TV journalist Mauricio Funes. On one hand, I'm surprised that it took Salvadoreans so long to lurch leftward, as Mr. Funes' party is one of the most established radical movements in Latin America. While it operates as a political party today, the Faribundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) got its start as a communist guerrilla army and fought a bloody civil war in 1980s and early 90s. However, since going "mainstream", the FMLN has failed to gain the presidency - but that was before they found Mauricio Funes, who was unlike anyone they had put up before.
Until now, the FMLN has run former guerrillas for president, but apparently Salvadoreans were not in the mood to elect bloodied rebel commanders to lead their country - this has allowed the conservative ARENA Party to hold the presidency in a vice-grip since 1989. Funes, however, is not only the first FMLN who did not fight in the war, but seemingly bears no resemblance to the grizzled fighters who founded his party. With his clean-shaven look and his chic modern spectacles, he clearly doesn't come from the bloody jungle battlefields of the 80s. Instead, he is a modern communicator who honed his skills as a TV presenter on "CNN en Espanol". This is not just a change of pace for the FMLN, but for the entire Latin American left, as most of the "Chavitos" got their start as proletarian labor union bosses.
So, we've established that Funes is a different kind of Lefty, but why is that so darn important? Well, it's because he could be a weathervane for the entire region - telling the world how the Chavez movement will age. It seems now that he could easily become a moderate leftist like Lula da Silva in Brazil. If that is the case, he will fit nicely into the international community and won't be terribly noteworthy in the grand scheme of things. However, considering that he did come out of the very radical FMLN, he could instead be the first example of a new Leftist generation of of leaders - "Chavito 2.0" if you will. In other words, his policies could be every bit as radical as Crazy Hugo, but more threatening because of their sleek, non-militant, 21st century look. Everybody KNEW that the first generation of Chavitos were stark raving loons, they might as well have "nut job" tattooed across their foreheads. But if the Funes example holds, that will no longer be the case, and more countries will become vulnerable. Conservative holdouts like Peru and Colombia could fall for the siren-song of the new left, and the takeover of Latin America will become complete.
Which way President Funes will go is anybody's guess. We can pray that he turns out as a moderate - but we need to watch him closely to ensure that he doesn't morph into something far more sinister.
well this is interesting... unfortunately
ReplyDeleteRNC Chair Steele Sparks Outrage with "Pro-Choice" Comments
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Republican National Committee's (RNC) new chairman, Michael Steele, has drawn heavy criticism from Republicans and pro-lifers for recent statements that appeared to downplay the GOP's strongly pro-life and pro-family platform and promote a "pro-choice" position.
Steele made the remarks in an interview with GQ magazine, in which he was asked to elaborate on his belief in the "power of life" as well as the "power of choice."
Steele told the magazine, "The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other."
"Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?" the interviewer asked.
Steele responded, "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."
GQ: "You do?"
Steele: "Yeah. Absolutely."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/prin...cleid=09031305
Yeah, Scott----but Steele didn't ADVOCATE for the abortion choice; instead, he spoke well of making the choice for LIFE!
ReplyDeleteFocus on Obama and his oddness. This is a TERRIFIC article in March 9's "Weekly Standard:" "President Hamlet," by Sam Schulman. To wit:
"Obama is precisely like Hamlet in his conviction that his eloquence proves his leadership ability and his self-knowledge. And, like Hamlet's, his preparation for high office consisted of playacting, speechmaking, and self-examination."
This leftist movement in SA will tank in due time, people will figure out they are impoverishing their countries and mismanaging everything like Hugo the Bolivarian knight- he's on the brink already, without $100 oil, he's screwed.
ReplyDeleteAnd "Mountain Mama", the Dems are looking to talk about ANYthing rather than the current president... isn't that odd?
They prefer to employ Alinsky's tactics to create straw men/red herrings while Obama burns this country to the ground.
And Obama is a full-on nutjob- he might have OCD, and he's almost certainly a pathological narcissist... the most dangerous charismatic leaders are, comes from an insecure childhood (like Barack's).
Indicators include control freakery, grandiose self-importance, feeling "above the law", interpersonally exploitive, inability to handle criticism, lack of empathy, arrogant behavior, surrounds himself with sycophants... any of this sound familiar?
How else to explain why he'd write his writing a self-absorbed autobiography... when he was still a nobody? Same as fellow narcissists Hitler and Stalin.
Obama is a mess- and his bad childhood and irresponsible, wierd far-left mother are now all OUR problem now, too-