Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: coconutt2000

No, that's a stupid assumption. Carter's been out of power for years, and there had to be a sufficient political movement in Latin America for the left to get a toehold. The whole of the continent moves left for reasons that have to do with economics and cultural anti-Americanism, not active interference from outsiders.


6 posted on 12/09/2005 7:31:22 PM PST by GAB-1955 (being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom of Heaven....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: GAB-1955

God doesnt drag anyone into heaven.


11 posted on 12/09/2005 7:36:00 PM PST by armydawg1 (" America must win this war..." PVT Martin Treptow, KIA, WW1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: GAB-1955

not discounting Carter affect - giving away the canal was stupid and very dangerous for our security. In quick context here, though, I also think it represented an opportunity; an opening - or vacuum, as seen by the departing/waning of American influence - that the more focussed leftist government/political/cultural systems have been able to exploit. And yes, there's a large dose of anti-Americanism in there.

As to why this is happening? I agree, it's a cultural thing... look at Mexico; all that oil discovered, what... 20, 25 years ago? All the hope that the benefit of this wealth would allow that nation to build/invest into the first tier of nation-states? Yet the problems there are still bad, perhaps worse.

Spanish colonial culture reflected the values of the mother country - central control, a small number of powerful and influential families (the de-facto nobility) running things, a weak middle-class, and a large lower-class pool of available labor.

That lowest class would also not have very many opportunities to work/grow out of their station in life. I've read somewhere that Mexico - despite the wealth from the oilfields - is still controlled by something like 10 or 15 families who control about 95% of everything there. And we know where their poor come in search of opportunity - here!

So, unlike here, where a man can go as far as dedication, perserverance and limits of ability will carry him, people and nations in South America don't have that same rock-solid core belief. Sure, there's "some" opportunity that looks like a free-market based system... but it seems to be a veneer. The influence of the powerful few seems to prevail more down there. For good and bad, but ultimately not for the interest of the individual common man. Imagine, to live in a world where how far you can go in life, how well you can provide for your loved ones, depends more upon the sufference of others wealthier than you than it does upon your own efforts?

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but most if not all South American governments have essentially 'disarmed' their populaces. Which makes a Chavez - who controls the army - literally stealing elections possible... and the apparent complete lack of reaction from the "venezuelan street" also understandable. Plain and simple, if they rise up against the petty Caracas Castroite, they get killed dead.

In summary, what's my answer to the question, "why does the left always seem to do well in south America?": No middle class; no "second amendment" armed populace; no rule of law based on individual rights, instead coerced/emasculated via control of a powerful few; fewer opportunities; what opportunities there are must perforce be guided into/serve the interests of the oligarchs.

Oligarchs & leftism - like peas in a pod.

Whatever the case may be, I don't put much stock in anything Latin American further down then 12 miles south of Ponce, Puerto Rico. And that, my friend, means Puerto Rico, USA... if it weren't for the United States, PR might be a basket case like the rest of the southern continent.

Juan//CGVet58


32 posted on 12/10/2005 6:18:22 AM PST by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: GAB-1955; coconutt2000; Sam the Sham
No, that's a stupid assumption. Carter's been out of power for years,

--------------------------------------------------

No, Carter has been very active in SA since leaving DC. He was especially crucial to keeping Chavez in power when the opposition staged a coup a couple of years ago. He went to VZ at that time and essentially dared Washington to come out of the shadows. He has been similarly active with Morales in Bolivia.

Chavez and Carter - Morales and Carter - Castro and Carter - Chavez and Castro and Morales and FARC - it's a daisy-chain of marxism in our backyard. We are foolish not to be more active there. Remember...just because we don't read about it doesn't mean it's not happening...and Google is our friend.

48 posted on 12/10/2005 9:09:19 AM PST by wtc911 (see my profile for how to contribute to a pentagon heroes fund)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson