Posted on 04/29/2005 6:10:24 AM PDT by OESY
...My Venezuelan contact assured me that there is evidence of infiltration in the Ecuadoran armed forces.
He also told me that Chávez envisions an axis of power linking Brasilia, Montevideo and Buenos Aires. As it is, these populist governments aren't much for standing on principle and anything anti-Yanqui scores cheap domestic points; some may even aspire to Venezuelan-style authoritarianism. But it is also possible that cooperation with Chávez is part survival technique to ward off his use of bullying militants.
...[T]he revolution must necessarily "break the spine of democracy in the region. That is Colombia."
Colombians are specifically worried about three things. The first is Chávez's overt weapons buildup. War is not considered imminent. But there is a fear that the persistent threat from a hostile neighbor engaged aggressively in arms acquisition will take a toll politically and economically.
The second concern is Chávez support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the smaller National Liberation Army (ELN). For years Castro has been giving their troops medical care in Cuba. But now Chávez is providing safe haven to them just across the Colombian border....
The third big worry that Colombians have about Venezuelan aggression is the likelihood that Chávez will try to interfere in the 2006 presidential elections. There is good reason to believe that Chávez will choose his Colombian protégé, fund him liberally, and should he "win," help him to consolidate power....
Castro's revolution is alive and active all over Latin America. Where he and his Venezuelan mini-me have not gained the upper hand, they have been successful in fueling violence and instability and discouraging development.
If Mr. Bolton felt, in recent years, that U.S. intelligence in the region was wanting and could end up costing U.S. interests, he was prescient....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Amen to that.
I've always assumed that Christopher Dodd used to go down to Nicaragua to "minister" to the 10yr old boys in Managua orphanages along with his buddy Ortega, and of course the videos of the orgies have been passed around to Ortega's buddies Fidel and Hugo...
The Latin American version or translation to this type of authoritarian rule is called caudillismo. The caudillo or strong man that exploits its people's fear of liberty - it's easier to let somebody guide them than to be free and think for themselves.
Inaccurate statement.
So Mao and Reagan are on the same side of the political fence? You might be able to convince people here that both Communism and Fascism-National Socialism are extreme left-wing ideologies, but if traditional conservatism is right-wing, then Fascism and Communism are decidedly left-wing. Both Fascism and Communism share a concept of the State as being the supreme power. Conservatism as understood here at FR rejects that view.
I agree. And when the poison doesn't cure, they double the dose.
The traditional understanding is communism as left wing, and fascism as right wing. Certainly the stalinists used the terms in this way. You are right in pointing out that there is little effective difference between the two.
As a way of differentiating the two, communists generally espoused an internationalist philosophy whereas the so-called right-wing fascists tended to be extreme nationalists. But even that is rather unsatisfying as both use nationalism when it suits them and both build international alliances when it suits them.
Communists leaned toward total state control of the economy, whereas fascists tend toward state control of owners, but this is a pretty nebulous distinction.
The important thing to remember is that the left-right distinction between the two is mostly propaganda, as you rightly point out, they are but two sides of the same coin. The problem comes in when American conservatism is referred to right-wing, implying that somewhere on a continuum between one kind of totalitarianism and it supposed opposing twin, you will find crew-cut Republicans, and this is a mistake. Its a mistake when the totalitarians say it and its a mistake when American conservatives allow themselves to be drawn in to using such language with respect to themselves.
American conservatism is a thing of its own. We are no where on any continuum between Stalin and Mussolini, we have nothing in common with either of them. Half-way between total state control (left) and total state control (right) you will not find John Locke and you won't find Jefferson. We are neither "left" nor "right". We are something else entirely.
Halfway removed from totalitarianism would be, in my view, the mixed economies that make up most of the world. Some are more free, some are less free, but none of them have any clear philosophical barrier separating them from Chavez and Castro, though they might like to believe otherwise.
My reference to Chavez having combined "left" and "right" was a reference to his combining Marx with outspoken Venezuelan nationalism and pan-latin nationalism.
Then you and I are more or less in agreement that we are not half way between Stalin and Hitler. You have tried to make sense of it by putting both at one end of the spectrum, and I have resolved it by rejecting the model altogether. But we agree that you can't get to Jefferson by watering down Hitler or Marx, which renders the traditional left-vs-right meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.