History shows that whenever Latin America has been neglected the cause of freedom and prosperity has been undermined. Therefore, it is essential that nations that embrace the principles of freedom and democracy band together to face today's security threats.This refrain about neglect is commonplace, but the authors don't point out any counter-example when the region has not been neglected. Maybe they mean the 1980s, when the US was funding dirty wars across Central America. Aside from the fact that it's based on a faulty premise, what does that mean? Are they advocating any policy initiatives, or even general changes in tone from the Obama Administration? If they are, they don't mention it. I guess the only lesson to be drawn is that if you divide a 725-word column among five authors, analytical rudiments like clarity and precision are going to suffer.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Seven Hundred Words I'd Like To Have Back
I've read this column several times now, and I have no idea what its point is, other than, "We are five former Latin American presidents reminding you of our existence." Needless to say, that's not a particularly compelling argument. I guess the column was written to offer Obama suggestions about how to deal with Latin America, but in that case it's missing something important: actual ideas. The following is a typically meaningless platitude:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I would tweak your paraphrase to "We are five former mediocre-to-disgraced Latin American presidents reminding you of our existence."
Given what we now know of Fox's trastornos mentales he can be forgiven the delusion that he did anything other than get elected, but I find Aznar and his brand of right-wing internationalist asskissery/meddling uniquely irritating.
Also, why didn't Nicanor Duarte, Alejandro Toledo, Oscar Berger, and Tuto Quiroga join the party? They'da fit right in.
I'm not as familiar with Aznar as I am with Fox, but I have a hard time imagining a persona more grating than Chente's. Did you catch the interview last year where he just exploded at the guy asking him questions about the rumors about his ranch last year? Heck of a guy.
Fox definitely has a narcissistic personality disorder, but that's my point - such outbursts go with the territory. He's just a substance-free individual. As for Aznar, I don't know a ton about his tenure in Spain, but his interventions in Latin American politics are predictable and unfailingly soothing to the Mary Anastasia O'Gradys and Jackson Diehls of the world, who shake their heads in mournful sorrow at the unresponsiveness of Latin American leaders to Cato and AEI working papers. Aznar is always showing up with some discredited Bolivian or Venezuelan oppo leader to tsk tsk those unserious irresponsible populists with no hint of reflection on what role those poor, abused oppositionists might have played in setting the stage for said populists to come to power. (NB: I'm no bolivarian but that shit didn't just appear out of the ether.)
Post a Comment