Thursday, July 2, 2009

Confounding Ideology

One odd aspect of the Honduras coup, which probably owes more to the remoteness of the nation than anything else, is the number of unpredictable fault lines it has opened up around rather arcane questions. Was it a coup? Was it legal? Was it Zelaya's fault? Does it benefit Chávez? Is Chávez leading the world reaction? Has the Obama administration's response been strong or swift enough? Lots of disagreement.

Political leanings aren't a particularly good predictor of one's answer to these questions. In Iran, for comparison's sake, opinions on the major issues (especially, Should Obama be doing more?) are more closely tied to one's politics. In Honduras, ideology has been confounded, hence the sight of solidly liberal (and solidly common-sensical) Erik Loomis trading shots with what I presume to be leftist commentators. I for one was not ready for anything so challenging from Honduras, much like el Tri on April 1.

However, the one thing I think virtually everyone can agree upon is that the Wall Street Journal's prescription, that the US should vocally oppose Zelaya's reinstallation of president, is insane. Whatever the causes of the coup, such a policy would put the US at odds with (I believe) every single government that has commented on the matter, it would make our voice on this issue less democratic than those of Álvaro Uribe and Hugo Chávez, and it would prolong the chaotic uncertainty in the country. 

4 comments:

Richard said...

Sorry, but that's BS. Leaving aside for a moment whether the Honduran Supreme Court can order the military overthrow of a sitting president (which doesn't appear to be the case, according to the Honduran Constitution), suggesting that an act deemed illegal by every nation and legal scholar on the planet be accepted is legalizing the coup ex post facto.

C'mon. Of course the WSJ has a political agenda. I don't care about Mel Zelaya one way or the other (or the WSJ), and he is/was a crappy president (and maybe something of a crook). It's the social movement for a broader economic system (the subtext of the referendum in question) that the Journal seeks to delegitimize.

pc said...

Wait what part of what I wrote is BS? Are you saying that I'm in favor of the WSJ article? I called it insane. I dont think the WSJ having an agenda is much of a surprise to anyone, Im just saying this particular example of it is pretty egregious.

Richard said...

OOPS, another fine editing job. Should have said "Of course, that's BS..."

er... "sorry"...

pc said...

As somebody who regularly mixes up "here" and "hear", and "no" and "know", I'm sympathetic. As long as were all on the same page about the WSJ's editorial page...