The Philipic

Honduras

Ξ June 29th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

Until about a week ago, I hadn’t bothered to pay attention to what was happening in Honduras.  I just can’t keep up with the internal politics of every nation.  I’d heard the rumors about the military posturing to evict President Zelaya, but until something actually happens I generally don’t get interested.  Well, something happened and it’s become a big bruhaha in the Western Hemisphere.  Here’s some background on the regional context:

• In the Latin American world, currently, there is a Cuban/Venezuelan movement, largely spearheaded by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.  It’s called “Bolivarian” by it’s supporters, and is largely leftist/populist/anti-American in nature.
• This movement counts as supporters the leaders of Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and, until this week, Honduras.
• Not that it’s really important to what is going on in Honduras, this movement isn’t universally popular.  Bolivia is on the cusp of a civil war and Nicaragua’s leader was elected with only about 30% of the vote (his opponents splintered the vote).
• Again, not directly related, but not all “left” leaders in Latin America are members of this movement.  The most powerful leader, Brazil’s Lula da Silva, considers Brazil the preeminent regional power, is very tied into the global marketplace, and isn’t any too fond of Chavez and his agenda.
• While Chavez is technically democratically elected, he has gone to lengths to limit the ability of dissenters to communicate and organize.  He’s routinely shut down non-pro-Chavez TV stations.
• When Chavez isn’t able to use the legal and bureaucratic framework that exists to achieve his goals, he foments a “popular demand” for change to justify what would otherwise be characterized as a power-grab.  The key to Chavez’s power structure is a elaborate grass-roots organization that can quickly mobilize a large number of supporters on short notice.

With that background, here’s a brief narrative of what happened in Honduras that doesn’t seem to be making it to the regular news:

• Zelaya wanted an addition term as President
• This isn’t allowed by the Honduras constitution.
• Zelaya then announced he was going to put forward a popular referendum as to whether or not to amend the constitution to allow him to serve another term. (The ballots were reportedly being imported from Venezuela)
• Under the Honduras constitution, that isn’t a permissible way to amend the constitution.  It must go through their legislative branch.
• The Honduras Supreme Court said that, and told the President he couldn’t do it.
• The Honduran congress said he couldn’t do it.
• The Honduran Attorney General said he couldn’t do it.
• Zelaya ordered the military to carry out the referendum.
• The military said that was illegal, and it wouldn’t do it.
• Zelaya fired the top general.
• The Honduras Supreme Court said the firing was illegal and ordered Zelaya to reinstate the general.
• Zelaya said no.
• The Honduras Supreme Court said the Zelaya was overstepping his bounds, and asked the military to remove the President.
• Military complies, exiling Zelaya.
• Honduran congress appoints Roberto Micheletti as interim President.
• Micheletti was head of the Congress and member of Zelaya’s party.

On a American politics note, it’s interesting how quickly Obama condemned the ouster of Zelaya, but didn’t want to say anything about the Iranian elections for a week, lest he be seen as interfering.  I mean, I sort of get it if Obama was invoking the Monroe Doctrine, but that doesn’t really fit Obama’s modus operandi.

Fascism and Identity Politics as a Corrosive Meme

Ξ June 11th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Politics |

Two stories in the news recently – one most people would have heard of and another perhaps not, but linked by language.  The first, the shooting at the Holocaust Museum by a white-supremacist.  Widely reported as being “right-wing extremist” – because he was racist fascist.  The other is anger and fear over the gains of the British National Party in the European Parliment – another racist organization with a well-known fascist lineage.  Again, described as “right-wing”. In the case of the Holocaust Museum shooting, we even have the Washington Post asking whether or not the incident validates the inane report published by Secretary of Homeland Defense warning against a rise in right-wing domestic terrorism in the wake of Obama’s election.

Since when is racism suddenly make you “right-wing”?  If it does, that means the Woodrow Wilson (who, one remembers, was listed as being one of the most admired Presidents by no less a contemporary liberal figure than Al Gore) must be labelled as “right wing”?  Does that make Margaret Sanger, so admired by Hillary Clinton, “right-wing”?  Does that make Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s beloved pastor, “right-wing”? Indeed, if the BNP were a “right-wing” organization, why is it they aren’t taking Tory seats, but Labour?  Would it surprise you that amongst those that the Holocaust Museum shooter hated were . . . “neo-cons”?

Very little raises my anger more than to hear the argument that the “right-wing” is the haven of racists, or that one is “right-wing” simply because they are racist or anti-Semitic.  Who do I sue to get the tarnish of “racist” and “anti-Semite” out of the dictionary as a synonym for “right-wing”?  That the association sticks to the “right” at all is basically due to a rhetorical meme that is left over from the internecine ideological conflicts on the left between Fascism and Socialism in the years after WWI and up through WWII.  The whole point wasn’t the label the right as fascist but the fascists as right-wing, as a means to discredit them on the left.  Now that the fight between fascists and socialists is dead and gone, the propagandist collateral damage continues, and corrodes our political discourse even today.

I was once asked by a friend how he could possibly vote for Republicans, while acknowledging that not all Republicans were racist, the Republican party was the party of choice of racists.  I sat there, dumbstruck, as I had never heard that line of thinking before.  Now I hear it all far too often.  And it makes me weary.