” Why is Washington therefore silent about Brazil’s drop into tyranny and complete- level authorities repression”? Aaron Kheriaty asks.
I’m not sure why D. C. is motionless. I do know that the American remaining, which includes the press, has, to one level or another, been whitewashing communist totalitarianism since Walter Duranty.
Just a moment, take a look at the recent coverage of Argentine President Javier Milei, who is about as far removed from authoritarianism as philosophically possible. A “right- aircraft populist”, a “far- proper outsider”, a “far- proper populist”, on the “far- correct”, a “rightist”, a “far- proper libertarian”, and a “radical” were how he was described.
When the corrupt, much- leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva— who Milei when appropriately described as an “angry communist” — won back the presidency in Brazil last year, the media gave us headlines , like,” Lula beats much- right President Bolsonaro to win Brazil election” , , and ,” Brazil’s Lula sworn in, vows accountability and rebuilding”, and” Lula wins Brazil presidential election in historic comeback”, and” ‘ Olê, olá, Lula!’ Brazil’s electors sing for a courageous comeback to eliminate Bolsonaro”, etc.
Recall, when also, that the internet and Liberals were obsessed with the alleged fascistic impulses of Brazil’s correct- populist Jair Bolsonaro— no George Washington, to be sure. Bolsonaro was blatantly lumped in with Donald Trump, Vlad Putin, and Viktor Orbán as a sign of the growing totalitarian risk. Alex Burns, in an awkward breath element in Politico, praised Lula as a symbol of “endurance of politics in an age of extremism”.
Bolsonaro was never going to see critics wring their hands over, and neither was Lula. Neither were Nicolas Maduro, Gustavo Petro, Luis Arce, or a number of other names. However, those brands do support Democrats in their home country.
Lula, a friend of China and Russia, plauds totalitarian fascists in Iran while analogizing the liberal politics of Israel with a Nazi condition. Most of America’s personal- styled liberals good argue with his examination. As a way to protect the environment from wicked capitalists, Lula’s Working Party advocates state power and the nationalization of the market. Or, in other words, the Portuguese is implementing the Green New Deal. What’s not to enjoy, right?
Lulu’s group is even building a censorship state — euphemized by British media as” cracking down on propaganda”. Every two-bit dictator in history has argued that restricting completely appearance is a way to stop spreading harmful disinformation. Unfortunately, these are the same kinds of express intrusions and arguments that the modern American left uses. How are liberals going to criticize Brazil when they are most likely resentful of its enormous accomplishments?
However, the American returned has a longer tradition of treating center- proper governments as fascists and socialists as benign “democratic” entities. Communists have long been admired in academia. Hollywood will never stop producing romantic biopics about the underworld’s blacklisted Stalin stans. Additionally, there have been numerous books written about the American left’s romantic relationship with Cuban tyranny.
But there is also the recent rise of “democratic socialists” such as Bernie Sanders, who’s praised virtually every murderous communist regime in the world. It was not that long ago that Rachel Maddow, David Sirota — author of the enduring classic,” Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle” — and scores of other progressives praised the rise of Venezuelan communists.
Venezuelans, of course, would soon be foraging for their dinners. But socialists will get it right next time, no doubt.
When Meghan McCain, the then co-host of” The View,” made all this clear a few years ago, she was the target of a lot of online abuse, not to mention her illiterate co-hosts. Last I checked, nearly 60 percent of Democrats have a positive impression of socialism. Let’s just assume that the number in American newsrooms is significantly higher. Of course these people do n’t see Lula as an authoritarian.
And though it’s only going to get worse, none of this is exactly new. To understand the double standards, take the case of Nicaragua and Chile.
Long ago, when I was an impressionable young man, the American left was still obsessed with the 1973 Pinochet coup in Chile, even decades after it happened. You might have assumed that this was the most crucial time in world history. Even 50 years later, the left was still lamenting that “elected” Marxist , Salvador Allende was overthrown. Pinochet was, without a doubt, a brutal dictator in the South American tradition. However, his saving Chile from communism was what made him especially significant and relevant.
Now, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega —  , strongman, ethnic cleanser, and mass murderer — had come to power through a leftist junta. Democrats would frequently visit the man in the 1980s to help the reputation of Sandinistas. John Kerry— not some backbencher, but future presidential candidate and until recently” Climate Czar” — was a big fan. The senator helped sink a$ 14 million aid package that would have helped Contra revolutionaries. In the meantime, Ortega was in Moscow securing$ 200 million in support from the Kremlin.
Unsurprisingly, Nicaragua is now the poorest country in Central America. Ortega is also reprising his murder of the political opposition. You’d assume that such a man deserves at least as much attention as Orban, who has not yet assassinated the political opposition. The Hungarian praises Trump. Ortega praises Obama.
Chile, by the way, ( with the help of Milton Friedman ) is now one of the richest and freest nations in South America.
Venezuela and Bolivia are two of the continent’s poorest nations.
Which is to say, socialism keeps doing its thing. The American left also holds this position.
