Latin American keeps electing self-styled radical leftists. The new Chilean president is Gabriel Boric. Notable quotes: “I come from the Chilean libertarian socialist tradition, that is my ideological space of reference” and “if Chile was the cradle of neoliberalism, it will also be its grave.” The new Peruvian president,
Seems like you also need to figure that there's a roughly equal chance that the right wing opponent of the left wing guy will catastrophically damage the country in a different but similarly catastrophic right-wing way.
I'm confused; you say that you would NOT bet 10:1 that any of those three countries would become Venezuela, which implies the probability is <10% (or <3-4% per country). But then in the next paragraph you say the odds are at least 15%.
The thing is, one must understand the South/Latin American mindset.
The Left, in all its forms (socialists, communists, trotskyists, Peronists, etc) have a very, very powerful grip on that mindset. The Left, in all its forms, has an allure that captivates millions of South/Latin Americans.
I am not surprised that Colombia, Peru and Chile went that way. It was bound to happen, especially when the the violent years of the late 60s and early 70s fade into a distant memory, and the young voters have not seen the destruction, moral and physical, it caused.
Chile's president, Gabriel Boric, is 36 years old - a useless community organizer who knows nothing about nothing. He became president via cheap demagogue promises, he simply cannot keep.
In any country, there is a meaningful probability it's leadership will turn it into a socialist or fascist hellhole. Narcissistic and sociopathic leaders are attracted to power, voters and politicians alike are ignorant, which combined with half-baked ideology results in a potent prosperity poison. Democratic countries succeed not because we elect enlightened leaders, but because we have institutions whose survival depends on restraining said leaders from doing destructive things. Elections are the most visible and symbolic check on state power, but certainly not the only one.
As a Chilean, I can thankfully attest, that Boric definitely won't be the next Maduro. He has been somewhat consistent on his criticism of left wing dictatorships. That being said, many people in the government coalition are friends of Maduro, mainly the communist party members. I think the main fear here, and I do not know if in other countries in the continent they share this fear, is to become the next Argentina. Argentina more so than Venezuela, is what (sane) Latin-Americans fear they will become, not a dictatorship, but a republic in which every two years there's an economic crisis, with galloping inflation, and all of this almost constantly for 70 years. Avoiding a Maduro seems kind of easy, but avoiding the argentine bureaucratic nightmare it has become seems less straight forward. In this sense, I fear that the chance that Chile, Peru or Colombia become a new Argentina is something like 70%.
Let me tell you another story, from Chile none the less. On september 4th 1970 a plurality of chileans (36%) elected Salvador Allende as the President of Chile. Since he did not get a majority of the popular vote, the election went to the Congress of Deputies who would elect the succesor. The next one was the candidate of the centre right and the third place went to a Christian Democrat who wanted to continue wiht marxist reforms and got 18%. So more than half of chileans wanted to go marxist.
In any case, the Congress elected Allende only after he pledged to sign a statute of Constitutional Gurantees, so he would respect the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Early in 1971 Regis Debray, darling of the left and comrade of the late Che Guevara did an interview with then President Allende. There, Debray asked Allende why he accepted the Presidency on those terms, since he was clearly a marxist. Allende said that the signing was a mere tactical maneouver. He would continue with the transformation of the hated burgoise democracy that Chile had.
And so, Allende went on to destroy Chile's democracy. And 3 weeks before the coup of 11-9-1973 the same Congress that elected him deemed him to have broken the Constitutional order and accused him of trying to institute a dictatorship, calling on the ARmed Forces to recover the constitutional order. Which they proceeded to do.
So yes, we live in countries that take very stupid risks.
Venezuela is a deliberate hellhole. It was planned to one and will remain one as long as possible so that the rest of Latin America can stagnate with their relatively moderate flavor of socialism without the visible stigma of being impoverished. They can always point at Venezuela as evidence that they're not so bad-off.
Ruling a dystopia is lots of fun but you don't want to rule the worst dystopia on the block. I can imagine leftists in Detroit wouldn't mind if, say, Illinois became the next North Korea.
We've gotten enough time with enough Latin American countries to know that this is how it is. They vacillate between mediocre middle income resources extractors and socialist hellhole with a certain rhythmic regularity. It is the only thing people with their demographics are capable of, and they will never escape it. Their people lack the intelligence to avoid using the state to consume whatever excess capital their societies might build up.
If the USA ever has Latin American demographics, it will have the same pattern. The more Latin American's we have, not more like it we will be. You can already see it in national politics.
A thought provoking post. But a stochastic differential equation with negative drift will eventually hit the lower boundary with probability one, no matter what happens in the short run. The long run trend in Latin America is negative. You are fascinated by the randomness and miss the drift, which is unmistakably down. In the long run, if you play Russian roulette you do die.
There are several reasons for the trend to be downward. For example, one is that the progressive left has managed to destroy the army in these countries, which were the last resort in the past. This is not a chance, it was an explicit plan after the 70’s, particularly after September 11, 1973. Something similar has been done to the police. Another is the demographic transformation of these countries. Does it seem strangely similar to current events in the USA? Of course it does, the overall plan is the same. In fact, an additional factor in the long run trend of Latin America is that the US has changed sides in the perennial conflict there.
To illustrate, consider Argentina. This poor country has moments in which it goes precipitously down (Alfonsin) and in which it painfully manages to pick up a little (Menem, Macri). Today even a leftist such as Martin ``Ticho’’ Guzman, is too much to the right for the Kirchner clique, so again down we go, full speed. Is there any scenario in which Argentina recovers the old level of wealth? If you do, please email me and we can work out a bet.
Yes but the left has deluded itself into thinking that the socialist policies of Chavez had nothing to do with Venezuela's disaster: https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/venezuelas-downfall-isnt-about-socialism-its-about-oil/92669/ That considered I don't suppose any of you know of any peer reviewed compiled statistics that could be used to shame them outside of the free market index's? Something attributing causality to it directly?
Seems like you also need to figure that there's a roughly equal chance that the right wing opponent of the left wing guy will catastrophically damage the country in a different but similarly catastrophic right-wing way.
I'm confused; you say that you would NOT bet 10:1 that any of those three countries would become Venezuela, which implies the probability is <10% (or <3-4% per country). But then in the next paragraph you say the odds are at least 15%.
The thing is, one must understand the South/Latin American mindset.
The Left, in all its forms (socialists, communists, trotskyists, Peronists, etc) have a very, very powerful grip on that mindset. The Left, in all its forms, has an allure that captivates millions of South/Latin Americans.
I am not surprised that Colombia, Peru and Chile went that way. It was bound to happen, especially when the the violent years of the late 60s and early 70s fade into a distant memory, and the young voters have not seen the destruction, moral and physical, it caused.
Chile's president, Gabriel Boric, is 36 years old - a useless community organizer who knows nothing about nothing. He became president via cheap demagogue promises, he simply cannot keep.
Classics of "but it was not real socialism" and "neoliberalism is dead" since 1970s x)
In any country, there is a meaningful probability it's leadership will turn it into a socialist or fascist hellhole. Narcissistic and sociopathic leaders are attracted to power, voters and politicians alike are ignorant, which combined with half-baked ideology results in a potent prosperity poison. Democratic countries succeed not because we elect enlightened leaders, but because we have institutions whose survival depends on restraining said leaders from doing destructive things. Elections are the most visible and symbolic check on state power, but certainly not the only one.
Bryan underestimates the thrill value. I MIGHT HAVE DIED!!
As a Chilean, I can thankfully attest, that Boric definitely won't be the next Maduro. He has been somewhat consistent on his criticism of left wing dictatorships. That being said, many people in the government coalition are friends of Maduro, mainly the communist party members. I think the main fear here, and I do not know if in other countries in the continent they share this fear, is to become the next Argentina. Argentina more so than Venezuela, is what (sane) Latin-Americans fear they will become, not a dictatorship, but a republic in which every two years there's an economic crisis, with galloping inflation, and all of this almost constantly for 70 years. Avoiding a Maduro seems kind of easy, but avoiding the argentine bureaucratic nightmare it has become seems less straight forward. In this sense, I fear that the chance that Chile, Peru or Colombia become a new Argentina is something like 70%.
Let me tell you another story, from Chile none the less. On september 4th 1970 a plurality of chileans (36%) elected Salvador Allende as the President of Chile. Since he did not get a majority of the popular vote, the election went to the Congress of Deputies who would elect the succesor. The next one was the candidate of the centre right and the third place went to a Christian Democrat who wanted to continue wiht marxist reforms and got 18%. So more than half of chileans wanted to go marxist.
In any case, the Congress elected Allende only after he pledged to sign a statute of Constitutional Gurantees, so he would respect the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Early in 1971 Regis Debray, darling of the left and comrade of the late Che Guevara did an interview with then President Allende. There, Debray asked Allende why he accepted the Presidency on those terms, since he was clearly a marxist. Allende said that the signing was a mere tactical maneouver. He would continue with the transformation of the hated burgoise democracy that Chile had.
And so, Allende went on to destroy Chile's democracy. And 3 weeks before the coup of 11-9-1973 the same Congress that elected him deemed him to have broken the Constitutional order and accused him of trying to institute a dictatorship, calling on the ARmed Forces to recover the constitutional order. Which they proceeded to do.
So yes, we live in countries that take very stupid risks.
The horrors of left-wing collectivism
OK, but you can't really say how bad electing Gabriel Boric is without considering what the alternatives were.
Sometimes, as Americans well know, there are only bad choices on the ballot.
A conspiracy theory:
Venezuela is a deliberate hellhole. It was planned to one and will remain one as long as possible so that the rest of Latin America can stagnate with their relatively moderate flavor of socialism without the visible stigma of being impoverished. They can always point at Venezuela as evidence that they're not so bad-off.
Ruling a dystopia is lots of fun but you don't want to rule the worst dystopia on the block. I can imagine leftists in Detroit wouldn't mind if, say, Illinois became the next North Korea.
We've gotten enough time with enough Latin American countries to know that this is how it is. They vacillate between mediocre middle income resources extractors and socialist hellhole with a certain rhythmic regularity. It is the only thing people with their demographics are capable of, and they will never escape it. Their people lack the intelligence to avoid using the state to consume whatever excess capital their societies might build up.
If the USA ever has Latin American demographics, it will have the same pattern. The more Latin American's we have, not more like it we will be. You can already see it in national politics.
A thought provoking post. But a stochastic differential equation with negative drift will eventually hit the lower boundary with probability one, no matter what happens in the short run. The long run trend in Latin America is negative. You are fascinated by the randomness and miss the drift, which is unmistakably down. In the long run, if you play Russian roulette you do die.
There are several reasons for the trend to be downward. For example, one is that the progressive left has managed to destroy the army in these countries, which were the last resort in the past. This is not a chance, it was an explicit plan after the 70’s, particularly after September 11, 1973. Something similar has been done to the police. Another is the demographic transformation of these countries. Does it seem strangely similar to current events in the USA? Of course it does, the overall plan is the same. In fact, an additional factor in the long run trend of Latin America is that the US has changed sides in the perennial conflict there.
To illustrate, consider Argentina. This poor country has moments in which it goes precipitously down (Alfonsin) and in which it painfully manages to pick up a little (Menem, Macri). Today even a leftist such as Martin ``Ticho’’ Guzman, is too much to the right for the Kirchner clique, so again down we go, full speed. Is there any scenario in which Argentina recovers the old level of wealth? If you do, please email me and we can work out a bet.
Yes but the left has deluded itself into thinking that the socialist policies of Chavez had nothing to do with Venezuela's disaster: https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/venezuelas-downfall-isnt-about-socialism-its-about-oil/92669/ That considered I don't suppose any of you know of any peer reviewed compiled statistics that could be used to shame them outside of the free market index's? Something attributing causality to it directly?
You didn't mention Xiomara Castro in Honduras.