Right-wing coup in Bolivia

[Seanchaidh]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1193636385347031040"]

http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/oas-should-retract-its-press-release-on-bolivian-election-cepr-co-director-says

The most interesting thing about this to me is that the United States is saying Evo Morales's election is 'undemocratic' for allegedly (which is to say not [http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/no-evidence-that-bolivian-election-results-were-affected-by-irregularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows]) failing to win his vote by over 10%. He received 47% and the next closest candidate was ~37%. In the United States, winning candidates have often received ~47% of the vote, and sometimes less. Imagine if the United States had a military coup because Bill Clinton claimed the presidency with 43% of the vote, with George Bush taking 37% and Ross Perot 18%.

Well, that's happening in Bolivia now, with Trump and Sec. Pompeo's blessing. Even though Morales offered to have the second round of voting anyway. [tweet t="https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1193634251373268994"]

edit:

Oh look, a media bias!

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/jackmirkinson/status/1193640537443753984"]

edit again:

A good rundown of the situation, tweet thread style:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/kevinmcashman/status/1193703918624108544"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1193650483208052744"]

It's also worth mentioning that Evo Morales still had the rest of his term, until January, even if for some reason you think that the election was illegitimate.

https://youtu.be/dCY_ReFRT8o

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Sounds like just the type of thing Trump would like being seen as normal for when he loses to me lol. War machine churns like nothing's happening.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Evo never should have been able to run for this fourth term in the first place. He asked for a referendum to scrap the term limits in the Constitution. When that failed, he simply got the constitutional court in his country to rule that part of the constitution to be unconstitutional. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/03/evo-morales-bolivia-president-election-limits] Imagine if Trump got SCOTUS to declare the 22nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.

Wherever he retires to, let's hope it's a place with a coastline. Because that seems to be something he's obsessed with. And it's not going to happen anytime soon for Bolivia.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

Regardless of what you think about Evo Morales, he was a good caretaker. He grew the economy by 4% annually and lifted millions of people out of poverty without dropping people out of helicopters as Chile did.

Then again he was prick who sided with authoritarian douche canoes China, Russia, and Iran.

It's very likely I would have voted for him thro.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Evo never should have been able to run for this fourth term in the first place. He asked for a referendum to scrap the term limits in the Constitution. When that failed, he simply got the constitutional court in his country to rule that part of the constitution to be unconstitutional. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/03/evo-morales-bolivia-president-election-limits] Imagine if Trump got SCOTUS to declare the 22nd Amendment to be unconstitutional.

Wherever he retires to, let's hope it's a place with a coastline. Because that seems to be something he's obsessed with. And it's not going to happen anytime soon for Bolivia.

Yes, imagine if the Supreme Court of the United States ever had to interpret law regarding who would be President. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore] If SCOTUS ever decides to interpret the 22nd Amendment in a way you don't like, are you going to call for the military to oust the President of the United States?

What is so special about term limits, anyway? Just because Republicans filled their diapers over the enduring popularity of the furthest left President we've ever had doesn't make term limits a great principle. If the people want to elect someone again but are disallowed because of term limits, then term limits are actually anti-democratic.

Anyway, Evo Morales won the vote, the only issue is whether he won it handily enough to forgo a second round. And he did. The result of this coup is that Bolivia is going to return to slavery and poverty and its resources will be carved up between foreign corporations. That includes the largest lithium deposits in the world, lithium notable for its use in hybrid and electric vehicle batteries. Imperialism can be green.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/JebSprague/status/1193630655386542080"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1193761224816766976"]

 

[tstorm823]

What is so special about term limits, anyway? Just because Republicans filled their diapers over the enduring popularity of the furthest left President we've ever had doesn't make term limits a great principle. If the people want to elect someone again but are disallowed because of term limits, then term limits are actually anti-democratic.

I must be feeling biblical today, but you know this is in the Bible? In the book of Samuel, the people of Israel demand a king. They had been led up to that point by prophets, where other nations were ruled over by kings, and the people decided they wanted that, so they demand the prophet Samuel appoint a king over Israel. Samuel tried to warn that a King will take their property, send them to war, and make them subservient in all things, but they persisted until they had their way. And shortly thereafter, the tribes of Israel broke apart, the nation of Israel turned into kingdom like the people wanted and ended up getting steamrolled by Babylon. Moral of the story: people will choose to be ruled over, it's not really a good choice.

In America, George Washington is "the man who wouldn't be king". Washington was a general, he was not a great intellectual of philosophical figurehead of early America. But he commanded the respect of the people, and had he so chosen, could have reigned for decades as basically king of America. He chose to relinquish power, and of all his actions, that is the one that is most revered. There is no king of America. The 22nd Amendment exists because they saw one person win elections continuously until he died and realized that lesson from the bible: people will appoint a king if you let them.

Do you really think it's coincidence that every time socialists gain power it turns into a monarchy? It isn't. Nor is it that dictators have some superpower that allows them to corrupt an entire government. There's just a sick glitch in human nature, if you try and make a civilization where nobody has power, the people will appoint a king. So yes, term limits are undemocratic. But democracy can make civilization ruining mistakes if you let it. (see also: Brexit)

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Yes, imagine if the Supreme Court of the United States ever had to interpret law regarding who would be President.

Come now, you can't seriously be comparing Bush v. Gore to a court ruling that part of a constitution did not apply. There's a difference between the highest court coming in and determining who won based on procedural rules and a court ruling that term limits in the constitution were unconstitutional.

If SCOTUS ever decides to interpret the 22nd Amendment in a way you don't like, are you going to call for the military to oust the President of the United States?

Depends. If a president has been lawfully removed from office but refuses to leave, then yes.

EDIT: You may be operating under the assumption that I approve of this decision by the military. I do not. I don't like it whenever a military exercises power over a civilian government. To me, it's a worrying decision. That said, I also don't think Evo should have been allowed to run in the first place.

What is so special about term limits, anyway? Just because Republicans filled their diapers over the enduring popularity of the furthest left President we've ever had doesn't make term limits a great principle. If the people want to elect someone again but are disallowed because of term limits, then term limits are actually anti-democratic.

"Anti-democratic" doesn't mean bad. There are plenty of rules we have that are/were anti-democratic that I don't think either of us would like to get rid of. Hell, the role of the courts is often times to be anti-democratic, throwing out popular legislation that none the less runs afoul of the constitution. See, for example, their limiting of capital punishment from a variety of felonies to only three [murder, treason, drug kingpin activity*]. This done despite the fact that capital punishment for a variety of felonies is still popular in much of the USA.

*This is from dicta in one semi-recent case. I cannot find any cases where a prosecutor has sought capital punishment for drug kingpin activity. Also, the federal government hasn't executed anyone in a decade and a half. From wikipedia, the last people executed for a non-murder crime (rape, in their case) at the federal level were George and Michael Krull in 1957.

Anyway, Evo Morales won the vote, the only issue is whether he won it handily enough to forgo a second round. And he did.

Evo claims he did. And people who support Evo say he did. Others have called this into question. A person's biases towards or against Morales are going to naturally affect how they view this. I say this as someone who has disliked Evo since 2014 or so.

The result of this coup is that Bolivia is going to return to slavery and poverty and its resources will be carved up between foreign corporations. That includes the largest lithium deposits in the world, lithium notable for its use in hybrid and electric vehicle batteries. Imperialism can be green.

Not that it matters, but I was under the impression that Chile and Argentina had more lithium.

And as for the results: I think it's a little soon to be stating that this is what's going to happen. According to a little quick googling, Jeanine A?ez, an opposition lawmaker, is the one who will take over next. She claims she will call new elections. There remains a chance, then, for Evo's party to remain in power.

 

[Silvanus]

Do you really think it's coincidence that every time socialists gain power it turns into a monarchy? It isn't.

What on earth definition of "monarchy" are you using? The commonly-understood one doesn't apply to almost any socialist government, so I'd imagine you've cooked up your own.

Generally, if your definition of "monarchy" applies to directly-elected presidents, then you've lost track of what the term means.

 

[Trunkage]

Do you really think it's coincidence that every time socialists gain power it turns into a monarchy? It isn't.

What on earth definition of "monarchy" are you using? The commonly-understood one doesn't apply to almost any socialist government, so I'd imagine you've cooked up your own.

Generally, if your definition of "monarchy" applies to directly-elected presidents, then you've lost track of what the term means.

I think he's talking about how quite a few "socialist" governments get rid of term limits and pretty much become kings. Eg. the Kims in North Korea.

Mind you, there are a buttload of Bushes, Clintons, Roosevelts and Kennedy's that infest the White House. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Trumps are added to the list and keep come backing over the next few decades.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Do you really think it's coincidence that every time socialists gain power it turns into a monarchy?

Do you mean Clement Atlee's labour government of 1945?

Because my history isn't great, but I'm pretty sure Britain was a monarchy before then.

Anyway, nice to see the good old US tradition of "spreading democracy" in the Americas. It's always gone so well.

Spoiler

 

[Agema]

Imagine if the United States had a military coup because Bill Clinton claimed the presidency with 43% of the vote, with George Bush taking 37% and Ross Perot 18%.

It's not a coup, like it's not being fired when your boss orders you to resign.

Do you really think it's coincidence that every time socialists gain power it turns into a monarchy?

No I don't think it's a coincidence, mostly because it isn't true.

Socialist states may in many cases revert to a monarchy, but "revert" is the key word; likewise have plenty of non-socialist states reverted to monarchy. The point really being that after a period of governance perceived to have failed, countries may like to restore the previous system rather than draw a new one up from scratch.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you really think it's coincidence that every time socialists gain power it turns into a monarchy? It isn't.

What on earth definition of "monarchy" are you using? The commonly-understood one doesn't apply to almost any socialist government, so I'd imagine you've cooked up your own.

Generally, if your definition of "monarchy" applies to directly-elected presidents, then you've lost track of what the term means.

I'm fudging terms a little to make a point that these places turn into governments that operate based on loyalty to an individual, individuals who can turn into despots if they want.

 

[Bedinsis]

Do you really think it's coincidence that every time socialists gain power it turns into a monarchy? It isn't.

What on earth definition of "monarchy" are you using? The commonly-understood one doesn't apply to almost any socialist government, so I'd imagine you've cooked up your own.

Generally, if your definition of "monarchy" applies to directly-elected presidents, then you've lost track of what the term means.

I'm fudging terms a little to make a point that these places turn into governments that operate based on loyalty to an individual, individuals who can turn into despots if they want.

What's wrong with the term "dictatorship"?

 

[Silvanus]

I'm fudging terms a little to make a point that these places turn into governments that operate based on loyalty to an individual, individuals who can turn into despots if they want.

So, a personality cult, then-- a phenomenon which exists just as commonly in capitalist societies, and most commonly of all in nationalist societies.

Uhrm, how do democratic socialists like Attlee, Maniel Azana, and Jose Socrates fall into this? Most of the democratic-socialist tradition has no great element of personality cult to it. Are you just thinking of Bolivarian socialists specifically?

 

[tstorm823]

What's wrong with the term "dictatorship"?

It implies a hostile takeover that doesn't convey the process of transformation from Democracy to totalitarianism I'm trying to illustrate. People don't want specifically a dictator. They just want a permanent leader that they trust. Who then does what they want with that position.

So, a personality cult, then-- a phenomenon which exists just as commonly in capitalist societies, and most commonly of all in nationalist societies.

Uhrm, how do democratic socialists like Attlee, Maniel Azana, and Jose Socrates fall into this? Most of the democratic-socialist tradition has no great element of personality cult to it. Are you just thinking of Bolivarian socialists specifically?

I'm not talking about a personality cult. I'm talking about the tendency of all people of whatever political persuasion to desire a static, benevolent leader without considering the ramifications. And the structural weakness of governments that lean on democracy and socialism in preventing the appointment of dictators. A democratic-socialist operating within a well-defined constitutional republic isn't going to be able to turn into a dictator. Unless, of course, that individual is allowed to tear down the limits of their authority (cough term limits cough).

Seanchaidh was noting that term-limits are undemocratic. To which I say, exactly. Democracy leads to bad things if you put no limits on it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Evo claims he did. And people who support Evo say he did. Others have called this into question.

Those others are the OAS and Carlos Mesa, both very tied to the United States. And their reasoning is based on the quick count, not the official count. Both the quick and official counts say that Evo won by more than 10%; the only reason the quick count was continued (after being suspended to make way for the official count as is apparently normal in that country) was to placate Mesa.

You can claim that reasonable people disagree, but there is literally no evidence whatsoever for the OAS/Mesa position [http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/no-evidence-that-bolivian-election-results-were-affected-by-irregularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows], unless you count the mere fact of the assertion having been given breath.

A person's biases towards or against Morales are going to naturally affect how they view this. I say this as someone who has disliked Evo since 2014 or so.

Yeah.

And to be fair, there are other bits of prejudicial evidence floating around. Like this:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/_ericblanc/status/1193882657047949313"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/telesurenglish/status/1193962268524007425"]
Very hard to look at that and think "y'know, this coup is really about restoring democracy."

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not talking about a personality cult. I'm talking about the tendency of all people of whatever political persuasion to desire a static, benevolent leader without considering the ramifications. And the structural weakness of governments that lean on democracy and socialism in preventing the appointment of dictators. A democratic-socialist operating within a well-defined constitutional republic isn't going to be able to turn into a dictator. Unless, of course, that individual is allowed to tear down the limits of their authority (cough term limits cough).

Sorry, what does "leaning on socialism in preventing the appointment of dictators" even mean? Socialism is an economic system; any mechanisms in place to prevent dictatorship aren't going to have very much to do with redistributive taxes, nationalisation, or worker ownership.

So, can I ask again where the "monarchic" tendency was in Attlee, Azana, Jose Socrates etcetera?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Indigenous Bolivians take to the streets in reaction to the coup: [tweet t="https://twitter.com/nwbtcw/status/1193991046956568576"]

Yes, as in Venezuela, race plays a big role in these power games.

 

[tstorm823]

Sorry, what does "leaning on socialism in preventing the appointment of dictators" even mean? Socialism is an economic system; any mechanisms in place to prevent dictatorship aren't going to have very much to do with redistributive taxes, nationalisation, or worker ownership.

Nationalization takes industries responsible for the well-being of people and gives control of them to the government. People associate a government with the figurehead of the government. People are unlikely to remove someone from office that they're crediting with providing them healthcare. If a leader presides over a period of good fortunes in a socialist system, and asks the people if they can stay in charge forever, they can probably gets the votes to do so.

So, can I ask again where the "monarchic" tendency was in Attlee, Azana, Jose Socrates etcetera?

It's not a tendency in the leaders. It's a tendency is people everywhere, and it's a weakness of the system. I'm not saying that anyone who tries to lead as a democratic-socialist is in any way more dictatorial that other people in power. I'm saying that if a person with dictatorial persuasions gains power in a democratic-socialist system, there's a good chance they can take more power for themselves.

 

[Agema]

It's not a tendency in the leaders. It's a tendency is people everywhere, and it's a weakness of the system. I'm not saying that anyone who tries to lead as a democratic-socialist is in any way more dictatorial that other people in power. I'm saying that if a person with dictatorial persuasions gains power in a democratic-socialist system, there's a good chance they can take more power for themselves.

Yes, but isn't this like saying anyone with dictatorial persuasions gains power in a democratic system, they will take more power for themselves? "Socialist" is just an unnecessary qualifier.