THE RISE OF
THE NEW LEFT
LATI 50
Introduction to Latin America
READINGS
• MLA, chs. 8, 11 (Venezuela, Brazil)
• MLA Website, Basic Data and Current Issues,
2.B
PROBLEMS!
• Democracy and U.S.-Latin American relations
• The rise of the “new Left” aka “pink tide”
DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990s
• Free and fair elections
• Weak institutions (especially parties and
legislatures)
• Neoliberal economic policies (TINA)
• No threat to ruling elites (or to international
order)
GWB AND LATIN AMERICA
1. Lack of high-level attention
2. Abandonment of negotiations with Mexico for
immigration reform
3. Overriding concern with support for anti-terrorist
campaign (not democracy)
4. FTAs and drug policy as political tools
5. Opposition to Castro, Chávez, and the new Left
THE NEW LEFT: ORIGINS
• Economic—lack of growth (through 2003), poverty
and inequality, frustration with Washington
Consensus
• Political—weakness of representative institutions,
inattention to poor, persistence of corruption
• International—war in Iraq, opposition to Bush
policies and growing distaste for American society
THE NEW LEFT: MEMBERSHIP
• Hugo Chávez, Venezuela (1998, 2004, 2006)
• Lula, Brazil (2002, 2006) and Dilma Rousseff (2010)
• Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández, Argentina (2003,
2007, 2011)
• Evo Morales, Bolivia (2005, 2009)
• Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua (2006, 2011)
• Rafael Correa, Ecuador (2006, 2010)
• Fernando Lugo, Paraguay (2008)
• Mauricio Funes, El Salvador (2009)
• Ollanta Humala, Peru (2011)
Near-Miss:
• Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico (2006)
CLARIFICATIONS #1
• Differentiation: right/center/left
• Contending leaders in/for Latin America:
– Felipe Calderón (Mexico)
– Lula (Brazil)
– Hugo Chávez (Venezuela)
CLARIFICATIONS #2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Disenchanted masses in Latin America ≠
Voters for pink tide candidates ≠
Leftist candidates for office ≠
Leftist winners of presidential elections ≠
Pro-Chávez chief executives ≠
Hugo Chávez
Notes:
– Tidal swell is spontaneous, not organized
– Rivalries and defections
THE PINK TIDE: GOALS
• Domestic—winning power, rearranging electoral
alignments; overturning status quo, possibly through
institutional reform; changing policy direction
• Hemispheric—gaining support throughout Latin
America (invoking “Bolivarian dream”), reducing
U.S. hegemony
• Global—challenging international order, forging
alliances with developing world and non-aligned
nations
THE PROBLEM WITH HUGO
• Uses language of the street (including the Arab
street)—e.g., the “devil” speech
• Sits atop petroleum
• Puts money where his mouth is
• Breaks established rules of the game
• Plays off resentment of Bush, U.S. power
• Challenges Washington Consensus and FTAA
• Goes for high stakes
• Seeks rearrangement of prevailing world order
THE ODD COUPLE:
HUGO AND JORGE
• George’s “gifts” to Hugo:
–
–
–
–
discourse on democracy (e.g., Second Inaugural)
caricature of “ugly American”
unpopularity of foreign policies
inattention to Latin America
• And Hugo’s reciprocation:
– exaggerated rhetoric
– potential threats to neighboring countries
– authoritarian tendencies
• Q1: What would Hugo do without George?
•
• Q2: What about oil?
CHALLENGING
AMERICAN MYTHS
• The Cherished Assumption—freely elected leaders
will support U.S. policy
• The Western Hemisphere idea—the new world is
distinct from old, will forge common front in
international arena
• Democracy rationale for “regime change”—free
elections as protective shield
• The hegemonic presumption—the United States can
dictate political life in Latin America
VISIONS FOR LATIN AMERICA:
GWB AND USA
• Democratic—with tilt to right or center-right
• Prosperous—with commitment to free-market
policies and ties to United States
• Unified—under U.S. leadership
• Peaceful—in view of unanimity
• Deferential—following U.S. lead in global
arena
REALITY CHECK #1
• Democracy = broad ideological spectrum,
from “left” to “right”
• Prosperity = mixed economies; rejection of
Washington Consensus, FTAs, and FTAA
• Ideology = diversity rather than unity
• Outlooks = anti-U.S. attitudes strong and
growing among large share of population
• Alliances = rejection of U.S. leadership and
rules of the game
REALITY CHECK #2
Not everyone wants the same thing…!
The End.