JHyre wrote:Carlos,
Things are not nearly so simple as portrayed by any English publication, written or verbal, that I have ever seen. Specifically, everything I've seen written in English is very friendly to the left at the expense of facts. Why? Because this sort of comparatively dry writing (e.g., history, poli- sci) is pretty much exclusive to university people and reporters....and unfortunately, university and media have long-since out-McCarthy'ed the Senator from Wisconsin & purged their ranks of intellectual diversity. Try getting a job in University humanities field after admitting to being a <gasp!> - Republican. The result: A consistently leftist worldview that permeates everything those people do (Example - the move "Missing", agitprop at its finest). Witness what you've read about Chile so far. If you are interested in some Spanish titles that give the other side's perspective, I can cull through my library to find them. Another way to get some perspective - talk to Chileans IN Chile. A disproportionate percentage of the Chilean diaspora tends left, as they were the ones who thought it advisable to leave Chile, so their average opinion will be skewed. "Average" opinion changes once you are there. A very large plurality (40 - 46% or so) did and still do support Pinochet.
A few pointers, from a guy who, unlike university leftists and press pinkos, won't dessemble on his on politics (I'm fairly libertarian on most domestic issues, fairly "hawkish" on foreign policy and thought Ronald Reagan was one of our best presidents), which allows you to take my bias into account:
1) In terms of body-count, Communists/Marxists make Hitler look like a gifted amateur. The prospect of their taking over total power in Chile rightly frightened many people into thinking they would be up agianst a wall;
2) As Tom Brad (and several Chilean publications) correctly notes elsewhere on this site, Allende had < NO EMAIL > 30% of the vote on his own and won because one of the parties threw their < NO EMAIL > 30% vote over to him. He (and his allies, whom he was unable, perhaps unwilling, to control) then started to take his "mandate" and radically transform Chile's long established political norms, with the stated goal of creating a Marxist state.
3) Allende's govt, as noted by Tom Brad, was also very selective about enforcing laws, allowing illegal expropriations to occur on a wide basis. FYI, the act of expropriation (and the counter-reaction), also known as "theft", is generally a violent act. Avoiding such violence is one of the primary reasons we have government (at least under classic Lockean social contract theory). What Allende couldn't get via a pretence of law (transformation to Marxist state), he was willing to obtain via extra-legal, violent means. Any chascone a$$hole wearing a “Che” T-Shirt could, and did, walk in and start making demands, such as, this house is too big, you are getting some campesinos as new co-owners, you can only keep these two rooms, your daughter is very attractive, etc.
4) Allende killed the economy. There was an initial "boom" based on truly massive increases in spending, which spending was in fact “eating the seed corn”. Afterwards, massive inflation & shortages occurred. Similar to USSR, people connected with ruling party could literally get to the front of the line, while others would wait in line all day and get nothing. To this day, my father in law rages that he could not get milk for my then infant wife, and that the only trouble he has ever had with the law was with Allende’s goons. You didn’t think I’d marry into a family of Commies, did you? It got so bad that the women were marching in streets, banging the empty pots & pans. Hungry people who are used to not being hungry & see others who are "connected" doing fine get violent.
5) The MIR and others were arming up. Weeks long visits by Castro and gift of AK-47 by same to Allende were not exactly positive signs. Remember, we were in the collectivist 70’s, when freedom was on the retreat and smelly, Birkenstock-wearing gringos in Ponchos & Che T-Shirts were showing up in Chile to help encourage the same results as achieved in Eastern Europe….and soon, SE Asia, with all of the blood-letting that implied. The threat of total Marxist takeover was very, very real.
6) Legislature asked the military to step-in, I will leave the details of that (including foolish threats by a popular socialist senator that frightened others in Senate & military) to your reading. There were Senators and officers’ wives scattering chicken feed in front of military bases….Chilean military had (and I think still has, to a large degree) a strong Prussian tradition of being apolitical…..but when things get bad enough, military dictatorship seemed (and ultimately, was) less bad.
7) Yes, Pinochet whacked < NO EMAIL > 3,000 people & disappeared about the same number, with more being tortured. I’m sure some of them were innocent. Most of them were not. The reason the Leftists cry is that the apparatus of their beloved God, The State, was turned on them. Evidently, being on the barrel end of a gun isn’t nearly so "romantic" as having one’s hand on the trigger. I have ZERO tears for the Communists, Marxists and MIR people who Pinochet killed. Zero. They got what they and their brethren are only to happy to dish out. Same goes for Che.
In my opinion, Pinochet kept Chile from going into civil war. For a frame of reference, El Salvador (where my mom’s side of the family is from), was utterly destroyed by a vicious civil war – one where the Left and the Right were indistinguishable, both being utterly savage in the extreme. In a country whose population is < NO EMAIL > 1/3 of Chile’s, 75,000 died and the country was left in ruins. 6,000 or so dead Leftists (mostly) is a much “less bad” (as opposed to better) result. I only wish that El Salvador had had a Pinochet, several of my relatives might still be alive. And the country might even be a place where one would want to live, like, say, Chile.
9) Pinochet turned the county around economically. Ultimate testament to that fact – all of the left-leaning governments since he left have tampered very little with his economic model. The stability and prosperity that attracts many expats to Chile were no accident. Would it have been ideal to get the same results in a liberal democracy? Sure. But we do not live in an ideal world, and any real chance for liberal democracy died for a time once Allende pushed his plurality of votes into an extra-legal transformation into a Marxist state.
10) Pinochet stepped down. How many dictators, left or right, do that? Ever? Bueller? Bueller?.....
The guy wasn’t perfect. Power corrupts, and he was no exception. On the whole, his dictatorship was as good as a dictatorship could be, and occurred when other options were likely to fail and lead to civil war. On the whole, Chile was better off for having had him. Next time some Che-T-Shirt wearer (read: publicly proud of holding a philosophy similar to, and much deadlier than, Nazi-ism) wants to talk about Pinochet, ask them when Castro will step down, how the people of Cuba live (health of the average guy in Cuba is lousy, Mr. Moore, which is why you do not go there except to make mendacious films), how many died there under his lash and how many political prisoners lounge in his dungeons TODAY. Certainly, human rights abuses are relevant in a discussion of Pinochet – but a discussion limited to that wouldn’t begin to tell the whole story.
John Hyre, open about his bias
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed
