Views of the US election from non-US folk

The subject of Chile, about which we have tussled before, brings up perhaps the one single opinion of yours I have great trouble feeling respect for. That however does not detract from the great respect I have for you as a poster here in general. <nods>

Oh, apologies to msolga for having derailed the thread. I dunno whether this subject would live on much in another thread, but I'm sure it'll come up some time again somewhere. Meanwhile I'll shut up about it now, though I'm still highly interested in anything fbaezer might yet have to say about it in concluding.

Aw, please don't shut up, nimh! I've read your comments with great interest. And I have very strong views about Chile, too. but the thread was beginning to become too concerned with details about Chile that are way beyond the scope of this topic. (And if I recall correctly, I was the one who first mentioned Chile, so ....? :wink: )




Just watch, nimh. No there will be no further posts here!
If so, you can blame me!

Hi, everyone! I just stopped in to see in anyone would like to discuss Chilean politics.

Anyone?

<giggles>

Gus, Gus .............

Re: Views of the US election from non-US folk

I'm a German, live in Germany, and don't have a TV, the latter of which is pretty unusual. As far as newspapers and serious radio stations go, right-of-center commentators try to be balanced between the two candidates, left-of-center commentators are anti-Bush, sometimes rabidly so. It's hard to prove a negative so I'm not sure if there are any genuinely pro-Bush commentators in Germany. But if they do exist, I haven't read any of them -- not even in Die Welt, which is our most conservative newspaper.


I would guess the major differences affecting Germany would be over trade policy and the war on Iraq. On trade, the Democrats' rhetoric tend to be more protectionist than the Republicans'. Assuming that the Democrats intend to make this rhetoric a reality, that would harm Germany, which exports about 30% of its gross domestic product. On the flip side, the actual record of previous Democratic presidents was one of pretty decent free trade policies. We'll have to see whether the historical record or recent rhetoric wins out.

On the war in Iraq, I guess that both the Schroeder administration and the Christian Democratic opposition would prefer a president Kerry, because they expect him to be more inclusive in his decisionmaking. But in the end of the day, the commitment of troops, money, and other forms of aid is dictated by interests, not sympathies. So while I would like to say that the sympathies for Kerry would lead to increased support for the US, I'm afraid that this hope is unrealistic. Germany will commit whatever it will commit, no matter which person lives in the White House.


People here are very concerned about the mess in Iraq and talk about it. Most Germans aren't very well informed about America's internal discussions such as abortion, the minimum wage, or the Patriot Act. So these debates aren't usually a topic of discussion over here. In terms of partisanship, we would probably vote 80% Kerry, 20% Bush.


It will certainly be a close race, and may well remain close until January 20th.

(Not much time, so haven't read many of the responses yet. Any similarities with the responses of other Germans (Hi Walter!) would be strictly coincidental)

Thomas, thanks for such a thoughtful & detailed response.

Excuse me if I continue with the topic, but it's important for me.



"People" here means those militantly against Allende, the so called "momios". In the aftermath of the coup, I heard several momios, from different entourages, repeat the very same phrase to justify the Junta: "They were going to kill one million Chileans".
A phrase repeated on every circumstance sounds a lot like propaganda.

Probably the people you know were convinced that "they were going to kill a million Chileans".
They were probably convinced of other things, too:



You have been lied to, George.
Since at the time I was militantly for Allende (militantly enough to be blinded) I've checked and rechecked on the net, not on left wing, but on University and Christian Democrat web pages.
Allende DID NOT suspend the Constitution. Allende DID NOT suspend the Legislature.
On Sept. 10, 1973, the Christian Democrat legislators, in an open letter, read in Congress, asked Allende to resign "to prevent bloodshed" and to call for new general elections-
On Sept. 11, 1973, Pinochet and his cronies staged their coup. The Constitution was inmediately suspended and Congress disolved.

There was, yes, a Constitutional controversy. At the end of 1971, Allende's government nationalized copper mines, with the aprooval of both chambers of Congress. But, since the government refused to give indemnization to the owners, the opposition wanted the reform to pass through the Constitution (a much more hazardous road).
Since the government did not yield, the opposition considered that it was acting "beyond the Constitution". The mid-term electoral campaigns were centered on the possibility of the opposition getting two thirds of the seats and impeaching Allende. They were far for the two thirds (Unidad Popular got 43% of the vote).
After the elections Allende offered "dialogue" for a "constructive opposition" with the Christian Democrats, he would renounce to some nationalizations in exchange for the end of the legislative boycott. The Christian Democrats were intransigent about this.

Finally, in those cold war years, the US Republican government was easily in panic and American investment was hit hard by Allende. It is widely documented that the US did help a lot on destabilizing an elected government it did not like.
One of the blades that decapitated Allende's constitutional government was the internal opposition. The other was the intervention of the United States.

With Msloga's tolerance -

Fbaezer,

I accept your description of the details of these events. I did not hear any direct expressions of immediate concern for the lives of people, but very concrete and specific concerns about the expropriation of property and land. (Happily both families, the Haeusslers and the O'Farrells, are still there) This, no doubt, was a consequence of the nationalizations that had taken place and other measures being discussed and threatened. There was also real concern about just how the constitutional crisis might unfold, and the potential for violence on the part of the most organized elements on the extremes of the opposing parties - the labor unions on one hand and the navy on the other.

Whether there would have been subsequent elections or not, we will never know. The rhetoric at the time painted a very cloudy picture. This would not have been the first time that a self-proclaimed "irreversible" socialist revolution had occurred during that period. The possibility was real and in keeping with other like events - not to be dismissed out of hand.

Our government was most likely focused on the links it saw or merely perceived to the Soviet Union through Cuba. (Alliende, may, as you say, have been just an ultra liberal socialist, however, others like him had been manipulated by the Soviets.) I don't doubt that we had a hand in the transition.

I was never close to these events, and have learned things only through others. (Years later I had a good deal of experience monitoring the flow of people and weapons from the USSR to Cuba and on to Nicaragua (and often across the Gulf of Fonseca at night to El Salvador).

Today Chile enjoys the benefits of good government and sound economic policies. There is general prosperity relative to her neighbors. Crime is very low. The police are uncorruptable (a rarity on the continent), and a moderately left wing government has come to power entirely within the constitutional process. Santiago is a bit boring compared to the cosmopolitan excitement of DF or Sao Paulo, but a pleasant place nonetheless.

Thanks very much for your story and views.

Georgeob1, let us rejoice that those times are gone (in Chile, not necessarily elsewhere) and that things are different today for the Chilean people.

Go for it guys! We don't appear to be having too many comments on the election. :wink:

Lol - we were just talking upstairs here at work.

And we're scared.

We all think Bush will win.

Why, Deb? Are you guys projecting the Oz experience onto the US? Preparing yourself, just in case ...?

A Bush win?
Nah! It will be a tie, and the end of the world as we know it:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37339&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

What a prospect!

If Bush wins, I'm moving to Australia.

YAY!!!!!!

But Gus ..... You DO know who won OUR election, don't you? Could be one of those fry pot/fire situations! :wink:

Good point, msolga. Say, remember that political ad about the wolves that we were talking about? The one where Bush and company were using wolves to represent terrorists and frighten the public?

Here's an interesting perspective on that ad.

The photos on the left are actual shots from the ad.

The wolves speak