what 'democracy' really means in u.s.pdf

8/10/2019 What 'Democracy' Really Means in U.S.pdf

1/3

10/17/2014

WHAT DEMOCRACY REALLY MEANS IN

U.S. AND NEW YORK TIMES JARGON:

LATIN AMERICA EDITIONBY GLENN GREENWALD @ggreenwald

One of the most accidentally revealing media accounts highlighting the real meaning of

democracy in U.S. discourse is a still-remarkable 2002New York TimesEditorial on the U.S.-

backed military coup in Venezuela, which temporarily removed that countrys democratically

elected (and very popular) president, Hugo Chvez. Rather than describe that coup as what

it was by definition- a direct attack on democracy by a foreign power and domestic military which

disliked the popularly elected president the Times, in the most Orwellian fashion

imaginable, literally celebrated the coup as a victory for democracy:

With yesterdays resignation of President Hugo Chvez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer

threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chvez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after

the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.

Dean Mouhtaropoulos
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/opinion/hugo-chavez-departs.htmlhttps://twitter.com/@ggreenwaldhttps://firstlook.org/theintercept/staff/glenn-greenwald/


2/3

Thankfully, said theNYT, democracy in Venezuela was no longer in danger . . . because the

democratically-elected leader was forcibly removed by the military and replaced by an unelected,

pro-U.S. business leader. The Champions of Democracy at theNYTthen demanded a

ruler more to their liking: Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate

to clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down and professionalize the

bureaucracy.

More amazingly still, the Timeseditors told their readers that Chvezs removal was a purelyVenezuelan affair, even though it was quickly and predictably revealed that neocon officials in

the Bush administration played a central role. Eleven years later, upon Chvezs death, the Times

editors admitted that the Bush administration badly damaged Washingtons reputation

throughout Latin America when it unwisely blessed a failed 2002 military coup attempt against

Mr. Chvez [the paper forgot to mention that it, too, blessed (and misled its readers about)

that coup]. The editors then also acknowledged the rather significant facts

that Chvezs redistributionist policies brought better living conditions to millions of poor

Venezuelans and there is no denying his popularity among Venezuelas impoverished

majority.

If you think TheNew York Times editorial page has learned any lessons from that debacle, youd

be mistaken. Today they published an editorial expressing grave concern about the state of

democracy in Latin America generally and Bolivia specifically. The proximate cause of this

concern? The overwhelming election victory of Bolivian President Evo Morales (pictured above),

who, as The Guardianput it, is widely popular at home for a pragmatic economic stewardship

that spread Bolivias natural gas and mineral wealth among the masses.

The Timeseditors nonetheless see Morales election to a third term not as a vindication of

democracy but as a threat to it, linking his election victory to the way in which the strength of

democratic values in the region has been undermined in past years by coups and electoral

irregularities. Even as they admit that it is easy to see why many Bolivians would want to see

Mr. Morales, the countrys first president with indigenous roots, remain at the helm because

during his tenure, the economy of the country, one of the least developed in the

hemisphere, grew at a healthy rate, the level of inequality shrank and the number of people living

in poverty dropped significantly - they nonetheless chide Bolivias neighbors for endorsing hisongoing rule: it is troubling that the stronger democracies in Latin America seem happy to

condone it.

The Editors depict their concern as grounded in the lengthy tenure of Morales as well as the

democratically elected leaders of Ecuador and Venezuela: perhaps the most disquieting trend is

that protgs of Mr. Chvez seem inclined to emulate his reluctance to cede power. But the real

reason theNYTso vehemently dislikes these elected leaders and ironically views them as

threats to democracy becomes crystal clear toward the end of the editorial (emphasis added):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/world/americas/turnabout-in-bolivia-as-economy-rises-from-instability.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/bolivia-evo-morales--president-third-termhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/opinion/evo-morales-of-bolivia-and-democracy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytopinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/opinion/hugo-chavez.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela


3/3

This regional dynamic has been dismal for Washingtons influence in the region.In

Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the new generation of caudillos [sic] have staked out anti-

American policies and limited the scope of engagement on development, military

cooperation and drug enforcement efforts. This has damaged the prospects for trade and

security cooperation.

You cant get much more blatant than that. The democratically elected leaders of these sovereign

countries fail to submit to U.S. dictates, impede American imperialism, and subvert U.S.

industrys neoliberal designs on the regions resources. Therefore, despite how popular they are

with their own citizens and how much theyve improved the lives of millions of their nations

long-oppressed and impoverished minorities, they are depicted as grave threats to democracy.

It is, of course, true that democratically elected leaders are capable of authoritarian measures. It

is, for instance, democratically elected U.S. leaders who imprison people without charges for

years, build secret domestic spying systems, and even assert the power to assassinate their owncitizens without due process. Elections are no guarantee against tyranny. There are legitimate

criticisms to be made of each of these leaders with regard to domestic measures and civic

freedoms, as there is for virtually every government on the planet.

But the very idea that the U.S. government and its media allies are motivated by those flaws is

nothing short of laughable. Many of the U.S. governments closest allies are the worlds worst

regimes, beginning with the uniquely oppressive Saudi kingdom (which just yesterday sentenced

a popular Shiite dissident to death) and the brutal military coup regime in Egypt, which, as mycolleague Murtaza Hussain reports today, gets more popular in Washington as it becomes even

more oppressive. And, of course, the U.S. supports Israel in every way imaginable even as its

Secretary of State expressly recognizes the apartheid nature of its policy path.

Just as theNYTdid with the Venezuelan coup regime of 2002, the U.S. government hails the

Egyptian coup regime as saviors of democracy. Thats because democracy in U.S. discourse

means: serving U.S. interests and obeying U.S. dictates, regardless how how the leaders gain

and maintain power. Conversely, tyranny means opposing the U.S. agenda and refusing U.S.commands, no matter how fair and free the elections are that empower the government. The

most tyrannical regimes are celebrated as long as they remain subservient, while the most

popular and democratic governments are condemned as despots to the extent that they exercise

independence.

To see how true that is, just imagine the orgies of denunciation that would rain down if a U.S.

adversary (say, Iran, or Venezuela) rather than a key U.S. ally like Saudi Arabia had just sentenced

a popular dissident to death. Instead, theNYT just weeks ago uncritically quotes an Emiratesambassador lauding Saudi Arabia as one of the regions moderate allies because of its service to

the U.S. bombing campaign in Syria. Meanwhile, the very popular, democratically elected leader

of Bolivia is a grave menace to democratic values because hes dismal for Washingtons

influence in the region.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/world/middleeast/us-and-allies-form-coalition-against-isis.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/world/middleeast/egypt-warns-morsi-supporters-to-end-protests.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/kerry-egypt-visit.htmlhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/israel-apartheid-state-peace-talks-john-kerryhttps://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/16/egypts-u-s-backed-military-regime-brutalizing-student-protestors/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/02/feigned-american-support-egyptian-democracy-lasted-roughly-six-weeks/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/saudi-arabia-death-sentence-shia-nimr-baqir-human-rightshttps://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/25/nsas-new-partner-spying-saudi-arabias-brutal-state-police/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memohttp://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/n-s-a-latest-the-secret-history-of-domestic-surveillancehttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/11/guantanamo-prisoner-death-democratshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/world/americas/02bolivia.htmlhttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-ecuador-expels-us-military-grouphttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/world/americas/bolivian-president-expels-us-aid-agency.html

what 'democracy' really means in u.s.pdf

Documents