The dominant interpretation of political liberalism commits political liberals to pluralism, checks and balances, etc. Venezuela still has multiple political currents -- even currents opposed to the Chavez administration -- but the government is not neutral on the question of good life, and it has pursued the centralization of power (e.g., decrees). By many political scientists' standards, Venezuela is an illiberal democracy: cf. Michael Coppedge, "Venezuela: Popular Sovereignty versus Liberal Democracy," Working Paper #294, April 2002: <http://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/294.pdf>
> I think what is happening in Latin America today resembles the earlier
> struggles for a New Deal in the US and elsewhere, where mass movements from
> below sought structural change and social reforms through the electoral
> system.
There are more mass movements in Latin America than in the Middle East, for sure. The Middle East has been more under the thumbs of dictators than Latin America. I'd love to see a rise of mass movements on the Left, religious or irreligious, in Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, but it won't be easy.
The New Deal coalition, especially in war years, was more corporatist (e.g., no strike pledge, wages and price controls, etc.) than liberal, btw.
> On the other hand, I do think the Islamist movements fighting for national
> independence and social change in the Middle East are profoundly "illiberal"
> in their reaction to the democratic rights and movements historically
> championed by the left.
IMHO, actually and formerly existing socialist states and movements have been profoundly politically illiberal, though some of them were or have become culturally and socially liberal, sometimes faster than capitalist states in some aspects, sometimes slower than capitalist states in other aspects.
On 8/25/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Of course. But it's one thing to say that Iran has every right to
> defend itself against the US and Israel, even to the point of
> developing nuclear weapons, and another to do PR for the regime, and
> whitewash its horrible record on basic human liberties (and even to
> dismiss such concerns as out-of-touch "liberalism").
It seems to me that there is a big difference between studying and criticizing the Iranian or any other government's actual human rights records and buying all allegations of them without investigating their truth or lack thereof. But if one does the latter with regard to America's official enemies, one is said to be engaging in whitewashing their records, which is exactly what some GLBT activists are saying about Scott Long of Human Rights Watch, to take just one example, even though Long has done more for GLBT men and women of the Middle East than most GLBT activists, given his successful work in Egypt, for instance.
In any case, most people, leftists included, seem to me to be interested in only human rights violations if they are interested in Iran at all, and all other aspects attract no interest. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>