Gaps in the Right's "banana republic" rhetoric, from Media Matters

[Nostalgic]

Gaps in the Right's "banana republic" rhetoric

by Jamison Foser, Media Matters

After years in which the executive branch of government did basically whatever the hell it wanted, whenever the hell it wanted to, recent news about U.S. torture of detainees has finally caused conservatives in the media to be alarmed about the prospect of the United States resembling a banana republic:

* Glenn Beck: "This is what banana republics do."
* Mark Steyn: "That is the sort of thing that happens in banana republics."
* Karl Rove: "We're going to turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin American country run by colonels in mirrored sunglasses. ... That might be fine in some little Latin American country that's run by, you know, the latest junta -- it may be the way that they do things in Chicago -- but that's not the way we do things here in America."
* The Wall Street Journal editorial board: "This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power."
* Bill Cunningham: "It makes us look ... like a banana republic."

But, incredible as it may seem, they are not upset about an administration that wiretapped American citizens, including a member of Congress. They aren't upset about a president using "signing statements" to ignore the clear intent of the very legislation he signed into law. They aren't even upset that the United States of America tortured people to make them confess a link between Iraq and 9-11 -- despite the fact that no such link existed -- in order to obtain a pretext to invade Iraq.

No, it doesn't bother them that America engaged in conduct recognized all over the world as torture. Instead, they are upset that we might investigate that torture. They are upset that those who authorized the inhumane treatment of detainees might be exposed and perhaps even punished for their actions. It isn't the crime that they mind, or even the cover-up -- it's the end of the cover-up.

Now, it's probably obvious that it takes a pretty warped view of reality to think that we must refuse to prosecute crimes by government officials in order to avoid becoming a Third World dictatorship. But that's just what Sean Hannity argues: "We don't need to investigate past administrations like they do in ... these Third World, you know, dictatorships."

Of course, Sean Hannity doesn't really believe that. Sean Hannity doesn't want to investigate Bush administration torture, because Sean Hannity likes the Bush administration and likes torture. But he doesn't actually mind investigating past administrations, and he doesn't actually think that doing so would make America like a Third World dictatorship.

In fact, Sean Hannity argues in favor of investigations and prosecutions of past administrations -- as long as the past administrations are Democratic administrations.

In April of 2000, for example, when independent counsel Robert Ray (Ken Starr's successor) suggested that he might indict Bill Clinton when Clinton left office, Hannity said he thought that should happen. On January 21, 2001 -- the day after George W. Bush replaced Clinton in office -- Hannity reiterated that position. In March of 2001, Hannity argued that there should be a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton pardons, and that Clinton attorney general Janet Reno should be indicted.

So, Sean Hannity argues that we should investigate and prosecute past presidents and members of their administrations if they don't tell the truth about consensual affairs, and if they pardon someone who may not have deserved pardoning. But if we investigate torture, we're a Third World dictatorship.

Nor has Mark Steyn always thought that prosecuting a past president would make the U.S. a "banana republic," as he argued this week. With Clinton weeks away from leaving office, Steyn noted that Ray "has been re-interviewing Monica with a view to indicting Clinton after Jan. 20." Steyn didn't denounce the idea of indicting Clinton after he left office; instead, he expressed sadness that it was unlikely.

How about The Wall Street Journal editorial board? Has it been consistent in its view that past administrations shouldn't be investigated? Of course not. In the spring of 2001, for example, then-Journal editorial board member John Fund argued that the pardon scandal was "a classic scenario for the Justice Department appointing a special counsel."

The Journal's current outrage at the prospect of investigations of Bush administration wrongdoing isn't merely inconsistent, it perversely clings to the antiseptic phrase "policy disagreements" to describe differing views on whether or not torture is acceptable:

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

Whether or not the federal government should shift education funding to vouchers is a policy disagreement. Nobody is talking about investigating policy disagreements. Torture is a crime. Illegal activity doesn't become legal simply because the president wants it to happen. Incidentally, according to Amnesty International, Peru, one of the countries the Journal singled out for derision, convicted former President Alberto Fujimori of torture, kidnapping, and enforced disappearances in the 1990s in an action that Amnesty International called "a crucial milestone in the struggle against impunity for human rights violations in Peru." And Argentina recently convicted members of the nation's military regime of "kidnapping, torture and disappearance" charges, according to Amnesty International. No wonder the Journal is worried we might follow their examples.

What really lends this a through-the-looking-glass quality, however, is that the conservative media who now denounce potential investigations of torture by portraying it as a mere policy disagreement previously sought investigations of a pardon. Whether or not you think all of Clinton's pardon decisions were correct, there is pretty much nobody who denies that he had the authority to make those decisions -- so investigating the pardons essentially was investigating a policy disagreement. Torture, on the other hand, is not a policy disagreement; it is a crime. Thus, the Journal's case against investigating the Bush administration better applies to investigations of the Clinton administration -- investigations the Journal supported.

That's what the conservative media consists of: partisans offering inconsistent, insincere, and nonsensical arguments on behalf of torture and the depraved thugs who authorized it.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200904240025?f=h_top

[drm604]

1. K&R

Up is down, and down is up. What a bunch of amoral assholes.

[Caliman73]

2. Another funny thing about "Banana Republics"

The wealthy class in the US has derided dictators in Latin America, but Our government and corporations are responsible for the installation of many of these dictators for the mere purpose of gaining access to their resources and favorable economic enterprises. The hypocrisy of the wealthy is amazing. They mock what they create and disavow themselves of any responsibility.

Regarding the Republicans and their stance on the torture investigations. They are just flat wrong. It is not policy. It is US and International law. We have laws that prohibit us from inhumane treatment of prisoners, cruel and unusual punishment and withholding of due process. We are a signatory to international laws which prohibit us from torturing prisoners of war. If we are fighting a "War on Terror", and those we capture are "enemy combatants" then we must comply with the laws which we have signed on to. If they are criminal suspects, then we have to comply with the laws referred to above. There is no wiggle room here. There is no "special fairy tale land" where neither circumstance exists, even if the administration says so. That would be akin to Nixon saying "If the President does it, it is not illegal". Yes it is you idiot!! If we claim to be a nation under the rule of law, then we are compelled to investigate when we suspect laws have been broken no matter who has broken them. If Democratic party members of Congress where aware of and authorized the torture or in anyway hindered investigations, then they too must be investigated and brought to justice.

[robdogbucky]

3. Projection by the right again

Banana Republic is a pejorative term for a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique.<1> It is most commonly used for countries in Central America and Africa such as El Salvador, Belize, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and South Africa. In some cases, these nations have kept the government structures that were modeled after the colonial Spanish ruling clique, with a small, largely leisure class on the top, and a large, poorly educated and poorly paid working class of peons, though it might have the (fake) trappings of modernity (such as styling itself a republic with a president etc.)

Frequently the subject of mockery and humour, and usually presided over by a dictatorial military junta that exaggerates its own power and importance—"the epaulettes of a banana republic generalissimo" are proverbially of considerable size, usually portrayed in satire with a pair of mops—a banana republic also typically has large wealth inequities, poor infrastructure, poor schools, a "backward" economy, low capital spending, a reliance on foreign capital and money printing, budget deficits, and a weakening currency. Banana republics are typically also highly prone to revolutions and coups.


The term was originally invented as a very direct reference to a "servile dictatorship" which abetted (or directly supported in return for kickbacks) the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture (usually banana).<1> The term was coined by the American author O. Henry in his 1904 book of linked short stories, "Cabbages and Kings", set in the fictional "Anchuria", which was based on his 1896-97 stay in Honduras.

It was in Honduras that the United Fruit, the Standard Fruit, and Sam Zemurray's Cuyamel Fruit companies dominated the country's key banana export sector and support sectors such as railways. The United Fruit Company was nicknamed "The Octopus" (El Pulpo) for its willingness to involve itself in politics, sometimes violently. In 1910, Zemurray hired a gang of armed thugs including Lee Christmas from New Orleans to stage a coup in Honduras to obtain beneficial treatment from the new government. Zemurray would 22 years later take over United Fruit in a hostile bid.

Four decades later, the directors of United Fruit played a role in convincing the Truman and Eisenhower administrations that the government of Colonel Arbenz in Guatemala was secretly pro-Soviet, thus contributing to the CIA's decision to assist in overthrowing Arbenz's government in 1954 (see Operation PBSUCCESS).<1> Pablo Neruda would later denounce the dominance of foreign-owned banana producers in the politics of several Latin American countries in a poem titled "La United Fruit Co".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic


robdogbucky

[Nostalgic]

4. I just watched documentaries on the Mossadeq and Arbenz

coups on YouTube a few days ago. What the CIA did to their respective countries made me angry.

[pnorman]

5. I'll search for those YouTube videos, but can you give links?

n/t

pnorman

[Nostalgic]

6. Yep

This is a playlist for the Iran clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejNk7VD0ru0&feature=PlayList&p=FA437AC8E1A3F840&index=0&playnext=1

This is a playlist for the Guatemala clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixxgeCrB1ic&feature=PlayList&p=307ED3186082B14A&index=0&playnext=1

Subscribe to this guy's clips. He has lots of clips on the CIA and what they did in various countries:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CIACoupsofTerrorism

[pnorman]

7. Thank you! That was more than I had expected!

I have several books on those(CIA) coups, including a few in Audible.com format. But videos are sometimes even better for getting to the heart of the matter.

pnorman

[BR_Parkway]

8. Run by a black man in mirrored sunglasses - I hope BO buys a pair

just to keep their little heads all stirred up!

[Peace Patriot]

9. The Wall Street Urinal pissing on logic and reason once again...

Just read one of their pisspot articles yesterday (sorry, don't have the url - will try to find it - posted here at DU) in which the writer argued that it is okay for President Obama to shake hands with "despised leaders." He was of course referring to the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez--elected, it should be noted, in an election system that is far, FAR more transparent than our own, and a leader who has harmed no one, invaded no one, bombed no one, is occupying no one, has tortured no one, has jailed no one unfairly and has in fact cut extreme poverty in half and has wiped out illiteracy in Venezuela, has instituted education and medical care programs for the vast poor majority never before served by government, has presided over an economy with an astonishing growth of nearly 10% over the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil), and whose government furthermore managed to save $42 billion in cash reserves, against a rainy day (Bushwhack destabilization efforts and Financial 9/11's), partly by renegotiating the oil contracts with the multinationals to give Venezuela a better cut of its oil profits (improved to a 60/40 split, favoring Venezuela, from prior governments, which were giving away the oil in a 10/90 split to the multinationals).

It is probably this latter (Exxon Mobil walked out on the 60/40 deal in a snit) that got Chavez demonized throughout the "free world" and in virtually every corpo/fascist 'news' shitrag and monopoly of our public airwaves, not just in the Urinal. He is called a "dictator," and when that doesn't hold up, a "would-be dictator," although the people of Venezuela keep electing him, and he hasn't "dictated" to anyone yet--except to Urinal interests--Exxon Mobil, the World Bank, et al--who for sure would install a dictator in Venezuela if they could. He enjoys a 60% to 70% approval rating. Venezuelans are among the happiest citizens in the western hemisphere--giving high approval ratings to their government and their democracy and the direction of their country. That is his other crime--truly representing the majority of the voters, and acting in their interest.

So the Urinal & brethren have created this FALSE DEBATE about whether or not Obama should shake hands with one of the best presidents in Latin America and possibly the world, based on the FALSE PICTURE of Hugo Chavez that they have created--so false that it falls into the category of the WMDs in Iraq: a goddamned lie!

False debate based on lies. This OP--a brilliant article by Jamison Foser--examines yet another example of the mindboggling, twisted lies upon which corpo/fascist 'news' commentary is based. It has of course been countries that STOPPED BEING 'BANANA REPUBLICS' that have gone after former dictators for their crimes of torturing, murdering and 'disappearing' LEFTISTS. Brazil, Argentina, Chile and others have climbed out of the living hells created by the U.S. government in collusion with local fascist elites, which have ripped the fabric of Latin American democracy and society for decades. It is when they strengthen their democracies--with long hard work on democratic institutions, like transparent vote counting, and often at great personal sacrifice and danger--that they are able to put fascist dictators on trial for their crimes. And that is where we need to go. We need to rebuild our democracy to the point that we can hold our leaders accountable. We have lost that democratic ability. Clearly, our Democratic president does not have the power to prosecute the Bush Junta principles for a list of grave "high crimes and misdemeanors" so long that it could circle the earth--including but not limited to torturing hundreds of prisoners, creating a system of secret torture dungeons around the world, holding prisoners for years without trial, hijacking the U.S. military for a corporate resource war and slaughtering a hundred thousand people to get their oil, spying on everybody, sending death squads into other countries to kidnap and kill, using the Dept. of Justice for political vengeance, massive theft of government coffers, and unprecedented malfeasance resulting in death in New Orleans and the impoverishment of millions of our own citizens. The Bush Junta in truth destroyed this country , and we have no recourse. That is the very definition of a "banana republic." WE are the "banana republic" now, and only when we climb out of that hell, and fully restore our democratic institutions, will we be able to prosecute them for what they did.

Did we not hang on the words of our leaders--Obama and others--during the campaign, and once they were in office, as to whether or not they would disavow torture? We did. Cuz we didn't know if they could, or if they wanted to. Since when does any leader or president have this power--to choose whether or not to obey a clear legal prohibition? That is our situation. Even with a "good king," we cannot prevent him from torturing prisoners, holding prisoners without trial, or proceeding with massively unjust war. It's up to him. Is that democracy?

We furthermore cannot prove we even elected him. I believe that we did--based on external evidence. But neither I nor anyone else can prove it. We now have the MOST non-transparent vote counting system in the democratic world, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. And this "banana republic" condition means that Obama was permitted to be elected (and there is considerable evidence that his mandate was significantly and fraudulently shaved, to curtail his ability to reform the government). That is one of the reasons that the Bush Junta's crimes are off limits. No one will be permitted to enter the White House who has not been approved by the global corporate predators and war profiteers who rule over us, and they DO have the ability--the EASY ability--to enforce their "banana republic" rule directly through the privatized tallying of our votes.

So--as with the Urinal's argument that it's okay for Obama to shake hands and be civil toward a leader whom they have unjustly portrayed as a "dictator"*--Foser meticulously dismantles this other "Big Lie" that only "banana republics" prosecute former governments for heinous crimes. It is only successful democracies that can hold leaders accountable. And, I would add, it is only failed ones who cannot. And we are a failed democracy--even though a "good king" has been permitted to "wear the crown." Our "good king" does not have the power to restore democracy here. Only we have the power. And we have one helluva difficult task before us, to restore democracy and accountability, such as the South Americans have had, over the last couple of decades. They have succeeded. I think we will, too--with the South Americans having pioneered the way.

-----------------------------

*(It's interesting to examine why the Urinal takes this position--that civility is okay. The answer is that democracy has succeeded in South America, and the new leftist leadership that has swept the continent--and is winning Central America as well--are working together in a cooperative spirit like never before. They are all friends; they have each other's backs, and they are firmly committed to social justice and to the sovereignty of Latin American countries, as well as united in opposition to U.S. dictates and domination. That is the new reality in Latin America. The Bushwhacks utterly failed in their "divide and conquer" tactics because of the strength of the leftist democracy movement throughout the region. So our corpo/fascists are forced to take a new tack, in order to worm their way back into Latin America. The South Americans have formed UNASUR--the new South American Common Market--last summer, and are discussing instituting their own currency (to get off the U.S. dollar), as well as their own "common defense" (proposed by Brazil). The U.S. has not been invited to become a member. If Obama had attempted to further demonize Chavez, or had attempted to "isolate" him, or had insulted him, the other leaders of Latin America would have walked out of the OAS-organized Summit of the Americas. It would have been a disaster for Obama. South America is prepared to go its own way, and it will--there will be a permanent breach between the northern and southern halves of this hemisphere--if the U.S. continues its bullshit of demonizing an elected president, because his policies favor his people, or trying to instigate fascist coups, like the Bushwhacks did in Bolivia only this last September. The new South American leaders will not put up with this any more. It's a new day. And U.S. corporations are therefore being forced to compete on more level ground, and must deal with governments that are not pushovers, and that are united in defending their sovereignty. The Urinal has helped set up an ENTIRELY FALSE picture of what is happening in Latin America, and then acquiesces to a presidential handshake for FALSE REASONS.)

[many a good man]

11. countries that STOPPED BEING 'BANANA REPUBLICS' have gone after former dictators for their crimes

That's the most salient point, imho. Thank you PP.

Republicans here ought to be called Banana Republicans.

It has of course been countries that STOPPED BEING 'BANANA REPUBLICS' that have gone after former dictators for their crimes of torturing, murdering and 'disappearing' LEFTISTS. Brazil, Argentina, Chile and others have climbed out of the living hells created by the U.S. government in collusion with local fascist elites, which have ripped the fabric of Latin American democracy and society for decades. It is when they strengthen their democracies--with long hard work on democratic institutions, like transparent vote counting, and often at great personal sacrifice and danger--that they are able to put fascist dictators on trial for their crimes. And that is where we need to go.

[Laelth]

10. Excellent research. Kudos to Media Matters. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[European Socialist]

12. Bob Schieffer just said banana republic on Face the Nation.

When he interviewed Pat Leahy about torture.

[DCKit]

14. If they can't figure out how to work "Banana Republic" into a conversation...

they just spit it out once or twice every three sentences.

Charles Krauthammer was doing that on "Washington Week" yesterday. It was infuriating.

[cbayer]

13. Nostalgic

Please be aware that DU rules concerning copyrighted material require that you limit posting to four paragraphs or less and then provide the link.

It is too late for you to edit, but your post may be edited by the moderators.

Thanks,

cbayer
DU Moderator