Christian Democrats in the United States
Global Issues - Free TradeThe reality of world trade and the benefits of personal freedom of choice in economics cannot be denied. We object that U.S. jobs have been exported overseas when done so as a means to exploit labor of the poor. The only way to make the U.S. competitive again in its exports is to level the playing field around the world. This doesn't mean sacrificing our standards for workers. It means exporting our standards for workers. If free trade means fair trade, U.S. workers have a fair chance.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Sunday, September 14, 2008
9:09 PM
That said, it's important for the United States and for the business interests of Bolivia to understand where Sr. Morales is coming from. The poor people of that country had been oppressed for far too long by business interests who gave democracy and freedom a bad name. So it is little wonder that the poor of Bolivia, suddenly with a powerful advocate, are quick to respond in authoritarian ways themselves — this is how they have been treated, so that is how they think they should act when they have power.
Sr. Morales has made some mistakes that backfired on him, resulting in the tragic death of an unarmed minister of God at the hands of the military, who lost his life in service of peace, and gained his life with the Lord.
Morales is a little confused about history. I'm pretty sure no civilization in the world has ever had a totally equal, communal, peaceful life. That's why we're praying for God to show us how — I hope he does someday. From my understanding, before European colonization, the major civilizations of the Americas like the Incas, the Mayans, and the scattered tribes of North America all had wars, they all faced periods of upheaval, of starvation, etc. Some of them had bizarre religions centered around human sacrifice. Is that something that we want to return to?
But Morales seems like he had some good intentions at heart when he won the Presidency of Bolivia. Whereas Hugo Chavez of Venezuela seems like a generic hot-headed dictator who seeks power for the sake of power, Morales seems like he wants power to help the poor. He is finding out that power is the problem, regardless of who wields it or what their goals are.
That's why democracy — real democracy that works toward compromise for competing interests — is the only system that works well enough in practice to be stable in the long term. Some redistribution of wealth is inevitable since it was so bad in Bolivia for some people that they elected Morales to help them. But totally even redistribution of wealth is impossible, and a leader choosing an absolute side between the poor masses and the wealthy aristocracy has never worked out for anyone. Things simply cannot get better all at once.
I read in the paper today a commentator who said that Morales is facing a challenge to his constitutional state and has no choice but to defend the state against the wealthier districts. That is a narrow, fascist view from someone who wants to watch violence for entertainment, and it's not clear that is the case. I'm reading Spruyt's book The Sovereign State and Its Competitors at the moment. The early French Kings paid off the aristocracy while raising the citizenry of the towns as civil servants. The King had to balance competing interests to benefit himself and both economic classes, and successfully formed a strong state. In Germany, the Emperors refused to bargain with the newer towns and their trade leagues, relying on the aristocracy, but the city-leagues had incentives not to fully standardize their economies and unite. In Italy, the aristocracy of each city-state were in competition and refused to unite separate city-states into a larger nation. Neither Germany nor Italy formed successful sovereign states during that period of history. When technology and international politics changed and they lost their holds on Baltic and Mediterranean trade, they were not able to adapt, and their prosperity was lost.
If Sr. Morales does not balance the competing interests within his country, then Bolivia will not succeed in maintaining its sovereignty, will be vulnerable to foreign imperialists like Hugo Chavez or big oil, and will descend into civil war. Then all of his gains for the poor will be lost in chaos.
Evo Morales & business revolt in Bolivia
Sr. Morales is learning that governing a nation is not a matter of issuing edicts, waving one's hands, snapping the fingers and saying "Make it so," like Captain Picard. A lesson that U.S. Americans involved in law and governance often forget as well because our institutions have so much momentum on their own.That said, it's important for the United States and for the business interests of Bolivia to understand where Sr. Morales is coming from. The poor people of that country had been oppressed for far too long by business interests who gave democracy and freedom a bad name. So it is little wonder that the poor of Bolivia, suddenly with a powerful advocate, are quick to respond in authoritarian ways themselves — this is how they have been treated, so that is how they think they should act when they have power.
Sr. Morales has made some mistakes that backfired on him, resulting in the tragic death of an unarmed minister of God at the hands of the military, who lost his life in service of peace, and gained his life with the Lord.
Morales is a little confused about history. I'm pretty sure no civilization in the world has ever had a totally equal, communal, peaceful life. That's why we're praying for God to show us how — I hope he does someday. From my understanding, before European colonization, the major civilizations of the Americas like the Incas, the Mayans, and the scattered tribes of North America all had wars, they all faced periods of upheaval, of starvation, etc. Some of them had bizarre religions centered around human sacrifice. Is that something that we want to return to?
But Morales seems like he had some good intentions at heart when he won the Presidency of Bolivia. Whereas Hugo Chavez of Venezuela seems like a generic hot-headed dictator who seeks power for the sake of power, Morales seems like he wants power to help the poor. He is finding out that power is the problem, regardless of who wields it or what their goals are.
That's why democracy — real democracy that works toward compromise for competing interests — is the only system that works well enough in practice to be stable in the long term. Some redistribution of wealth is inevitable since it was so bad in Bolivia for some people that they elected Morales to help them. But totally even redistribution of wealth is impossible, and a leader choosing an absolute side between the poor masses and the wealthy aristocracy has never worked out for anyone. Things simply cannot get better all at once.
I read in the paper today a commentator who said that Morales is facing a challenge to his constitutional state and has no choice but to defend the state against the wealthier districts. That is a narrow, fascist view from someone who wants to watch violence for entertainment, and it's not clear that is the case. I'm reading Spruyt's book The Sovereign State and Its Competitors at the moment. The early French Kings paid off the aristocracy while raising the citizenry of the towns as civil servants. The King had to balance competing interests to benefit himself and both economic classes, and successfully formed a strong state. In Germany, the Emperors refused to bargain with the newer towns and their trade leagues, relying on the aristocracy, but the city-leagues had incentives not to fully standardize their economies and unite. In Italy, the aristocracy of each city-state were in competition and refused to unite separate city-states into a larger nation. Neither Germany nor Italy formed successful sovereign states during that period of history. When technology and international politics changed and they lost their holds on Baltic and Mediterranean trade, they were not able to adapt, and their prosperity was lost.
If Sr. Morales does not balance the competing interests within his country, then Bolivia will not succeed in maintaining its sovereignty, will be vulnerable to foreign imperialists like Hugo Chavez or big oil, and will descend into civil war. Then all of his gains for the poor will be lost in chaos.
> detail, links and comments >>
Archives May 2007 / August 2007 / September 2008 / August 2009 / September 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 /