4 ms·

These types of commenters don't meaningfully provide counter-arguments. I even provided a study directly contradicting this person's claim and I got down-voted

These types of commenters don't meaningfully provide counter-arguments. I even provided a study directly contradicting this person's claim and I got down-voted too lol. Relevant study: https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/52153 https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/52153 We contribute to the extensive literature on international influences on democratization and democratic breakdowns by conceptualizing hegemonic mechanisms of regime change and assessing them empirically. Our findings are based on a multi-methods approach and highlight the varying importance of hegemonic influences in post-1945 Latin America. We argue that US support for democratization was consistent in the wave of transitions to democracy that began in Latin America in 1978 and that it was decisive in many of these transitions. While past work has attributed responsibility to the US for the waves of democratic breakdowns from 1948 to 1956 and 1964 to 1976, an examination of the 27 breakdowns from 1945 to 2010 gives reason to doubt this interpretation. Future research could use these conceptual and methodological tools to explore the role of other powers in waves of democracy and authoritarianism.

kiliantics 5y ago
> The US supported coups in Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), the Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), and Uruguay (1973). Moreover, the US put some pressure on the democratie government of Peru right before the 1948 coup, and Ameriean diplomats sympathized with military inter-ventions in Costa Rica (1948), Panama (1948), Colombia (1949), Ecuador (1963), Bolivia (1964), and Argentina (1976). In these seven instances, a case could be made that hegemonic demonstration was at work. Previous work has shown that US signals that it would accept coups were associated with their occurrence. 11 However, even taking such US signals into account - whieh often did not entail any agency on the ground -at most, the US favoured coups in 12 out of 27 democratic breakdowns. The waves of authoritarianism that rocked Latin America from 1948 to 1956 and from 1964 to 1976 were not a result of consistent US indifference toward democracy or support for authoritarianism; Washington opposed many coups. This article does not refute that the US supported multiple coups in the US. The claim is simply that, since the US supposedly also aided a similar number of democracies to the number of authoritarian regimes it backed, it is therefore unjustified to say "US only supports authoritarians". This is not nearly as strong of a claim as what you seem to be suggesting. Also, citing one single article on a complex matter such as this really doesn't prove anything. Anyone could cite plenty more articles with alternative takes.

kiliantics 5y ago

> The US supported coups in Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), the Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), and Uruguay (1973). Moreover, the US put some pressure on the democratie government of Peru right before the 1948 coup, and Ameriean diplomats sympathized with military inter-ventions in Costa Rica (1948), Panama (1948), Colombia (1949), Ecuador (1963), Bolivia (1964), and Argentina (1976). In these seven instances, a case could be made that hegemonic demonstration was at work. Previous work has shown that US signals that it would accept coups were associated with their occurrence. 11 However, even taking such US signals into account - whieh often did not entail any agency on the ground -at most, the US favoured coups in 12 out of 27 democratic breakdowns. The waves of authoritarianism that rocked Latin America from 1948 to 1956 and from 1964 to 1976 were not a result of consistent US indifference toward democracy or support for authoritarianism; Washington opposed many coups. This article does not refute that the US supported multiple coups in the US. The claim is simply that, since the US supposedly also aided a similar number of democracies to the number of authoritarian regimes it backed, it is therefore unjustified to say "US only supports authoritarians". This is not nearly as strong of a claim as what you seem to be suggesting. Also, citing one single article on a complex matter such as this really doesn't prove anything. Anyone could cite plenty more articles with alternative takes.