3 ms·

I'm not aware of any of these South American countries that he mentioned being run by dictators. In fact, as far as I am aware, all South American countries ar

I'm not aware of any of these South American countries that he mentioned being run by dictators. In fact, as far as I am aware, all South American countries are democracies. There are no "South American dictators".

ChuckMcM 13y ago
I apologize. The perception presented by the US press/propaganda is that these are "paper democracies" [1], in the sense that an election was held but the implication is that the outcome of that election was pre-ordained such that the person "elected" is really just a dictator wearing the mantle of democracy to give their position a bit more legitimacy. The unintended consequence of that propaganda effort is that many of the same sorts of innuendo can be applied to the US election process, so in a way they make themselves appear less legitimate than they might hope for. Regardless of the reality of the situation, Snowden (or his speech writers), have incorporated (or perhaps co-opted) this theme to position the US (in the eyes of US residents/citizens) as being the inferior form of government or country relative to countries that they have been told are, or are implied to be, "paper democracies" [1] I approve of that rhetoric because it has a chance of waking some people out of their "but it protects us from terrorism" slumber to realize that some prices are too high to pay and maybe this has gone too far and its time to change. And its clear that the incumbents are lining up on the side of supporting the NSA (I'm thinking of people like Senator Feinstein here) so they are the people we need to replace. We'll see how effective it is. And yes, there is the counter argument about "but this is just what the enemies of the US want, us to voluntarily neuter our own intelligence services so that they can get back to doing their evil deeds." which, were this a foreign policy forum, we would be going back and forth on the limits of sovereignty vs the rights of the citizenry. [1] I came across the term "paper democracies" in a book about the Iran Contra affair as a description of countries with elections whose outcome was rigged.
- kragen 13y ago
  > The perception presented by the US press/propaganda is that these are "paper democracies" [1], in the sense that an election was held but the implication is that the outcome of that election was pre-ordained That's nonsense, though. Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, and Argentina all have powerful, organized opposition parties, which have real differences with the current government and a real chance of winning elections — in a way that the US really doesn't — and also substantial restraints on the power of the executive, in a way that the US, again, no longer does. Venezuela is the only member of this list that even conceivably approximates a "paper democracy", due to the current lack of limits on executive power, and in their case it's more because the opposition parties are pathetically corrupt than because they're illegal — but those opposition parties still govern several of the states of Venezuela.
  - marshray 13y ago
    Sincerely, thank you for that enlightening info.
- cubalibre 13y ago
  You're about 30 years behind the times in your knowledge of Latin America. The "paper democracies" (what a shit term -- the author clearly heard the term "paper tiger" and tried an alteration that makes no sense) term might have been accurate at the time of the Iran Contra Affair, but that was 1986.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I apologize. The perception presented by the US press/propaganda is that these are "paper democracies" [1], in the sense that an election was held but the implication is that the outcome of that election was pre-ordained such that the person "elected" is really just a dictator wearing the mantle of democracy to give their position a bit more legitimacy. The unintended consequence of that propaganda effort is that many of the same sorts of innuendo can be applied to the US election process, so in a way they make themselves appear less legitimate than they might hope for. Regardless of the reality of the situation, Snowden (or his speech writers), have incorporated (or perhaps co-opted) this theme to position the US (in the eyes of US residents/citizens) as being the inferior form of government or country relative to countries that they have been told are, or are implied to be, "paper democracies" [1] I approve of that rhetoric because it has a chance of waking some people out of their "but it protects us from terrorism" slumber to realize that some prices are too high to pay and maybe this has gone too far and its time to change. And its clear that the incumbents are lining up on the side of supporting the NSA (I'm thinking of people like Senator Feinstein here) so they are the people we need to replace. We'll see how effective it is. And yes, there is the counter argument about "but this is just what the enemies of the US want, us to voluntarily neuter our own intelligence services so that they can get back to doing their evil deeds." which, were this a foreign policy forum, we would be going back and forth on the limits of sovereignty vs the rights of the citizenry. [1] I came across the term "paper democracies" in a book about the Iran Contra affair as a description of countries with elections whose outcome was rigged.

kragen 13y ago
> The perception presented by the US press/propaganda is that these are "paper democracies" [1], in the sense that an election was held but the implication is that the outcome of that election was pre-ordained That's nonsense, though. Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, and Argentina all have powerful, organized opposition parties, which have real differences with the current government and a real chance of winning elections — in a way that the US really doesn't — and also substantial restraints on the power of the executive, in a way that the US, again, no longer does. Venezuela is the only member of this list that even conceivably approximates a "paper democracy", due to the current lack of limits on executive power, and in their case it's more because the opposition parties are pathetically corrupt than because they're illegal — but those opposition parties still govern several of the states of Venezuela.
- marshray 13y ago
  Sincerely, thank you for that enlightening info.
cubalibre 13y ago
You're about 30 years behind the times in your knowledge of Latin America. The "paper democracies" (what a shit term -- the author clearly heard the term "paper tiger" and tried an alteration that makes no sense) term might have been accurate at the time of the Iran Contra Affair, but that was 1986.