Think tanks and foreign policy magazines began propagating two new qualifications on the democratic definition: first, that populism itself was dangerously undemocratic because it was based on machine patronage to working class and poor constituencies; and second, that Latin America should be divided between a good left and a bad left, the difference being the states role in the market economy. On the good left were countries that paid their debts under the mandates of the international financial institutions, or IFIs, and who opened their markets and resources to the big multi-nationals, even if that meant cutting government subsidies and social programs on a continent where the majority are poor. The bad left consisted of the countries where democratic elections had resulted in a positive state role in economic development, public investments in medical care and education, and an aggressive government bargaining stance towards foreign investors and the IFIs. The bad left was irredeemable even if its actual policies were reformist Keynesian programs like those of the American New Deal. In fact, the underlying premise of neo-liberal doctrine was to end the New Deal tradition at home and abroad, through cuts in Social Security, right to work laws, and more.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:39:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015