Yet another example on how the Washington Post editorial team was kidnapped by Fox News minions. They write today, "A Dictator's Double Standard
Augusto Pinochet tortured and murdered. His legacy is Latin America's most successful country."
After reviewing his legacy of terror and political repression, we get to this great paragraph:
It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.
Washinton Post praising Pinochet
So, for the Washington Post editors, Pinochet's repressive regime was worth it because it resulted in economic prosperity. Yes, who cares that he came to power in a coup(besides, they hint that Salvador Allende was responsible for that), who cares that he repressed violently the opposition, who cares that he disappeared thousands, who cares that he appointed himself lifetime president of Chile, because his adoption of free-market policies made it all worth it.
Because, if it is a choice between human rights and the free market, the Washington Post who to side with: with the market.
Hey! Not only that, but they also cry that there is a horrible double standard when it comes to right-wing dictators:
The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.
As for political liberties, Chile became rid of Pinochet in spite of him, not because of him. And that was a testimony to one of the most solid democratic traditions in Latin America, not to Pinochet, who was actually quite unhappy that he has to leave power.
But wait! Did the economic reforms help get the country into the path of prosperity, or did it prosper in spite of Pinochet? After all, isn't Argentina another great example of economic prosperity brought forth from a right-wing dictatorship? Isn't Latin America swiming in prosperity after most of the region adopted free-market policies in the 1980s?
Once again, the Washington Post's conservative editors choose to make ideological points sopported by fallacies rather than to stand up for what is morally right. But then again, I am sure some right-wing ideologue out there said that if you do so to support conservatives, it is better and less malign in the long run.
Update 1:
Readers have requested that I Include this comment by Jerome a Paris. I also think is a good idea, so here it is:
We discussed this two days ago with talos over at the European Tribune, quoting Walden Bello:
Free market policies subjected the country to two major depressions twice in one decade, first in 1974-75, when GDP fell by 12 per cent, then again in 1982-83, when it dropped by 15 per cent.
Contrary to ideological expectations about free markets and robust growth, average GDP growth in the period 1974-89--the radical Jacobin phase of the Friedman-Pinochet revolution--was only 2.6 per cent, compared to over 4 per cent a year in the period 1951-71, when there was a much greater role of the state in the economy.
By the end of the radical free-market period, both poverty and inequality had increased significantly. The proportion of families living below the "line of destitution" had risen from 12 to 15 per cent between 1980 and 1990, and the percentage living below the poverty line, but above the line of destitution, had increased from 24 to 26 per cent. This meant that at the end of the Pinochet regime, some 40 per cent of Chile's population, or 5.2 million of a population of 13 million, were poor.
In terms of income distribution, the share of the national income going to the poorest 50 per cent of the population declined from 20.4 per cent to 16.8 per cent, while the share going to the richest ten per cent rose dramatically from 36.5 per cent to 46.8 per cent.
(...)
The radical Friedman-Pinochet phase of the Chilean economic counterrevolution came to an end in the early 1990's, after the Concertacion came to power. In violation of classic Friedmanism, this center-left coalition increased social spending to improve Chile's income distribution, bringing down the proportion of people living in poverty from 40 per cent to 20 per cent of the population. This modification, which increased internal purchasing power, contributed to the post-Pinochet average yearly growth rate of six per cent a year.
So the Pinochet "reforms" created not one but two deep recessions (debt fuelled unequal growth, rings a bell?), and the country moved to growth only when these policies were reversed.
Update 2
Also, by popular demand, I am including this link to Grep Palast's opinion on Pinochet. I know that many people have a problem with Greg Palast as a source, but there are many who respect him. I am including this link for those who want to read his opinion, and it is up to each person to make up their mind. :)
Greg Palast's Position