Sooner the Fly to God
I must admit, Marc, I am extraordinarily disturbed by the growing chorus of apologia for brutal thug Augusto Pinochet. The argument seems to be twofold:
1) A left-wing dictator would have been worse, and
2) At least he helped spark the economy.
Both, I feel, are being wielded far too casually to excuse one of the hemisphere’s most notorious tyrants.
To the first, yes, Pinochet is likely better than Fidel Castro. Castro, for his part, is likely better than Adolph Hitler. The debate as to whether right-wing or left-wing dictators are “worse” is tiresome and, I feel, puts the desire to score partisan points ahead of what should be a bipartisan and universal norm of condemning all of history’s murderous tyrants to the hell they belong. Moreover, I can’t be too impressed by Pinochet voluntarily stepping down and “pav[ing] the way for liberal democrac[y]” after over a decade in office, given that he got there by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Salvador Allende. Allende may not have been ideal, but he was the elected leader (unlike Mr. Castro), and I think its an absurd attempt at counterfactual to assert that he, too, would have been a brutal thug. Democracy, at the very least, already existed in Chile. Pinochet replaced democracy with a particularly vicious tyranny.
To the second, I don’t feel these sort of extrinsic issues can or should in any way be used to lament the loss of evil. I’m no fan of stagnated economic development, but I dislike thousands of “disappearances” and mass torture a whole lot more. Giving points to Pinochet for improving the economy is like giving props to Castro for increasing the literacy rate, or the British colonial government for making the trains run on time. When weighed against the type of incalculable evil waged by Pinochet against his populace, it is a flyspeck.
At least Marc was restrained enough to admit that he does not like right-wing dictators. Others have been far less circumspect. One conservative voice called Pinochet’s death “a loss for us all.” The National Review’s symposium on his life contained five positive eulogies to one condemnation — the one being from the leader of the Human Rights Foundation. Otto Reich probably best (if unwittingly) displayed the type of perverse moral weighing going on in these minds:
Augusto Pinochet was a tragic figure. Instead of being remembered for saving Chilean democracy from a communist takeover, and starting the country on the longest-lasting economic expansion in Latin America, which he did, he will be remembered mostly for carrying out a brutal campaign of human-rights abuses.
Am I the only one not tearing up over this “tragedy”?
This desire to redeem some of history’s worst oppressors needs to end. These people are cast from the same mold as those who are now calling Slobodan Milosevic “a hero and a kind of prophet.” Never forget who we are talking about. If this is what it takes to make the trains run on time, then I say let them be a little late.
On the morning of July 2, 1986, a day of national protest against the military dictatorship, a military patrol commanded by Fernandez Dittus intercepted a group of young people in Los Nogales, municipality of Estacion Central in the capital. All escaped except Rojas and Quintana, who were severely beaten by military personnel, and later soaked with gasoline and set afire. Once in flames and unconscious, patrol members wrapped them in blankets and drove them to an isolated road in the outskirts of Santiago.
In another context, Cynthia Ozick spoke words we would do well to remember now:
Let [Pinochet] die unshriven.
Let him go to hell.
Sooner the fly to God than he.
17 Responses to “Sooner the Fly to God”
I offer no apologies for Pinochet or any dictator or any abuse. But the question before us is what do we do about it going forward? How do we interact with all of people of the world to tilt their progress towards rule of law, freedom of expression and free markets.
How do we engage with and promote the middle class in each society?
My personal and evolving list includes:
Distributing renewable energy systems, telecommunication equipment, medical services, microloans, More exchange students, accommadating more political and economic refugees, far fewer armaments, more police services to separate feuding parties, fair trade agreements…
This has gotta be cheaper than a trillion dollars for an ineffective war in just one region of the war.
Thank You, David. I was on the brink of leaving TMV for good. Let’s remember too that WE, the freedom and democracy loving USA installed both Pinochet and Castro. Oh, and Allende, and Marcos, the Shah, Noriega. The list goes on. These are all our boys, and now we’re debating which of our disastrous and illegal interventions were better based on political ideology? How about we honor our commitment to democracy and let the people decide for a change?
Good points, Paul, and also, what do we do about societies that don’t appear to be ready for democracy? There’s a growing opinion that the Middle East needs modernization and reform before it’s citizens will buy into the ideals of representative government. So if one agrees with that, what type of government should we endorse or accept? If we don’t want to continue past policy of propping up thugs, then how do we not only “make the trains run on time” but keep the society from devolving into violent anarchy (which some will argue is as harmful to the citizens as any evil dictator, right or left wing).
David,
I thank you for noting that my post wasn’t intended as an apology for Pinochet. While I’m sympathetic to your consternation about endless debates as to which of the many tyrants is the worst, I’m equally upset at the willingness of many to not distinguish among them. Hopefully, no one would put Pinochet into the same spot in the Hall of Horrors as Hitler and Stalin. At the extremes, as many have noted, the right and the left are virtually indistinguishable; genocide — whether its against an ethnic group or an economic class, whether its against a domestic or a foreign group — is the common denominator among history’s worst tyrants. In the long and dismal history of tyrants, Pinochet is well down the list. But this doesn’t mean he’s to be praised — regardless of the economic reforms he instituted.
GreenDreams,
By supporting Batista, we paved the way for Castro. But that’s not the same thing as saying we installed Castro. Please explain.
I was about to ask how the USA is responsible for Fidel Castro.
C Stanley, it all comes back to economics. If you want the Middle Eastern people to desire representation and a voice in their governments, then they need a motivation. The main reason for the American Revolution was “taxation without representation.” A bunch of moderately wealthy people were pissed that they had to send a chunk of their income to England and they didn’t see what purpose that served other than making the king rich. Ownership and small enterprises are the heart of a functioning democracy. When you own a business and your livelihood is tied to the welfare of that business, you become more concerned with how political decisions can affect you. Owning a business and having that responsibility can make a person more likely to participate in public policy and want to have a voice in decision-making. Perhaps the best way to promote Democracy in the Middle East is to encourage people to start small businesses and become more involved in local law-making.
“But this doesn’t mean he’s to be praised — regardless of the economic reforms he instituted.”
Thanks for clarifying this, Marc. Good for you.
Marc Schulman,
If the choice was between Pinochet and Castro, the Post’s editorial would have made perfect sense to me. Unfortunately that was not the choice. The real choice was between Pinochet and a democratically ellected socialist. Given his faults, should the U.S. have supported Allende? Maybe not. But given his faults, should the U.S. have supported a military dictator who overthrew an elected government and refused to restore democratic institutions for (at least) 15 years? We picked the wrong pony regardless of how their economy is doing now.
“I was about to ask how the USA is responsible for Fidel Castro.”
Well, Castro is comparable with former East German leaders Ulbricht and Honecker. However, West Germany never isolated the GDR to the extent the US did with Cuba. Because eastern germans still had connections to the west, they were able to compare the societies, seeing the huge downsides of their system more clearly. The result was, after the regime showed a single weakness, such a huge mass of people revolted that it was impossible to contain the rebellion anymore.
This could have happened in Cuba, too, for instance at the transition of power recently. Imho the pressure from the US, and the not-so-social image of the right wing exile Cuban opposition, prevented an outburst. The alternative simply was too extreme and thus not attractive enough.
The irony here is that support for Pinochet was the height of realpolitik in the Kissinger tradition. Nixon supported Pinochet because he was “our bad guy” and not the Soviets’ pawn. Another parallel is our support for Saddam Hussein in the mid-1980s. Reagan infamously offered “no comment” when told about the Halabja gassing in 1988. Why? Because Saddam was “our bad guy.” So the neocons who once castigated authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the name of democracy now think Pinochet was worth it in the end? And they wonder why genuine liberal interventionists treat neocons as moral frauds.
I am perturbed by the newfound sorrow shown by many at Pinochet’s passing – he could have helped the Chilean economy by being the head of an economic advisory board, and he’d be one of the most revered individuals in all of South America. Instead he was a murderous thug who loved power too much. Now he’s gone, and the Chileans are better off for it.
By the way, was Pinochet the only free-marketeering dictator?
We supported Castro’s revolution before JFK (yes, a Democrat) turned on him, but more importantly we drove Cuba to the Soviets by destroying their economy. Their two biggest exports, sugar and tobacco, we refused to buy, making the Soviets their economic allies of necessity. We similarly trashed other economies (Haiti, Philippines, etc) with our protectionism which continues to this day (we pay twice the world price for sugar, for example, in order to prop up the sugar and corn products industries).
My point is not to promote Castro, but to point out that our meddling empowered dictators worldwide, and the debate between “right” and “left” is a red herring at best. We are the world’s biggest supporters of Communist China, with the gleeful support of corporate giants and favored nation status from Republicans and Democrats alike. Time for you on “the right” to stop calling us Communist sympathizers and accept that since Nixon, your policies have handed the keys to our kingdom to the most aggressive leftist dictatorship on earth.
C. Stanley:
‘So if one agrees with that, what type of government should we endorse or accept?’
How about- it’s none of our business. Societies have to mature at their own rate. If Islamic nations or Latino nations need to go thru the ringers of thugs and madmen, so be it. Our ancestors had the likes of Cromwell and Napoleon, the Czars and the Kaisers. We survived.
Get out of their way and let them figure it out- bloodily, if need be.
cosmo – Without that meddling we couldn’t justify our wasteful spending on the CIA and the DoD. What has the CIA gotten right since the Kenedy day – Zero. The DoD is going high tech with the FutureCombatSystem and neural implated sharks, the Rummy days are still with us.
Ah, I don’t disagree but here’s the rub: if we don’t intervene when there is a humanitarian crisis we are blamed for not using our influence to protect the downtrodden.
As the #1 nation on the planet we’ll be blamed no matter. Better to not send out kids to die for others’ idiocies.