Clinton's trip to Latin America
Hillary Clinton is now off to Latin America, and is adding Argentina to the itinerary--it is good to include a country with a government that has been critical (she had planned to meet Cristina Kirchner, but not in Argentina--she also added Fernando Lugo). In the NYT, Riordan Roett at Johns Hopkins sums it up pretty well:
“I don’t get the sense that there’s a game plan for Latin America,” Mr. Roett said. “And Latin Americans don’t get that sense either.”
At a round table at the NCPSA meetings on Friday I made a similar point, using the examples of Honduras, the Colombian bases, and immigration to show how the administration's rhetoric was too often at odds with its policies, which creates problems. Matching the two is not the same as a game plan, but it is a necessary start.
7 comments:
At a round table at the NCPSA meetings on Friday I made a similar point, using the examples of Honduras, the Colombian bases, and immigration to show how the administration's rhetoric was too often at odds with its policies, which creates problems. Matching the two is not the same as a game plan, but it is a necessary start.
Rhetoric that sounds high-minded but doesn't reflect the reality of U.S. foreign policy has always been part of the game plan. It's called "propaganda," Greg.
Why should there be a gameplan? Latin America is not a region, i the diplomatic sense. The issues with Mexico are very different than those with Argentina.
Other than some lefty losers most of Latin America seeks good relations with the US and think well of the country.
"Rhetoric that sounds high-minded but doesn't reflect the reality of U.S. foreign policy has always been part of the game plan. It's called "propaganda," Greg."
No, it is called rhetoric that falls short of the professed ideal. The idea that almost anything a govt. espouses is propaganda is lame. Unless your definition is only for the US. (Imagine using that standard with your buddies Hugo and Raul.) Propaganda in its modern sense has identifiable characteristics. It appeals to "right thinking" people etc...
No, it is called rhetoric that falls short of the professed ideal.
That's just a euphemistic way of describing propaganda. If you profess an ideal but don't act in accordance with the ideal, the professed ideal is not a reflection of your true values. Rather, the professed ideal becomes a disguise behind which you hide your actual motives and actions.
Unless your definition is only for the US.
Who ever said that only the U.S. engages in propaganda? That's a strawman argument. All states engage in propaganda. Don't insult people's intelligence by acting as if the United States is somehow an exception to the rule.
Well, Anon, you call the left governments "losers", then state that most Latin Americas think well of the US.
Your first assignation of "losers" shows your political bias. The left governments have improved the quality of life for substantial segments of their populations, and they keep getting elected and controlling reform and revolutionary adgendas. This is only "loser" territory for the extremists that back US imperial agression and support for undemocratic policies throughout the world. If calling them losers mitigates your pain and insecurity, then go for it. But name-calling is sorry behavior considering the failures that US style capitalism has shown humankind.
As far as propaganda is concerned, while I agree with Justin's comments, I would like to see some meat on exactly what propaganda is as a concept.
Juxtapose a refined concept with the question of "what is democracy" and we might engage in a fruitful and compelling discussion.
As far as propaganda is concerned, while I agree with Justin's comments, I would like to see some meat on exactly what propaganda is as a concept.
I would define the concept of propaganda in the same terms that I used before. There is some degree of propaganda in any professed ideal that is not a pure reflection of the values of its exponents. To the extent that the professed ideal serves as a disguise behind which a group or state hides certain motives and actions, the professed ideal serves a propaganda function.
I would say, for example, that the U.S. foreign policy establishment's discourse of "democracy promotion" serves a propanda function insofar as it serves as a disguise behind which the establishment hides many of its actual motives (among which are a desire to maintain power and control over developing countries).
But propaganda is by no means the exclusive preserve of the United States. Ostensibly leftist states can also profess ideals that aren't pure reflections of their values and motives.
Post a Comment