Larry Rohter write today about Argentinean President Nestor Kirchner and, as could be expected, leaves out several salient points and paints a portrait of Kirchner with a right-wing brush.
He belabors the obvious:
Mr. Kirchner's popularity is mainly a result of three consecutive years in which the economy has grown by an average of about 9 percent. That has left him and his team confident, even cocksure: the presidential chief of staff, Alberto Fernández, told reporters just before Christmas that although the government surely made some mistakes in 2005, he would be hard pressed to name one.
I would imagine that there are few leaders who would not be popular if the economy had averaged 9% growth per year for three years. As for the question of price controls, two points: One, considering that in the early part of this decade unemployment and under employment was so bad in Argentina that some 60% of the population were living in poverty, somehow I think that in Kirchner's position, slowing the economy by throwing people out of work is not an option. Two, Brazil has instituted price controls on money by setting a high interest rate (an idea that is a mixed blessing) and yet it has been able to control inflation for years. I don't have any concrete figures, but I would imagine the ten years of the real have been among the ten with the least inflation in Brazil's history.
Rohter then tries to tie Kirchner to Hugo Chávez, but glosses over the fact highlighted in my italics below:
Analysts say the alliance is more tactical than ideological. "For someone like Kirchner," a native of frigid Patagonia "who doesn't have an extroverted character, Chávez is too tropical," Mr. Torre said. Others say Mr. Chávez embodies the kind of military-nationalist alliance that Mr. Kirchner finds repugnant because of his own experiences here during the military dictatorship in the 1970's, when friends of his were killed and he was briefly detained.
Gee d'ya think? Chávez once led a coup and I'm certain that Kirchner is aware of that.
Rohter makes zero mention of Kirchner's efforts to rein in the military, seek an end to impunity against the military responsible for the monstrous abuses during the Dirty War and the fact that Kirchner was the only leader to at least make a serious effort to prosecute those responsible for the AMIA bombing.
As for possible sources to comment on KIrchner, please note my itlaics below:
"What Kirchner likes is to be absolutely in charge, so he has become his own economy minister," said Joaquín Morales Solá, chief political columnist for the conservative daily La Nación. "Even more than moving left, there's a turn towards a personalistic style of governing, with a dose of authoritarianism and hegemony and an aggressive style of permanent rupture and confrontation."
A columnist for La Nación making negative comments about Kirchner. That has as much credence as Cal Thomas commenting negatively about Clinton.
What really galled me was the fact that Carlos Menem was barely mentioned. One can say what one will about Kirchner - and I don't think he's a saint, nor do I get misty-eyed when his name comes up - but considering the absolute mess that Carlos Menem made in Argentina, Kirchner cannot help but be an improvement.
Randy dont you find this trend in the U.S MSM to present democratically elected Latin American presidents in a bad or threatening light somewhat disturbing.
Posted by: rjf | January 03, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Well, no one is above criticism and I don't mind legitimate criticism. What annoys me is the lack of context and the sloppy reporting.
It is disturbing, however, that some in the MSM are still viewing LAtin America through the Cold War prism.
Posted by: Randy Paul | January 04, 2006 at 08:07 PM