Friday, December 22, 2006

In defense of Pinochet

A Chilean hero - with many flaws.

by StFerdIII

When not waxing lyrical about the grandiosity and moral purity of socialism, the wailing Marxists and teeth-gnashing socialists vent their spleens spewing hate and distortion against so-called ‘right-wingers’. Thatcher, Reagan, even big spending George Bush – compassionate conservatism’s poster child for sensitivity – along with myriad other non-liberal, non-conformists are singled out for hate speech. None however, causes Marxists and liberal apologists more angst and mouth-foaming expressions of mad gesticulation, than Mr. Augusto Pinochet, former Dictator of Chile. How about this? Pinochet is a Chilean hero not a criminal.

Como? Que te dices? Everyone knows, who reads the liberal media, that Pinochet was a fascist dictator, a man who murdered, plundered, fired, destroyed and eradicated the Chilean democratic state, usurping power, and coloring Santiago with the blood of innocents. Or so they want us to believe. Pinochet was the necessary antidote for all that was wrong with Chile before he took power in 1973. Any comment of this sort sends the Marxists and statists in paroxysm of fury.

Chile pre-1973 was a disaster. The arrogant socialist President Allende, always at odds with Congress and openly sympathetic to extreme Marxism had annihilated the Chilean economy. Inflation in 1972 was at 140%; real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6%; and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined [see Flores, 1997]. Basic food items and consumer goods simply disappeared. Export revenues collapsed. A black market erupted and as the economy spiraled downwards, real wages plummeted, unemployment sky-rocketed and Santiago’s women took to the streets banging pots and pans to demand a change of government. Chile pre-1973 was not a Michael Moore inspired Marxist-fantasy paradise.

It was unambiguously necessary to depose the Marxist Allende, and his student radicals from power, and impose reality on a failing Chilean state.

In a country without a history of Constitutional democracy a return from socialist extremism to policies that create wealth and prosperity can only be accomplished through a centralized form of control. Such control can manifest itself in a military junta [Pinochet and Franco in Spain]; one party rule [Putin’s gang in Russia]; or limited representative democracy founded upon a strong leader [Salazar in Portugal]. Outright totalitarianism does not work; nor does extreme socialism or national fascism. Both of these variants of governance destroy the moral, juridical and economic processes that form a civilized and wealthy society.

The military and Pinochet as its leading general, had little choice but to rid Chile of the Marxist pestilence codified in Allende’s extremism. Upon seizing power the Pinochet regime spent one month fighting Marxist insurgents – killing about 2800 which accounts for most of the 3200 victims of the Pinochet regime. This is not something the current liberal media will tell you. As well the regime suspended all political parties and dissident labor groups which had supported the Allende regime. It is fair to ask, what other choice did Pinochet have?

Most importantly the Pinochet regime restructured the Chilean economy. Using free market principles while retaining state control over the crucial copper industry the Chilean economy grew by more than 2% per annum during the first few years of the new regime. As the economy improved and confidence returned, Chile attracted foreign capital helping it further develop its mineral and ore deposits and creating strong centers of finance and shipping. Unemployment fell dramatically and the entire ethos of the country including its education systems; media; political elite and business class turned increasingly towards the West for guidance and support.

The rescuing of Chile from Marxist abomination does not sit well of course with the current media. It is undeniable that the Pinochet dictatorship was fraught with illegality and corruption. Civil liberties were at times lost and opponents were tortured. But over time, with the return of private property, the rule of law and a freer economy, democratic institutions also returned. An economic crisis in 1982 led to even more economic liberalization and by 1988 Pinochet was replaced by a democratically and peacefully elected new President. Chile had come a long way since 1973.

It is fine to question the excesses and human rights abuses of the Pinochet regime, but it is not honest to impugn the man without full context. Chile was a failed Marxist state that needed reform. It is hard to see how this would have come about unless someone like Pinochet had forcefully pushed the country towards constitutional and economic reform.

While the liberal media blames Pinochet and accuses him without much proof, of all manner of tyranny and fascistic governance, their favorite son Castro, who took the 4th wealthiest jurisdiction in the Western hemisphere in 1950 and turned it into the 3rd poorest by 2006, is of course, not to be tried or persecuted for the deaths of more than 10.000 innocents and the imprisonment of many more thousands. This is rank hypocrisy at it worst.

Rest in peace Pinochet.