"... according to preliminary results, only 36 years after his father was ousted in a historic revolution. For critics, it marks a further backward slide for a nation — once admired as one of the few democracies in Southeast Asia — that continues to trudge down the path of populism....The excesses of the Marcos family were in full view during their rule decades ago, with frequent jet-setting, spending sprees and, famously, Imelda’s thousands of pairs of shoes — boxes of which have since fallen victim to mold and termite infestations. Under martial law at the time, reports of human rights abuses were rampant, including arbitrary arrests, forcible disappearances, torture and killings."
WaPo reports.
The article quotes University of Chicago sociologist Marco Garrido: "The faith they had in liberal democracy has dried up … and they’ve developed this taste for illiberal rule over the course of the Duterte administration. This nostalgia for the Marcos period wouldn’t make sense unless you put it in the context of 36 years of disappointment."
May 10, 2022
"Ferdinand Marcos Jr., son of the late dictator whose family plundered billions of dollars, was elected president of the Philippines by a landslide..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
They didn't steal but they 'plundered.'
It sounds like they're talking about a pirate.
Is that because they're foreign and brown-skinned?
Isn't that racist?
His nickname is Bong Bong. Maybe someday Bong Bong Biden, son of President AF69 will succeed his father as Leader of the Free World.
81 million votes!!
The big mistake the Philippines made was kicking the U.S. Navy out.
If WaPoo says it I doubt the truth is related to the article.
The outgoing President is very popular, and Marcos' VP is the soon to be ex-president's Daughter. From talking to people in the USA about the election, the Filipino's want results. And they'd rather be safe and prosperous with an "Illiberal" president, then have out of control drugs and corruption with someone the NYT's likes.
"Their democracy is failing because they keep holding elections and choosing winners that we don't like."
I know it gets used as a pejorative these days by the left, but I don't get what is so bad about populism and why media seems to think it's not democratic. Populism is a centered on the common man vs the elite. How is asking the common man to vote or addressing their concerns not democratic? Why does this article say it's a slide to populism? It is democracy.
Also, isn't the left inherently populist? All I hear is how they are fighting for the marginalized populations vs the elites. Tax the rich, down with the elites...all about the working man and people of color. Isn't that populism?
Under martial law at the time, reports of human rights abuses were rampant, including arbitrary arrests, forcible disappearances, torture, and killings.
Interesting editorial choice, "reports...were rampant", not human rights abuses were rampant, just reports. All kinds of reports are rampant everywhere you look, including monsters in Loch Ness and abductions of nervous women by extraterrestrial beings, but so far they're just reports. One would think after 36 years these reports would have been firmed up. Is the WaPo implying something it can't demonstrate? Of course. It's just a standing operating procedure since it stopped being a newspaper, but this time the editors have left themselves an out.
Imagine a supposed democratic republic where the best one of the major parties can do is keep nominating wives of former presidents.
Corrupt cronie communists... It's an insiders game.
Disappointed? Vote for worse! then it all seems better.
Soros-Hillary-Biden-FBI-Maddow-Colbert approve this message.
Voting in a quasi-monarch with hereditary power does not equate to "populism." It's rather common in east Asia to have families rule for long periods. Japan. Korea.
People have shown a tendency to elect spouses, brothers, and children of famous politicians for the next generation. Many people LOVE the idea of monarchy. Many HATE the idea of monarchy. So, this election was not populism, just a shift toward monarchy.
By the same logic:
Kennedy clan = populists
Bush clan = populists
Clinton clan = populists
Egad!
Trump had the label of populist, so pull out the old playbook...
I suspect most of the money the Marcos stole was ours, the US taxpayer. There wasn't enough in country.
I knew lots of Filipinos in the 80s when the Marcos were in power, and plenty of them supported the dictatorship. I'm not talking about upper-class people, we are talking working-class people who were all for suppressing communist insurgencies and enforcing law and order. Sure there was plenty of graft and corruption, but that's just the way things were done. I doubt deposing Marcos and instituting democracy changed that. So, under democracy you still have to bribe officials, but you get more drugs and crime. Also, I would like to point out that Bong Bong won an election, there wasn't a coup.
'I suspect most of the money the Marcos stole was ours, the US taxpayer. There wasn't enough in country.'
There are some Ukrainians who are getting fabulously wealthy as we speak...
They were better back in Egypt.
Next up for the Legacy Media: Continuing their "Make Chelsea Happen" campaign by launching the 5,000th article on how wonderful Chelsea Clinton is....
I suspect most of the money the Marcos stole was ours, the US taxpayer. There wasn't enough in country.
Just like any foreign aid given out to a 3rd world country. Most of it is skimmed off by the various levels of bureaucracy. If any of it gets to the people its supposed to be helping its a miracle. At least in the Philippines we got Naval and Air Force bases out of it. And Filipinos got to join the US armed forces. A much sought after position because you could help support your family on the salary and after 20 years retire and return to the Philippines to the easy life.
"The big mistake the Philippines made was kicking the U.S. Navy out."
Why?
"And they'd rather be safe and prosperous with an "Illiberal" president, then have out of control drugs and corruption with someone the NYT's likes."
In other words, they are happy to sacrifice their freedom for the promise of "safety," (assuming Marcos' son intends to rule as his father did). This is not surprising, as this is true of most humans everywhere, certainly so here in the USA.
The son is not the father. Diversity [dogma] breeds adversity. Good luck.
We tend to think of democracy as a good in itself. It is not. It is a means to an end, that end being good government, stability, and prosperity.
I think democracy is the best form of government all things being equal. However, all things are not always equal. Corrupt, incompetent democracies have little to recommend them. Democracies with severe factionalism, combined with a lack of protection of rights and the eagerness of those in power to force their agendas on everyone, tend to be unstable messes and/or miserable places to live, assuming they do not break down into civil war.
Of course, dictatorships, one party states, and the like can suffer and usually do suffer from such problems as well. However, when your current democratic regime is failing no matter who is in charge, the idea that there is nothing to lose trying something else is tempting. If you read history, it is apparent that absolute monarchs and dictators have been effective rulers or at least popular ones. It tends not to work out these days as would be overlords are typically either power hungry incompetents or ideological fools, but, hey, maybe you'll get lucky.
I was saddened to hear that they could find no better use for the Imelda Marcos shoe collection than to let it rot. They should have auctioned them off. I can't think of a more romantic passive aggressive gift than to give your loved one a pair of Imelda Marcos' shoes. Maybe someone in Las Vegas could have bought the entire collection. They would have made a charming bower for one of the wedding chapels. Who wouldn't want to be married by an Elvis impersonator in the Imelda Marcos shoe closet?
There is a Bong-bong Gad as a character in Cryptonomicon. Looking in Duckduckgo.com just now. Bong-bong seems to be a not unusual name in the Philippines.
Not necessarily a nickname either but a given name.
John LGKTQ Henry
"I know it gets used as a pejorative these days by the left, but I don't get what is so bad about populism and why media seems to think it's not democratic."
I'm not sure that populism is always or inherently bad, as it can bring people together to demand change. However, charismatic and ambitious politicians with autocratic leanings too easily and often use populist rhetoric to hoodwink the public into voting for them as being the only solution. In office, autocratic politicians can simply discard their promises and put the boot down. Or, they can delude the public, claiming great achievements that are not real, thereby hoodwinking the public into thinking their problems are solved, or, if they cannot be said to be solved, the fault of some designated out group who can be blamed. (Look at Trump and his personifying the problem of COVID in the form of a demonized Dr. Fauci.) This scapegoating allows the autocratic politician to hold his followers in sway to him, explaining away his inaction (or failure) as the fault of the enemy elements in society who are obstructing his agenda.
Populism can also be used to discredit the institutions and functions of government, painting the system itself as inherently corrupt and impervious to repair. (This is particularly effective when, as is often so, the system is corrupt and deaf, to greater or lesser degree, to the people's preferences and needs. Populism essentially uses the language of democracy to condemn democracy as irredeemable, pointing to its faults--and all democratic governments have faults--without positing any specific policy plans to address those faults. Rather than describing how the people can improve government through electing representatives who will use existing governmental mechanisms and articulated policy proposals to make the desired improvements, autocrats point simply to themselves as the essential (and only possible) agents of change. Rather than describe a coherent policy platform, the people are persuaded to vest their faith in the individual, to believe and trust that he (or she) is the only person who can and will make things right. (Think of a malevolent person using the language of religion to aggrandize his or her own comfort, wealth, and power, at the expense of a bewitched following. Think of Jim Jones as a worst example.)
In short, it can substitute the indispensable individual for the fundamental institutions and mechanisms of democratic society: political action originating with the people, working through their representatives to create, shape, or change policy to meet the public's needs.
“Populism”
That’s elitist-speak for democratic results the elites don’t like.
The liberal/divergent democratic/dictatorial model. Perhaps the younger Marcos has principles the principals can follow.
Three shell monte game with the pea already palmed.
We gave the Philippines a lot of money during the Cold War to keep them from going Commie.
The Marcos’ looted most of that cash.
But they were our puppets.
Then the Philippines people find that democracy without a strong set of constitutional rights is basically letting the dumbest people make all the rules. And it doesn’t work.
So they ask for the strongman to return.
And the “strongman” model has worked for 99% of human civilization.
Hell, the US had a strong constitutional republic for years but we’ve spent the last 70 years destroying that constitution to the point where half the people don’t want to be in the same country with the other half and vice versa.
And after watching 2000 Mules, I’m not sure anything about our country is Democratic.
Surprised that personal safety matters more to ordinary people than “liberal democracy” in a country that has never experienced graft free democracy, liberal or not?
Then you must be an academic political scientist.
"one of the few democracies in Southeast Asia"
Now at grave risk of being ruled by a president who won in a landslide.
"Liberalism" seems to mean an interest in trans issues and a war on fossil fuels and an indifference to real economic grievances.
No wonder it isn't popular right now.
I suspect most of the money the Marcos stole was ours, the US taxpayer. There wasn't enough in country.
===========
till USA politicians figured out to put themselves in the loot-loop via financing wars and foreign aid
I was told in High School, by our Government teacher that communism is the best government structure. It just hasn't been done 'right" yet.
The more college a leftist has the more stupid they become.
In response to Ralph L at 11:37 AM - no. The Marcos couple (parents of the newly elected President) took much of a fund that some of the poorest in the Philippines, coconut farmers, contributed to a fund to help them in their old age.
BTW, Imelda Marcos was probably more corrupt than her husband. Yet she still lives and has never served a single day in jail/prison.
I personally know Filipinos who suffered under the Marcos' rule.
When it comes to elections, I vote for Cthulhu. Why choose the lesser of two evils?
Our staff here, (I live in rural Luzon) backed Marcos because they think he will be strong, keep them safe on the streets and be no more corrupt than anyone else.
Is he a Chinese puppet? Who knows. But the Chinoy business community, and some of the evangelical sects backed him, so yes he is seen as an authoritarian.
In contrast, the US candidate, Leni Robredo, was portrayed as an American puppet, a friend of the kleptocracy, and an upper class snob.
Robert Cook writes, "In other words, they are happy to sacrifice their freedom for the promise of 'safety,' (assuming Marcos' son intends to rule as his father did). This is not surprising, as this is true of most humans everywhere, certainly so here in the USA."
In other words, you like to preface your comments that way, don't you, Robert? It gives you a license to read between the lines exactly as you please. May I try it?
In other words, you have no idea what Filipinos want from their government or whether they have the freedom under Rodrigo Roa Duterte you insist they have sacrificed.
Duterte has done his country few favors. His relationship with Beijing has garnered nothing for the Republic of the Philipines except severely restricted access to the waters that ought to be by the facts of geography a Philippine lake, though it may come to pass that the Duterte/Xi relationship was very cozy indeed for Duterte himself. Time will tell. All we can surmise is that the Filipinos want nothing to do with his handpicked successor, assuming the election was legitimate. The conspirators who put Biden in office have a valuable skillset to sell to wannabee tinpot excellencies. Perhaps Bongbong simply outbid Leni.
November 2020 has taught us to be wary of modern elections, given the vulnerabilities to fraud and manipulation exposed by Dinesh D'Souza and many other investigators, consequently, let us greet this new President-elect with a dollop of healthy skepticism and a "wait and see" attitude.
The fact that Bongbong Marcos is his father's son may be important, maybe not.
Wait and see.
I lived in the Philippines during Marcos's rule, and I have visited or lived in several other authoritarian ruled countries. I learned that Freedom and Democracy do not go together in many countries. People often have more personal freedom under a 'Strongman' than under a democratic government. You can go about your daily business freely as long as you don't challenge the government. Eventually, the authoritarians abuse enough people to get deposed and a new bunch takes over. Brief interludes of Democracy result in chaos and a break down of public order and safety. A new Strongman emerges and the cycle begins again.
Post a Comment