[Marxism] SF Chronicle Fails Itself on Haiti (or does it?)

[Chris Brady <cdbrady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A Chron regular writes (I send this also to remind some that in politics
violence can be unleashed not because of who we may be but who we may be
perceived to be, i.e., some of us might not have viewed Aristide as the
genuine article, but a whole sector of US politics thought he was a
Kreole Castro.):

"U.S. aid to Aristide's government was gradually eliminated in the
1990s, as Republicans in Congress accused the former Catholic priest and
champion of the poor of being a pro-Cuban leftist, and Aristide rejected
U.S. demands that state-owned industries be privatized.  After
controversial legislative elections in 2000, all U.S. aid was channeled
to nongovernmental organizations in Haiti -- some of which openly
opposed Aristide."[1]

In the same paper, three in a row "LETTERS TO THE EDITOR" expressed deep
doubt about the US Government's role and credibility in the Haiti
hustle.[2]

Despite all that, in the very same issue the Chronicle's Editorial
brushed off the "bitter" Aristide's "sensational claim that he was
kidnapped and ousted by a U.S. coup [as] flatly denied by Secretary of
State Colin Powell."  So: a bitter sensationalist contrasted against a
respectable American dignitary.

But The Chron swanned on past such petty matters as a criminal coup with
the sober, sage advice "the more important issues involve the future of
the impoverished nation."  And wisely concludes: "Haiti needs wiser
leadership than Aristide was able to provide.  His failure was
particularly unfortunate because he was democratically elected, but the
Haitian people should give democracy a further chance to provide decent
governance.  The United States will have to play an active role in
maintaining enough stability for democracy to endure."[3]

The Chron's analyst stated that the United States already played an
active role --in fomenting the instability and violence that destroyed
democracy in Haiti.  Several of its readers concur.  So, what?  Is this
double-think?  Or cognitive dissonance?  One would assume that the
official expression of the newspaper as presented by a formal editorial
might have been formulated after some consideration of evidence on its
own pages.

Not only does this Editorial hold democracy in contempt, but then puts
its debased and violated travesty on a pedestal.  What a spectacle!
What dross dressed up as virtue.  The gaudy garments of democracy that
disguised capitalism's essence now soiled, worn and torn by the ravenous
current crew, to reveal the real deal.

"What democracy you want, boss?  That democracy where you tell us what
to do?  Sho'thang, bahs!  We know that one."

Or blam.
________
Sources:

1. See: "Upheaval raises old issue for U.S." by Robert Collier,
Chronicle Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle, NEWS ANALYSIS,
Wednesday, March 3, 2004, Page A-17.
URL:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/03/MNGSN5CSOQ1.DTL

2. See: "LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Aristide ouster - Rebel win or U.S.
coup?"
URL:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/03/EDGIF5BT9K1.DTL

3. "Haiti after Aristide."  San Francisco Chronicle EDITORIAL,
Wednesday, March 3, 2004,  Page A-26.
URL:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/03/EDGIF5BT9S1.DTL
________

(another way to look at the above morality play is to realize the
necessity of a front, and a back.)

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism