The Revolutionary Left is Getting Bolivia Wrong


I wasn’t really planning to do a segment about
this, but there have been so many bad takes coming from [inaudible] I guess what we’re calling the revolutionary left. That’s the non pejorative term that we’ve,
I guess agreed on, uh, to describe them about the resignation of Bolivian president Evo
Morales that I feel compelled to discuss it because the right is just completely uninformed
about Latin American politics. So I really don’t have any message for them,
but there are a lot of people on the left that are either misunderstanding or just wrong
in their conclusions about what has taken place in Bolivia over the last, uh, close
to 15 years, calling it in completely black and white terms, a military coup. So my goal here is to go through the whole
story. Hopefully this will be enlightening. I know I’ll be called a shill and all of this
stuff, but who cares, right? I mean, we, we, uh, we get one shot at doing
things the way we actually see them. You only live once. And I’m going to do the stories with the nuance
that I think they deserve because that’s really what’s missing. The problem is there is too much black and
white thinking in general in politics, people are either good or bad. The military is either good or bad. Socialism is either good or bad. A politician is either a savior or a villain,
and I know lots of people who work in the field of mental health and they tell me, you
know, a lot of the people that come in that I see they have in their lives, all sorts
of different things going on that at their root are often caused by black and white thinking
about gray areas in life, about jobs, about relationships, about their childhood, whatever. And I believe that the same is happening in
politics and specifically with the Bolivia situation. So let’s try to put that aside. Let’s just all talk like reasonable people. No one’s shilling here. Some people may be missing some of the facts. Some people may be coming to conclusions that
are tanged by ideology. Let’s not make these umbrella black and white
declarations and let’s try to actually figure out what’s going on. So the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, was
first in office in 2006 a few days ago. He resigned at the request or demand of the
Bolivian military and request or demand we can argue about. But it’s not actually the most important thing. Why did this happen a few days ago? There has been rampant speculation about the
most recent election of being a bogus election. The organization of American States put out
a report saying that the election results were manipulated, including alterations, forced
signatures, and wide-scale data manipulation. Uh, now there is already a debate about this. Well, does that mean the election was bogus
or are these just reports of irregularities like you have in many elections, including
here in the United States. But for me, the real story is actually bigger
than this. And I want to ask you this hypothetical. If Donald Trump during his second term, imagine
he gets reelected in November and he gets a second term. Imagine that during that second term Donald
Trump change the constitution to allow a third term effective immediately, but then also
claimed that since the constitution was changed, his second term is sort of really his first
term under the new constitution, so he should actually get two more. And then during the third term, which is really
his fourth, he loses a referendum to allow unlimited terms and then his Supreme court
justices that he has selected, say, forget about the term limits. You can stay as long as you want. Wouldn’t we in that situation as Progressive’s
who are for the rule of law, wouldn’t we be begging someone to force Donald Trump out? Okay. Now let’s talk about what happened in Bolivia. Evo Morales was elected in 2006 and people
were excited because there were good things about his election. He is not, it’s not black and white. He was the first ethnically indigenous president
of Bolivia. That’s great. In a country that has such a large indigenous
population. Why did it take so long to have an indigenous
president? Fantastic, lovely. He reduced poverty during his first term. He offered a much more sensible and pragmatic
version of the socialism that has been espoused by Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. He invested in infrastructure and development
and grew the middle-class great, but like with many of these Latin American socialists
of the last many decades, he’s a an increasingly authoritarian. There’s corruption. He was elected to a five year term in 2006
he got a new constitution adopted while he was president, which allowed two terms. Then in 2009 he called for early elections
one and said, Hey, this is sort of really like my first term because I didn’t complete
the first term. Under the old constitution, we have a new
constitution, so I should really be able to run again in 2014 it’s not objective, really
bad to change a constitution, but one should not be allowed to stay in office longer than
they were originally supposed to because of changes made under their watch. That’s what authoritarians do, so this is
already bad. He wins that early 2009 election calls it
his first term. So now he’s allowed to run again in 2014 and
a court increasingly under his control says, yes, he is allowed to run again. This will count as his second term, not as
his third or his first term, not as a second. He wins in 2014 and then says, well, let’s
do a referendum to abolish term limits altogether so that I can just continue being reelected
and reelected indefinitely. Voters reject that referendum in Bolivia. So what does he do? He appeals once again to a constitutional
court filled with people, loyal to him who say, yep, you know what? Running for office is a human right. And Bolivia term limits violate the human
rights of everyone Monarrez so he can run again, which he does and wins in adult and
an election determined to have significant irregularities, some characterizing it as
completely bogus. So listen, do I want the military to take
control of the country now? Hell no. I’m from Argentina. I know what happens when the military takes
control. It’s bad. Is this a black, white military coup? No, that’s an extraordinarily myopic interpretation
that completely ignores history in Bolivia for the last 13 years, if an American president
did 25% of what [inaudible] did in the election system in Bolivia, we’d all be demanding their
removal. You’ll hear comments like, well, this all
happened because American banking and finance has ruined these countries, including Bolivia. How does that force the president to change
the constitution to remain in power longer and how does it excuse it? These things are not as cut and dry as the
revolutionary left is making them out to be. So my request to you is don’t fall for the
black and white thinking and of course the revolutionary left will say anyone who is
not loudly opposed to this is a pro military coup, pro-American interventionists, Yankee
shill. Let’s be adults. Guys, give me a break. The world is not black and white the way you
make it out. Everyone. I listed some good things early in his presidency. He also is corrupt. We are also seeing a lot of the same things
happened in Bolivia that we’ve seen happen in other places in Latin America like Venezuela
and others. When these authoritarian leaning socialists,
um, uh, remain in power for longer and longer periods of time. Now interestingly, the left and right share
the existence of these factions who suffer from black and white thinking on the right,
you have these libertarians and small government people who think they’re black and white principals
tell them everything they need to know. On the left you’ve got the revolutionary left
who suffers from, you know, a version of the same affliction where they see a situation
and they say, Oh yeah, the military is involved and it’s bad and a socialist is the president
and that’s good. And he’s an ethnic minority. So that’s, that’s it. That’s the analysis and anything else that’s
completely unacceptable. You’re pushed out if you don’t fall in line
with that ideology. Tell me all the ways I’m wrong on the facts. A, I’m ready for it, but let’s not play these
just completely toxic black and white games that unfortunately are happening among a contingent
of the left.

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. The election results match 5 different pre-election polls. To believe the vote was rigged would require you to believe the pre-election polls were rigged as well, which is just stupid. Mark Weisbrot over at the CEPR think tank analyzed the claims of irregularities and showed that they had no basis. Sorry David, uninformed take here.

  2. I haven't read any analysis of the 2019 Bolivian election that actually calls it a "bogus election". Even though there were irregularities, nobody, as far as I can see, claims that they are important enough to account for Morales' more than 10% lead. So, even though you (and perhaps I too) might object to his shady maneuvers in securing the opportunity to run an unlimited amount of times: wouldn't the fact that he got reelected somewhat invalidate those criticisms, at least at the practical level of him having the right to take office again? Because surely, if the majority of voters didn't agree with his measures, they'd simply no longer come out in droves to vote for him. How is it justifiable, under these circumstances, to call for "somebody, anybody" to oust Morales? According to that logic, surely in 2000, when George W Bush illegally assumed the office of President of the US, after demonstrably having lost the election to Al Gore, the National Guard should have forced him to "resign"? At least that should be your position, if you are consistent in your analysis and its conclusions.

  3. @David Pakman…you are usually pretty reasonable, but you are just plain factually incorrect all over the place here. You are getting Bolivia wrong on so many fronts you should issue a retraction. Seriously, this is the sloppiest piece I have EVER seen you do.

    Your characterization of the 2009 election is false. The 2009 general election was called because it was mandated in the constitution. It was considered his first term under the constitution because the constitution was not retroactive. That was voted on and agreed upon. There was no trickery there whatsoever.

    Morales won in 2014 by a LANDSLIDE dude!!! His closest opponent was 35 points behind!!!

    You mention increasing corruption without citing any really solid examples. His first act as President was to reduce his own wage and the wage of his ministers by 57%…to put that into context, he and his ministers are not Trump…that was a major financial hit.

    You say his actions are increasingly authoritarian yet omit the the fact he repeatedly refused to declare martial law when (mainly U.S. backed and funded) people protested.

    Members of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice are ELECTED, not appointed. Chavez did not pad the supreme court with people loyal to him. Their decision did not just erase term limits for Morales either, they erased term limits for everyone, including his incumbent political rivals. Did Morales ask the tribunal to review said term limits? Yup, as was his right to do so.

    Nobody is characterizing the 2019 election as bogus except the OAS and the interests who fund them. The OAS has been actively fighting against leftism since the cold war. Morales offered to have foreign auditors come in and committed to a run-off election if said auditors found that the margin of victory was less than 10%. Completely in compliance with Bolivian election law. On the other hand, the OAS wants a run off election even if the margin of victory is verified as 10% or more, which is against Bolivian election law, and yet the OAS are the ones currently doing the audit. I can smell the fish all way up here in Canada.

    We will never know whether there should have been a run off election now, as the OAS is not reliable and Morales was ousted before foreign auditors could do a more reliable count. THIS WAS A COUP.

    A complete and total mischaracterization of the situation on your part, not the part of "the revolutionary left" whatever that means. This is utterly disappointing and if you don't fix it, I'll not only be moving on, I will make sure everyone I know is aware you are no longer a reliable source. You have one week to issue a retraction/correction, or YES, you ARE a shill. When you talk about how some people on the left are just completely wrong on their conclusions when it comes to Bolivia, you're referencing yourself.

  4. Even social democrats are claiming this coup was unjustified

    This is a bad take read The Realist Left’s post on the issue

    CERP did a statistical analysis and said the votes were valid

  5. This is how ridiculous your statment is: Almagro, the general secretary of the OAS is saying that what happened in Bolivia was a self coup.

  6. Seriously David, did you even fact check your own talking points? This is just unbelievably lousy commentary. Like Fox-level false dude!

  7. As an update it looks like we now know what is happening to Morales party. This is the head of the senate and in a real democratic process the legitimate person in the line of succession to morales https://twitter.com/jmkarg/status/1194689949716680709?s=21 this is not acceptable

  8. Finally some nuance. You should have mentioned tho that the right is pretty fucking dangerous in Bolivia and time will tell if Bolivians are now better off having gotten rid of an authoritarian. The interim president recently stated that "we will bring the bible back to the palace!", opposition friendly cops have been ripping the whipala (the flag of the indiginous nations) off their badges, and supporters of the oppsition have been threatening MAS officials into resigning. It's pretty clear the right will try to decimate the left in a country that is the poorest in south america.

  9. what a cuck, you're just a bad as the right, trying to "middle ground" things that cant be middle grounded. centrist scum, I'm so tired of liberals yall love to act like you actually care but you're too cozy with the status quo.

  10. Go get absolutely fucked dude, this shit is disgusting. Grow a spine and show some solidarity with our comrades in Bolivia. Basically this whole video is full of shit. Maybe I am the fool but I expected better from you, even though you're a lib.

  11. If anything, given how much lying, manipulation and violecne has come from both sides, we should be able to say that the left and right in bolivia deserve each other.

  12. Another nail in the coffin for me when it comes to watching David Pakman. Don't know if I can stay subscribed after another blunder like this.

  13. Man, Evo is not Chávez or Maduro, you say like everyone who thinks in a way is far-left, i'm a social democratic living in Brazil and i say to you that Venezuela is a totalitarian regime, but Bolivia is a true Democracy, and indeed, a true social democracy.

  14. Great coverage David, I must say the media at home here in Norway has done a terrible job of covering the Bolivian election. For instance it seems to me like polls suggested Morales won. No mention of that, they present it as if it is a foregone conclusion that election fraud happened. OTOH there was absolutely no mention in Norwegian media of him abusing the system as you describe.

    I agree with your rejection of black and white. I've seen the same with military intervention in Thailand when my brother lived there. He also pointed out that there was no good guy and bad guys in Thai politics. There was something seriously wrong with both sides, but the man of the people despite being kind of crooked also did good stuff for poor people. But people don't want stories like this. They want to know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

    If Morales wanted to stay longer I don't get why he didn't just change to a parliamentary system. As we have in most of Europe, a prime minister can be in power for pretty much unlimited time. But perhaps presidents don't like parliamentary systems because a prime minister is not nearly as powerful as a president. The party can kick out a prime minister they don't like. The party cannot kick out a president they don't like.

  15. The entire political chain of command was forced to “resign” – even if morales should go, why should the president of the senate, speaker of the house and many other leading Bolivian congressional leaders that were elected legitimately be forced out by the military? That’s why it’s a coup.

  16. The truth is there was nothing wrong with the election. It lined up with three out of four independent polls and there is no conclusive evidence of any foul-play. After the biased US influenced OAS deemed the election a fraud, Evo Morales despite just having won a supposedly rigged election, did not contest the findings and agreed to another election. (Funny that the "fraud" election fitted with the polls and the "corrupt" president agreed to have it redone.) Yet that wasn't enough and the military had to "save the day" and force him to step down, who knows what will happen next.

  17. david pakman, sometimes you talk too much for your own good. what you said about bolivia is uninformed and disingenuous. a coup is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means. a cease of presidential duties due to pressure from the military most categorically is and forever more will be a coup. full stop.

    a cliffsnotes history of the bolivian coup:

    1)evo morales ridicules u.s. politics and trump in u.n. while sitting two seats from trump… there would be consequences.

    2)thin-skinned trump and his administration look to undermine evo morales and the left government in bolivia and put pressure on the oas to call fraud in bolivia's elections.

    3)the oas responds by obliging and calling early election reports of irregularities whose, of course, were verified as false and denounced by the whole world.

    4)the military of bolivia don't care that the reports are false, and they force the democratically elected president evo morales to resign while evo's and other deputies's houses were burning, people were being kidnapped and many, including evo, had to flee to mexico.

    5)the elite, right-wing and military left a vacuum in power which they themselves will fill with someone who suits their needs being able to rule illegally, corruptly and autocratically unopposed.

    6)the only thing in question is: what role did trump, his administration and, perhaps, the cia had to do with the military, elite and right-wing opposition in bolivia? was there a conspiracy among all players to overthrow evo? or is it just a coincidence that the military were so quick to depose evo?

    i like you, david pakman, but you're in denial, for whatever reason. i unsubscribed until i feel comfortable with you again. STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION

  18. Morales was not my type of leftist. He leans towards the anti-American, Venezuela type of left which is not liberal at all. In many ways they are like the conservative right in America: keen on preserving tradition, culture and language and shun foreign or outside influence, be economic or cultural. And by the way, Christianity and Spaniards are also considered "foreign" to their indigenous culture. He's aligned with Putin on the LGBT rights issue for example so there is nothing liberal about him. In fact, he rants against liberalism, go figure.
    Good thing he never got full control of the army or else we would be calling him the "eternal" commander.

  19. Pakman, the coup architect walked into the vacated parliament and put a Bible on the Bolivian flag saying “Bolivia belongs to Jesus, Pachamama (indigenous Mother Earth) will never return.” If you are ignoring this, you are supporting the Trump administration and a fascist

  20. Bolivia’s far right has exploited the power vacuum and stoked anti-indigenous sentiment. Since Morales’s resignation, many officials down the line of succession for the country’s presidency have resigned as well, to protect themselves and their families, leaving Jeanine Añez Chavez, a conservative opposition leader and second vice president of the Senate, poised to take over Bolivia’s presidency. (Añez is married to a leader of a Colombian conservative party with historic ties to paramilitary groups.) Luis Fernando Camacho, a right-wing evangelical lawyer from Santa Cruz who has largely led the opposition movement over the last three weeks, has spouted extremely violent and xenophobic rhetoric, to the point that he’s been dubbed the “Bolsonaro of Bolivia.” After Morales’s resignation, Camacho entered the government palace in La Paz, placed a Bible on the Bolivian flag, and said that the Pachamama (the Andean Mother Earth goddess) will “never return to Bolivia. Bolivia belongs to God.”

  21. Sounds like David is against a marjority Indigenous American State with majority Indigenous Heritage. I wonder if he feels the same way with Israel, who he claims has a right to exist as a Jewish state? It's like David is blaming Evo Morales for this? It is, and has always been the right wing (christains, corportist and Eurocentric minority factions) that has undermined democracy and Indigenous civil-rights. It is the Right who has tried over and over to overthrow Morales since he became President. There have been numerous failed coups and assassinations attempts on Evo the past 13 years. David is pro Establishment in the Americas and in Israel, he is not a Progressive.

  22. Rulers are all corrupt. At least when they switch up .. the corruption doesn't affect a certain group with no end in sight.

  23. My previous comment had 30ish likes and it was deleted! So much for liberal values and an open market of ideas! Or David's direct request in the video for people to comment on how he has the facts wrong, which he does.

    No wonder why this video has virtually even like to dislike ratio, its so fucking obvious how bad of a take this is David. Acclaimed Journalist Alan Macleod said in a tweet yesterday that "on latin america, Pakman is virtually indistinguishable from conservatives."

  24. This is unambiguously a military coup against an elected leader. Whatever Morales may or may nit have done to subvert democracy, it absolutely PALES in comparison to the military just telling the President to “get out, or else.”

  25. I don't see you justifying the overthrow of Saddam hussein just because he was a bad leader. It doesn't matter how authoritariam he might have become over his presidency, Evo is the rightfuly elected head of state of bolivia, and the right-wing and military engaging in ransacking and terrorizing of the government and its supporters while persecuting the president is the textbook definition of a latin-american style Military Coup. And even if he lost his election (which he didn't, he had 47% to mesa's 35%, over 11 pt difference and above the 10% difference over 2nd place), his current (3rd) term ends in JANUARY 2020, so even ignoring his 4th term, he is STILL the rightful President of Bolivia, abd should be allowed to assume so when the Bolivia emerges from this emocracy-shattering coup d´êtat. Also, shame that you don't mention the HUGE Lithium reserves that Bolivia has, a metal vital to making Smart devices, and how Evo just recently announced his policy to nationalize the profits of Lithium for the Bolivian people & away from US companies which control them. This video is very selective and narrow in it's reliance only on laws and precedent obssesing to obscure the obvious paramilitary terror campaign currently underway in Bolivia. With these same standards set against other leftist latin leaders Lula and the Workers Party, Lula was imprisoned for minor-to-non-existant corruption charges and condemned for essentially falling out-of-touch, and because of it far right-wing nationalist gangsters took power. Using these short-sighted standerds is what alloed Bolsonaro to take power in Brazil and will continue to allow Corporatist Fascists to seize governments in Latin America in the coming years.

  26. This is an obvious violent right wing coup, if the Bolivian People really wanted Evo Morales out, they would have voted him out. The opposition didn't muster enough votes with only 36% of the votes, which was mostly non-Indigenous with the small White right wing base leading the opposition.

    Evo did lose some Indigenous and other voters, but he still had 47% of the vote with over 90% of the vote counted. The remaining votes to be counted were in the rural areas that have a majority Indigenous Population who overwhelmingly support Morales. Mesa only had 36% of the vote.

    The Right Wing wanted Evo out so they can recolonize Bolivia once again, they instagated violence by using false flag attacks and divide and conquer tactics against the majority Indigenous Government. Notice that all the top Indigenous cabinet officials and many Governors were violently attacked and threatened.

    For the sake of stability and well-being of the Indigenous People, they have to protest against the coup and demand for the reinstatement of Evo Morales or new elections. It's odd that a coup takes place during a time of economic growth, a new space program and massive technological achievements.

  27. You are missing key facts, though, and I don't know why. There were protests about the recent vote. Morales, under pressure, agreed to fresh elections with ovbervers and OSA agreed to this, and within a day the Military asks him to stand down. Your narrative has some validity as an opinion (someone should be able to remove him….), but the Military is not the one. That is a coup, my friend.
    Also, why no mention of Marco Rubio leaning on the OSA? A reason to be skeptical – not a balck and white argument – is when we see bad actors lining up on the other side.

  28. What about the impact of US Regime change, not just in the region but in Bolivia itself? There are tapes of military officials saying they had the support of US Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio among others. There was a dedicated cyber campaign, either out of Langley or made to look like it was out of Langley (I have no idea how to be sure) with 165,000 tweets with a Spanish hashtag (translating to "There wasn't a coup" if I'm not mistaken) coming from Virginia.

    The big thing I don't understand is that if Moralles is such a horrible guy, why did he agree to a re-vote, and his opposition decline? Sure it's not black and white, but that alone seems a bit sketchy if there was election interference (which is something I'm not certain of; the OAC seems a bit too conservative/anti-communist to support someone who moved against the IMF). It seems like the guy is really popular in his country and won the election, from what I gather, and that he CHOSE to step down, and to call for peace. Despite this, members of the opposition have been attacking people in the streets, while his supporters peacefully fill the capital.

    I'm opposed to getting rid of term limits as a rule, but, the context you offered seems woefully inadequate.

  29. Was considering contributing to your platform, and all I can say is I dodged a bullet on that one. Look at who just assumed power in Bolivia and tell me that wasn't an intentional coup. Nice of you to expose yourself as being clueless.

  30. It was a coup!
    Nothing is good or bad David.
    Evo should not have tried to get re-elected.
    But.
    The military forced him, not violent, there was no violence.
    So, it was a peaceful military coup.

  31. The OAS is funded by the Trump Administration.
    60% of the OAS funding c9mes from the USA.
    Just like with Ukraine, Trump must have forced the OAS to allege the elections were "fraudulent".
    Not one shred of evidence of fraud.
    And even IF it was fraudulent- Evo Morales term ends in January. 2020.
    It was a coup.

  32. Wow you're wrong for this one pakman. The indigenous people are suffering right now thanks to these white hispanics right wing bastards. Do more research listen to the native people!!!

  33. David is calling Evo Morales a dictator and anti-yankee? Evo is not an authoritarian, he is a "social democrat" judging by his policies and actions through out his terms. If he was a dictator, he would have used state owned natural gas revenue to prompt up a pro Morales military and police state to oppress the masses.

    Sure, the constitutional court ruled that term limits is a violation of Evo Morales's rights. Did Evo Morales influence the Constitutional court? Yes he did, but you failed to take into account that Morales feared another racist colonial violent authoritarian corportist white right wing take over of Bolivia that would destroy the Indigenous and middle class progress they made the last 13 years.

    BTW, Evo said many times that he has no problems with the American People, he has a problem with U.S. imperialism all over the world. The same imperialist who tried numerous times to assassinate and overthrow Evo Morales since his first election. Morales did reject every U.S. trade deal and ran out the U.S. Ambassador, but he continued to work with private U.S. corporations and U.S. Citizens who respected Bolivian and Indigenous soverignty! David Pakman is totally naive and bigoted in Bolivian history and affairs!

  34. You're half right David. Yes, it's literally a coup as per the definition of a coup "A coup d'état is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means." Everything you said about whether it's a coup or not is completely irrelevant… And yes, it's Morale's own fault. Running for another term was a serious no-no.

  35. U.S. asked for early elections. Evo is trying to protect his country from pillaging by our corporates.
    He resigned because our gov't threatened to turn Bolivia into Venezuela or Hondoruas and he again protected his country.
    It's very sad.

  36. Dear David Pakman, you're seriously putting Evo Morales in the same boat as Castro and Chavez?
    Evo Morales is a Social Democrat…
    Hugo Chavez is a State Socialist…
    Fidel Castro is a Communist…
    This is based on the stances, policies and actions of those three leftist.
    David is clearly a Establishment bigot on Latin American leftist!

  37. Moral of the story: don't get greedy. This is in great part why Latin America can't have long-term stability and prosperity.

  38. I didn't know some of the things about Morales as I do now. He shaker than I thought.

    Corrupt? Maybe. Unethical, definitely.

    But what else do you call it when the military 'requests'your resignation, while standing there with really big guns? There's an implication of threat there. Maybe they didn't storm the executive mansion and kill him, but it still seems like a military coup to me, even if a soft one. Kind of how Nixon is remembered as the only President pushed out of office by impeachment, even if he was never formally impeached.

  39. You seem to imply that calling it "military coup" is somehow inaccurate or myopic.
    Merriam-Webster's definition of a coup d'etat: "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group". Which is what happened. Fact of the matter is that what happened in Bolivia has so far been beat for beat the same process that transpired in Honduras.

    1- Morales/Zelaya aims at extending his mandate beyond current rules.
    2- The military deposes him and sends him on exile.
    3- A new right-wing government is put into place with the help of our good friends the gringos, who always have our best interest at heart amirite?

    What's next for Bolivia is a wave of privatization, repression, and a mass exodus into Mexico and the United States. The new bolivian president has tweets saying that the indigenous people of Bolivia "have no place in the cities" and that they are "satanic". The police cut off the indigenous flag from their uniform and they are generally playing up their christian authoritarianism, putting bibles everywhere. The racist, theocratic component that the bolivian right is exhibiting is a clue that the country might get even worse than Honduras. Do you think Mexico and the US are prepared for another wave of refugee caravans? Is it too black and white to point this out? Are you gonna look after those refugees when they knock on your door? Or maybe we could avoid this altogether by not supporting obvious coups?

  40. So no comment on how the "interim" president from this non-coup is literally calling for displacement, discrimination and violence against the indigenous population?

  41. Is fucking with term limits a good thing? No not really.

    But sooooooo much info left out of this video.

    1. Said he barely won in 2014. Just looked it up, 87% turnout, Morales 61%, other candidates 24% & 9%.

    2. Did not mention the court justices were also democratically elected.

    3. Did not mention Morales decision recently to not provide special deals for western capital to purchase lithium, which has alot of and is an industry under public ownership.

    4. Did not mention the violence, racist, anarchy, theocracy authoritarianism laden fascist party that has already filled the power vacuum.

  42. "The revolutionary left"

    Noam Chomsky (in his book "who rules the world") says there's two kinds of intellectuals- (I'm paraphrasing)

    1. Ones that use their intellect, pursuits, and talents to uphold and justify the established order. These intellectuals recieve praise and are held in high esteem.

    2. Then there's the revolutionary intellectuals who use their intellect, pursuits, and talents to uphold the disenfranchised, speak truth to power, especially when it's detrimental to their benefit, defend the undersirables of democracy- women, minorities, the poor etc.

    These intellectuals are routeinly degraded, undermined, discarded, mocked and at times even killed.

    To be called "revolutionary" as a pejoritive is nothing new.
    In fact it lets us know we're doing our job.

    David,

    millions of Bolivians, particularly the poor and indigenous are set to be slain, repressed, and exploited because of a coup sponsoring a fascist that will place profit (dealings with western contractors) before it's people.

    And you make a video like this downplaying the reality of the situation.

    Yeah I think we know what kind of "intellectual" you are.

  43. You can stop video at 3 minutes because his take is based on the assumption Evo appointed the Supreme Court which he didn't making this video and Pakmans very nuanced and gray take fucking worthless.

  44. Real hot take David. 😂😂 I think it’s a coup. Because of the fact that him and his associates were attacked, military involvement and connections with the OAS, it would be odd to leave outside intervention out of the question. That being said, I think every country more or less should have term limits. Abolishing it completely would give way to authoritarian leadership.

  45. great info.. will look into it.. i was wondering what happened, did you see that picture of El Chapo, Pablo escobar and and Evo Morales-back in the day -ill send to you on FB.. it was eye openig, what we really don't know unless we did.

  46. David THERE WAS NO IRREGULARITIES!!! STOP SAYING SHIT, SERIOUS SHIT WITHOUT EVIDENCE!!!!
    YOU'RE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE BRAINED WASH OPPOSITION!

  47. You completely botched this David que decepción. This video is full of misinformation to point that you sound like the opposition.

  48. Military *threatens to use force to remove a democratically elected president

    Evo Morales *steps down to avoid bloodshed

    Libcucks : iTs nOt a MiLiTaRy CoUp! iT wAs A pEaCeFuL tRaNsFeR oF pOwEr!

  49. I would like to see you discuss this with someone like Michael Brooks or Benjamin Dixon. They have a different interpretation of what’s going on in Bolivia but they are not the types of black and white thinkers that you are describing here.

  50. No lithium question, nothing about achieving 60% in the election, nothing to do with opposition harassment of Evo supporters, nothing to do with the the US support of the opposition at all. This is what the yoke of social-democracy does to Leftists.

  51. I agreed almost on everything on your video David, a lot of leftie YouTubers seem to defend Morales just because he is left. I would love to hear what they got to say if it were a president that doesn't align to their beliefs. We gotta start being more critical of things and thinking more logically.

  52. Comparing evo morales to trump to make an argument is kind of stupid. Morales reduced extreme poverty by 60% and poverty by 40%, he gave a voice to the indigenous who have always been ignored and treated as second class citizens. He basically rid Bolivia of illiteracy, he built roads to connect people whit major cities, he grew the middle class like no one ever has in Bolivia. The Bolivian economy has been growing more than any other economy in the region. Most importantly, in 2018 his government partnered with ACI a German company (51% Bolivian investment, 49% German) to mine lithium from the salar de uyuni. The Germans had to share knowledge and tech with the Bolivians. The second phase of this contract would see the partnership use the lithium for battery production. The contract was abrogated in the middle of this coup.
    Bolivia’s next president will most likely be Fernando Camacho a religious nut who comes from wealth, and is mentioned in the Panama papers. He’s said he will return god to the palacio quemado, which to many indigenous sounds alike like the days of the conquista.

  53. David, Why did they brutalize a mayor for supporting him? It's far right violence and a military coup. How did you mess this up so bad?

  54. This coup has been primarily led by the people in Bolivia. The military wouldn’t have acted like this without the people’s support.

  55. lol I clicked to see if for once pakman would surprise me with his take on Latin American politics but of course he didn't. Anybody noticed he's the only major left wing political commentator who hasn't made it clear who he supports for 2020?

  56. I always thought stalin was really stupid for saying "social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism" but damn David you fuckin proved joseph stalin right good job imperialist scum

  57. Anytime the military takes down a government that was elected, it is a coup. Given how coups almost always enable right-wing repression, I doubt that this coup will be good for Bolivia or for freedom.

    we've been better to get Evo Morales out by a legislative process even though it would have taken longer

    Also the OAS (organization of American states) is mostly funded by the United States. This means that right now Donald Trump in the Republicans are mostly in control of the OAS. I have looked and I have not seen that there's any actual evidence election fraud. Evo Morales was expected to win by experts outside the country and he wanted by the amount they predicted. the reason that he appeared behind at first was because the 1st precinct that get counted are the ones in the city which is where the rich people live.the further away from the city the poor the people are in the more likely they are to vote for Morales. So there was no irregular pattern of voting.

  58. IT WAS A COUP
    You are talking about a country with more than 30 coups. Military is BAD specifically in this country.
    OAS reported irregularity in onl 77 spots. There were more than 14.000 voting spots. That's less than 0.05%
    Before calling Evo autoritarian because hi is in power since 2006. REMEMBER THAT GERMANY ANGELA MERKEL IS IN OFFICE SINCE 2005.
    The supreme court ruled that Evo can run again because an international agreement says that. And as you know international treaties have the same constitutional heriarchy as the constitution itself.
    In my opinion it wasnt a wise desition to run again. BUT IT WAS LEGAL, so it says the DEMOCRATIC supreme court.

    ALSO YOU DIDNT MENTIONED THE ENORMOUS ECONOMIC GROWTH OF BOLIVIA AND THAT THE COUP WAS STAGED BY EVANGELIC RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS LIKE THE ONES THAT TOOK BOLSONARO INTO PRESIDENCY.
    VIVA PRESIDENT EVO MORALES!
    VIVA LA PATRIA GRANDE!
    Cheers from Argentina, your homeland, where you, David, also support right-wing parties, as i watched in other videos where you talk about Argentina.

  59. Dear David Pakman,

    I completely agree that the corruption (which I've heard a lot about but haven't been presented with evidence for, still definitely highly plausible) and changing constitution (after rejection from the citizens!) to allow for indefinite hold on power are both bad.

    However, is it possible that this specific "coup" or removal is worse? Don't get me wrong, I'm uneasy about anyone consolidating power and holding onto it indefinitely, and, like you highlighted in the Trump example, I'd feel powerless as a citizen and beg for someone/something to come in and remove the one in power. But from my admittedly brief mostly-twitter-research, it looks like we have a leader with authoritarian tendencies now being replaced by right-wing, religious fanatics and anti-indigenous racists. It feels like we're trading one form of (possible) authoritarianism for a worse, more vicious, fascist one.

    Second, Kyle Kulinski recently showed a clip from the BBC (which I consider a reputable source) where an analyst described that no actual evidence of tampering/misconduct in the last election has been provided/found. So this would make me believe his current term is less illegitimate, maybe? And forcing him to step down (if his current presidency is supported by a majority of the population) then seems a bit more unjust?

    Sorry for how grossly uninformed/lazy the evidence for this is, but if you see this, I'd just like to hear your thoughts on these two points. It would also be nice to get a more in-depth segment that includes more reporting on the current situation: violence from each side (police, demonstrators), the new people taking power, etc.

    One last thing you could comment on: the description of the military requesting/compelling Morales to step down sounds very peaceful. What do you make of the violence/vandalism of Morales' house and family's/supporters houses? Is this unrelated intimidation? And what about Trump expressing support for his removal? I don't take him to be extremely worried about democracy/human rights/freedoms around the world; why does he care enough about this to make a statement? Does this verbal support suggest deeper US involvement reminiscent of interventions in South America in decades past? Or is Trump just happy that someone who exposed him/the US to his face at the UN is going down?

    Thanks for all the level-headed work,
    AR

  60. David, I believe you are absolutely right on this issue. I am a Bolivian mestizo with a Masters degree from an American university who considers himself left of center, have dual nationality, and who voted for Bernie in 2016, and plan to do so in these upcoming elections. I don't know why people get so tribalistic defending people they perceive to be part of their ideological spectrum since you can have good and bad actors on both sides. I follow other shows similar to yours: the Rational National, The Humanist Report, the Hill, and Secular Talk, and left some detailed messages outlining the actual chronology of the events and a lot of historical references so that people could be better informed. After being up for a couple of days and receiving many comments, I found just recently that most of my posts had been removed even though they had no bad language, libelous claims, or anything that I would consider offensive. I don't know if it was the owners of the channels themselves (which would be very sad for me since I kinda like them and watch them often and agree on almost every other issue) or if it was YT itself. So I am going to make this as factual as possible with few opinions; hopefully as to not get removed.

    I don't think we should get into details of whether Evo was good or bad, if he did good or bad things, or if the population really had no options which one might consider "adequate". Let's just try to go with the facts.
    The Bolivian Constitution says you can only have 2 terms of 5 years each. He is in his third term because since the first was technically under the old constitution his third term is really his second. Now, he is prohibited from having another term, so he sought a referendum which he felt confident he would win. If indeed he had, no doubt he would have tried to legitimize his position even further and re-written yet a new Constitution. Unfortunately for him he lost, but he went ahead and disregarded his own constitution and became an illegitimate candidate yet a fourth time.
    Now if he had overwhelming support and had won by 61% like he did first time around, I might be inclined to say: the people want him, and I guess at that point he can write a new constitution to legitimize his win (although we should still have to look out to protect the minority). However this did not happen. Even if we completely disregard the fraud claims (which we really shouldn't because it was massive and undeniable, but just for argument's sake) officially he received 47% of the vote. That means 53% of the population voted for opposition candidates. That is not a majority but a plurality. A second round runoff would have been the appropriate due course, initially. If Evo had agreed to it after the first few days of strikes, I think most of the population would have taken him up on that offer and he'd still be president and campaigning towards re-election. The problem is that he was afraid that in a second ballot everyone that voted for 1 of the other 8 parties (yes there were 9 total), would coalesce around Mesa and he would lose. Rather than allow for a second round, he was extremely authoritarian in his position and comments, and at first would not even allow for any audit to take place, and had many incendiary comments not worthy of a president, calling on his base to block access to the main cities (where most of his opposition is) and said he was willing to rule from the countryside as the large cities where besieged. Let's see how long the cities last without food and provisions he said. Is that a president who should be in charge, one willing to starve over half of the population that did not vote for him? Don't believe me, check out some of his post-electoral comments and you will see I'm not making this up

  61. I’m not mad, I’m just really, really… really disappointed in you. You may as well have signed up for some mlm on this one Pakman, cause you sound like such a gullible rube.

  62. 1. No, some of us actually wouldn't want Trump ousted by the military in your scenario. Heck, if partisan supreme Court rulings justified a military coup, the left would be there already.

    2. No military coup, right or left wing, has been black and white. I think your analysis is fair on tone, but it is telling that everyone finds their sense of nuance when it's a bunch of right wing thugs ousting a less than perfect leftist.

    3. The reason the left has its reaction is because we do not live in a vacuum. Your analysis ignores the fact that the only ones to "determine" fraud in the election is the OAS, which has a history of antagonizing left governments. It ignores the history of actions against popular left governments while giving the right a pass for much worse. It also ignores credible implications of resource mercantilism being involved. It pretends that Evo didn't try to compromise and call new elections. It also conviently ignores the fact that the Bolivian right is currently terrorizing thier oposition, burning people's homes, arresting politicians, and calling for the opposition to be barred from the next election. David, is that what you would do to Republicans if our military ousted Trump?

    Evo is not perfect. Nor is Trump, nor is any other politician. The left should not be held to a different standard than the right. And the military overturning a vote that has to be assumed legitimate until proven by an independent party (which OAS isn't) cannot be justified. Especially with the violence, how could the Bolivian left ever see the results of an new election as legitimate? Why shouldn't a future left government rule with an iron fist if the right is going to behave the way it has anyway?

  63. Maybe it's a coup you agree with, and if so fine, but it's a coup.
    Just FYI, Canada and Germany don't have term limits for their prime ministers.

  64. De repente me das la impresión de un falso progre. Falso en el discurso y falso en la cara… Deberías de revisar los hechos antes de opinar…sinceramente un fan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment