The Anti-American Century

Anti-Americanism in Latin America and the Caribbean—“False Populism” or Coming Full Circle?

Anti-Americanism in Latin America and the caribbean “FALSe POPuLiSm” Or cOminG FuLL circLe? Alan McPherson After becoming Secretary of State, condoleezza rice accused Latin American leaders such as Venezuela’s hugo chávez of practicing “false populism” against the united States.1 examination of the anti-u.S. sentiment—be it populist or otherwise—that has swept Latin America in the mid-2000s may be served by asking a series of questions about the past of anti-Americanism. it is increasingly clear that anti-Americanism is widespread, robust, and both a cultural and political phenomenon. These are the observations of journalists or commentators on present u.S. relations with the most anti-u.S. region in the world today, the middle east. To be sure, many of these modern-day observers ask questions that are historical in nature—for example about the long-term sources of anti-Americanism or the resentment of injustices that were perpetrated long ago. But few have asked about long-term changes within anti-Americanism: Who have been the proponents of resisting u.S. influence in the past? Who were their audiences? What mechanisms did they use—passive resistance, demonstrations , media campaigns, or the state? in short, how have different generations of “anti-Americans” defined themselves vis-à-vis the united States and how did their strategies change? 0 The AnTi-AmericAn cenTury These questions are especially pertinent to Latin America and the caribbean. When i first heard of the conference that prompted this volume, i was amused to read that the conference organizers dated “old” anti-Americanism in europe as recently as 1968. That date seems quaintly contemporary by the standards of Latin Americans, who, by then, had already been subjected to massive u.S. power for several generations. in response to that power, they had developed complex, interlocking identities and strategies. resentment had simmered throughout the nineteenth century , but widespread protests appeared most particularly in response to events from the War of 1898 through World War i and throughout the Great Depression, when u.S. marines occupied several sovereign nations and u.S. investors bought up land there. The peoples of the hemisphere resisted these incursions through guerrilla warfare in the countryside and peaceful protests in the cities. As the twentieth century wore on, both violent and peaceful resistance continued, reaching their apex with the cuban revolution of 1959, the election of Salvador Allende in chile in 1970, the leftist insurgencies in central America the following decade, and, finally, the recent upsurge of rice’s alleged “false populism.” Because of this long experience, countries south of the united States make up one of the most valuable laboratories for isolating generational or longitudinal changes within anti-Americanism and thus for applying the historian’s craft to this timely topic. This chapter situates itself within this long-term laboratory to ask how today’s most hostile regimes in Latin America compare and contrast with those of past generations. Let us set aside the continuing anti-Americanism of cuba, whose seemingly eternal leader Fidel castro gave up power for the first time temporarily in August of 2006. At the top of the list of other hostile regimes were chávez’s Venezu- 1 Anti-Americanism in Latin America ela and evo morales’s Bolivia. Significantly further behind were Luiz inácio “Lula” da Silva’s Brazil, néstor Kirchner ’s Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez’s uruguay, and michelle Bachelet’s chile. These regimes together made up what some called a new leftist consensus and others described as a new populism in Latin America.2 in varying degrees, all these leaders rose to power because of their constituencies’ widespread displeasure with u.S.-crafted neo-liberalism. As a result, the regimes backed policies that would reduce the political or economic power of the united States in the hemisphere. This new variant of anti-Americanism is not particularly cultural, but it is anti-American in that it identifies the united States as a systematic source of their troubles and aims to minimize Washington’s influence. This chapter argues that a historical cycle closely tied to generational change explains this anti-Americanism, and that the nation-state is at the center of this cycle. Such a view suggests that a circle is soon to be completed—or, worse for Washington and Wall Street, that an anti-u.S. spiral increasingly threatens u.S. power in the Western hemisphere...