First off, let's say that we never set out on this blog with the intention of being politically controversial. This is not a Political blog with a capital 'P'.
Now let's explain the images appearance on this blog. Original political satire they might not be. Contemporary political satire they are, popping up in Guatemala and much of America. The anti-Chavez graphic was on Guatemalan blogger Marta Yolanda Díaz-Durán's blog Principios. While the anti-Bush graphic (via Ulises Rodríguez/EFE/Corbis) was sprayed on a wall (and probably is still being sprayed on others) in Guatemala as part of the protests against the US President's arrival in the country.
Leaving the merits of comparing either Bush or Chavez with Hitler to one side, these crafted images represent polar opposites: both suggesting the road to avoid and not necessarily the road to take. Perhaps it's a measure of just how polarized debate has become that both sides equate their nemesis with the closest thing there is to a universally despised icon.
This growing undercurrent towards polarization in politics across the American continent is becoming less of an undercurrent and more of an out and out wave with each passing week. If Bush's uncomfortable foray into Latin America has demonstrated anything- it's surely got to be this growing polarization. Formulating clear distinct political options is one thing, political polarization where citizens are forced to take sides in the battles of others, is quite another. The "you're either for us or against us" philosophy that snuffs out political debate, has got to be one of the least effective ways of sowing peace and social justice out there.
How you personally describe this polarization is up to you: Bush/Chavez; neoliberal/socialist; dictatorship/democracy; populist/unpopulist; petrol/ethanol. May be daring political programmes always tend to create more polarization... may be Latin American politics are that much more polarized already and this current wave is nothing new. Hey, may be I'm hinting at a centre ground that just doesn't exist, and what do I know anyway? In the UK we complain because there's not enough to distinguish between our political representatives- red or blue are both the same is the all too common refrain. If only we could have a little dose of polarized politics to reinvigorate our staid British political culture, some might say.
The point, though, buried in this post is that Guatemalans are second to no-one in understanding the lethal potential of ultimate unfettered polarization fanned by outside powers. Bush and Chavez given the luxury of power and influence beyond their respective borders, may attempt their own disengagement and shun constructive dialogue with each other,* that's their prerogative. The rights or wrongs of that contest aside, when Guatemala decides its own road later this year, as idealistic as it sounds, let's hope the result is a step closer to greater dialogue and social justice, and away from a more bitter intense political polarization.
Background
*Ok, so Chavez might be forgiven a moderate antipathy towards Bush after Bush supported a coup in Venezuela that landed Chavez in jail in 2002. The point is (granted the reality of the situation may mean otherwise) idealistically, whatever is achieved in isolation could potentially be multiplied many times over by cooperating together, guided by social justice concerns.
It's worth pondering the media coverage of Bush's Latin American trip which has been widely accompanied by the dull, unmistakable playground drum beat of "fight, fight, fight".
Bush greeted by clashes in Brazil - BBC
Bush Deflects Chavez's Verbal Attacks - AP
Bush Refuses to Take Chavez's Bait - AP
Bush Won't Engage in Fight With Chavez - AP
Now let's explain the images appearance on this blog. Original political satire they might not be. Contemporary political satire they are, popping up in Guatemala and much of America. The anti-Chavez graphic was on Guatemalan blogger Marta Yolanda Díaz-Durán's blog Principios. While the anti-Bush graphic (via Ulises Rodríguez/EFE/Corbis) was sprayed on a wall (and probably is still being sprayed on others) in Guatemala as part of the protests against the US President's arrival in the country.
Leaving the merits of comparing either Bush or Chavez with Hitler to one side, these crafted images represent polar opposites: both suggesting the road to avoid and not necessarily the road to take. Perhaps it's a measure of just how polarized debate has become that both sides equate their nemesis with the closest thing there is to a universally despised icon.
This growing undercurrent towards polarization in politics across the American continent is becoming less of an undercurrent and more of an out and out wave with each passing week. If Bush's uncomfortable foray into Latin America has demonstrated anything- it's surely got to be this growing polarization. Formulating clear distinct political options is one thing, political polarization where citizens are forced to take sides in the battles of others, is quite another. The "you're either for us or against us" philosophy that snuffs out political debate, has got to be one of the least effective ways of sowing peace and social justice out there.
How you personally describe this polarization is up to you: Bush/Chavez; neoliberal/socialist; dictatorship/democracy; populist/unpopulist; petrol/ethanol. May be daring political programmes always tend to create more polarization... may be Latin American politics are that much more polarized already and this current wave is nothing new. Hey, may be I'm hinting at a centre ground that just doesn't exist, and what do I know anyway? In the UK we complain because there's not enough to distinguish between our political representatives- red or blue are both the same is the all too common refrain. If only we could have a little dose of polarized politics to reinvigorate our staid British political culture, some might say.
The point, though, buried in this post is that Guatemalans are second to no-one in understanding the lethal potential of ultimate unfettered polarization fanned by outside powers. Bush and Chavez given the luxury of power and influence beyond their respective borders, may attempt their own disengagement and shun constructive dialogue with each other,* that's their prerogative. The rights or wrongs of that contest aside, when Guatemala decides its own road later this year, as idealistic as it sounds, let's hope the result is a step closer to greater dialogue and social justice, and away from a more bitter intense political polarization.
Background
*Ok, so Chavez might be forgiven a moderate antipathy towards Bush after Bush supported a coup in Venezuela that landed Chavez in jail in 2002. The point is (granted the reality of the situation may mean otherwise) idealistically, whatever is achieved in isolation could potentially be multiplied many times over by cooperating together, guided by social justice concerns.
It's worth pondering the media coverage of Bush's Latin American trip which has been widely accompanied by the dull, unmistakable playground drum beat of "fight, fight, fight".
Bush greeted by clashes in Brazil - BBC
Bush Deflects Chavez's Verbal Attacks - AP
Bush Refuses to Take Chavez's Bait - AP
Bush Won't Engage in Fight With Chavez - AP
