When reading about Allende and Boric, along with the greater historical context in Chile, I immediately noticed the differences from the United States in terms of political spectra. In the most black-and-white terms, Chile seems to have a left wing movement in a way that the US doesn't. The New Yorker article discussed at length, dispersed in discussions of various issues, the conflicts between the left and far-left, and how Boric has been criticized by the latter for transforming into a “centrist” for actions that would still be way outside the US overton window. Chile's “left” is composed of communists and democratic socialists, while the United States's “left” is composed of social democrats (though some are labeled as “democratic socialists” and the distinction between the two ideologies is messy anyway) and liberals.

But on the other end of the political spectrum, Chile seems to extend as far right as the United States. Economically, the spectrum is vast. Boric's infamous quote reflects this interesting scenario: “If Chile was the cradle of neoliberalism, it will also be its grave.” (New Yorker) In a description hilariously evocative of 2013, the article from The Nation labels the Piñera administration's economics as a “Romneyesque trickle-down position”. At the same time, we hear echoes of Trumpism from the far-right José Antonio Kast: “law and order”, xenophobia, and general social conservatism, along with free-market economics. Kast was ultimately defeated by a somewhat wide margin, but yet the Constitution harboring the opposing social ideology was absolutely crushed. A picture of Chile's political situation forms: a general backlash against neoliberalism and foreign intervention but, especially among older generations, still remaining to general conservatism. Perhaps if Kast reflected more of Trump, who retained “pro-business” policies while attacking the “elite” and “swamp”, he would have been more successful, especially in Chile.

The New York Times article made me think about democracy and the idea of the social contract. Allende was elected democratically and had the consent of the Chilean people, but was overthrown not solely by sectors of the Chilean populace, but with the aid of the United States government. We are often told in the US that socialists are inherently authoritarian, yet elected socialists are overthrown in favor of actual authoritarian leaders (but serve US business interests so it's okay). Coups can be democratic in a way; the January 6 insurrection is a great example of this. Most of the participants (those who weren't grifters) actually believed that democracy was being stripped away, so they resorted to violence to preserve it. To be clear: their logic is deeply flawed and they are wrong. The democratic allegiance of these far-right groups should also be questioned as they want to (and do) take away or dilute the voting power of dissenting groups, and they also seem to only cause an uproar when it is their candidate that loses. But say that democracy was actually being threatened, would a coup be justified? Would that coup be democratic? Regardless, with my limited knowledge, the overthrow of Allende was the opposite, with no intentions of democracy (unless “democracy” is code for the opposition's ideology).

I also found it interesting that Allende's more liberal socialism was able to be overthrown while more authoritarian socialist leaders, like Fidel Castro, were able to remain in power. Obviously democracy is preferable from a moral standpoint, but perhaps it fails in being less stable than authoritarian states. Many often think of progress as going through stages that you can't return to. I tend to think it's the opposite (if progress is considered moving away from authoritarianism and towards democracy): the stages are difficult to go through and easy to come back from. But the NACLA article made me think about it a bit differently. In authoritarian states (or at least under leaders in the authoritarian tradition), there's this fear of popular uprising which leads to “ban[ning] the poets”. It reminds me of a frantic effort to patch up holes in a dam, because if you aren't careful, the pressure will be just enough for the dam to burst.