|
"If approved, the new constitution drafted by Correa's allies will expand his authority over the economy and political institutions including Congress and the top courts. --Rotters (emphasis added)
This is part of expanding the Corpo lies/disinformation campaign from Chavez to other leaders who are most closely allied with Chavez. The Corpo meme is that they want to be "dictators."
They don't tell you what the situation is, in Ecuador (or other countries with newly elected leftist governments): That the highly corrupt, rich, fascist elites have a grip on power --in the courts, in the government bureaucracies, and through huge land holdings and concentration of wealth--that is difficult to penetrate and overcome, with social justice and other good government policies that the people clearly want.
FDR vs. the Supreme court is a good analogy. The country was flattened by an enormous Depression, caused by the rich--with millions of people jobless, homeless, starving, losing their farms and small businesses. FDR sought to immediately relieve the vast poverty, jump-start the economy, and build long term balance into the rich-poor divide, with government programs, that the Supreme Court--appointed by the previous fascist regimes--one after another declared unconsitutional.
FDR finally decided to employ a strategy which the rightwing called "packing the Supreme Court." The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices. 9 is an arbitrary number. Congress can vote to increase it. That's what FDR asked Congress to do--increase the number of justices, so he could appoint new, younger justices, in more sympathy with the starving millions, to balance the dinosaurs on the Court from the Hoover, Coolidge and other regimes. The rightwing called him a "dictator" (just as the rightwing now calls Chavez, Correa and also Evo Morales "dictators"), and raised such a stink that FDR withdrew the proposal. The pressure on the Supreme Court, however, caused one justice to change his mind about the "New Deal"--thus Social Security was saved from being declared unconstitutional.
If you or your parents or grandparents or other relatives are benefiting from lifelong contributions to Social Security, by receiving that pension now, it is because FDR tried to "pack the Supreme Court." We would otherwise not have Social Security.
Another analogy is the Bush junta, and what a future Obama administration may face with entrenched Bushwhack power embedded throughout our government institutions including the Supreme Court. The Bushwhacks can whack him in a thousand different ways, as he tries to clean up this utterly filthy government.
This is what Rafael Correa faces in Ecuador, and what Evo Morales faces in Bolivia, and what Chavez faced in his first term in Venezuela: wildly greedy, entrenched power bent on obstructing any reform that benefits the vast poor majority. And it is why the new governments, in all three cases, started with putting together public assemblies to re-write their constitutions, all of which had been written by the fascist elites, to enhance their own power.
Now go back and read this Rotters sentence: "If approved, the new constitution drafted by Correa's allies will expand his authority over the economy and political institutions including Congress and the top courts. --Rotters
Rafael Correa has an EIGHTY PERCENT approval rating. He is the democratically chosen leader of his people. They want him to have sufficient power to act on their behalf. Rotters, in typical Corpo fashion, frames this as more power for Correa, when it is, in truth, more power for the majority of the people of Ecuador, whom Correa clearly represents, and who will act--and is acting--on their behalf.
Rotters may have to grit their Corpo teeth and report that he's going to win it, but they get their psyops and propaganda in, in other ways--the "framing" of this power issue being a prime example.
------------------
As for not reading this, if you are an Ecuadoran voter: Keep in mind that most of South America has far, far more honest and transparent elections than we do. And one their election laws, common in the best democracies, is a ban on publishing polls (and various other bans--such as against last minute hit-piece ads) in the weeks leading up to the election. We should applaud this and other such laws. One of the reasons they have such laws is the blatant use of false polls by rightwing groups, in at least one case in conjunction with a rightwing coup plan (Venezuela--a false poll funded by our tax dollars). This law diminishes the power of the vast Corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies, who promulgate rightwing lies and bullshit. It also diminishes the power of money--to buy false polls and to buy ads making false claims, at the last minute.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
