The thing that has turned my head is not the north-south dichotomy but the way the familiar political line between left and right is blurred down here. Again and again I've been struck with the ways that Chile and Brazil, the two countries I'm visiting on this trip, have, on key issues, transcended the tired division between left and right the United States seems hopelessly mired in.
This isn't to say, of course, that the traditional political spectrum has magically ceased to exist down here, but both countries have narrowed the range of issues to be hashed out in the left/right sandbox and widened the range of issues that have become part of the national agenda -- beyond partisan gamesmanship. This is the exact opposite of what has been going on in the United States.
In the U.S., there is now hardly an issue that is exempt from the toxic left/right battles -- not even a bill to take care of the health of 9/11 first responders.
And in contrast to the assumption sweeping Washington that, as Tom Friedman put it, "America is only able to produce 'suboptimal' responses to its biggest problems," at virtually every stop on my South American trip I've encountered the can-do optimism that has for centuries been at the heart of the American dream.
It reinforced the feeling that a country's spirit has less to do with absolute conditions on the ground than with the perception of whether things are getting better or worse. And in Chile and Brazil, the perception is that things are definitely getting better. Indeed, a 2009 Gallup study found that Chileans and Brazilians expect that their lives five years from now will be significantly better than their lives today.
Chile is led by a president from the right, Brazil by a president from the left. But both have transcended stereotypes and shibboleths in order to tackle hard problems.
The first stop on my trip was Santiago, Chile, where I interviewed President Sebastián Piñera. Piñera is a first in many ways -- most obviously, he's the first right-wing president Chileans have elected in the two decades since Pinochet. He's a billionaire; the third richest man in Chile; a former professor with a Ph.D. from Harvard whose thesis was entitled "The Economics of Education in Developing Countries"; and he relaxes by, among other things, skydiving and flying helicopters.
We are only a few minutes into our interview in the blue room outside his office, dominated by a huge painting by the Chilean surrealist Matta, when he tells me: "By the end of this decade, we want Chile to be the first country in South America to have eliminated poverty, to have closed the gap in income between rich and poor, and to be recognized as a developed -- not a developing -- economy." A moment later, he adds: "Instead of just talking about poverty, we are working to defeat it. I always say, 'judge us on our results and achievements, not on our intentions.'"
To produce those results, he is putting more resources into overhauling his country's education system. "Nothing is more important," he told me. "We will win the battle against poverty in the classroom."
Piñera's urgency is accentuated by the knowledge that, in keeping with Chile's constitution, he can only serve one term at a time. When, in a conversation with his wife Cecilia Morel at lunch the following day, I remark on his intensity, the First Lady laughs: "Yes, I know. I've lived with it every day for 37 years! He recharges by working. I, on the other hand, need silence and time by myself."
Piñera took office on the heels of a catastrophe. His inauguration came less than two weeks after the devastating February 2010 earthquake and tsunami that killed over 500 Chileans, leveled or severely damaged 4,000 schools, and left 2 million Chileans homeless. Piñera tried to put the devastation in perspective for me. "The economic damage is equal to 18 percent of Chile's gross domestic product," he said. "In comparison, the cost of Katrina was less than one percent of America's GDP."
Pinera responded to the crisis with what the Economist called "a frenzy of activity." He is especially proud of the fact that, as he had promised, within two months of the quake, all 1.2 million schoolchildren affected by the quake were able to resume classes. "Some of the children," he told me, "were studying in makeshift classrooms inside tents, police stations, and churches -- often in split shifts. But they were all back at school."
Seven months later, 33 miners became trapped in the San José mine -- a twist of fate that tested his leadership and became a defining moment for his country and his presidency.
In the beginning, his advisers told him to keep his distance from the disaster, lest he be too closely connected to what was almost certainly going to be a tragic outcome. But Piñera disregarded their advice, listening instead to what, in uncharacteristic language for a head of state, he describes as "my inner voice." And he attacked the crisis with his signature verve. When his experts offered him three different strategies for rescuing the trapped miners, he ordered them to do all three at the same time. "That," he told me, "is what I would do if it were my children in the mine."
The triumphant rescue has helped rebrand Chile and Piñera. When I talked with rescued Chilean miner #21 Yonni Barrios (he was the one with the wife and mistress both holding vigil outside the mine), he said of the president: "I didn't vote for Piñera, but if he were running again I definitely would. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be alive." I later asked Barrios what his New Year's resolution is. "I don't make New Year's resolutions anymore. I take life one hour at a time."
Piñera's outlook is more long-range -- and unfailingly optimistic. During our talk, he repeatedly used the phrase "the sky's the limit" when talking about Chile's prospects. It's a far cry from the Obama administration's fervent embrace of "politics as the art of the possible."
When I ask Piñera about President Obama, he pauses for a moment then tells me: "Life is tough -- and you have to be tougher than life to change the world."
And Piñera is intent on changing, if not the world, at least Chile. And he's willing to cross traditional ideological boundaries to do so. If his focus on poverty makes him seem less like a conservative businessman-turned-politician and more like a traditional South American social democrat, he'll tell you that's only because you are listening with tired ears. "We've got to move beyond the idea that the public and private sectors are at odds," he told me. "Government has to lay the groundwork for private equity to productively invest in things like education. It's a partnership, not a battle."
Piñera has now been in office nine months and has wasted no time in letting the country -- and his own government -- know that he's determined to get things done. In February, before he even took office, at a press conference announcing his ministers, he gave each of them a computer drive containing his policy goals, which he hung around their necks.
It reminded me of the sticker Winston Churchill would place at the top of urgent items: "ACTION THIS DAY."
To avoid conflicts of interest, Piñera required his ministers to step down from any positions they held in private companies (although he's been criticized for taking too long to do the same). And to make sure they stayed in touch with the people, he's got each of his ministers twittering, and has a young, energetic social media team that I met with at the Palacio de La Moneda, where his office is.
But it's not just on economic issues that Piñera breaks the left/right mold. In August, a regional commission gave the go-ahead for the international company Suez Energy to develop a coal-fueled thermoelectric power plant near a Chilean nature reserve. Environmental groups protested. Piñera intervened and scuttled the development.
And when I met with Antonio Patriota, Brazil's incoming Foreign Minister, he told me that Piñera had "surprised everyone" when, soon after taking office, he sided with Brazil and other countries in pressuring Honduran President Porfirio Lobo, a conservative who came to power in a military coup, to not attend a EU-Latin America-Caribbean Summit. The assumption that Chile's first right-wing leader since Pinochet would side with Lobo was turned on its head, with Piñera saying he wouldn't attend the conference if Lobo was there, since he didn't consider him the leader of "a legitimate government." (It's worth noting that Chile, like the U.S., has since recognized Lobo's government.)
From the Palacio de La Moneda I went to Bellavista, the neighborhood where Pablo Neruda lived. Over 30 years ago, I had read in Neruda's essay "Childhood and Poetry" a passionate summing up of empathy as a guiding principle both for life and for politics.
"To feel the intimacy of brothers," Neruda wrote, "is a marvelous thing in life. To feel the love of people whom we love is a fire that feeds our life. But to feel the affection that comes from those whom we do not know, from those unknown to us, who are watching over our sleep and solitude, over our dangers and weaknesses -- that is something still greater and more beautiful because it widens out the boundaries of our being, and unites all living things."
And this widening out of the boundaries of our being is what turns statecraft into soulcraft. And as Piñera has so far demonstrated, it is definitely beyond left and right.
Next: a look at Brazil and why it may be time to rebrand the promise of upward mobility the South American Dream.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Rabbi Arthur Waskow: Big Coal, 'Avatar' and Tu B'Shvat
I see the US left (which includes the establishment GOP) as ineffective in helping the poor, and expensive at taxpayers' expense. Instead, try the libertarian Christian vision: personal generosity, maximum opportunity, minimum bureaucracy.
Thank you for your visit to a great neglected part of the world. It is as if the Caribbean and South America did not exist. But you know what "benign neglect" is sometime a good thing. As can be said by the blurring of left/right dividing line, and the concentration or priority, being what is best for the country, what is best for all? As the U.S. responded to problems left and right, when it was striving for greatness.
Thank you, so much for traveling outside the box-hellooo, the world is not only Europe and the Middle East. And the poor are still around, memba them?
Amazing quote:
. "We've got to move beyond the idea that the public and private sectors are at odds," he told me. "Government has to lay the groundwork for private equity to productively invest in things like education. It's a partnership, not a battle."
Yes, the public and the private sector cannot be at odds because they are both the wings which make the country fly. The private sector and public sector's priority in America should be what is best for the good of all people. It is the only way we will get rid of the stagnation we are mired in. Enough said.
Totally erasing the "me, first" attitude, and begin to think what would be best to do, for the good of all that would make America great. Sort of "Ask not what is there for me; but how can I contribute?"
Now that would be change we can all believe in!
I see it crumbling under the lousy choices of our political leaders, especially on the republican side!.
It is not like the Democrats, we love so much, are not selling us down the river; and their soul along with the wash, while preteding to do otherwise.
The democrats, the real democrats, blue dogs excluded, care for the masses, the average working person and what they need to have a decent life. Health care , jobs, help for the unemployed, education for all, and SCIENCE, yes, because w/o science we cannot succeed in the 21 century!
So unless you are fithy rich
People left alone, will produce and exchange, thus prosper. The only function of government is protection, so they can.
Once government is all things to all people, it becomes the criminal itself. The whole society becomes dependent, and a contest of who can steal the most.
Government is the major social problem. Things like education and drugs run a distant second. But these are just government operations.
In those countries it is thanks to government intervention and programs, that they are currently being successful.Good leadership by well meaning presidents. When they didnt have that government infrastructure they were nothing but 3rd world countries full of debt, poverty and problems.
However, a couple of months after 9/11 I met a woman who introduced me to Brazil. I now live in the mountains outside Rio de Janeiro three and a half hours drive. When I arrived in Jan. 2002 not many people spoke English but since then their has been an explosion of people speaking English. I was lucky to have sold my house in the states and invest the profits in Brazil when the dollar was 3.8 reais. Now it is 1.7 A long story short. I bought some land and a house six years ago and just sold the land for a 500 percent profit. I am old enough to remember the late and early sixties in the states and Brazil feels and looks like America in those days. Minas Gerais is a huge state big enough to put ten Portugals in. However, when I first arrived the roads were horrible but now they have all been repaved and upgraded. Small towns everywhere are experiencing massive growth.....new businesses are opening daily and more and more foreignors are arriving. And yes Arrianna is right the American dream has moved south because the American people have somehow let their dream morph into a nightmare. Unbridled greed by corporations and self serving politicians have destroyed the American dream or driven it elsewhere.
A lot of upward mobility was based on education and there was a time when any Americans could afford a good education. Those days seem long gone with financing for college getting more expensive every day. South America educates their people, even if they send them here.
The American Dream could be restored.
The government now has control of student loans again so it is possible that they could offer any citizen of the United States 100% financing for higher education at 1% simple interest and easy qualifications. Since they are loans the costs would be minimal and the boon to American colleges and people would be enormous.
Education was a big part of the American Dream. It can be again if the will can be found in Washington to do it.
Then might even be able to keep up with South America.
When we get back to realizing that there is a difference between our leaders setting examples and teaching, versus establishing inefficient bureaucracies to force people to do things and to guide them for life, than we will be back on track.
As the old saying goes "give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and feed him for life". Not to mention giving him (and her) the pride and self worth that can never be accomplished through social welfare programs.
SELF empowerment is the key.
Education is the key.
The thing is... it hasn't happened. And of course, it actually makes sense. You see, these people are already rich, already accomplished, already elite. They are not ministers because they want more money, they took the jobs because they want recognition. Piñera has money, more money than he could spend in a lifetime (as long as one remains sane and doens't start building space shuttles), so I think he wants to make history as the best president to ever take the office. He already has everything he wants, in the materialistic sense. It's time to do something else, something bigger, and something better. He wants to trascend
There have been a few accomplishments; there has been reforms on education and environmental laws, and some other stuff that I don't quite know the details off. But a good amount of money and efforts are being funneled to rebuilding, which is slow, costly and quite difficult to coordinate.
As a last note, I phrased it positively because it serves the interest of the country, but look at it this way. This people wan to make history. It's all about ego. They have what they need, now they want to be famous and admired forever.
However, the poor we will always have with us.
The point is to reduce their number to only the poor in spirit
for which nothing can be done.
With respect to the poor in pocket,
everything can be done it they want to cooperate.
without turning his country over to the rich & powerful -- as most rich political leaders do.
But then again, FDR was very wealthy, and he wasn't a lackey for the rich & powerful either.
Excellent report.