A good coup in Honduras

In Honduras, a leftist anti-US president was removed by the military, and replaced with a more moderate voice. So why is Obama complaining about this favorable development?

The way I see it is that, in a lot of countries, the military serves as a fourth branch of government and acts as a check against an overreaching executive branch. This is especially true in countries where the military officers tend to be composed of the nation's best and brightest while the voters are poor and stupid. Zelaya, the ousted president, was attempting to violate the Honduran constitution by staying in office longer than he was allowed to. The Honduran supreme court has ruled that the military acted in accordance with the Honduran constitution, and in fact it was the supreme court which authorized the coup in the first place (see here).

Just because the United States doesn’t have an independent military doesn’t mean it’s a bad system for other countries. So I give Obama a big thumbs down for trying to put Zelaya back in power. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Obama is a moron who is working against the interests of both the United States and the people of Honduras. Perhaps Obama is just a big leftist who wants to keep all of the world's leftist leaders in power forever?

Comments

[Patrik]

>>>>>Perhaps Obama is just a big leftist who wants to keep all of the world's leftist leaders in power forever?<<<<<

Nah.....totally_out_of_the_realm_of_possibility.

[Gil]

Isn't the 'well-regulated State militias' of the 2nd Amendment supposed to the equivalent of the 'independent militaries' in other countries?

[tommy]

At least this is one Latin American coup the left can't blame on American imperialism.

[HS: Actually, people have been blaming it on the U.S. anyway, despite the fact that Obama is trying to put the bad guy back in power.]

[JL]

I was delighted to hear about the Honduran coup simply because it seems that there are very few coups these days. Governments have gotten a lot better at holding on to power since Edward Luttwak wrote his "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook" in 1968. In contrast to revolutions, coups are usually reactionary, seeking to overthrow self-aggrandizing leftist regimes, which is good.

[Independennt Accountant]

I agree with you.

[Carcano]

"At least this is one Latin American coup the left can't blame on American imperialism."

Give it time tommy, give it time...

And JL, I hear ya:

http://www.puertadelsolblog.com/Pinochet.jpg

Good times, good times. The General really took out the trash too. The commies still go bonkers over that. He gave them the bird for decades.

[J.L.]

Wow, theres apparently another J.L. out there!!!

I guess I'm "J.L." #2.

Anyhoo...

Half Sigma said: "In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Obama is a moron who is working against the interests of both the United States and the people of Honduras. Perhaps Obama is just a big leftist who wants to keep all of the world's leftist leaders in power forever? "

This reminds me of an old quote. Back during the early years of the Castro regime in Cuba, a gullible American diplomat was chided for being "either a damn fool or a communist." I am increasingly getting the same feeling about Obama. He's either someone who is intentionally taking stands that gratify our enemies, or he's got a degree of foolishness and gullibility to rival that of Jimmy Carter.

[Cheerful Iconoclast]

Or maybe Obama plans to do the same thing in eight years.

[Patrick]

Check your head on this one, Half Sigma.

You're supporting the military coup of a democratically elected head of state, out of reactionary impulse and political bent, not out of appreciation for the rule of law, separation of powers, or respect for democratic will.

On top of that you believe that civilian control of the military is good for us, but not for them, why?

What was his crime worthy of coup d'etat? Proposing a non-binding referendum for a convention to consider a new constitution for the country, which, admittedly, has a pretty problematic constitution as it lacks provisions for impeaching the head of state - thereby making the country inherently unstable and prone to coup.

Would you be supporting the court-ordered coup of a democratically elected right-wing president if he had desired to change the country's rather impractical single four-year term limit? I sincerely doubt it, which makes your critique lack merit.

"Perhaps Obama is just a big leftist who wants to keep all of the world's leftist leaders in power forever?"

The inanity of this comment is beneath you.

To be sure, Honduras is not like the United States and has some real structural problems -- particularly the conflict between a dictator-wary term limits provision yet granting the president power to deploy the military to conduct national elections.

But praising this as a "good coup" because the leader deposed has been critical of the United States is not as sublimely neocolonial as you think and just makes you appear anti-democratic and a supporter of institutional plutocracy in underdeveloped nations.

[HS: The president of Honduras was acting in violation of the law as set forth by the Honduran supreme court and the Honduran legislature. Not all democratic votes are good. The president of the United States is not allowed to order a vote to change the United States Constitution, but that is what the president of Honduras was doing. The other two branches of government, or three branches if you include the military, arrested the president, who was not above the law, and replaced him with one elected by the legislature. The U.S. Constitution has similar provisions for Congress selecting a president in certain circumstances (such as a failure of the electoral college to elect a president). I don't see the situation in Honduras as being outside the norm of republican government.]

[Caligula]

Turkey's military plays a similar role. They will step in if they feel the government is violating the secular principles of the constitution.

[Turambar]

Its 3am and your president sucks