By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Abelardo de la Espriella, a Trump-aligned lawyer and self-proclaimed outsider, has won Colombia’s presidential runoff, narrowly defeating leftwing senator Iván Cepeda. This victory signals a significant shift back to the right after four years of leftwing leadership and reflects a broader trend of far-right presidential victories across Latin America. De la Espriella, who promised an “iron fist” approach to crime and a close alliance with the US, will take office amidst a deeply divided nation, with the outgoing president alleging irregularities in the preliminary vote count.
Read the original article here
It appears Colombia has elected a far-right millionaire, a development that, according to some perspectives, signals a troubling turn for the nation. The election, described as razor-tight, has ignited significant discussion about the country’s future trajectory. This outcome is particularly concerning for those who view the rise of such figures as detrimental, especially when their campaigns are linked to international figures like Donald Trump, a connection that itself raises red flags for many observers given historical patterns of intervention in South America.
The echoes of past US involvement in the region are palpable for some, recalling accounts of covert, often brutal, and devastating actions that have shaped the continent for centuries. There’s a sense of unease, a feeling that this history isn’t confined to the past, and that similar, less visible machinations might be at play today. The very effectiveness of these interventions, and the long periods it took for their full impact to be understood, fuels apprehension about current undercurrents.
A prevalent sentiment is that the success of the far-right is significantly amplified by a perceived lack of moral or ethical constraints. This absence, it’s argued, allows for an unparalleled industrialization and weaponization of propaganda, creating narratives that, upon closer inspection, can appear shallow and vague. The cycle of political discourse shifting further right in response to this manufactured consensus is seen as a disheartening global trend, where wealthy figures advocating for such ideologies seem to hold widespread appeal.
For those unfamiliar with the term “far-right” in this context, it’s understood as a stance favoring the rule of a wealthy elite, often historically associated with landowners, over the broader population. There’s a palpable concern that while the far-right may capitalize on the missteps of others, their ascent to power often leads to eventual disillusionment, a lesson some believe Colombia is poised to learn, much like past experiences in places like Chile.
The economic landscape of Colombia is also highlighted as a potential factor. The argument is made that policies aimed at increasing wages, while beneficial to some, may have inadvertently alienated segments of the population, particularly those not in formal employment or reliant on established businesses and savings. This, coupled with concerns about corruption, is seen as having potentially played a significant role in electing a candidate with a dubious reputation.
There’s a critical point being made that, as of the information at hand, no one has definitively “won” anything yet. The conclusion of preliminary counts is distinct from legally binding results, and the ongoing process, referred to as “the scrutiny,” is crucial. This nuance suggests that the narrative of a definitive victory might be premature, though the trend indicated by the preliminary count is undeniably significant.
The prospect of regaining independence from the United States appears to have been significantly hampered by this election outcome. While acknowledging that the previous administration, represented by Petro, wasn’t without its challenges and may have made governing difficult, the perception is that falling prey to rhetoric about communism and fueling rebels is a recurring pitfall that unfortunately leaves Colombia vulnerable to future hardship. The brief period since Duque’s presidency is noted, and the complex issue of the illegal drug trade is reframed, emphasizing the demand side and the shift of production to neighboring countries as evidence of its multifaceted nature.
The backing by Donald Trump, and admiration for figures like Javier Milei, paints a picture of a political alignment that some find deeply concerning for Colombia’s future. The mention of “False Positives” returning to the agenda, a reference to past scandals, adds another layer of disquiet. A dark humor emerges, with wishes for comical mishaps befalling the president-elect, contrasting with the grim reality of a soon-to-be billionaire.
The president-elect’s ambitious plans for “maximum-security mega-prisons” and his stark rhetoric about criminals, described as killing them “like rats and cockroaches,” raise immediate questions about funding and the potential for human rights abuses. The description of a transition from legal practice into a lavish lifestyle, with ventures in liquor, real estate, and menswear, evokes a sense of familiarity for those who have observed similar political ascensions elsewhere.
The candidate’s positioning as an “anti-establishment” figure, despite long-standing ties to the rightwing political establishment through his legal career, strikes some as a deliberate tactic, suggesting a playbook for aspiring leaders of this ilk. The plan to shrink the state by 40%, presented as a move away from bureaucratic overhauls, is viewed with skepticism, with concerns that it’s a precursor to privatization that will benefit a select few.
This trend is seen as part of a broader effort to exert influence across the Western Hemisphere, leading to a somber reflection on human nature and the apparent susceptibility of people to such political appeals, regardless of background. For those outside Colombia, the description of the president-elect as a “crooked lawyer” who allegedly profited from representing criminals, including those involved in pyramid schemes, paramilitaries, and narcos, paints a damning portrait.
The alleged backing by figures like “pedo trump” and “shit cunt rubio” further fuels the sense of dismay and resignation. The sentiment of “good luck to my fellow Colombians” is tinged with a belief that the populace, in a sense, “wants this,” a statement that implies a degree of agency, however misguided, in the electoral outcome.
A heartfelt plea to the world asks if lessons from history have been learned, framing the situation with a tone of exasperation. The idea that Colombia has grown “tired of stability” and elected a “payaso” (clown) who intends to dismantle peace agreements with armed groups like FARC and ELN is a particularly sharp critique, suggesting a self-destructive choice. The personal disappointment of someone who once considered Colombia a potential retirement country underscores the emotional impact of these developments.
The description of the president-elect as a lawyer for cartels and guerrilla groups, and the observation that those who complain most about these groups voted for him, highlights a perceived paradox in the electorate’s choices. The efficiency of vote counting in Colombia, contrasted with the scale of violence and armed groups, prompts a comparison to El Salvador and the question of whether a Bukele-style suppression will be necessary to address internal warlords.
A speculative question arises about the impact on the legalization of recreational cocaine, suggesting that the choice was perceived as being between that and communism, highlighting a perceived binary in the political spectrum. The lament about the absence of a centrist political option in Latin American elections, forcing choices between extremes, is a recurring theme. The label of “far-right” is challenged by some who argue it’s a mischaracterization, suggesting that adherence to traditional values and a tough stance on crime are being unfairly demonized.
The repeated invocation of the phrase “sounds suspiciously familiar” when comparing the situation to other countries, particularly the US, is a strong indicator of perceived patterns. The concern about the eventual emergence of “freedom cities,” mirroring initiatives elsewhere, and the hope that the media will remain vigilant, underscore this apprehension. The plan to establish CECOT-style concentration camps for gang members and cartel members is seen as a radical and potentially destabilizing approach, with concerns that the scale of Colombian cartels far surpasses that of El Salvador’s gangs, potentially leading to civil war. The comparison to Putin and the perceived solidarity among oligarchs adds a geopolitical dimension to the analysis.
Conversely, a Colombian perspective offers a starkly different view, calling the election a “saving grace” and asserting that the alternative candidate would have been “suicide for Colombia.” This viewpoint contends that the left candidate and current president were former guerrilla members and actively support such groups, urging others to “educate yourself” before making judgments.
The discussion delves into historical events like Operation Condor, highlighting the impact of studying US intervention in Latin America. Books like Eduardo Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America” and “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” are recommended as sources for understanding this complex history. The skepticism regarding the unquestioning acceptance of vote counts, especially when a powerful nation like the US is seen as descending into fascism and having a history of interfering in other countries, is a significant point of contention. The idea that Latin America is becoming a “test bed” for strategies intended for North America is also raised.
The specific policy proposals of the president-elect are detailed, including support for the right to bear arms, withdrawal from international human rights bodies, authorization for police to shoot protesters, and a willingness to employ extreme measures against drug traffickers. The admiration for Nayib Bukele’s security model and the embrace of economic laissez-faire policies, including state downsizing and privatization, are central to his platform. His alignment with US foreign policy, including support for regime change and annexation of Cuba, and his intention to move Colombia’s embassy to Jerusalem, indicate a significant shift in international relations. His opposition to abortion and same-sex adoption, rooted in “Judeo-Christian” principles, and his aim to limit the power of teachers’ unions and reform education to include traditional religious values, reveal a conservative social agenda.
The conclusion drawn by some is that Colombia is poised to become a “US colony,” a stark prediction about the erosion of national sovereignty. The overarching concern is the perpetuation of a global movement consolidating power within the wealthiest class, a trend seen as likely to continue and potentially lead to collapse. The idea that “the people who deserve the consequences are the ones funding the propaganda and manipulating everything and everyone” suggests a belief that the electorate, though perhaps not fully deserving of the outcome, is nonetheless manipulated by powerful forces. The “heartbreaking” nature of this perceived reality is a shared sentiment.
The ongoing “El Scrutiny” process is mentioned, indicating that the electoral process is still unfolding, with the preliminary results subject to further validation. The notion that people learn the hard way is presented as a somber observation on the electoral process. The effectiveness of anti-gang crackdowns, as seen in El Salvador, is offered as a potential model, though the context of Colombia’s more powerful cartels suggests a more complex challenge, unless drugs are decriminalized and their market removed. The fundamental driver for wealthy far-right individuals seeking political power is identified as the desire to control systems for their own benefit.