Juan Domingo Perón: The Great Leader of Argentina

1.

-To what extent did Perón’s position as the Secretary of Labor garner the needed popularity to become President of Argentina?

-Perón’s position as Secretary of Labor led in large part to his ascension to the office of President of Argentina. The political atmosphere prior to his election to office was one of tension and confusion. Perón first came to power with the military coup d’état in 1943 (one point that is interesting about the Junta is that it rebelled against a conservative government). Within the new government, Perón was appointed as the Secretary of Labor. In this position, Perón bettered work conditions for the working class, increased the power of Labor Unions (assuming that they would give him their support), and settled work disputes. In his position, he became a household name as a miracle worker and friend of the people.

After the suspension of diplomatic relations with the Axis, the Junta swapped leaders and Perón rose to the level of Vice-President (while still holding his position as Secretary of Labor). After a speech in which he jibed the opposition parties and opposition within the Junta, Perón was forced out of office a subsequently arrested. However, several days later, mass protests were held to demand his release (which were organized by Eva Duarte, his soon to be wife). In the subsequent election, Perón won the election despite the unusually unified opposition.

Perón’s popularity began when he was in the position of Secretary of Labor. Through his actions that benefitted the mass population rather than large business owners, he created a large and strong base of support while only alienating a small portion of the population. Through this thinking, Perón created many devoted followers with only a few enemies. Perón’s position as Secretary of Labor essentially allowed for Perón to become as popular as he did and led to a great extent to his ability to garner the needed support to become President of Argentina.

How were the aims of Perón’s government different from the preceding government?

-The policies of Perón were fundamentally different from the preceding President in one key area. The preceding military Junta had no real stated aims or goals, but rather their only intention was to please the people enough to allow for the Junta to stay in power. By contrast, Perón had very clear aims as he came into office. The stated aims of Perón as he came into power were to create a “New Argentina’ founded on ‘social justice, political sovereignty, and economic independence” (Rock, 262) The essentially meant that Perón would continue his goals from when he was Secretary of Labor to increase the wages and improve the lives of the lower class citizens. Continued, the subjects of political sovereignty and economic independence were essentially one in the same. Perón attempted (and succeeded) to remove all foreign owned companies within Argentina (which essentially meant removing the British Government) by buying all of the respective properties. Essentially, Perón wanted Argentina to be a completely self-sufficient and to create a more Argentinean Argentina.

Did Perón’s ideology represent a leftist or rightist government? To what extent?

-The ideology of Perón is very interesting because it incorporates multiple aspects from both right and left wing ideas. Right wing governments often attempt to implement aspects, if not all aspects, of previous highly successful and influential governments. An example of a type of Right wing leader is Hitler with his attempts to recreate the power of the German Empire.

On the other side, left wing governments often implement swift and radical change. A clear example of this is Mao Zedong, who completely recreated his country after the defeat of the Kuomintang.

What both of these leaders who represented each side of the spectrum had that Perón did not was a long-standing history from which to build from. Perón’s government was entering a new era where there was a recent and massive influx of money. Even if he wanted to continue the politics of the older regimes, it would not have been possible due to the new economic wealth.

So in response to this need for change, the name of the Peronist party in Argentina became Partido Justicialista, which means “social justice.” This essentially encompassed Perón’s ideology. This ideology can be broken down into several different pieces: creating a mutually benefiting economy based both in capitalist and socialist methods, creating a strong central government, freedom from foreign imperialist powers, and creating nationalism through social democracy.

However, while Perón was advocating social change, it is important to keep in mind his history. Perón was a self-proclaimed admirer of fascism. In his younger years, he studied it throughout his various military posts in Europe and allowed for thousands of Nazis to come into Argentina.

Essentially, Perón’s hand was forced. Perón could not enforce the policies of old because of the need for change due to the economy, but what Perón did do was tine every possible aspect that he could through his background, respect, and appreciation for fascism.

To what extent did Perón achieve a totalitarian regime?

-Perón achieved a government of totalitarian rule to a great extent; however, this is due in large part to his popular support. He was able to control the masses and create Argentina how he wanted to not (for the most part) because he used force, but rather because the people followed him blindly. Essentially, yes, a totalitarian government was achieved, though the forceful techniques used by many totalitarian leaders was not needed.

While Perón was a totalitarian leader, he represented a mix between the strong and weak models of a totalitarian regime, where a strong model is defined as a government that attempts to, “achieve total control over the population through conversion by methods such as socialization, indoctrination, or force.”(Lee, 299) Essentially, the strong model represents, “the structured or projective approach to change”(Lee, 299) and its control over the people. Its counterpart, the weak model, is conversely more interested in “the actions of the regime, what the regime does as opposed to the degree of control it is able to wield.” (Lee, 299) In more simplified terms, the strong model is a leader that has a specific ideology for change, and the weak model is a leader that is just trying to stay in power. Perón can be considered a mixture of both because he both tightly controlled the population, and was purely attempting to stay in power by just going with what the population wants. Moreover, there can be seen a trending change between the beginning of his regime and the end. He, at first, was the darling of the lower classes with a plan outlining how Argentina would become a self-sufficient people, and while his popularity continued remained true throughout his presidency, the resolve of the opposition within the upper classes increased significantly, thus requiring the government to focus more on just staying in power rather than a specific ideology.

2)

Why did Perón become President?

-Perón initially gained power from his position as the Secretary of Labor. Through his skillful handling of workers disputes, Perón was able to gain large number of supporters while angering comparatively few people. Through this position, he was able to grow his power, first achieving the Vice-Presidency, and then the Presidency. What is so particularly interesting about Perón is that, though he came from a military background and was part of the military coup d’état and Junta, is that he did not force his way into power in any of his terms, but rather was elected. The reason that Perón became president is because he shrewdly gained the popularity of the masses rather than high-value interests.

Was Perón a leftist or rightist leader? To what extent?

-In respect to his political ideas, Perón was interesting in the fact that he stated that he did not want to be decidedly a capitalist nor socialist, but rather to find a middle path. With this in mind, he created a country that used pieces of both economic platforms to simultaneously increase the total GDP of Argentina and increase the wages and working conditions of the working class. Thus, Perón should be considered a centrist rather than strictly a capitalist or socialist, though he is considered by many historians to be a socialist.

In a political sense, Perón was a leftist to a great extent. Perón’s explicit ideology was for the change of Argentina, to create a new, self-sufficient Argentina. While this change may or may not have lined up with his political beliefs, Perón had little choice in the matter. At the end of WWII, the Argentinean economy was booming due to the exports of beef and other commodities to the UK and other Allied nations. This booming economy based in exports meant there was a massive increase of wealth within Argentina, which had never been present before. This new wealth essentially compelled the government into action to create a new Argentina that was capable of dealing with the massive influx of wealth.

To what extent was Perón’s treatment of the opposition successful?

-The limited opposition of Perón was allowed for a while, however was quashed very effectively until later in first presidential term. The opposition was mainly found in the richer areas of Argentina (where his fiscal policy was questioned) and in many of the universities (where his methods and aims were questioned). Perón imprisoned many of the opposition leaders and fired hundreds of teachers who opposed him. Furthermore, he imprisoned many of the opposition leaders for long periods of time, and many ended up dead. These tactics of Perón were incredibly successful in quashing the opposition. However, in later years, Perón was not able to control the military, who eventually ousted him from power.

3)

How was the structure and organization of the Argentinean government to the benefit of Perón?

-Perón rewrote the constitution of Argentina when he came into power. He designed the constitution to have a strong central government with ultimate authority belonging to him. While he didn’t have the same level of control that Stalin had over his government, like being able to remove any member of congress that he wanted, but he did wield significant power. The true power of Perón rested not in the organization of the government (though it certainly helped), but rather his and Eva Perón’s popularity with the people.

Which of the following was the most important to Perón’s ability to stay in power: political power, social policies, or religious policies? To what extent?

-Perón’s social policies were the main reason for his continued ability to stay in power. His position first as the Secretary of Labor catapulted him into power. Then with his continued actions to help the lower class population, his power continued to grow. Eva Perón, who became the spiritual leader of Argentina and masked many of the atrocities that were occurring in Argentina, further assisted him in maintaining his power. When Eva died, it was as if a veil was lifted from the eyes of the people, and the many wrongs that had been committed by Perón’s government came to life and Perón was subsequently deposed with in several years. The social policies and popularity of Perón to a large extent kept him in power for as long as he was.

To what extent to Perón use the media to impact or influence the population?

-Perón used the media to impact or influence the population to a very minimal extent. This is because the Peróns were already such large figures within the social realm of society. Eva Perón was the First Lady and considered the Spiritual Leader of Argentina. Juan Perón was the President and champion of the people. Due to their popularity, the Peróns found themselves in the spot light nearly every day, having their every move documented and reported. Through this, Perón was able to have his name be read every day and become an increasingly a house hold name. This tactic used, though potentially not intentional by Perón, could be called subliminal propaganda.

4.

Political Cartoon Published 1951- This is an example of a political cartoon which was banned under Perón and was published in neighboring Bolivia (as with many of the anti-Perón cartoons). It characterized the typical “old trick” of enticing the donkey, or in this case the “unconcious workers”, into a dangerous situation, and in the opinon of the artist, the dangerous situation was the government of Perón by illuding to the promise of something delicious or desireable. The missing text at the bottom of the image is, “Peronist Workerism is a Trap.” Note the swasticas all over the body of the beast. It is unclear whether the artist knew that Perón was allowing for the mass emigration of Nazis or if he was just drawing parallels between the Nazi government and the tactics used by Perón.

Propaganda Poster, -Evita-Cámpora- Perón- 1973

Despite Eva Perón’s death in 1952, her image (left) can be found on countless political posters such as this one. Another part that is interesting is that her image is the largest of any of the others represented on this poster. The man in the middle is Héctor Cámpora. He was the first president to come to power after the dissolution of the military Junta that removed Perón from power. He was Perón’s hand picked successor, and after a few weeks, he resigned and allowed Juan Perón to retake the Presidency. The man on right side of the image is Juan Perón. Another interesting piece is that Cámpora was the man running for President, but he is in the background, behind the Peróns, suggesting that he wanted the people to first identify with the Peróns, and then himself being secondarily important. It is also a clear example of how deeply the Peróns were able to influence the population through the media in previous years.

Excerpt: Speech. October 17, 1950 at the Plaza del Mayo

“The Twenty Truths of the Perónist Justicialism”

“1. True democracy is the system where the Government carries out the will of the people defending a single objective: the interests of the people.

2. Perónism is an eminently popular movement. Every political clique is opposed to the popular interests and, therefore, it cannot be a Perónist organization.

3. A Perónist must be at the service of the cause. He who invoking the name of this cause is really at the service of a political clique or a "caudillo" (local political leader) is only a Perónist by name.

4. There is only one class of men for the Perónist cause: the workers.

5. In the New Argentina, work is a right, which dignifies man and a duty, because it is only fair that each one should produce at least what he consumes.

6. There can be nothing better for a Perónist than another Perónist.

7. No Perónist should presume to be more than he really is, nor should he adopt a position inferior to what his social status should be. When a Perónist starts to think that he is more important than he really is, he is about to become one of the oligarchy.

8. With reference to political action the scale of values for all Perónists is as follows: First, the Homeland; afterwards the cause, and then, the men themselves.

9. Politics do not constitute for us a definite objective but only a means of achieving the Homeland's welfare represented by the happiness of the people and the greatness of the nation.

10. The two main branches of Perónism are the Social Justice and the Social Welfare. With these we envelop the people in an embrace of justice and love.

11. Perónism desires the establishment of national unity and the abolition of civil strife. It welcomes heroes but does not want martyrs.

12. In the New Argentina the only privileged ones are the children.

13. A Government without a doctrine is a body without a soul. That is why Perónism has established its own political, economic and social doctrines: Justicialism.

14. Justicialism is a new philosophical school of life. It is simple, practical, popular and endowed with deeply Christian and humanitarian sentiments.

15. As a political doctrine, Justicialism establishes a fair balance between the rights of the individual and those of the community.

16. As an economic doctrine, Justicialism achieves a true form of social economy by placing capital at the service of the national economy and this at the service of social welfare.

17. As a social doctrine, Justicialism presides over an adequate distribution of Social Justice giving to each person the social rights he is entitled to.

18. We want a socially just, an economically free and a politically independent

Argentina.

19. We are an organized State and a free people ruled by a centralized government.

20. The best of this land of ours is its people.

Juan Perón”

This is an excerpt from a speech given by Juan Perón on October 17, 1950 in the Plaza del Mayo. There area several key parts to this speech, both in it and the surrounding information about it. The first key part is the speech itself. The speech essentially outlines the aims and ideology of Perón and Perónism.

Furthermore, it is important to look at the date and location of the speech. October 17 was the day that Perón was release by the military Junta in 1945 and was subsequently elected President. The official title of the day is “Loyalty Day.”

Continued the location, the Plaza del Mayo, is the major political plaza in Argentina. It is where leaders often go to speak in hard times or when they need support.

5. Bibliography

"Evita-Campora-Peron." Eva-Campora-Peron. Web. 10 Dec 2010. .

"peron05." Perón en Caricaturas. Web. 10 Dec 2010. .

Perón, Juan. "The Twenty Truths of the Perónist Justicialism." Plaza del Mayo, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 17 Oct 1950. Address.

Rock, David. Argentina, 1516-1982: From Spanish Colonization to the Falklands War. Los Angeles, USA: University of California Press, 1

IMPEACH HIM! No, I'm not talking about Bill Clinton

Ok,

So here's the deal. Lincoln was 100% in illegal zone when he suspended habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a influential and completely needed part of both the American constitution and basic American civil liberties. Basically, at the time of the suspension, Lincoln could have been impeached for violating this. Also, there is no part of the constitution as of 1860 (to the best of my knowledge) that permits the suspension of the constitution in times of war (which technically it wasn't a time of war, because there wasn't a declaration of war). This simply and completely shows that Lincoln was illegal in doing this.

However, Lincoln did have some good reasons to suspends habeas corpus, but this DOES NOT ALLOW for the constitution to be broken. His actions were one hundred percent unjustifiable. While a democracy is the least efficient form of government, it does not allow for the government to simply ignore the foundations of the United States of America.

Old Friend Mr. Eli Whitney

The cotton gin is singularly one of the destructive inventions of the 19th Century. Slavery in the United State of America was slowly diving into nothingness at the inception of the 19th Century. The cost to capital ratio was too small, without the cotton gin, to be very investment worthy. It took a large amount of time to get a small amount of cotton picked and de-seeded (de-seeding took the majority of the time). With the invention cotton gin, the amount of effort that went into de-seeding dropped to near nothing, therefore increasing the cost to capital ratio, making it again a viable economic option. The cotton gin cannot be separated from either the economic or racial ramifications, as the go hand in had with each other, for as one increases, so does the other.

Coalition Governments: Epic Fail or Epic Win?

Coalition governments are, for the most part, found within a parliamentary or some or of spin off a parliamentary system. The parliamentary system, by the ways it is designed, removes the population from the government more than a Democratic Republic, such as the United States. A parliamentary system takes away the ability for the people to choose who is in the nations highest spot, thus eliminated the possibility for as compelling of a compromise to be made as it allows and creates for both the ruling party and PM to be of the same party, thus allowing for less compromise and more one sided legislation, which is not in the interest of the citizenry and often conflicts with the vox populi (I have always wanted to say that word!). This lack of compromise removes the citizens from the process even more because it doesn't allow for (theoretically) citizens to change the balance of power, and prevent this stream lining of bill-passing.

However, coalition governments do allow for pre-floor discussion and compromise. This eliminates the ability for congress and the President of a Representative Democracy with a bi-party system, such as the United States, to become unable to pass necessary legislation. Also, coalition governments allow for constant change of power at the highest level, the president or prime minister, whenever decisions er the politics change. However, this also may be bad as it inhibits the PM from making correct that may be unpopular, due to fear of being replaced.

Basically, in conclusion, everything that is good about these two systems is also a problem. Government is about finding the balance between stream-lined decision making and the right of the people to choose and have a say in their own government.

For the Benefit of the People: The Economic Constitution of the United States

The constitution was created to govern a nation "by and for the people." In the 1780s, as it has been through most history of the United States, the people have made a living through capitalism. Would it not makes sense then that constitution be based off tailoring regulating the economy for the benefit of the American people? The constitution of the United States of America nearly purely focused on the economy, because the economy is how the "people" make a living.

The purpose of such an economic document is to allow the people of the United States to gain as much from trade as possible. Therefor, many of the amendments and statutes put in to place are focused around bringing as much wealth into the United States as possible. They accomplished this by mandating a singular currency, allowing slavery, and allowing for the individual to attempt to achieve the "American dream." Many of the amendments have both social and economic considerations, such as the First Amendment. The First allows for the freedom of speech, and by allowing this, the congress allows for both every citizen to have a say in the government, but also for businesses like papers to be able to say whatever pleases their customers without interference from the government (with the exception of libel, ect.) The revolution was started by businessmen, as was the constitution. There was simply no way that those businessmen were going to shoot themselves in the foot by creating a constitution unfriendly, or simply not in favor of, allowing the maximum business possible.

Articles of Confederation: A Train Wreck

The Article of Confederation, for the purposes of running and maintaining a successful government, are completely flawed in three main areas. Firstly, the articles don't mandate that there is a single currency for the United States. By not creating a unified currency, the individual states had free reign to create and use their own currency, on top of the federal currency that was being minted at the same time. This is the first of two major problems because it does not allow for easy trade with the West Indies and Europe, the two places the United States needed to trade in order to survive as a country.

Secondly, the congress had no way to write tax law or enforce any taxes. By not allowing for any taxes to be levied, the congress was disabled in providing public services such as education among other things. It also meant that congress had no way to purchase land or items, or provide the money expeditions. Imagine, the U.S. not having the monetary means to sponsor the Lewis and Clark expedition. However, and more importantly, it disabled the congress in funding any sort of military.

Finally, the Articles of Confederation banned the congress from creating an army. This essentially made the U.S. very vulnerable. This is because if one state is to be attacked, there is no motivation for another state to send its own militia to defend it. This leaves the entire U.S. open to attack, as a super power such as Great Britain (who had motivation at the time), could simply start attacking states individually and start taking them out one by one. It also prevents any westward expansion, because without a good army to both explore and defend the settlers, there a lesser motive to expand. Imagine again, attempting to try and find a Lewis and Clark (both of whom had military experience in real life) without a military institution already in place.

In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation were simply a hindrance to the early United States, and provided near nothing in terms of organization. They just merely showed where the U.S. needed to improve upon their constitution.

Unjust Laws: A Study in the Security and Freedom of the People

The rule of law was brought about by the general population agreeing on one point that aides or protects the vast majority. This law of law creation, if you will, has as all things become by time twisted and skewed to assist those in power of control of the general population.

Overtime, the rule of law has attempted to find the essential balance between freedoms of the people and security of the people that determines the difference between just and unjust laws. For instance, say the balance of Madam Justice's scale were to break in half and flying up comes personal freedoms. The socialist reforms that do protect society today would be rendered useless, anarchy and personal responsibility will run rampant. Being the creatures that humans are, slavery and militarized weapons would be among one of the first things that comes into the hands of the populous. By allowing this, the security of others, either by being forced into slavery or being killed by some military grade bio-agent, is threatened therefor creating unjust law by creating no law. However, increasing the security to the point is not the solution either.

Security of the population is a priority, however when it is increased too far, it can rear its' head and burn out any possibility of freedom. Laws of security used with too much force turns those laws into not laws, but an excuse for government to do anything. Dictatorship, in whatever form, is an unjust. It may and has reared its' ugly head as a oligarchy, monarchy, republic, democracy. No matter what shape it takes, at the point where personal responsibility becomes the responsibility of the government is the point at which a law is unjust.

In conclusion, neither extreme freedom nor extreme security come together to form just laws. It is the combination, the middle ground that is where the laws that benefit the most are found. Just laws are not found easily, and so it is easy to create laws that make a very unjust situation, and so a point must be made to watch these laws and tend to the flock, less they become vicious creatures. The rule of law is ancient, but constantly fluctuating to meet the needs of freedom and security in the hopes of finding justice.