I've studied latin american history a lot in school; specifically mexico, chile and peru. it seems to me that whenever things got too 'leftist' in many of these countries, there was a violent shift rightwards - sure, aided by the CIA, etc., but there was some sort of popular impetus for it (albeit minute) plus these people rarely got actual changes done at the national level. this latest wave of leftist resurgency is wonderful and clearly symbolic of the disappointment with US "free market" hegemony, but can we expect it to last? can we expect it to have meaningful change? even lula is cutting himself at the knees by endorsing the ftaa... your thoughts?

Nathan: would you agree that whatever the failings of PAN, it would be better for the PAN candidate to win the next Presidential election than for the PRI candidate to do so?

I'm not sure that moving "leftward" is necessarily good for Latin America. They have different problems than developed nations, and thus different solutions. Not that countries should stick to Washington-consensus-type policies, but that the policies they should follow don't neatly fall along the developed world's left-right axis.

Walt, It depends who the PRI puts up, but I am obviously preferring the PRD.

And "turning left" is rejecting the Washington consensus in the context of Latin America. Now, I don't think embracing neo-Leninism is the way to go for those countries, but Lula's pragmatic embrace of the international contraints he faces, while facilitating alternatives to increase equity and expand cooperation between developing nations seems an admirable turn that is a good model for the left in the region.

I think it's good for the PRI to be out of the Presidency for a couple more terms just for the health of Mexican democracy.

I think Lula is a good model, and a big reason why is that his policies have been more nuanced than just "turn left". His use of FTAA negotiations to push the United States on trade issues important to Brazil is an example of what I mean.