Even as the US presidential and vice-presidential candidates manoeuvre to score points off each other on the campaign trail and in their so-called debates, the hosts of America’s comedic, late night shows are sparring with each other to come up with the best jokes about Messrs McCain, Obama and Biden, and of course, every comedy writer’s dream, Sarah Palin.
No subject is sacred, not even the global financial meltdown and the role played by American institutions in contributing to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And even as the candidates put forward their views on what to do to head off the crisis, the funny men of television are having a go at Wall Street and the desperate efforts of the Bush Administration to exercise damage control and restore confidence in the American brand of capitalism.
But just as making fun of Mrs Palin has a scary side – how can anyone so obviously ill-equipped to be a heartbeat away from the most powerful job on Earth be considered a serious prospect? – the jokes on the economy have a bite to them. Even as the audience laughs, it winces. For it is not just the corporate fat cats who stand to lose millions. Middle class savers, small and medium investors, homeowners, blue collar workers, all are hiding behind the sofa as they watch the unfolding of the horror story on television, which might just signal the annihilation of their modest investments, the disappearance of their kids’ college funds, the loss of their homes or jobs, or the evaporation of their dreams.
Even as people are yet to grasp fully the enormity of the crisis, perhaps a little humour will indeed make the pain more bearable,
The biggest laughs though are being heard across leftist Latin America and no more so than in Venezuela, where Hugo Chávez is having a field day at the expense of his favourite nemesis, George W Bush.
The economic ironies of the Bush bailout of Wall Street and the effective nationalization of companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not lost on people in Latin America and the Caribbean. As President Jagdeo said on Wednesday, if anyone had previously suggested that a government should nationalise a bank, such a move would have been seen as a “socialist phenomenon”.
The Latin American left, in particular, have had their fill of the neo-liberal prescriptions of the Washington consensus being rammed down their throats by the United States and the international financial institutions. Now, some are literally crowing at the interventionist measures being employed to bring the market back under control. Evidently, the market was just a tad too free. And Mr Chávez’s laugh is being heard loudest of all, as he addresses the American President as “Comrade Bush”.
It hardly matters that Mr Bush is not about to join the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) or buy into Mr Chávez’s “twenty-first century socialism”. The fact is that American capitalism and leadership have been severely discredited across the world and no more so than in Latin America, a region where the United States has generally lost more and more respect during the Bush years.
The diversion of interest and resources away from the region, caused by the “war on terror” and the ill-advised and illegal invasion of Iraq, was bad enough. The inability or unwillingness of Washington to understand the pressures for social change and economic justice in Latin America, compounded by suggestions of meddling in the internal affairs of countries like Bolivia and Venezuela, was worse. Not even the conservative president of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, was given the comfort of a more enlightened policy towards immigration on the part of the Bush Administration, which would have gone a far way towards easing many of his domestic problems. Now the failure of this particular phase of capitalism has delivered something akin to a coup de grace to American influence and prestige in the region.
As the end of Mr Bush’s catastrophic reign nears, it is difficult to see how his successor, whoever it is, will repair the damage done to relations with the USA’s presumptive “backyard”. As we have pointed out before, neither Mr McCain nor Mr Obama has given any sign that Latin America (and the Caribbean) will be a foreign policy priority. There is nevertheless a feeling, or a wish to believe, that Mr Obama, if elected, because of his stated commitment to dialogue, would lend a more sympathetic ear to the region’s concerns and needs.
The strategic vacuum created by Washington in Latin America, which allowed the rise of Mr Chávez and the Latin American left, as well as providing space for Brazil to assert itself as the regional power, may actually be a good thing for the region in the short to medium term, especially if the current Bolivian crisis proves that Latin Americans can resolve their problems among themselves.
But in the long run, it is probably fair to say that the region still needs a strong and committed USA as a partner in the quest for economic stability and development. The region needs American re-engagement, as much as it, along with the rest of the world, still needs American capital and collaboration.
It’s not that we’re having a sense of humour failure, but it really is no laughing matter.
