Does US Politics Resemble that of a Banana Republic? No. It is Worse.

While the term “banana republic” refers to just about any form of political instability occurring in Latin America, the term originally arose with reference to Central America (Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, El Salvador) where the American-owned United and Standard Fruit companies engaged in fruit production and export, and often dominated economically and politically. In these countries legitimately elected regimes were overthrown, often with US complicity, if not direct military intervention.

The comparison of the unstable politics of Central America to that which occurred in the U.S. on January 6 with the assault on Congress to block President-elect Joe Biden from taking power, is misleading. The only similarity is the fact that a portion of the population regarded the results of the electoral process as illegitimate and attempted to override the process by illegal means.

Central America: Where politics has been historically unstable but rational

A mural celebrating Guatemala's 1954 agrarian reform

In Central America, the conditions for social and political stability have been historically notable by their absence: concentrated land ownership in the hands of a few big landowners and/or multinational companies, large poor peasant populations, and military establishments closely aligned with the landowners. Political mobilizations demanding land redistribution invariably elicited stiff opposition from big landowners and their business allies and repression. When elections brought reformists to power, big landowners and the military often removed them from power. It makes sense that big landowners and their military allies would use force to protect their main source of wealth: their big landholdings.

The case of Guatemala is a good example. In 1954 a U.S.-supported military coup occurred in Guatemala, carried out at the behest of United Fruit in response to the plans of a democratically elected reform government to distribute the company’s unused land to poor peasant producers. From the late 1970s and into the 1980s, insurgencies were underway in most Central American countries. One of them (in Nicaragua), culminated in a revolutionary government coming to power with an explicit agenda of land redistribution, an end to illiteracy, improved access to health care, and an end to political repression. Whatever one might think about the efficacy of the Nicaraguan Revolution, or its respect for liberal democratic processes, it is difficult to dispute the fact that the insurrectionists knew why they were angry and knew what they were fighting for.

America: Where politics has entered the twilight zone

The same cannot be said for America’s January 6 “insurrectionists.” The assailants consisted of a heterogenous mélange of violent right wing white supremacists and nationalist groups, many sporting bizarre conspiracy theories, such as the use of the coronavirus to steal elections and a deep state conspiracy to target children. These extremist groups were accompanied by many disillusioned mainstream republicans who had become convinced that the election was stolen from their candidate.

Trump supporters enter the Capitol building

Beyond a strong expression of anger, there was not much uniting these disparate groups. The event lacked both unified leadership and coherent goals—beyond pressuring Congress to abandon certification of Biden’s election. Clearly, many Americans are fearful and angry—extremely angry. One wonders how the disparate demands that seem to emanate from the Trump movement (building a border wall, limiting immigration or expelling immigrants, an end to penalizing discrimination, or further reducing the role of the state) would operate to dispel such intense anger.

The most accepted explanation for the events of January 6 is that President Trump had used his leadership position and social media to convince Americans of a variety of untruths, in particular that there had been massive fraud in the election. But this is not a sufficient explanation for the events of January 6th because it does not address the receptivity of millions of Americans to Trump—why so many people are inclined to belief what he tells them. To answer this question, it is probably important to recognize that Americans, like all of us, seek to make sense of their reality. I suggest that today, America does not make sense to many Americans.

The Basic Untruth of American Mythology

American mythology about itself (about its virtues and ideals) has so thoroughly penetrated the American psyche that the adoption of untruths, and bizarre explanations have become preferable to a rejection of that mythology for many millions of Americans. These myths arise from the ideology of American exceptionalism: the idea that the United States is characterized by the very best political ideals and virtues. These ideals--equality before the law, individual responsibility, representative democracy, a belief in progress, freedom of speech, among others, are key components of American liberty. Linked to these virtues is the firm belief that the US is the land of opportunity: everyone is free and equal, with an equal opportunity to succeed—a belief that President Obama articulated during his presidency. America, however, suffers from a huge gap between these aspirational ideals and its current reality. Citizens who fail to succeed in American society, or come to fear downward mobility or failure, therefore believe that they have only themselves to blame—this is a formula that can only produce anger, hatred of others, and polarization.

Latin America and the Absence of Unifying Myths

At their founding, most Latin American countries failed to develop belief systems that penetrated the popular consciousness and effectively bound their nations together. Nationalism has historically been very shallow engendering a deep skepticism about political inclusion and reform even when it appeared to be offered. Indeed, during my decades of field research in Mexico, I was often struck by the clarity with which the humblest of Mexicans understood the politics of their country. During the period of authoritarian one-party rule, which ended in 2000, no one I talked to bought into the idea that the Institutionalized Revolutionary Party (the ruling PRI) was the party of the Mexican revolution supporting the welfare of peasants and workers. Latin Americans do not believe in the inevitability of progress. Their history has taught them otherwise. As Latin Americans continue their struggle for social justice, their politics will continue to have banana republic-like qualities. However, these are, for the most part, authentic struggles, unencumbered by the elite generated myths that are probably a key ingredient in inhibiting more authentic political struggles in the U.S.

Deeply ingrained myths about political reality inhibit the development of a new consensus that can address the angst that afflicts so many mainstream Americans. Recognition that life is unfair, that the free market and rugged individualism will not produce inclusive prosperity, and that there are some serious defects in U.S. democracy, all need to become part of a new American ideology.