正在学习

The Forgotten Miracle in Chile

III RELATED MATTERS

THE FORGOTTEN MIRACLE IN CHILE

As 2021 came to an end, I was taking a moment to escape the catastrophic prospects and remember the only true miracle of that year: the Chilean elections. Most elections are like choosing between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, or between McDonald’s and Burger King—they leave us indifferent. Rarely are there elections when the choice is real, crystal clear. This is what happened in Chile: All false moderate positions disappeared.

So what was the choice? It was between the past and future. Both candidates, José Antonio Kast and Gabriel Boric, knew they were in deep trouble, but reacted to it in opposite ways. Kast looked back and saw the solution in the return to a Pinochet-like era. Kast’s problem was not only that he idealized this past, but that global capitalism has changed so much that such a return would only lead to a catastrophe. We all know the scene from the cartoons in which the cat approaches the edge of a precipice and walks calmly, not noticing there is nothing under its feet. The cat falls only when it looks down and notices there is no firm ground beneath. Kast was like a cat above the precipice: He didn’t notice how the world had dramatically changed.

And Boric? There is an old joke from WWI about an exchange of telegrams between the German Army headquarters and the Austrian-Hungarian headquarters. The message from Berlin to Vienna was: “The situation on our part of the front is serious, but not catastrophic.” And Vienna’s reply: “With us, the situation is catastrophic, but not serious.” Kast’s program was like the answer from Vienna. Yes, we are in great trouble, but things are not really serious—a return to old ways will do the job. Boric knew that the situation was serious, and proposed a program that would enable Chileans to avoid catastrophe.

Boric and the Left were attacked by the Right for wanting to “politicize politics,” while Kast promised freedom and progress. But today we need a new political vision that can mobilize people, not just an administration of experts. What Kast offered was like beer without alcohol or coffee without caffeine—a decaffeinated “politics without politics.” Boric offered strong and real coffee, which is needed in real politics. Kast promised stability while scaring the electorate with uncertainty and chaos if Boric were to win. But today, in the era of a pandemic, global warming and social disorder, it is the return to Pinochet that would bring chaos, and it is only the type of changes advocated by Boric that give us a chance for a stable future.

Boric is of Croatian descent, and in Croat his name evokes the verb “boriti se,” which means to fight or to engage in struggle. Which struggle? The struggle against the threats to our survival. People voted for Boric not on behalf of old Leftist sentimentalism, but as an act of courage. Boric lives in an era of new global tensions. Only he gives us hope. Because Boric means what he says, he has aroused fear in many.

The result bears witness to a true political miracle which was largely overshadowed by the pandemic and new Cold War. It was not, as polls predicted, a narrow victory of a percent or two, but a clear triumph of over 10 percent—and this is in spite of all the dirty tricks enacted by the establishment, such as suspending all public traffic on the electoral Sunday (many poor voters needed public transport to reach their voting posts). I must say that although I was personally engaged in supporting Boric, I privately doubted his chances of success—this is how miracles happen, against the predominant “realist” expectations.

But now, in 2022, the truly difficult moment has arrived: how to avoid the eternal story of the radical Left winning elections and then (with the considerable help of the establishment sabotage) bringing the country to economic chaos. What is needed is something that should be called principled pragmatism: while being fully aware that radical changes are needed, enacting these changes in a way that brings stability and prosperity to ordinary people. Forget the enthusiasm of victory—the true work begins the morning after.

That’s why the reactions of “radical” Leftists to Boric’s victory, like the following one from Mexico, are extremely counterproductive:

The recent electoral victory of Gabriel Boric does not represent a root solution to the current economic and political crisis in Chile. Chilean workers and other popular strata must continue their frontal fight against any capitalist management or government. Maintaining high expectations of change or even settling for the least worst is a trap for the Chilean working class, imposed by the monopolies and the bourgeoisie. There is no positive way out of the deep problems of the Chilean working class within the game of bourgeois democracy.

On some very abstract and purely formal level, there is a grain of truth in these statements. Yes, parliamentary democracy as we know it is more and more unable to resolve the problems we are facing. However, if we just avoid “false” solutions and wait for the right moment, it will never come. Time is running against us; we have to engage ourselves in whatever way possible, and with the hope that even failure will lay foundation for further changes. Syriza and Boric’s movements didn’t come to power just with elections; they both arose out of a vast texture of civil society protest groups and years of mobilization. In Greece, after Syriza’s victory, this texture disintegrated. Let’s hope this will not be the case in Chile.

练习题

According to the section, why were the Chilean elections described as unusual compared with most elections?

A. They offered a clear choice in which false moderate positions disappeared.

B. They were mainly a technical contest between expert administrators.

C. They were decided by a narrow margin exactly as polls predicted.

D. They showed that parliamentary democracy had fully solved Chile’s problems.

Which option best captures the author’s criticism of José Antonio Kast’s political position?

A. Kast wanted too much civil society mobilization after the election.

B. Kast recognized catastrophe but proposed principled pragmatism.

C. Kast looked back to a Pinochet-like past even though changed global capitalism made such a return catastrophic.

D. Kast represented strong real politics against expert administration.

In the author’s coffee-and-beer metaphor, what did Boric represent in contrast to Kast?

A. A politics without politics, like coffee without caffeine.

B. A return to old ways that would restore stability automatically.

C. Strong and real coffee, meaning necessary real political engagement.

D. A purely expert-led administration without mass mobilization.

Which statements correctly describe how the author presents Boric and his victory? Select all that apply.

A. Boric recognized that Chile’s situation was serious and proposed a program to avoid catastrophe.

B. Boric’s name is linked to the Croatian verb meaning to fight or struggle.

C. Support for Boric is described as an act of courage rather than old Leftist nostalgia.

D. Boric’s win was presented as a narrow victory of only one or two percent.

E. Boric’s victory was described as a political miracle overshadowed by the pandemic and new Cold War.

The author argues that in an era of pandemic, global warming, and social disorder, Boric’s changes are more likely to offer a path to stability than a return to Pinochet-like politics.

The section suggests that after electoral victory, the radical Left can safely rely on enthusiasm alone because the most difficult political work is already finished.

The author says what is needed after Boric’s victory is “___”: awareness that radical changes are needed while enacting them in a way that brings stability and prosperity to ordinary people.

The author argues that Syriza and Boric’s movements did not come to power through elections alone, but arose from a vast texture of ___ protest groups and years of mobilization.

Why does the author criticize radical Leftist dismissal of Boric’s victory, even while admitting that parliamentary democracy is increasingly unable to solve current problems?

Connect the section’s view of Boric’s politics with the prior discussion of catastrophe in $D o n ’ t L oo k U p$ : how do both texts challenge passive or establishment-style responses to crisis?

Which option best explains the connection between the author's criticism of Kast in the Chilean election and the earlier discussion of the establishment in Don’t Look Up?

A. Both Kast and the establishment are praised for relying on expert administration instead of political mobilization.

B. Both Kast and the establishment are criticized for treating a serious reality as if it can be managed without truly confronting it.

C. Kast is criticized for conspiracy thinking, while the establishment in Don’t Look Up is praised for rejecting conspiracies.

D. Both Kast and the establishment are presented as successful examples of stable politics in a time of crisis.

Which statements correctly integrate the author's view of Boric's politics with the earlier critique of establishment responses to catastrophe?

A. Boric's politics are presented as necessary because contemporary crises require real political engagement, not merely expert administration.

B. The earlier critique of false rationalism helps explain why a supposedly moderate or administrative response may be inadequate in moments of catastrophe.

C. Kast's promise of stability is accepted by the author as realistic because returning to the Pinochet-like past fits changed global capitalism.

D. Boric's proposed changes are described as a possible path to stability, not simply as ideological nostalgia.

E. The author argues that political engagement should be avoided until a perfect solution appears.

The author suggests that Boric's election should be understood as an electoral event alone, just as the earlier discussion treats establishment and protest responses to catastrophe as already sufficient.

The earlier critique says the main target should be the establishment's ___; this helps clarify why the author rejects Kast's depoliticized “politics without politics” in favor of Boric's real political engagement.

登录后解锁笔记、知识点解析、AI 问答

立即登录

The Forgotten Miracle in Chile

The Forgotten Miracle in Chile

练习题

According to the section, why were the Chilean elections described as unusual compared with most elections?

Which option best captures the author’s criticism of José Antonio Kast’s political position?

In the author’s coffee-and-beer metaphor, what did Boric represent in contrast to Kast?

Which statements correctly describe how the author presents Boric and his victory? Select all that apply.

The author argues that in an era of pandemic, global warming, and social disorder, Boric’s changes are more likely to offer a path to stability than a return to Pinochet-like politics.

The section suggests that after electoral victory, the radical Left can safely rely on enthusiasm alone because the most difficult political work is already finished.

The author says what is needed after Boric’s victory is “___”: awareness that radical changes are needed while enacting them in a way that brings stability and prosperity to ordinary people.

The author argues that Syriza and Boric’s movements did not come to power through elections alone, but arose from a vast texture of ___ protest groups and years of mobilization.

Why does the author criticize radical Leftist dismissal of Boric’s victory, even while admitting that parliamentary democracy is increasingly unable to solve current problems?

Connect the section’s view of Boric’s politics with the prior discussion of catastrophe in Don’t Look Up: how do both texts challenge passive or establishment-style responses to crisis?

Which option best explains the connection between the author's criticism of Kast in the Chilean election and the earlier discussion of the establishment in Don’t Look Up?

Which statements correctly integrate the author's view of Boric's politics with the earlier critique of establishment responses to catastrophe?

The author suggests that Boric's election should be understood as an electoral event alone, just as the earlier discussion treats establishment and protest responses to catastrophe as already sufficient.

The earlier critique says the main target should be the establishment's ___; this helps clarify why the author rejects Kast's depoliticized “politics without politics” in favor of Boric's real political engagement.

Connect the section’s view of Boric’s politics with the prior discussion of catastrophe in $D o n ’ t L oo k U p$ : how do both texts challenge passive or establishment-style responses to crisis?