Blog

February 9th, 2021

This week marks the beginning of the end of my primary and secondary source analysis! As I’ve been combing through archives and databases, I have had moments where I instantly see connections between Trump and Pinochet (some of which I have written about here or Tweeted about). I began to think a bit more critically about the ways in which these leaders can be fairly compared in the context of my analysis, something I touched on in my initial grant proposal but have a much better understanding of now that I have been engaging with these men for the past five weeks. I am also considering the more conservative politics held by Trump and Pinochet, but wanted to focus here on some of the nuanced, less obvious similarities between the two cases.

1 Both men were seeking to retain power

I am hesitant to use the word “re-election” to describe both Pinochet and Trump for reasons I will explain later, but it cannot be denied in 1988 and in 2020 both men were appealing to voters to allow them more time in office and therefore in power. In Trump’s case, his “re-election” is much more traditional; he was elected for an initial four year term and was seeking another. Pinochet, on the other hand, was never elected (the military took control of Chile during a violent coup on September 11, 1973). However, according to the constitution Pinochet and his military government wrote and publically approved in 1980 Pinochet had nine more years in office before a public referendum would be enacted to decide if he could run again. This was an attempt to portray the appearance of fairness and democracy, though Pinochet still had total control. As the deadline of 1989 loomed, the government decided to hold a plebiscite "In which voters were asked to choose between an additional eight-year term for the dictator (the YES option) and open presidential elections to be held the next year (the NO option). The yes campaign [SI] was run by the military government and supported by several right-wing parties; the no campaign was run by the Concertación de Partidos por el No, an umbrella coalition of opposition forces on the center-left [NO] (Boas 2015)". This plebiscite meant that even though Pinochet was not traditionally up for “re-election”, voters still were given the choice of keeping him in power or opening up opportunities for new governance. Therefore, though Trump and Pinochet were dealing with extremely different contexts, their main goal was similar in that they both aimed to hold onto power. This ideal end result influenced how they spoke to their voter bases and the tactics in which they would go on to use in political propaganda. Namely, both men painted themselves as the true saviors of their nation who had saved the country from potential socialist ruin, ruin that would certainly be inevitable if the opposition was given control.

2. The voters had (mainly) two choices

Building off of this similarity of retaining power, both American voters in 2020 and Chilean voters in 1988 were presented with two main options when they stepped into the voting booth. As described above, Chileans could vote “SI” for eight more years of Pinochet or “NO” for open elections. Chile’s democracy, even in times of military rule is not a two-party system. Rather, Chile has multiple parties that make up proportional seats in their legislative branch. The 1988 plebiscite was unique in that political parties were not on the ballot; voters had one of two choices to make. The United States, however, is not officially a bipartisan democracy, yet decades of political participation have created two parties that take up virtually all spaces of governance. There are third party candidates, some that end up holding office, but in a federal election, such as the presidency, votes for those candidates are often negligible in the final results since they constitute such a small percentage of votes cast. This essentially gives the American voter two choices in presidential contests, Republican or Democrat. Given the unique situation of Chile’s 1988 referendum and the bipartisan nature of American politics, both cases can be viewed as examples of the voter having to make a choice between two options.

3. Trump and Pinochet both faced considerable controversy and were complicit in deadly acts throughout their time in power

Trump seemed to constantly dominate the news cycle during his four years as president, with each week bringing seemingly another scandal or controversy or policy that was viewed as dangerous, illegal or just flat out ridiculous. I won’t list them all here (or in my final analysis, for that matter), but let us consider a recent example. Trump’s overall handling and at times dismissive attitude towards the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially resulting in thousands of lives lost, was deeply criticized by Americans and foreigners alike. In Pinochet’s case, once the coup allowed him to seize control of the government, the military regime immediately began silencing those who spoke out against them and those with left-wing or communist ties. The post-Pinochet truth commission organized by President Patricio Alywin originally recognized over 3,000 people from all parts of the country that were detained, murdered, or disappeared during this time. However, the current estimate from various human rights groups puts the total affected by this violence at around 40,000. Families searched for years to find out what happened to their loved ones and many still do not have answers, not to mention the survivors of torture and imprisonment still living with this trauma. I am not directly comparing the crimes and violence of the administrations, but the fact that both regimes of these men were plagued by criminality, force and controversy cannot go unaddressed, especially since their opposition highlighted such acts in their bids to remove these men from power.

There are other similarities between the two that I will continue to explore as I turn towards analysis, but I wanted to take a moment and highlight these three after my initial primary source examinations. I am also looking forward to arriving at the greater “so what?” of my argument; that is, what can we learn from comparing these two men and how can these comparisons best inform democratic participation and political landscapes in the future?

Sources:

February 2nd, 2021

During the lead up to the 1988 Chilean political referendum, the two campaigns (the SI, who supported the dictator General Augusto Pinochet and his military regime and the NO, who wanted a full return to democracy) created a large number of video advertisements that aired in the month leading up to the vote. These advertisements also included catchy jingles for each side that became synonymous with the campaigns themselves. When I first watched this video from Donald Trump's YouTube page, I immediately connected it with the video propaganda I had seen in my Chilean archives. Trump's "Best Song of 2020" is a high-energy song in Spanish, with lyrics claiming "I'm going to vote for Donald Trump" and "Do it [vote] for your family". The peppy, upbeat song is intercut with clips of people at Trump rallies, various flags from Spanish-speaking countries, families playing and dancing together, and even some shots of Trump dancing (if you can call it that). As far as I know, songs are fairly rare in American political campaigns, which makes this stands out. What surprised me the most, however, was how similar some of the pro-Pinochet campaign songs were to this Trump video, namely in the upbeat energy, the references to one candidate, and the messages about thinking of your family and the future. My whole hypothesis in my research is that Pinochet and Trump both claimed themselves as the right choice for the overall future of their country and general family stability, and I think those parallels are evident in these songs.The Trump campaign ad is on the left and the full Chilean ad is on the right (from the Chilean video 00:00 - 00:37 is the first song in the spot and the second is 01:18 - 03:12). Take a look/listen (even if you don't speak Spanish)!

January 27th, 2021

This week, after an intense period of secondary source analysis, I've returned to the world of primary sources. I spent most of today and yesterday revisiting sources I used in my summer research to find pieces that are relevant to this project. Given the slight change in topic from last summer to now, a handful of these images are no longer useful but I did not want to let them sit in Zotero unappreciated. What follows are a few of the images I found most intriguing, humorous, or simply just are fascinating to analyze!

January 15th, 2021

One week of research down! I’ve spent this week sorting through and reading secondary sources, ranging from an analysis of television advertising on the 1988 Chilean plebiscite to a study that found the most statistically significant predictor of whether or not someone voted for Trump was their reported authoritarian inclinations. I also read two fascinating books, “Darkness now Visible: Patriarchy's Resurgence and Feminist Resistance” by Carol Gilligan and David Richards and “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present” by Ruth Ben-Ghiat (I also virtually attended a talk hosted by the Brooklyn Historical Society with Ben-Ghiat discussing the book). “Strongmen” on its own was incredibly thought provoking and well organized, not to mention in relation to my research it placed Pinochet and Trump, along with other authoritarian leaders from the 20th and 21st centuries, in direct conversation.

Having read Ben-Ghiat’s analysis and considering my own work, I am inclined to use this authoritarian, “strongmen” framework when comparing the situations of Trump and Pinochet in addition to considering how both relied on patriarchal ideals in their governments. “Strongmen” also reminded me how remarkable it was that Pinochet was voted out of power after 16 years by a fair and free election, thanks in a large part to courageous anti-Pinochet coalitions who were able to register voters and dissuade fears of violence and repression. This vote is even more remarkable when compared to the events of January 6th and Trump’s continued lies about the 2020 election. Ben-Ghiat spends time in her book discussing the importance of media and media control in maintaining the image and control of strongmen, and I am excited in the next few weeks to dive into primary media sources and begin analyzing how exactly Trump and Pinochet used pre-election propaganda to their advantage.

January 13th, 2021

Last summer, I was able to travel to 1980’s Chile from the comfort of my desk in Evanston, Il. I spent hours watching YouTube videos of campaign advertisements, watching interviews with Chilean voters and scrolling through pages of archived political paraphernalia. I had no real connection to Chilean politics before this research, other than taking a class on the role of memory in contemporary Latin American society and spending a semester in Bolivia and Argentina. This research was my first exposure to the country (I had planned to travel and conduct research in person, but the pandemic had other plans) and I was grateful for the opportunity to learn about a new place from so far away. I felt as if my research had its own place within my head since there were very little connections to or knowledge about the 1988 Chilean referendum in my 21st century American society. However, as I continued research and the 2020 American presidential election kept picking up steam, I could not help but notice some similarities between the way Donald Trump and Augusto Pinochet both talked about their opponents and how they propped themselves up as the saviors of their country. This connection was something I felt alone in noticing and I knew there was more I could do to continue following these connections. Thanks to the tireless guidance and support from the advisors at Northwestern’s Office of Undergraduate Research, I was able to transfer these thoughts and comparisons into a real research grant I felt proud of and excited to pursue.

I wrote the majority of this grant before the November 3rd election and was curious as to what would happen with the comparative aspect of this research if Trump had won the election, given Pinochet had lost his referendum in 1988. Much to the surprise of many Chileans, Pinochet accepted the result and removed himself from office (but not from Chilean politics and life entirely). As I waited to start my research in January, Trump went in the opposite direction from the Chilean general, calling election fraud and suggesting other inflammatory, unbased claims. On January 6th, a handful of days before I was to start my research, supporters of Trump stormed the United States Capitol building, echoing some of these claims of election fraud. As an American citizen, I was raptured and terrified watching these events unfold; as a researcher, I was shocked to consider that a violent, brutal dictator was able to let go after decades of power while the President of the United States of America seemingly would not (I also had to make some backup plans for primary source analysis, given a majority of the sources outlined in my grant proposal were Trump’s social media accounts that were being banned as the fallout from January 6th continued).

I started my research this week with a collection and preliminary reading of secondary sources, namely exploring how academics and researchers wrote about authoritarianism, patriarchy and how Trump fits in within those frames. The more I read about these frameworks, the more I could not help compare Trump and Pinochet as authoritative, “fatherly” leaders doing what they thought was best for their country and their own self image. I’ve read articles from psychologists and sociologists discussing social-dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism, and explorations of how patriarchy and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. I’m looking forward to incorporating more psychology into this research and considering how people respond to certain types of leadership and make political decisions since I’ve spent a majority of my undergraduate career learning about social psychology and human development. I am grateful for the opportunity to conduct this research at such a pivotal time in American politics and add my unique perspective and voice to this conversation of Donald Trump, political propaganda, and the power of authoritative, patriarchal leadership.