{Empty title} | The Nation

Interesting article. I agree that Michelleti and his cohort have succedded in polarizing the left and right positions in Honduras, just as Chavez has done in Venezuela. Why, though, does Professor Grandin believe that there is no progressive left alternative? Such an assertion seems to reify the polarization that politicans construct to help advance their positions. Funes in El Salvador and Lula in Brazil have articulated more measured approaches to the Honduras situation, in concert with their progressive but unradical governance programs. Are their positions not representative of a progressive, left alternative? If so, then what are they representative of? Moreover, on issues besides Honduras, Grandin seems to imply that one must be either with or against "the left." Is that posture based on an assertion that there ought not to exist different currents of thinking on the left when it comes to political struggle or an empirical observation that the two left camps (lead by Lula and Chávez) are in fact one force?