I have always romanticized the idea of independence. I never thought of the many ramifications of independence and so it was interesting to hear about how independence in Latin America did not bring stability or order. When learning about liberalism, and how many saw it as merely an “ornament” in society, I immediately though of the current political/social situation in the United States. The current changes in legislation in the United States are the exact opposite of the definition of liberalism. To me, the word liberalism is being used as an ornament in the United States. I do not see it as a free society where equality prevails, especially when their president is an outright misogynist and racist. I believe that post-independence Latin America was fertile ground for caudillos because normally during times of instability people look for some sort of direction. The politically unstable conditions as well as the long experience of armed conflict made post-independence Latin America ideal for the emergence of Caudillos. I liked how Dawson described Caudillos as providing a “sense of closeness and a fictive kinship” for their followers. Again, I related this to the current situation in the United States. I find that Trump has a fictive kinship with people in the working class of the United States. Just as the caudillos promised the poor that they’d have their back, Trump has done the same.

The concept of clientelism is something that is unfortunately still prevalent in many countries. When hearing about clientelism, the first thing I thought of was the relationship between the NRA and several American politicians. Suspiciously, gun laws are not a priority for politicians who have received monetary support from the NRA. This is evident modern day clientelisim. Clientelism is also still seen in many Latin American countries. Corruption was passed down through generations. It is astonishing to see how political and social patterns are repeated throughout history. I was surprised that the claudillo age led to popular and elite projects intersecting. If anything, I thought that the claudillo age would only further separate elite and popular projects. However, then I read that the marginalized groups were able to negotiate their inclusion through military service. The interaction between the elite and the marginalized had a price and that price was military service. This fact reminded me of how the Spanish conquistadores established the centre of colonies in areas with large indigenous populations in order to have a workforce. Similarly, the elite Latin Americans were employing the indigenous as their main workforce by allowing their inclusion only in exchange for their military service. Indeed, even in post-independence Latin America, the elite continued the work of the Spanish conquistadores. In class, I would like to discuss the question: did anyone think of present day examples of caudillo behaviour or clientelism?