Neoliberalism K—UMich 2013 neg 1NCs 1NC: Generic

1NC: Venezuela

US Intervention in Venezuela is marked by self-interest and neoliberal imposition

I offer a markedly different critique of U.S. democracy promotion. Indeed, the policy is premised on the ideological assumption that democratic governance optimizes global capitalism and international stability, but the above argument pays little attention to the narrow and orthodox intellectual forces that underpin the practice of democracy promotion. The preoccupation with party building and the "semi-authoritarian" tag used in Venezuela and elsewhere demonstrates a growing awareness that political liberalization does not necessarily result in populations or regimes that readily fall in line with free-market principles or U.S.-defined global security priorities. Experimentation and departures from the authorized model of political liberalization are frequently identified as threats to democratic consolidation. Hugo Chavez's trenchant critique of party politics in Venezuela and his sweeping political reforms run counter to the conventional written narratives of democratization. Moreover, idealism has not been the sole (or even the principal) impulse behind the practice of democracy promotion. Contrary to the assertions of Zakaria and other critics, U.S. foreign policy has not promoted democracy simply because it is moral. The practice is deployed primarily when U.S. interests can be secured by using a targeted country's electoral system (or other constitutional mechanisms) to accomplish regime change. Further- more, while these interventions may not be driven by morality, they are associated with moral rhetoric that casts the intransigent leaders (even elected ones) as dubious political actors with undemocratic intentions. The statements of several members of the Bush administration make clear that Washington considers tensions with Venezuela the result of a government in Cara- cas that lacks an "understanding of what a democratic system is all about." Other official statements and the NED's grant descriptions also suggest that a victory by Chavez's U.S.-backed opponents will not only "return" the coun~ try to democracy but also repair Venezuela's "close friendship" with the United States.

Neoliberalism causes poverty, social exclusion, societal disintegration, violence and environmental destruction—threatens humanity

Neoliberalism is creating its own downfall—movements gathering political steam against it—alt is to reject the neoliberal policies of the aff and allow it to fall

Finally, the “global justice” movement that came together in the Seattle 1999 protests against the WTO marked the potential birth of a massive and powerful new movement challenging corporate prerogatives. It is easy to overestimate the importance of the Seattle protests.The few days of unity did not undo the many differences between the various protest groups. And the months following Seattle were filled with “where do we go from here?” discussions that never achieved a satisfactory answer. It is not clear that the coalition that assembled in Seattle deserves to be called a “movement.” However, even as a first step with an uncertain future, the import of these protests was potentially earth-shaking. Essentially, the anti-WTO protests undid fissures that had fractured progressive organizations for at least four decades. At least since the Vietnam war, the history of whatever might be called the American “left” has been primarily characterized by fragmentation. In place of the Old Left’s unity around class, the New Left led to multiple and often conflicting agendas organized around various forms of identity politics. While feminist, civil rights and labor organizations might come together around specific political issues, the alliances were generally short-lived and superficial. Most important from an economic point of view, the labor movement throughout the 1970s and 1980s was largely alienated from the most energetic social change movements. The incredible accomplishment of Seattle was to forge a coalition that overcame these differences in opposition to a common enemy. For union members, Seattle was possible because 20 years of jobs going overseas and management invoking the threat to relocate as a strategy for slashing wages had made “globalization” a gut-level rank and file issue. Thus the process of neoliberalism finally created its own antithesis in a labor movement that was ready to join with youth, environmentalists and immigrant organizations in fighting the power. From a corporate viewpoint, the divisions that for 30 years had so effectively kept the various parts of the “left” from coming together were threatening to dissolve.