Chilean effect: the 50th anniversary of the coup

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half the price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day.

Yeah.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only.

Speed slow.

135 gigabytes of network busy. Taxes and fees extra.

See mintmobile.com hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month.

Now you don't even need to wrap it.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes. If network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. I'm Ora Ogumbi.

And I'm Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

The American state of Montana is very protective of its great outdoors. Its natural wonders are even prized in its constitution. But a group of climate conscious young citizens have taken the state to court for not going far enough.

And have you ever thought of writing a book? Getting it published is relatively easy. Making sure it sells tops the charts and is profitable, not so much. Our correspondent brings you a step by step guide to creating a bestseller. First up though.

There's a day that's gone down in the history of Chile. September 11, 1973.

Michael Reed is a former, longtime writer of our column Bayo on Latin American affairs.

And it was the day that the Chilean armed forces overthrew the elected Socialist government of President Salvador Allende. The images from that day and the sounds from that day have been etched into history. Clouds of smoke billowed from La Moneda, Chile's presidential palace in the heart of the capital, Santiago. Hawker hunter jets of the Chilean Air force fired rockets at the palace. Tanks patrol the surrounding streets. Troops dragooned prisoners with their hands on their heads through the city streets. And Allende in tweed jacket and with a tin hat, brandishing a Pistol was photographed in la Monneda. By 2pm he would die by his own hand. And the world would learn the name of the leader of the violent coup against Allende, General Augusto Pinochet, who would rule Chile as dictator for the next 17 years. But Allende's voice still echoed, in particular that of his final speech, broadcast on one of the few radio stations that was still operating. And in that speech he said in very measured tones, despite the noise and the shouting in the background, that he was not going to resign, that he would repay the loyalty of the people, in his words, by laying down his life. And he said, much sooner than later, the grand avenues will open up once again, down which free people will march to build a fairer society. It is an anniversary which divides because of the totemic and traumatic significance of these events. And half a century later, that division in some ways seems almost as great.

So the 50 year anniversary of that coup is this week. But let's start by walking through how Chile got to that point. Why was there this military coup?

Chile had stood out in Latin America because it had had stable civilian government since 1932. The economy was dependent on American owned copper companies on the one hand, and farming, which was dominated by large and inefficient estates. A previous government before Allende had pushed through reforms to try to address those issues. But Allende was elected in 1970 on a platform in which he proclaimed a Chilean road to socialism, more in the pattern of a Fidel Castro than a European Social Democrat.

Which it seems didn't work out.

No, it didn't. He faced a basic problem and that was that he had only won 36% of the vote. There hadn't been a big swing to the left. He never had a parliamentary majority. His macroeconomic policy was populist. I mean, they took over all these companies and they printed lots of money, which prompted inflation and shortages and so on. And then there was the international context. It was the Cold War, and the Nixon administration in the United States was afraid that Chile might become a second Cuba. And so they did everything they could to undermine the allende government. By 1973, Chile was really a breaking point. There were large protests against inflation and shortages, But also out of fear that Chile was moving towards the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Marxist Leninist term.

But you said he was elected in 1970 and it was in 1973 that the breaking point arrived. Didn't he see that coming?

Yeah, I think he may have done. I think he certainly had no good options by mid-1973, one way out would have been to try and strike a deal with the Christian Democrats, who were the largest party in Congress, Centrist. And that would have split Allende's left wing coalition. The military. The armed forces had been quite patient by Latin American standards. But in the end they decided to move partly because there was a lot of discontent within the army armed forces. Pinochet, in fact, decided to join the coup only at the last minute. Pinochet was a very calculating kind of person who always wanted to wait to see which way the wind was blowing before joining it.

And once the winds blew him into power, what happened next?

Many Chilean politicians had assumed that the army would just step in, restore order and call a fresh election.

But.

But none of that happened. And instead Pinochet launched a reign of terror. Supporters of Allende, many of them were rounded up. More than 2,000 were killed or disappeared, some 30,000 were tortured and many thousands went into exile.

So what about the ways that Allende was running the country? How did those change? Beyond the brutal terror, Pinochet had another.

Shock in store for Chile. In general, military dictatorships in Latin America tended to support kind of state led industrialization. But he was persuaded to hire a team of free market economists known as the Chicago Boys, because many of them had studied at the University of Chicago, the temple of Milton Friedman. And they proceeded to tear down state controls and tariff barriers and privatized almost anything that actually produced an economic crash in 1982. But after that there was more pragmatic free market economic management. And it put Chile on a path to sustained economic growth. There was one aspect which was much more controversial, which has produced discontent in recent years, which was that the Chicago boys thought that Chile should not just have a market economy, but a market society in which the provision of public services like education and health care would be a job mainly for the market.

And what about the sort of onwards political consequences here? What happened to Chile's left?

Well, obviously the coup was a traumatic defeat, but gradually there was a rethink. And in particular the Socialist Party, of which Allende was a member, concluded that the way to bring progressive change to Chile and to restore democracy was to strike a broad alliance that would include the Christian Democrats. The deal that Allende perhaps might have done in 1973, but didn't, and it happened in the 1980s. And that broad front managed to win the plebiscite which Pinochet had called for 1989, on whether his rule should continue or not.

Deprived of even the most basic expression of democratic rights for the last 15 years. They gathered in Santiago today in their tens of thousands. It was the culmination of the presidential referendum campaign. Moderate Christian Democrats, Socialists and Communists marching together. The flags of 17 different political parties, all of them united in opposition to the regime of General Pinochet.

And Chile made a successful transition to democracy and what was known as the Concertacion. This broad alliance of the left and the center proceeded to govern Chile for most of the following 20 years and brought about a lot of reform, a lot of economic growth. Poverty came right down and there was a lot of progress. Then it became a victim of its own success.

And so you think from that historical background arises the political discontent that we've seen in Chile more recently and talked about a lot on the show?

Yeah, I mean, in 2019, there was what was called a social explosion of a mixture of massive peaceful protests on the one hand, and a lot of violent vandalism on the other. The demands were essentially for better pensions, better health care, better education. But it was framed as a kind of critique of the gradualist approach of the previous 20 years. The social explosion signaled the arrival of in force of a younger, newer, more radical left in Chile. And one of its leaders, Gabriel Boric, would be elected as president at the end of 2021. And Boric sees himself as an heir much more to Allende rather than to the Concertacion. And on the day of his inauguration, as he walked towards the palace La Moneda, he paid homage to the statue of Allende which today stands behind the palace. And he invoked Salvador Allende in a speech to his followers.

And so what does that tell you then, about the situation in Chile? The echo of Allende is there.

Well, the echo of Allende is there, but also, in a way, the echo of Pinnacet is there because the swing to the hard left proved to be temporary. Since then, we've seen the emergence of a new hard right party in Chile, led by Jose Antonio Cast, who does not criticise the dictatorship. The reasons for his support are not nostalgia for Pinochet, but there's no doubt the country is more politically polarized today than it was 10 years ago. It's been embodied, really, in a wrangle about a new constitution, because the existing constitution descends from Pinochet's constitution. In 2019, at a rather dangerous moment with the protests, there was a broad political agreement to set up an elected constitutional convention to write a new charter for the country. The hard left dominated it. And the document that came out was a quite extreme document, but it was overwhelmingly rejected in a plebiscite a year ago. And so it was back to the drawing board. The Congress agreed to set up yet another Constitutional convention, a smaller one, and this time the hard right is the largest single force. I think a positive outcome would be if a draft is corrects some of that market society stuff and gives a bigger role for the state in social provision, which I think a lot of trillions want. But the country's in quite a rejectionist mood and I think the anniversary has done nothing to overcome that rejectionist mood. All of this is in a very minor key compared with what happened between 1970 and 1973. And most people in Chile do not want to go back to coups and dictatorships. And that is overwhelmingly positive.

Michael, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Jason.

In 2018, Kevin Costner took on a new role in the critically acclaimed TV series Yellowstone. He's a wealthy ranch owner and the patriarch of a powerful family in Montana, one hell bent on preserving the nature that the state is known for, as well as the cowboy way of life. The show makes riding in Ram pickups and wrangling cows look like the only life worth living. But what it also does really well is offer up some escapism by painting the screen with the most beautiful scenery. The majesty of the mountains, the forests, the sense of freedom that comes from the seemingly never ending plains nestled between the mountain peaks. And of course, the horses. Costner's character, John Dutton, is pitted against the world trying to preserve this slice of paradise.

They wonder why we fight so hard. You see what you've been missing.

Anyone think to pack any vodka?

Beth? Just look at the horizon. Yeah.

See it, dad.

It's very pretty.

But in the most recent season, Dutton takes on that fight from the Governor's mansion.

I, John Dutton, do solemnly swear to uphold the constitution of the state of Montana.

While this often violent drama typically bears little resemblance to domestic American politics, it does get one thing absolutely right. Montana's state constitution puts its natural wonders before all else. And that is something that real life activists are seizing on to try to protect the state and the rest of the world from the continued burning of fossil fuels.

So in 2020, a group of 16 young people who at the time that the lawsuit was filed were between the ages of 2 and 18, sued the state.

Annie Crabel is a news editor for the Economist.

And they argued that the state's energy policies, by favoring fossil fuels over renewables, violated this constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.

And how do the plaintiffs claim that the state is doing that, failing to maintain a clean and healthful environment?

So all the plaintiffs have pretty compelling stories. I met with one of the older plaintiffs, Grace Gibson Snyder, in Missoula, Montana, where she's from. And Grace is a sixth generation Montanan. She grew up going to Glacier national park, which is this spectacular park just a couple hours from Missoula. And she talked about how year after year she would kind of see the glaciers melting with each passing season, and she would go backpacking or play soccer. And the season that she could safely do those things in was increasingly cut short due to worsening wildfire smoke. The lead plaintiff, whose name is Ricky Held, grew up on a ranch. And she described in her testimony growing up seeing worsening flash flooding, droughts, and wildfires that would have these negative impacts not only on her well being and lifestyle, but just her family's business. So it negatively impacted crops and the livestock on her family's ranch. So what was especially important in this lawsuit is the part about the state constitution protecting the environment, quote, for present and future generations. So the lawsuit was kind of narrowed over time, in part because the legislature dissolved the energy policy that was at the core of the lawsuit, which people cynically thought was designed to derail the trial, but one bit stuck. And it was a provision that barred state agencies from taking into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when considering new energy projects. So it basically forbid the state from considering the impacts of climate change when thinking about new fossil fuel projects.

Okay, so this case was heard in June, you said. Has the judge ruled on it yet?

Yes. So the case kicked off in June, and in mid August, the district court judge, Kathy Seely, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. She struck down that provision, and she said it's unconstitutional for the legislature to bar the state from taking climate change into account. And she said in her opinion that Montana's emissions have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts and to Montana's environment. And the plaintiffs were totally in the right to bring this lawsuit. She said that they have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts.

Okay, this sounds big. Will the state really now be forced to take emissions into account for all energy projects?

So not exactly. The order as written does not compel the state to take emissions into account. It just prevents them from banning that outright. But it really has been hailed as a game changer. And that's the consensus view among experts. I Spoke with Michael Gerard, who is a professor at Columbia Law School, and he founded the Saban center, which tracks environmental litigation.

It's only the second time that there's ever been an actual trial on climate science where climate scientists were on the standard, subject to cross examination under oath. And here, after extensive testimony, the court ruled that the climate scientists were right. Additionally, this was the first time that a court has found there is a constitutional right to a clean environment in the United States. We've seen similar rulings in other countries, but not in the U.S. so this.

Was a landmark case in its own right, in Gerard's view. But he really sees the these environmental cases as being really important. And he pointed to a Supreme court case from 2007, Massachusetts vs EPA, as being kind of a major push behind many of the Obama administration's climate policies. But I also spoke with Quinn Yergain, who is an expert on state constitutions and an associate professor at Widner University Commonwealth Law School. And Quinn Girge is more skeptical about the implications of this case.

I agree that it'll definitely result in more climate litigation and more green amendments. I disagree with the idea that this is a landmark decision, or I would say substantial in any way. And I would also sort of disagree with some of the maybe implicit optimism that more green amendments and more climate litigation is an inherently good thing thing and represents a good use of limited resources.

So Juergain does not believe that this decision would provide the basis upon which a court could then turn around and order the state government to massively decrease carbon emissions. Which is to be clear, what the plaintiffs originally asked for. And Yergain argues that a better use of time and resources in this increasingly warming world would be to directly mandate the use of renewables instead of going in for more of these rights based green amendments.

Okay, so beyond Montana's borders though, will this have spillover effects in other places?

Yeah, that's the big question. The law firm that brought this lawsuit has lots of other litigation in the works. They have launched efforts in all 50 states. But the first states that will see an impact will be the ones that have similar provisions in their constitutions protecting environmental rights. So the next youth climate change case that is going to trial will be in Hawaii next year. And Hawaii has a similar provision in its constitution. New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, those are some of the others. We're seeing a lot of attention and perhaps maybe a lot of momentum for green amendments. New York passed a Green Amendment in November of 2021, for example. But what these cases will in and of themselves achieve, I think, remains really worth watching, but not a surefire path to mandating decarbonization.

Annie, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Thank you very much for having.

The garage door opened eerily, its mouth yawning expectantly, a large dark toad about to gobble an unsuspecting fly.

Danielle's Deal Books deal with family, courage, loyalty, wealth, fear, revenge and love.

Catherine Nixie is a Britain correspondent for the Economist.

Her books are also about selling staggering numbers of copies. She's written over 200 books. The latest one, Happiness, came out in August and her next One Second act is going to be released in October. She's one of the world's best selling living authors, according to some claims, the best selling living author. And she sold over a billion copies. And so obviously the literary world being what it is, it completely ignores her. Publishing is a very peculiar business. It's worth around 37 billion pounds in Britain and America alone. But you'd pretty much never know this from the literature that it itself produces. It always tends to focus on books in the brainy vein rather than anything so vulgar as volumes that actually sell. If you look into one authoritative history of English literature, you'll find it's got about 60 mentions of Shakespeare, 10 mentions of the sublime, 8 on blank verse, but an absolute blank silence for such concepts as business or turnover or profit. Another literary history refers to popular novels, which William Thackeray, the English author, called jammed Hearts for the Mind, and it does so under the heading Problems of Popular Culture. So bookselling is incredibly sniffy about these bestsellers, but it absolutely depends on them. September and October are when publishers release the titles that they hope are going to be the money spinners for the next few years. But almost no books make any money at all. In fact, most of them lose it. To print, produce and publicize a book costs a publisher around $15,000, and it takes around 5,000 copies, therefore, to break even. Most books never even come close. Only 0.4% of titles in Britain last year sold more than that 5,000 mark. Ms. Steele's books, by contrast, have sold 268,000 copies in Britain this year so far alone. I mean, they might be jam tarts, but that's why people like to gobble them up. But the funny thing is, though the industry completely depends on them, it has an almost total inability to predict which books are going to become bestsellers. For publishers, buying books is less like sagely predicting what's going to be a winner than buying a literary lottery. Ticket and hoping for the best. You want to know just how unpredictable it is, Then look at the Publisher's Random House. Everything about publishing is random. Success is random. Getting winning books is random. It's all random. That's why they're the Random House. The term bestseller first appeared in the late Victorian period in the 1890s, and the first authoritative lists followed soon after. People get a bit sniffy about the term bestseller because they say actually Shakespeare is a bestseller. It just sells, but more slowly, which is kind of true. And the Bible's probably the best bestseller, but really everyone knows what a bestseller is. They are the fun fiction that you want to read but probably shouldn't. Their writing can be good. H.G. wells, an English writer, was at the top of early rankings. But it really doesn't need to be good. I mean, just read the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Sex tends to sell well in bestsellers, but the thing that sells best of all is celebrity. Prince Harry's Spare broke all records as the fastest selling non fiction book when it was published earlier this year. And if you are hoping to write a bestseller yourself, then you should bear in mind that fiction sells better than nonfiction and that thrillers and romance sell best of all. You should also remember that recognition matters, so you should really be churning these things out. And if you absolutely must write non fiction books which never sell, then try and make it biography, which really does. Of the top 10 bestsellers in one recent week, three of them were romances, one was a thriller, and four were by a single author, Colleen Hoover, the romantic novelist who's revolutionized romantic publishing. If you look at those lists, they're not that literary. Only one of the ten, Covenant of Water was a kind of bookish sort of a book. They are often pretty aspirational, so men tend to be muscly, women tend to be attractive. They're often set in hot, beautiful locations. The other thing that strikes you is how many of them are books in a series. Look at the top 10 of the new York Times bestsellers and it will often be such and such a book, which is 23rd in a series, 24th in a series, hundredth in a series. James Patterson, an American thriller writer, has churned down over 340 books. It's the kind of speed that brings to mind Truman Capote's famous phrase that that's less writing than to typing. Danielle Steele, when she writes books, says that she writes until her nails bleed. Not all bestsellers are bad, but some of their sentences might have benefited from a little more introspection or in some cases, it feels like, at the very least, a second read. In one bestseller, a character finds her lover in bed with someone else and she observes, the only thing that struck me was that his first face was as expressionless as his buttocks, which stared at me from the bed. You can reread that sentence several times and still not feel that it's given up all of its secrets. However, if you really, really want to write a bestseller, then just ignore Ms. Steele, ignore James Patterson, ignore all the other novelists. Because the book that sold the most copies in America over the past 10 years was by none of them. It was instead oh, the Places yous'll go by Dr. Seuss. And number three in that list was that other literary classic, the Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle. The thing about children's books is they don't just sell well. They also keep on selling year after year, and they build fans across the generations. And if you're an author, they're also quite short. There's surely no better paid sentences than those of the Very Hungry Caterpillar in all of literature. Incidentally, these books all obey the bestseller formula perfectly. They have sentences of Hemingway esque brevity, they've got nice pleasant settings, and of course, they've got excellent weather.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. We've got some news for you if you're a subscriber. The Economists app now has a dedicated tab for this and all of our shows. It's the easiest way to tune in every day.

And if you're not a subscriber to the Economist, what are you waiting for? Come join us. Get a free 30 day digital subscription by going to economist.com intelligenceoffer the link is in the Show Notes. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

Sam.