Why does Uruguay’s president have such a low approval rating, given that the country isn’t doing as badly as the rest of the continent? The answer is simple: the arrogance of his government―President Orsi, his Minister of Economy Odone, and his Secretary of State Lubetkin―created a seismic shift in sentiment, fueling feelings of betrayal and defeat among his voters, the activists of the historic Frente Amplio. Their strategy of aligning with a watered-down form of neoliberalism and supremacist Zionism was the first turning point that divided opinion in the early months of their administration in 2025.
When a government lacks the support and coordinated defense of its voters and activists, its adversaries have an easy time of it. The primary culprit is not the opposition; it is the government itself. And it is also part of the Uruguayan left, for having sold out its ideals in exchange for winning the occasional election. This is a distinctive feature of the Uruguayan reality, but it is also the root of the dying tree of the Western left, from Europe to Latin America.
Who is setting the example of how to return to its traditional principles of defending the rights of those at the bottom, of the working class, and of the anti-imperialist and anti-slavery struggle? As in the 20th century, the American left.
Paradoxically, the example of how a left worthy of the name should act comes from the very cradle of this entire wave of anti-democratic, racist, sexist, and genocidal brutality: the United States. For some years now, it has been the American left that has taken up the torch of defiance. We’ve already seen this in the difference between the U.S. Green Party, led by our friend Jill Stein, and the Green Party of Germany: one is militantly opposed to the genocide in Gaza and imperialism and stands with the working class, while the other―the European one―is looking for excuses to avoid taking a stand.
There was a problem: because the U.S. political and electoral system is a legacy of the slave system, the chances of making an impact through a third party were―and remain―practically nil. This became even more so when the Supreme Court decided in 2010 to lift restrictions on donations to Super PACs during elections. Since then, the hijacking and buying off of politicians has become a legal business, now carried out openly, one that not only reflects the obscene structure of accumulation but also radicalizes it.
Now we are beginning to see a movement that many of us did not take seriously years ago. One of the wings of the same eagle, the Democratic Party, is beginning to watch with panic as candidates like Zohran Mamdani in New York and James Talarico in Texas are confirming the idea that the brutal power of money, the extortion of lobbies, and the success of fascist libertarianism (fueled daily by the techno-fascism of digital sects) are being confronted without virginal timidity.
Just as a charging elephant stops when a man stands his ground and raises his arms defiantly, so is this left-wing group proceeding in the United States.
Mamdani not only won the New York City mayoral election by asserting and affirming his identity as a Muslim and a socialist, but from the outset he campaigned in favor of raising taxes on millionaires (after decades of unrelenting tax cuts) and against the genocide in Palestine. After winning the mayoral race, he campaigned for state congressional candidates with a clear condemnation of the immorality of lobbies, such as the pro-Israel AIPAC, which has historically boasted of deciding who wins an election: only those who receive donations and the blessing of its sect. The result has been a series of electoral victories for the irreverent left. All the candidates who campaigned by rejecting this dirty money won.
It is obvious that they will be under constant pressure and sabotage, from the Trump federal government to the millionaires’ lobbies. There are no lobbies for the poor. But, as history shows, since the 19th century the left has stood firm on its principles and demands without changing them for any reason whatsoever, not even for an electoral victory.
In Latin America, the history of colonization still weighs heavily. It is no coincidence that this has been the region under colonization for the longest time in modern history, ever since Christopher Columbus set foot on an island and made it clear that his goal was to enslave the unsuspecting islanders—in the name of God, hallelujah!
All elections are influenced by Silicon Valley tech companies, almost all of which are allied with or controlled by pro-Israeli groups. Over the past three years, in response to the avalanche of criticism from ordinary people against the genocide in Palestine, nine elections were won by pro-Israel candidates—even though in each and every one of those countries, public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to Israel’s interventionist, openly genocidal, and supremacist policies. In almost all cases, the most fascist and easily manipulated right-wing candidates won; all of them sympathizers with racial or ethnic supremacy: Milei (Argentina, 2023); Noboa (Ecuador, 2023); Peña (Paraguay, 2023); Bukele (El Salvador, 2024); Mulino (Panama, 2024); Kast (Chile, 2025); Asfura (Honduras, 2026); Fujimori (Peru, 2026); De la Espriella (Colombia, 2026)… hallelujah!
With (almost) no exceptions, such as Uruguay and Venezuela. In Uruguay, it wasn’t necessary for the left to lose; it was enough to co-opt it for the cause of genocide and neoliberalism, which prevented a one-percent tax on millionaires and the utterance of the forbidden word.
In 2025, in Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro and Delcy Rodríguez condemned the genocide in Palestine. Hours after their president was abducted by a foreign force—an incident that left nearly 60 forgotten dead in January 2026—Rodríguez said the operation bore Israel’s hallmarks. Shortly after being appointed interim president (the constitution states she was required to call for elections within 30 days), she did not utter a single word against the regimes in Washington or Tel Aviv. Quite the contrary: her statements were in favor of restoring diplomatic relations with both. What has Delcy said about Israel’s invasion and massacre in Lebanon? Nothing, despite the fact that 700,000 people of Lebanese descent, 50,000 Palestinians, and 10,000 Jews live in Venezuela—though this last group should not be equated with Zionism, as the Zionists always claim. Where has Chávez’s resistance gone? A cowardly, feeble silence driven by self-interest, just like Shakira’s.
In June 2026, Flavio Bolsonaro met with Netanyahu (as the so-called Nobel Peace Prize laureate, María Corina Machado, had done before him) and said that this relationship was a “ganha-ganha” (a terrible translation of “win-win”). Flavio is the candidate running against Lula for the presidency; Lula, along with Mexico’s President Sheinbaum, is one of the few Latin American leaders who has not bowed down to Netanyahu. Flavio Bolsonaro (son of the pro-Israeli coup leader and former president, Captain Jair Bolsonaro) took to a public stage and declared: “With Bolsonaro, Brazil will once again be a sister nation to Israel.” Not a damn thing about genocide, Palestine, or the rights of the world’s peoples.
When he finished, he shouted twice: “Brasil acima de tudo,” a crude copy of the Nazi slogan “Deutschland über alles,”, which even Europeans banned after World War II.
Why would a candidate running for president of a country shout from a podium in support of something that 60 percent of the population rejects? It’s simple: this candidate, like the other dozen or so “genocide” candidates, isn’t speaking to their “Palestinized” people—they’re speaking to the big tech companies that, through the hacking of nations, are the ones who decide the elections.
Jorge Majfud, June 2026
