On Sunday Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, was sworn in. This is significant because Bolivia is the only majority indigenous country in the Americas. And Morales is the first indigenous president to be elected in recent memory. His election is more reason for leftists and progressives to be excited about the left movement of the South American region. As South American and Central American nations move further to the left exerting more and more control over resources and thus their economies, US corporate hegemony will be weakened, allowing US labor more leverage in our struggles. So this looks like a victory for what remains of the US 'left' as well as the Bolivians and people in the region.

The Times is reporting that the election of Morales solidifies the regions leftward tilt. Call me cynical but it makes me skeptical to hear the Times refer to Morales' election as a symbol of 'leftward drift'. Being credentialed by a publication like the NYTimes as a 'leftist', makes me wary. Will Morales stay true to the people? As the Times reports, Morales has recently stated that he won't expropriate foreign holdings. What this kind of rhetoric actually means, remains to be seen. Has Morales made backroom deals with the multinationals wanting to maintain their imperialist gravy train of exploitation of other people's natural resources.

Morales invited the Zapatistas to attend his inaurguration. They declined, with their spokesman, Subcomandante Marcos stating

We don't have relations with governments, whether they are good or bad. We have relations with the people.

Morales won over 50% of the vote giving him the office and an affirmative mandate for his presidency to be as he promised,

a nightmare for the United States

Democracy Now has a good report on the significance of Morales' electoral victory.