If You Think El Salvador's Nayib Bukele Is a Good Guy, You Should Read This

There is absolutely no reason for conservatives and libertarians to heap praise on Nayib Bukele.

El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has been in the news recently for collaborating with US President Donald Trump to address America’s border crisis.

Trump sailed into office on the promise that he would curb illegal immigration. He vowed to carry out mass deportations and remove dangerous criminals who threaten Americans.

Bukele on Monday visited Trump at the White House to discuss immigration and other matters.

Conservatives and libertarians on social media appear to have embraced this young leader who is graciously helping the United States with its illegal immigration problem. But a look at Bukele’s history might cause one to question why.

Bukele rose to power in 2022 after running a populist campaign against the establishment parties. Since then, he has become known for his youthful charisma, his social media marketing expertise, and his penchant for throwing people in prison without due process or trials.

Of course, that last part isn’t getting as much attention. I wrote a piece for Townhall about Bukele’s ascendancy as well as his draconian policies aimed at cracking down on gang violence, which plagued El Salvador for years.

El Salvado’s prison system is known as one of the most corrupt. The government has incarcerated 85,000 people, often without evidence or court hearings. Judgments about who to imprison tend to rely on flimsy proof such as tattoos or neighborhood ties.

…

There have been several reports of torture, including electric shocks, waterboarding, and beatings in the facility. About 153 inmates died in custody between 2022 and 2023 alone. Many of the victims showed signs of strangulation.

Bukele appears to be a real-life Emperor Palpatine, but without the scary yellow eyes and unfortunate dermatological affliction. He was granted emergency powers to deal with gang activity in 2022. But, he has refused to relinquish them even though the emergency has passed.

Does this sound familiar?

I had to ask myself: Why in the blue hell would people who claim they want limited government start crushing on a guy who represents the exact opposite? It would be akin to catching Bernie Sanders with a copy of Murray Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State.”

I asked about this on X. While most agreed that limited government types have little in common with Bukele, some argued that his tactics have drastically reduced violent crime in El Salvador.

They are right.

Since declaring a state of emergency in 2022, his administration has arrested over 85,000 suspected members of MS-13 and other street gangs. However, many of those imprisoned are likely innocent, given that these arrests and convictions took place without warrants, trials, or any semblance of due process.

Using militarized policing, mass incarcerations, and other methods, Bukele has slashed the homicide rate from 38 per 100,000 people in 2019 to about eight per 100,000 people last year.

Nobody can deny it: Bukele’s methods got results. But at what cost?

There have been at least 261 inmate deaths since 2022. Reports of torture, inhuman prison conditions, and various other human rights abuses have made their way into the airwaves and the digital space.

Many of those arrested were targeted simply because they had certain tattoos. No further evidence was required. Even further, Bukele has also cracked down on the press and others who criticize him.

While he is not quite as brutal against his dissenters as North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, it is clear he has no qualms with using the government to suppress those who might speak out against him.

Bukele is not shrinking the state; he’s expanding and weaponizing it. His policies are the very antithesis of what limited government types claim to oppose.

There is nothing new about Bukele’s playbook. It is merely a remix of Latin America’s authoritarian past. From Pinochet to Chávez, his government does not even resemble a free society.

Nevertheless, people still call him “the world’s coolest dictator.”

No, really, that’s a thing.

If Bukele dismantled the street gangs, isn’t a little authoritarianism worth it? It’s not like he as gone full Stalin (yet), right?

This question reminds me of a popular quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Sure, El Salvador might be more peaceful at the moment. But if Bukele continues amassing power, then El Salvadorans might live to regret granting him this authority. What’s to stop him from using these emergency powers to target other “enemies” even if they are not suspected gang members?

Authoritarians rule for power. They censor for power. They imprison and torture for power. Their whole reason for being is to obtain and keep power. It is unlikely that Bukele is any different.

In other words, things will probably get far worse.

History warns that authoritarian crackdowns offer only fleeting benefits at best. Mussolini kept the trains running on time, and Hitler instilled law and order. Crime in North Korea is quite low.

Yet, there was tremendous suffering under these regimes. Folks like Bukele might believe they are using their immense powers for good. But history and George Lucas teach that Anakin Skywalker always becomes Darth Vader eventually. Power always proves to be too seductive to resist.

True security requires the existence of a governing authority to protect people’s rights, not violate them. Yes, taking on gangs is more difficult when you adhere to principles such as due process.

But this does not mean it cannot be done. America’s homicide rate, as high as it is, was still far lower than what it was in El Salvador before Bukele’s regime. As imperfect as our justice system is, it still allows for the authorities to apprehend violent criminals.

What truly concerns me about this right-wing adoration for Bukele is not what happens in El Salvador. It is what could happen here if the right person managed to capture the public’s imagination, making sweeping promises about how they will use the government to achieve America’s objectives.

If people who claim to be for limited government are willing to fawn over a would-be dictator in another country, how long might it be before they are willing to do the same here?