Avestruzes
Update:Â Here's some Al Jazeera footage from Venezuela. Typical CIA agents!
How dreary. Just as I predicted in yesterday's post immediately below, what passes for an American left just couldn't digest the defeat of Hugo Chavez in his own election.
What part of his defeat is so hard to understand? He wanted to further expand his power, open the door to govern in perpetuity and a majority of voters rejected him. Rejected him, that is, after he shut down the most popular TV network in the country, after his troops have recently been involved in violent clashes with workers, after university students have marched in the streets against him, and as some of the poorest people in Venezuela are currently facing shortages of basic goods.
But wait... Chavez didn't really lose because of any of that. Oh, banish the thought!
From the extreme left we get this crudola from Tariq Ali explaining:
Hugo Chavez' narrow defeat in the referendum was the result of large-scale abstentions by his supporters. 44 percent of the electorate stayed at home.
True. The referendum to lift presidential term limits and alter the constitution only drew a 55% turnout. But how on earth does Comrade Ali come up with the absurd notion that those who abstained were mostly pro-Chavez? Absurd because, in ultimate circumstance, no one knows for whom they would have voted. If I had to guess, however, I'd have to say it's exactly the opposite case. Given Chavez' control of state resources and national patronage machinery, given the constant state of "mobilization" among his supporters, and given the disarray and demoralization among those who have opposed him, I'd have to imagine that those who stayed home were mostly: a) those who just assumed that Chavez would inevitably win because the Venezuelan state was counting the votes or b) those who felt so alienated from the electoral process that they couldn't bother to vote and/or c) those who didn't care enough about the Bolivarian Revolution to come out and endorse it.
Perhaps Tariq should suggest to Chavez that backed up by such an unreliable and fickle bunch of the working masses that El Comandante should simply dismiss the people and elect a new one! In any case, it seems that if one is conducting an authentic popular revolution he ought to be able to inspire the same populous to come out and vote. If he can;t maybe its because....um...ah....well.... he ain't so popular after all.
That, of course, would be too easy an explanation, wouldn't it?
From the more moderate sectors of the left, we get equally cockeyed analysis. Again, conforming to my rather obvious predictions of 24 hours ago, John Nichols prefers to float the meme that Chavez-- by accepting the loss in a referendum that would have abrogated democracy proves that he's really a wonderful democrat. Come on. I think Nichols is off by a few degrees here. What the election proves is the democratic conviction of the Venezuelan voters, not of the huff-and-puff bully they rejected at the polls.
I was in Chile for the 1988 referendum lost by General Pinochet when he tried to "legally" extend his dictatorship and, to the surprise of many (myself included), the old bastard was forced to accept the results. That didn't prove Pinochet a democrat. It proved he had no choice. And neither did Chavez (who we will remember first tried to come power in 1992 by staging a failed military coup against an elected -- if corrupt-- government).
We also hear similar foolishness from the squishy liberal left, in this case the Democrats at Firedoglake who ask: "Who's the Bigger Dictator, Bush or Chavez?" Here's we have some good-old-fasihoned, albeit liberal, know-nothingism: Don't bother me with seriously thinking about global issues, international politics or the fate of the Venezuelan people -- all I care about is whining about George Bush. Whaaa whaaa.
This reminds me of a great story that Gore Vidal used to tell in his speeches during the 1980's. Paraphrasing closely it went something very much like this: "When I travel around the country and denounce the evils of Ronnie Reagan I get angry people who come up to me and say, 'You know, it's worse in Russia.' And I say: 'Yes. And so what?'"
Am I some sort of right-winger who hopes secretly or otherwise for military coup in Venezuela? Hardly. I'm a lifetime leftist who has been embarrassed and chagrined by the mockery of some pretty lofty principles by such an obviously daft and megalomaniacal guy named Hugo Chavez. In the end, be assured that his experience will alienate and repel many more millions away from any notion of socialism than it will attract. I'm also chagrined that so many American lefties feel compelled to deny the equally obvious truths about him and his defeat this week.
When I was 16 years old and first got recruited to the left I had a big Che poster on my wall emblazoned with the slogan: "The Truth is Always Revolutionary." I'm foolish enough to still believe it. I just wish the truth was a bit more popular.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Tariq Ali’s explanation for why Chavez’s supporters might have stayed home is seriously lame, and worth reading for its object lesson in non-analysis. I have not seen any poll figures, although I am sure they are around, but isn’t it possible (and likely) that a large proportion of people normally supportive of Chavez did abstain in the referendum? And that this does help account for the no vote? If you had been been sympathetic to social reforms but felt Chavez was going too far, sitting it out might be an understandable choice. Add this to those who thought Chavez had it in the bag, as Marc suggests, and you get a pretty large abstention number made up of both camps.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:52 am
OT, but the new intelligence on Iran’s nukes may be pretty inconvenient for any Democratic Party candidate who rushed to give Bush political cover for an attack on that country by voting to brand the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. If I were Obama, I would be sure to remind people about it on every possible occasion.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Never mind. From today’s NYT:
“Mrs. Clinton’s rivals used the release of the report on Iran on Monday to condemn the Bush administration, as well as to once again attack Mrs. Clinton’s vote on declaring the guards a terrorist organization. That vote, they suggested, was evidence of her hawkishness on Iran.
“The juxtaposition of this N.I.E. with the president’s suggestion of World War III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq,†said Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, in a statement. “Members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the president any justification to use military force.—
Now back to today’s topic.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:47 am
I have to give the best line in response to the release of the NIE to John Edwards: “The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney’s rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war.”
Barack should have also immediately made the point (and probably will) that whatever this administration says about “national security” may well be – and probably is in the most critical cases – a calculated, knowing lie. It’s great to remind follks that some senators didn’t even read the stuff available to Congress before the Iraq war that had Sen. Bob Graham – a relatively conservative southern Democrat – up in arms telling us the whole thing was nuts. But the truth is that most people hearing that won’t know it refers to Clinton. Barack is getting up a good head of steam in Iowa, BUT better soundbits pleeeeze…and call Hillary directly on her bullshit. Her campaign is starting to get kind of crazy in the attacks on him (like using a kindergarten essay to prove something or other) and the more she starts to treat him like he’s Rudy Giuliani or some such sleazebag, the more it’s going to hurt her.
Best Barack news of yesterday – Bob Reich, an old Clinton friend and Bill’s Labor Secy (also one of the smartest and most progressive voices in that administration) turned on Hillary for her campaign style and backed up Obama’s positions on raising the wage limit on SS tax and not handing the GOP a ready-made issue by campaigning on virtually unenforcable and politically toxic “government mandates” to buy health insurance (as opposed to simply making it affordable to all in the first round of what is admittedly a set of near-term reforms and not the best-of-all-possible systems.) This is a big bone of contention about Barack’s health care reform with policy wonks who have zero political sense, and Bob Reich out-wonks them here.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html
Okay, not back to the burning question of how big a dick Hugo Chavez is and whether there are lots of lefties who have their heads up their asses. My take: Really Big ! and Enough to Fill a Stadium ! (although I wouldn’t proceed to torture them or gun them down, like certain of their critics.)
December 4th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Surely, in the spirit of the left, Chavez should have a recount and an inspection of the chads to determine the true “intent” of the voters rather than the actual vote.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:41 am
With respect, no one is freaking out. They won fair and square, and I would not have voted no. This is the worst possible situation for Chavez critics who wanted to see some kind of strife. Venezuela’s a democracy. You win some you lose some.
I don’t see any evidence that Tariq, John Nichols, Firedoglake, or most saliently and with the best analysis, Ken Silverstein, is wrong. I think this whole post is about anti-Chavez folks who can’t understand that socialists truly may support soem things about Chavez and not others. It seems like Marc would have wanted to see Chavez call everyone traitor (as I feared he would) and civil strife to take place.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I guess people who can puncture holes in what you’re saying are on moderation?
December 4th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I won’t even bother at this point. Quoting a murderer in a previous post and then deliberately presenting information out of context here….Its just hard for people to stand that, as I put it in on an moderation post, Chavez lost a referendum he himself called by a SLIM margin, and no matter what you do, no one outside of the reactioanry right or certain Trotskyist groups is gonna take Villalobos quoting and Petkoff quoting about “authoritarianism” seriously anymore. I think Marc wanted Chavez to win so he could complain and lecture.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:19 am
I really don’t see how Nichols writes anything objectionable. He doesn’t call Chavez a champion of the democratic process, he only argues that in Venezuela “democracy prevailed.” His point, as I read it, is that compared to the Russian elections, democracy seems reasonably healthy in Venezuela. Over time, Marc’s made a lot of convincing points about Chavez’s faults, but sometimes it feels that anything written about Venezuela earns Marc’s ire unless it makes a point of deriding Chavez.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I agree..that is what I meant by out of context. I’ll add that Tariq Ali is among Bolivarian supporters in contradistinction to the economistic/Castroite/”push too fast” crowd and that Firedoglake simply pointed out the obvious – that the powers Chavez had people vote on are powers that Bush just takes.
Here is a Trotskyist but totally realistic analysis of the referendum: http://wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/vene-d04.shtml
December 4th, 2007 at 9:28 am
What “left” is coming out in support of Chavez? A few political reporters comments does not mean a damn thing, just their own opinion.
Marc seems like the typical news reporter, trying to make a big story out of nothing. This is chicken little, running around screaming.
If you want to read something interesting about the CIA and Chavez/Venezuela, google the words “operation pliers”
December 4th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I agree. Nichols makes a simple point – and in a context of drawing attention to how sucessful Russia’s Putin has been in consolidating power. I’m beginning to suspect Marc checks under his bed at night to make sure that Hugo isn’t hiding there – crouched behind Hillary.
Speaking of whom, Cooper’s buddy Corn has a good piece up on how the Clinton folks at Mission Inevitable now have their own bogeyman causing them nightmares.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/hillary-on-obama-fear-and-hatr.html
December 4th, 2007 at 9:32 am
((That was a response to Mavis.)
December 4th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“Trotskyist but totally realistic”
Clearly oxymoronic but without sufficient brevity, irony or common usage to enter the realm of “Carlinesque.”
December 4th, 2007 at 9:46 am
So no Trotskyist can give you proper analysis, reg? Better toss out that early Dwight MacDonald, Deutscher, Trotsky himself, etc.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I will leave you “gringos” with the name and face of the news reporter who millions of Latinos turn to for their news. The people of Latin Americana are NOT listening to any of the sources Marc mentions. Jorge Ramos and Univision is seen by millions of Latinos from North American, Central America and South America. Jorge Ramos is the Mexican version of Walter Cronkite and Anderson Cooper rolled into one. The difference being that Jorge Ramos has a much larger viewing audience. The majority of Latin Americans know much more about Hugo Chavez because they Watch Univision and TeleMundo which covers Latin American News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoihqD0t8GE
December 4th, 2007 at 9:54 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katie-halper/the-venezuela-paradox-wh_b_75214.html
December 4th, 2007 at 9:55 am
As I said, the Chavez-is-authoritiarian-dictator meme is now dead, yet Marc refuses to sit shiva.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am
why is it that marc never mentions this?
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=264316
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Oh priceless. The defeat of Chavez is the worst possible thing for his critics and opponents. Excuse me while I take the day off to laugh.
And defeating an authoritarian in a vote he called to become more authoritarian does not mean the authoritarian is no longer authoritarian. It means he lost the vote.
And if anyone thinks I spend more than 60 seconds a week thinking or even less worrying about Hugo Chavez you are very mistaken. I WILL ADMIT however to fully enjoying the commenters’ reluctance to acknowledge simple political math. Loss=loss=loss. And Hugo lost.
On a more serious note, I believe the real story in Venezuela to be the emergence of a new student opposition which is trying to distance itself from both Chavez and the old reactionaries in the formal political opp. Now, that’s good news.
Of course to some, like Jordy, he would likely be standing out in front of the people’s riot troops ordering these borugeois students to be dismissed.
Bottom line: Chavez’ day has come and now it has gone. The only way he can extend his power will be thru overtly anti-democratic ways. I hope sincerely he doesnt and that he continues to be the model democrat he currently has shown himself to be… I mean, after all, how many elected heads of state have the goodness in them that he has to respect legal election results and not stage any military coups? Thanks Hugo, very kind of you.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Ps John Shelley: I never mention that because I am paid tyo slander Chavez by NED. CIA, NASA, NEA and the PTA — obviously. Dont you know?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“Trotskyist but totally realisticâ€
Clearly oxymoronic but without sufficient brevity, irony or common usage to enter the realm of “Carlinesque.â€
J. Cummings is either too young or too humorless to appreciate this pearl.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Time to pack up and move on to the next Utopia.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Well, even in 1998 it was clear to me that Chavez is a narcissistic demagogue. It’s interesting, though, that Heinz Dieterich, who until recently was so enamored of Chavez, considers the referendum results as an alarming strategic defeat. According to Dieterich this defeat was unnecessary, preventable, and self-inflicted. In his opinion one of the reasons for it is Chavez’s vertical system of leadership, which through time isolated Chavez from the people as he surrounded himself with sycophantic advisers.
If you read Spanish, you can read Heinz Dieterich’s piece here:
http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/a46125.html
December 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I am so pleased to see Marc Cooper banging away at that leftist trouble-maker in Venezuela. I am also so pleased that he has touted me as an alternative to the undemocratic Chavez, especially since there have been all those pesky charges about me bribing parliamentarians with buckets of money. We need more journalists like Marc Cooper and Roger Cohen of the NY Times who know how to tell it like it is.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“And if anyone thinks I spend more than 60 seconds a week thinking or even less worrying about Hugo Chavez you are very mistaken. ”
I take you at your word and admire the speed with which you write these posts about him.
“On a more serious note, I believe the real story in Venezuela to be the emergence of a new student opposition which is trying to distance itself from both Chavez and the old reactionaries in the formal political opp. Now, that’s good news.”
Good news and how about some stuff on that ?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
A few years ago John Powers wrote a book about the Bushies. I think he called it “Sore Winners” and if he were writing it today I’d like to think he would include a chapter on his friend Marc’s obsession with Hugo Chavez. For it is not enough for John Nichols to call the results a “Triump” for Democracry if he doesn’t paint Chavez as the new Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet or all three in an attempt to out do
“Holy Joe” Lieberman or “Stormin’” Norman Podhoritz on the Iranian leadership.
Frankly I weary of this. It was a close vote and Hugo lost. He went on TV, was contrite and said the truth – he went too far. Jane Hamsher at FIREDOGLAKE – a site like TPM that has moved the cause of blog journalism forward with its coverage of the Libby trial, FISA, and other legal issues (helped by a staff that includes former prosecutors) says that she wants to know who the bigger dictator is and, frankly I’d add the greater threat to peace, Bush or Chavez. For reasons I mentioned yeserdaym I think that is a goo question.
Of course Jane did produceOliverStone’s “Natural Born Killers” so I guess that means she musr be unreliable – unlike the serious Andrew Sukkivan, Chris Hitchens, Norman Geras, and other Eustonites who form our genial host’s selection of approved voices of the Left!
December 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
As to Iran the just concluded Democratic debate from Iowa on NPR gave the candidates plenty of opportunity to bash Bush and each other. I think Hillary a real problem being the only one there to vote for Kyl-Lieberman. I wish someone had asked Obama why he skipped that vote – along with others like the Webb Amdt. He and McCain have missed a lot of key votes this year. Are they pairing Reg?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
No
i recognize the “carlinesque” pearl, like military intelligence, or my favorite, corporate ethics.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I’ve read several places that Reid tabled Kyl-Lieberman, Then Obama went to NH to campaign and Reid unexpectedly pulled it off the table to a vote. The vote wasn’t close, so his condemning the amendment publicly numerous times makes the point. I don’t know if Obama’s “pairing” with McCain on some of this, since they’re both mostly on the road. Could be. But as long as he makes his positions clear and doesn’t miss any votes that are close, I don’t think it’s a big deal.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I see a lot of Bushy type thinking in all of this.
Even though Chavez lost, he still won! Oh yeah, he also lost because his supporters didn’t actually support him.
This is authoritarian thinking. This is loyalty to Chavez, not his desperate supporters who have few alternatives. I really wonder why the folks at the NLR buy into this kind of romantic crap? At the end of the day he will be just another disappointment.
The left is really in sad state these days. Even though the academic left still produces necessary analysis of neoliberalism, overall, the left is kaput. It is sad that the world possesses NO viable alternative to global capitalism.
Fukayama might have been right after all.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Josh, explain how the Venezuelan (and many other Latin American economies, not to mention Scandinavia) are still neoliberal in practice? Social Democracy is a hell of a lot better than capitalism, and the ground is not yet there for a full-scale revolutionary alternative yet. Any real alternative has to be as global in scope as capitalism. The parallell councils being built in Venezuela, Nepal, etc. point in the right direction.
And yes, many socialists, not “supporters of Chavez” per se, but many on the Left did not vote out of natural liking towards smoe policies (short work week, welfare funds, etc.) but not others. I can’t see how this is anything but a victory, since objectively, critics have been robbed of any plausible dictator kvetch.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Marc,
I think you’ll agree that I’m no fan of Chavez, but I will give him credit for being classy in his concession; a lot classier than I would have expected him to be.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
You know, I’ve never gotten the big deal about Chavez on the far left and the far right.
To me, he’s just some jumped-up, big mouth colonel.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
You’re right Bill, I always saw him as a Latin Huey Long.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Bill Bradley,
If he didn’t have any oil, no one would give the proverbial rat’s ass.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
RLC.. you’re a nice guy and everything but u’ve got to be kidding. Right?
This may come as a great shock to you but, nah, I dont think I have anything to learn politically from Jane Hamsher, whether or not she produced Natural Born Killers! I mean, I interviewed Oliver Stone for Playboy but that doesnt make me an expert on film-making does it?
Anyway, the best part of this dialogue is YOUR (collective) obsession with Hugo Chavez! I certainly enjoy plinking at him — I dunno, what? 5 -6 times a year? 7 maybe? But the obsessive rush to defend, to mitigate, to apologize, to rationalize is what’s so damn much fun.
Unlike you, I dont grow weary of it. I think it’s hilarious, actually. So –by all means– keep complaining!
December 5th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Yawn. If Hugo Chavez were really a dictator worth fearing, he wouldn’t have had an election he could lose, much less one that he barely lost and then didn’t fix. Dictators who intend to remain authoritarian simply don’t accept lost elections; if Pinochet, circa 1974, had staged this election, the G-mo would “won.” Chavez may be a blowhard, but at least he abides by the results of elections, good or bad. In the end, that may be the most positive impact of the Bolivaran Revolution.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:14 am
http://luismgarcia.blogspot.com/
An incredulous Chavez lashed out at his advisers, who had assured him that the constitutional amendments would get through without any problems – even before a single vote had been cast.
“This can’t be right,†the Venezuelan president yelled at the advisers when they had to admit that in fact, the proposals had been rejected by a majority of voters. “This is an illogical result.â€
Which is exactly the type of response you’d expect from a Latin American “socialist” who counts Fidel Castro as his mentor.
What’s more, El Mundo reveals that the results of the vote were delayed by several hours because Chavez refused to concede publicly – until he was “pressured†by senior military advisers to do the right thing and face the cameras.
How is that for dignified and ethical?
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/12/04/internacional/1196777153.html?a=9a19b6948e6cbb1e31bbc7929518ae3a&t=1196817241
Chávez responsabiliza a sus asesores de la derrota en el referéndum
* Según las filtraciones a la prensa, el lÃder clamaba ‘esto es contrario a la lógica’
Chávez, instantes antes de depositar su voto sobre el referéndum. (Foto: REUTERS)
Ampliar foto
Chávez, instantes antes de depositar su voto sobre el referéndum. (Foto: REUTERS)
Actualizado martes 04/12/2007 15:05 (CET)
Escuchar noticiaImprimirEnviar noticiaDisminuye letraAumenta letra
RAMY WURGAFT
CARACAS.- La serenidad de Hugo Chávez al reconocer su derrota en el referendo del domingo, no fue la actitud que tuvo horas antes, al enterarse de que el veredicto de las urnas le fue adverso.
Mediaba la tarde cuando, con los datos en la mano, el presidente culpó a los responsables de la campaña del ’sÃ’ (a las reformas) de haberle mentido. “Me mintieron, me engañaron”, clamó el lÃder a Diosdado Cabello, uno de sus hombres de confianza.
Chávez culpó al Comando Zamora, encargado de la propaganda electoral, de haberle garantizado el triunfo de su propuesta, al tiempo que los servicios de Inteligencia reportaban un resultado adverso.
Según las filtraciones del entorno presidencial a la prensa, el comandante se mostró incrédulo, y caminaba por la sala exclamando, “no puede ser asÃ. Esto es contrario a lógica”.
También se señala que el presidente no querÃa pronunciarse, hasta que no se escrutara el 100% del voto. Un sector del Ejército le habrÃa presionado para que “enfrentara la realidad”, antes de que la gente saliera a las calles a denunciar un fraude.
Chávez convocó a sus asesores más próximos y les pidió, con voz tronante, que le rindieran cuentas. Algunos de estos se atrevieron a insinuar que sà le habÃan prevenido de un resultado estrecho o incluso de una pequeña ventaja para la oposición, que aprovechando el resultado, ahora busca la unidad. Y que el propio Chávez se fiaba más de su ‘ojo clÃnico’, que de los informes que auguraban un triste final para el ambicioso plan de transformar a Venezuela en una utopÃa socialista.
En un rapto de realismo polÃtico, el mandatario caribeño delegó en el vicepresidente, Jorge RodrÃguez, la misión de preparar, psicológicamente, a la militancia chavista, para recibir un balde de agua frÃa.
“Chávez querÃa evitar que la noticia cayera de golpe, y que los suyos salieran a las calles a volcar su desesperación. No quiero derramamiento de sangre en Venezuela”, contó uno de sus ayudantes. La misma fuente anónima señala que el presidente tuvo que reclutar todas sus fuerzas, para resistir el impulso de imponer su proyecto a como diera lugar.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Randy, you’re right about the oil but it is that fact that gives him “street Cred” in South America. He can piss off the Yanqui Colossos because – with oil at $100 a barrel – and Iraq cut off – threats by us mean nothing. He knows that China will be only too willing to buy all he’s got. Hey! They’ve got to do something with all those Greenbacks!
Marc I’ll let others decide who has obsessed about Chavez. I’d compare how much you devoted to him and how much to Mushariff or to Iran or China or Putin – all, may I say, somewhat more important than our “Bolivarian” friend.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Since my main post is still in moderation after 24 hours, I guess I must be brief. Marc is indeed obsessed with Castro and Cuba – and by extension Chavez. All of those on the hard left must fail for Cooper’s lightweight liberal conversion to make sense. Trouble is, they are not failing. Cuba and Venezuela are recording the fastest growth in the region 4 years running and show no signs of going anywhere. Chavez remains one of the most popular leaders around and is sure to implement most of the proposed reforms through other means.
I defend Chavez because he has done more to address historic inequalities than anyone else around at the moment. Poverty has been reduced at one of the fastest rates in history, millions can now read and are involved politically in their country. Colleges, job-training, loans and housing are now open to the masses of people. Oil money has been recovered for the people and that trend has spread to Bolivia and Ecuador. All the talk about a Chavez dictatorship is propoganda intended to discredit a historical movement spreading beyond Washington’s control – as is finally clear to many only now.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Steve Smith wrote:
“Chavez may be a blowhard, but at least he abides by the results of elections, good or bad. In the end, that may be the most positive impact of the Bolivaran Revolution.”
Steve, what do you mean by that last sentence? Are you really saying that the most positive impact of the Bolivarian Revolution is that Chavez accepted the election results? Did you know that before Chavez Venezuela had a string of close to 40 consecutive years of fiercely contested democratic elections in which the governing party often lost and relinquished power to the winner? So there is nothing revolutionary about Chavez accepting unfavorable election results.
It is inaccurate to call Chavez a tyrant or a dictator, but the fact that he was trying to accumulate more and more power is undeniable. Venezuelan democracy before Chavez was extremely corrupt. But Venezuelans knew their history and knew fully well the temptation of “caudillismo”, and that is why a sitting president could not run for reelection. After completing his five-year term, a former president had to wait at least two full presidential terms (ten years) before running again. Chavez changed that shortly after coming to power, and it is clear that last Sunday’s referendum was (among other things) an attempt by him to stay in power indefinitely.
One more thing, Chavez was not gracious in accepting defeat. Details of what happened in the hours before his concession speech will become better known in the days to come. Chavez, though, was not only surprised by the returns, but he was mulling over his options.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
RLC,
Venezuela’s oil is sour crude as opposed to sweet light crude. Sour crude is thicker and full of sulfur and needs special handling.
Venezuela also owns refineries in the US, but to my knowledge, none in China. I’m not a petro expert, but as I understand, it’s not as easy as simply shifting customers, not to mention the fact that China is a lot further than the US.
I’m guessing it’s a lot of rhetoric against the Bush administration (okay by me), which has less than a year in power.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Did you know that before Chavez Venezuela had a string of close to 40 consecutive years of fiercely contested democratic elections in which the governing party often lost and relinquished power to the winner?
—
Fiercely? Ha-ha. Great joke. The AD and the Social Christians were about as “fiercely” opposed to each other as the Republicans and Democrats in the USA. It was an rich, white boy’s club that left the ordinary Venezuela out in the cold. They have never forgiven Chavez for crashing their racist party. That’s why the corporate media hates him so much. I can understand why Cooper wants to turn the clock back to when the AD and the Social Christians played musical chairs. He has been around the rich white boy’s club in the USA long enough to protect their interests in Washington’s backyard.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Actually, Cooper is a Nader supporter, and always seems to have an extra hop in his step when the Democrats lose.
I don’t doubt that Chavez is a buffoon, and I would prefer the US be on good terms with any country that has that much oil, but if he’s neither a “dictator” nor a “tyrant,” but just a chief of state who’s trying to accumulate more power, I don’t see what the threat is. I would assume Sarkozy, Brown and Bush are trying to accumulate more power too; it’s the nature of politics. By conceding defeat in a very close election, he proved he was no Che, no Castro, and no Pinochet.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Well I’m no Petroleum or Chem Eng either Randy but, somehow, given China’s needs and given its activity all over South America I don’t think distance or sulfur is a problem – particularly if you’re not that concerned about SO2 emissions. But I hear scrubbers are available and I’m sure that Abu Dhabi’s newest corporate resident (Halliburton) would be only too happy to provide the needed expertise for a price.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
The corruption of the governments before Chavez are the reason he came to power. People were fed up with it. At the same time, during those years there was more freedom of speech than there is now, the rate for violent crime (murder, armed robbery, etc) was substantially lower than it is now. In addition, the elections were indeed fiercely contested. For all their sins, faults, and abuses, neither neither AD nor COPEI were racist parties of rich white boys. Frankly, I hate to defend those parties since they sowed the seeds of their own destruction and are largely responsible for the fact that this narcissistic demagogue with delusions of grandeur (Chavez) is in power now.
To Steve Smith: I agree with you that Chavez is not a threat to the US. He is a pain in the ass, but no threat. On the other hand, his power grab is much much more than Bush ever attempted to do. In addition, no one can claim that he’s the murderous that Pinochet was (at least for now), but remember that Pinochet did abide by election results and relinquished power.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
China and Venezuela are already building 3 refinaries in China to increase exports, and PDVSA is building many more around the world (including refurbishing a massive Soviet era refinary in Cienfuegos, Cuba – as a Carribean hub). Chavez has said he wants to go from about 68,000 barrels a day to China to more than 1 million by 2012. Clearly, Caracas is working to diversify from its co-dependence with the US in case something like “Operation Pliers” actually was implemented.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Kolya: “his power grab is much much more than Bush ever attempted to do”
Yeah. I’m sure he talks to John Yoo about crushing illegal combatant’s testicles, and whether or not rape is torture.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Leftside’s comments are instructive. Forget Chavez – the Chinese take the long view. This was, after all, the country whose Prime Minister, Chou En Lai, once replied to a question about his feelings towards the French Revolution that “It is too early to Tell.”
December 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Mr,Chavez is digging his own grave every time he opens his mouth. Just this morning he publicly called his own people “shit” like three times on national television. What kind of example is this man going to be to the youth of Venezuela?
December 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Gracious Loser? My foot
Randy Paul
Steve Smith
Have you read about or seen his meeting on Wednesday with Army brass ? Someone who speaks of the opposition victory as “mierda/shit†multiple times within a minute, is neither classy nor respectful of election results that he loses. On Sunday night El Chavez spoke of “accepting†the terms of the referendum using the same term “por ahora†( for now) , which is the same term he used in “accepting†the defeat of his unsuccessful 1992 coup attempt. Coincidence?
Devil’s Excrement blog has the best sound of the “mierda†video. Caracas Chronicles and Venezuela News and Views have good discussion, though the sound of the video is not of as good quality. Venezuela News and Views also places “mierda†within the cultural context of Venezuela.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Some will claim that whatever the excesses of El Chávez, that he has been a good steward for Venezuela and its poor since he first was elected in 1998: improvements in health, education, etc. Consider these statistics before you accept that claim as gospel truth.
If El Chávez has been such a good steward of Venezuela, then please explain the following. The murder rate in Venezuela nearly doubled from 1998 to 2005, from 22 to 42 per 100,000.
Housing units constructed per 1,000 population. This shows how good El Chávez is at creating infrastructure.
1990-1998 3.2
1999-2006 1.2
Regards the superior progress of the health care system of Venezuela under the stewardship of El Chávez , take a look at Infant Mortality, which is usually considered the benchmark for evaluating a country’s performance in public health.
% reduction in Infant Mortality, 2000-2005
Latin America 13.4%
Venezuela 12.6%
Consider the claims that El Chávez has eliminated illiteracy.
In 2006, youth literacy (ages 15-24) for Latin American and the Caribbean was 96.0%; for Venezuela, 97.2%. The 2006 figures for adult literacy are 89.7% for Latin America and the Caribbean compared with 93% for Venezuela. From 1990-2006, Latin America and the Caribbean increased its youth literacy rate by 3.3%; Venezuela by 1.2%.
For all the oil money that El Chávez has had, it doesn’t appear that with regards to health and education, he hasn’t done any more than the rest of Latin America has, and most of Latin America hasn’t had the oil revenue windfall ( from $10 to $90/bbl since 1998) that Venezuela has.
Housing Sources:
a) http://www.cvc.com.ve/ , El déficit y la producción formal de viviendas. (05- 2006)
b) http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2007/01/15/eco_art_142150.shtml
Infant Mortality, Population, and Education: World Bank World Development Indicators, online.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:17 am
December 6, 2007
For Chávez, Reflection and Anger After Defeat
By SIMON ROMERO New York Times
CARACAS, Venezuela, Dec. 5 — President Hugo Chávez’s political movement, once considered largely above internal criticism here, is being consumed by recrimination and soul-searching after his proposal to transform Venezuela into a socialist state was rejected by voters over the weekend.
Mr. Chávez, who had cordially accepted the defeat, took the offensive at a news conference on Wednesday, lashing out at his opponents, whose victory he dismissed with an obscenity. He insisted he was “not finished†with his self-declared revolution for Venezuela and would reintroduce proposed constitutional changes to augment his powers.
At the same time, he acknowledged, “This is the moment to start a real period of reflection, of self-criticism.†That process had already begun to divide even his ardent supporters.
Some of Mr. Chávez’s most vociferous loyalists, among them the lawmaker Iris Varela, called on him effectively to ignore the referendum results and enact some of the proposals by using the decree powers granted to him by the National Assembly this year.
But in an explicit rejection of the authoritarianism and widening cult of celebrity that characterized Mr. Chávez’s movement in the last year, others are calling for his followers to embrace a more pluralistic path.
“Chávez is a human being who makes mistakes,†said Luis Tascón, a lawmaker in the National Assembly, which is controlled almost entirely by the president’s supporters, including Mr. Tascón.
“If Chavismo is to consolidate its historical relevance,†Mr. Tascón, 39, said in an interview at his modest apartment here, “it has to be more than about one man.â€
Such a statement from within Mr. Chávez’s movement would have been nearly taboo in the days before the referendum on Sunday, when accusations of treason were leveled by Mr. Chávez and senior officials against anyone who opposed the sweeping constitutional changes he had put forward. But no longer.
Dissent among Chavistas, as the president’s supporters here call themselves, and former Chavistas can now be heard on the floor of the National Assembly, after the release of voting tallies that showed that the proposals had lost in Petare, La Vega and Caricuao, sprawling slums in this city that were pro-Chávez bastions a year ago.
Losing such support in such emblematic strongholds has been a shocking revelation for Chavismo, a movement that has long been centered on the president himself and that is hard to define in ideological terms.
At the start of his presidency, in 1999, Mr. Chávez imbued his nationalist thinking with adulation of Simón BolÃvar, the 19th-century South American liberation hero who was born in Venezuela, combining it with measures aimed at helping the poor.
After his brief ouster in a 2002 coup Mr. Chávez tilted leftward and strengthened an alliance with Cuba. He began to describe himself as a socialist, sprinkling speeches with references to Lenin, Fidel Castro, the Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci and even Jesus.
Now Mr. Chávez, 53, finds himself in the position of defending his commitment to a variety of socialism that would have abolished term limits on the president and allowed him to decree unlimited states of emergency and appoint rulers for new administrative regions, some of the proposals rejected by voters.
He reappeared on national television here on Wednesday with a barrage of verbal attacks. He was dressed in an olive drab uniform and accompanied by his military advisers. He criticized his ex-wife and the former first lady, Marisabel RodrÃguez, who is now a vocal critic of his policies. He sang a brief song mocking the Colombian president, Ãlvaro Uribe, with whom he had a spat, claiming Mr. Uribe resembles President Bush.
Most forcefully, he lashed out against Hernán Lugo-Galicia, a journalist at the daily newspaper El Nacional who wrote an article this week claiming that the armed forces intervened on Sunday after the referendum to press Mr. Chávez to accept the results. Mr. Chávez rejected Mr. Lugo-Galicia’s reporting, calling him a “short-story teller.â€
Finally, Mr. Chávez said he would pursue another offensive to reform the Constitution, explaining that it might be better to have a simplified version proposed by “the people.†The original proposal of 69 amendments was conceived by Mr. Chávez and the National Assembly.
Some of Mr. Chávez’s supporters say they would back another attempt to overhaul the Constitution. But others are seeking to review what went wrong before proposals are put forward again. Aporrea, the country’s most influential pro-Chávez blog, has been filled with entries this week on the different views.
Of those, one of the most withering critiques of the president’s movement came from Heinz Dieterich, a political scientist based in Mexico who has been one of Chavismo’s leading theorists in recent years.
Chavismo, Mr. Dieterich argued, was suffering from a rubber-stamp National Assembly and cabinet, a callous new political class, a presidential staff comprising sycophants and an aversion to serious debate over pressing issues like inflation, which surged 4.4 percent in November.
If Mr. Chávez does not accept a greater role for others in decision-making, Mr. Dieterich warned, “He will destroy the process he has helped to construct.â€
“It is not only certain the saying that revolutions devour their children, but also that revolutionary leaders, when they convert themselves into unilateral conductors, devour their revolutions,†Mr. Dieterich said.
Much of the internal criticism among the Chavistas has to do with Mr. Chávez’s efforts to forge a single Socialist party among his followers. He began this project after winning a re-election bid last year, but critics questioned whether its leaders would use the party to stifle dissent.
Some of those fears have materialized. Mr. Tascón, for instance, was expelled from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela on the eve of Sunday’s vote after voicing his opinion regarding a top military official who broke with Mr. Chávez last month.
Other Chavistas claim the party’s leadership, many of whom lead privileged lives, has grown out of touch with the president’s base of support in the slums and impoverished countryside.
“Many of those who led the yes campaign are so bureaucratic that it was impossible for them to convince the Chavista base to vote yes,†said Stalin Pérez Borges, a union leader.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Good points made about Chavez by gringo. I would only add that the Venezuelan dictator has also been supplying free fuel oil to America’s rich. Everybody knows that the South Bronx is filled with yuppie swine. And I have also heard that the 20,000 Cuban doctors in Venezuelan, who were supposedly giving free health care, are actually torturing poor people. Those who go in to get eye operations actually have their ears amputated and attached to their elbows. Fiendish, dirty commies. They should be exterminated.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Gringo,
In his initial concession he was gracious, but his behavior yesterday showed him to be up to his usual asininity.
If I were given the gift of clairvoyance, (my comments were made on Tuesday, his blowup happened on Wednesday) I wouldn’t have written that, so please cut me some slack.
I take back what I said earlier. He remains a sore loser and a classless jackass.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Randy Paul: you are cut some slack. Those who have followed Hugo for some time were not surprised by his outburst on Wednesday.
I have no idea what Lacy Loskowitz is saying. My guess is a parody on those of us who are opposed to Huguito.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:19 am
No. Lacy is correct.
As bad as Bush’s waterboarding and sexual torture and disapearances and secret prisons happen to be, Chavez’s “power grab” is far worse. Perish the thought that poor people in teh informal sector are able to collect government benefits!!! No, we must guard against this red menace, and like Franco’s heir, Juan Carlos, tell Chavez to shut up.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:07 am
http://marccooper.com/avestruzes/
http://luismgarcia.blogspot.com/
An incredulous Chavez lashed out at his advisers, who had assured him that the constitutional amendments would get through without any problems – even before a single vote had been cast.
“This can’t be right,†the Venezuelan president yelled at the advisers when they had to admit that in fact, the proposals had been rejected by a majority of voters. “This is an illogical result.â€
Which is exactly the type of response you’d expect from a Latin American “socialist†who counts Fidel Castro as his mentor.
What’s more, El Mundo reveals that the results of the vote were delayed by several hours because Chavez refused to concede publicly – until he was “pressured†by senior military advisers to do the right thing and face the cameras.
How is that for dignified and ethical?
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/12/04/internacional/1196777153.html?a=9a19b6948e6cbb1e31bbc7929518ae3a&t=1196817241
Chávez responsabiliza a sus asesores de la derrota en el referéndum
* Según las filtraciones a la prensa, el lÃder clamaba ‘esto es contrario a la lógica’
Chávez, instantes antes de depositar su voto sobre el referéndum. (Foto: REUTERS)
Ampliar foto
Chávez, instantes antes de depositar su voto sobre el referéndum. (Foto: REUTERS)
Actualizado martes 04/12/2007 15:05 (CET)
Escuchar noticiaImprimirEnviar noticiaDisminuye letraAumenta letra
RAMY WURGAFT
CARACAS.- La serenidad de Hugo Chávez al reconocer su derrota en el referendo del domingo, no fue la actitud que tuvo horas antes, al enterarse de que el veredicto de las urnas le fue adverso.
Mediaba la tarde cuando, con los datos en la mano, el presidente culpó a los responsables de la campaña del ’sÃ’ (a las reformas) de haberle mentido. “Me mintieron, me engañaronâ€, clamó el lÃder a Diosdado Cabello, uno de sus hombres de confianza.
Chávez culpó al Comando Zamora, encargado de la propaganda electoral, de haberle garantizado el triunfo de su propuesta, al tiempo que los servicios de Inteligencia reportaban un resultado adverso.
Según las filtraciones del entorno presidencial a la prensa, el comandante se mostró incrédulo, y caminaba por la sala exclamando, “no puede ser asÃ. Esto es contrario a lógicaâ€.
También se señala que el presidente no querÃa pronunciarse, hasta que no se escrutara el 100% del voto. Un sector del Ejército le habrÃa presionado para que “enfrentara la realidadâ€, antes de que la gente saliera a las calles a denunciar un fraude.
Chávez convocó a sus asesores más próximos y les pidió, con voz tronante, que le rindieran cuentas. Algunos de estos se atrevieron a insinuar que sà le habÃan prevenido de un resultado estrecho o incluso de una pequeña ventaja para la oposición, que aprovechando el resultado, ahora busca la unidad. Y que el propio Chávez se fiaba más de su ‘ojo clÃnico’, que de los informes que auguraban un triste final para el ambicioso plan de transformar a Venezuela en una utopÃa socialista.
En un rapto de realismo polÃtico, el mandatario caribeño delegó en el vicepresidente, Jorge RodrÃguez, la misión de preparar, psicológicamente, a la militancia chavista, para recibir un balde de agua frÃa.
“Chávez querÃa evitar que la noticia cayera de golpe, y que los suyos salieran a las calles a volcar su desesperación. No quiero derramamiento de sangre en Venezuelaâ€, contó uno de sus ayudantes. La misma fuente anónima señala que el presidente tuvo que reclutar todas sus fuerzas, para resistir el impulso de imponer su proyecto a como diera lugar.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:09 am
@ Gringo:
According to CEPAL, the poverty in Venezuela has been reduced by 10% since Chavez came to power.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:13 am
August:
Given that the price of oil increased from ~ $10/bbl in 1998 to over $90/ bbl nine years later, and not all of this oil revenue windfall went to fund Hummers and whiskey for the Boliburguesia, one should not be surprised that by some reports, poverty is down in Venezuela.
A salient issue for Venezuela is: what to do with the PETROSTATE. Venezuela has been dealing with this issue long before El Chávez came to power. The petrostate hands out fish, but does not teach people to fish. El Chávez has simply changed the manner in which the fish are handed out. Is it a coincidence that El Chávez was elected in 1998, a year in which the oil price reached a low?
I recommend the Caracas Chroncle’s Readers’ Guide to Venezuela in the Chavez era
December 6th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I agree in what you write.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Bush has been a disaster and his policies on torture are shameful and criminal. To assume, however, that by being critical of Chavez one is somehow condoning Bush is simply silly. In any event, Bush could have not succeeded in changing the institution of the presidency in his favor the way Chavez succeeded in Venezuela.
For example, before Chavez a person could only serve a one five-year term as president and then was obligated to abstain from running again for the next two terms (ten years) before trying again. Under Chavez a new constitution was written which extended the presidential term from five to six years and permitted a person to serve two consecutive terms. In addition, the president now had the power to dissolve the National Assembly (imagine Bush having the power to dissolve Congress).
And that was not enough for Chavez. The just defeated referendum had some good progressive measures, but if approved it would have extended the presidential term to seven years and would have gotten rid of presidential term limits. This is one of the reasons a significant number of people who voted for Chavez in the presidential elections voted against the referendum: his appetite for more and more power finally started to bother them.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“I recommend the Caracas Chroncle’s Readers’ Guide to Venezuela in the Chavez era.”
You mean the blog whose latest entry compares Chavez to Hitler’s final months as portrayed in the movie “Downfall”? Glad to get such an even-handed recommendation. I haven’t seen this kind of hysteria since Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove”.
Meanwhile, the aspiring replacement for A.M. Rosenthal’s “Out of My Mind Column”–the salivating nutter Roger Cohen–has a column today that hails Chavez’s reaction to the defeat as something the US could learn from.
It is only on this cesspool of a blog where you can hear such nonsense comparing to the homicidal maniac Adolph Hitler. And of course, Harry’s Place and Pajama’s Media as well.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
If you want facts on what the Venezuelan economy has done under Chavez, check out this CEPR report from mark Weisbrot.
Some highlights: Poverty has gone down by more than 30% (not 10%) and extreme poverty has been halved. And this does not count all the non-cash benefits the poor have reaped in training, subsidized food, housing, education, etc. Social spending has increased from 8 to 14% of GDP (not including the $13 billion/year PDVSA throws in social development funds as well. The GDP itself has increased more than 76% since the 2003 strike. Unemployment has gone from 15% in 99 (18% in 03) to 8% since 99…
In the report, you can also read why it is a fallacy that Venezuela is headed for bust (it’s been saving more than ever and budgeting for oil at $27 a barrel).
Gringo’s well known cherry picked numbers tell us little. Housing production is being ramped up only now. More money is being spent on housing now than ever before (1.6% of GDP). The literacy numbers are highly suspect, as school attendance has increased by 25% and 1.3 million have graduated from the basic literacy program in recent years. Infant mortality may not have changed much because the focus in health care was at small clinics in previously underserved areas, not natal care in large hospitals. That is the focus now as well…
December 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Well, I checked the blog that Lacy likes so much. They just posted a translation of portions of Chavez’s word to a rally of supporters in the state of Miranda. He is indeed a gracious man. Here is some of what he said in the rally:
/////
“Shout all you want, the truth is the truth, the SÃ lost in Miranda, lost in Caracas, and write this down, the SÃ lost in Petare [a poor neighborhood], in the barrios, people didn’t vote, a good chunk of the people didn’t vote, millions didn’t vote, you can say whatever you want but you have no excuse, you have no sense of conscience, you have no resolve for the fatherland, you have no excuse, revolutionaries don’t look for excuses.”
[Chavez] criticized that now people might be saying “that the reason is that I don’t like such and such mayor or governor, those are the excuses of the weak, the cowards and the lazy ones, of those who have no conscience, no love for the fatherland, no revolutionary consciousness.”
“Here, the SÃ lost, you let the SÃ lose, Miranda owes me one, people of Miranda and Caracas you owe me a debt, I have it written down in my planner, let’s see if you pay your debt to me or if you don’t.”
/////
So here it is. Venezuelans, those ingrates who have no excuse, owe Chavez a debt. It’s their fault he lost the referendum. Classy fellow. No wonder Lacy admires him.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Well, I just checked the blog Lacy likes so much. In there you can find excerpts of what Chavez said at a rally of supporters in the state of Miranda. He is indeed a gracious man.
/////
“Shout all you want, the truth is the truth, the SÃ lost in Miranda, lost in Caracas, and write this down, the SÃ lost in Petare [a poor neighborhood], in the barrios, people didn’t vote, a good chunk of the people didn’t vote, millions didn’t vote, you can say whatever you want but you have no excuse, you have no sense of conscience, you have no resolve for the fatherland, you have no excuse, revolutionaries don’t look for excuses.”He criticized that now people might be saying “that the reason is that I don’t like such and such mayor or governor, those are the excuses of the weak, the cowards and the lazy ones, of those who have no conscience, no love for the fatherland, no revolutionary consciousness.”
“Here, the SÃ lost, you let the SÃ lose, Miranda owes me one, people of Miranda and Caracas you owe me a debt, I have it written down in my planner, let’s see if you pay your debt to me or if you don’t.”
/////
So here it is. Venezuelans, those ingrates who have no excuse, owe Chavez a debt. A classy fellow. No wonder Lacy likes him.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
If El Chávez ‘s fans do not like the comparisons to Hitler, they should tell their guy to stop with the anti-Semitic rants
El Chávez ‘s fans might also tell their guy that getting the AN to pass an enabling law would also get El Chávez compared to another leader who also got an enabling law to play with: Adolf Hitler.
Lacy: Vos sos PSF. Soy yo escuálido. He trabajado con Venezolanos en Venezuela y también en los EE.UU. De tal modo no nos vamos a convencer.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
… “The world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendents of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolivar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession of all the wealth in the world†… — December, 24, 2005.
—
I see the aptly named “gringo” is recycling garbage that even Jews in Venezuela characterized as having nothing to do with anti-Semitism. As far as Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians is concerned, I think that it would be more accurate to liken it to the South African apartheid state. But if the ultra-Zionists have their way and carry out a population removal as they have been advocating, all bets are off.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Como dije, sos tan PSF que no tenés ni idea lo que significa.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“In any event, Bush could have not succeeded in changing the institution of the presidency in his favor the way Chavez succeeded in Venezuela.”
He already has – in practice – done far more than Chavez could ever imagine.
- On term limits- well, I don’t particularly like this idea, but I understand why its out there. Canada has no term limits. We had Trudeau near a quarter century, and many folks miss him, in spite of teh fact that he was no progressive, more a liberal gaulist.
Compare this to Bush’s power grab. Now he hasn’t changed the length of the presidency, though Rex 84 is ready for anyone
…but seriously, the White House in pra ctice has concentrated more power in the executive than any “democratic” country possibly in the last few hundred years. In fairness, this “imperial” presidency started under Kennedy, probably, and has grown more and more, Clinton too…but Bush and his circel of constitutional lawyer reactionary federalists who believe in being “deciders” and have come up with all sorts of elaborate intellectualizations of it, has- in all reality – committed more criems in the last couple of days than Chavez has in his entire presidency. So yes, when you echo State Department talking points on Chavez, you are, implicitly supporting Bush.
And I may well have abstained from the referendum because I agree with you about the structure of presidential power. But lets be proportionate here.. Further, in real soft power terms, as well as in terms of the process in the long run, I think the loss strengthens Bolivarianism. Who can call Chavez a dicgtator now? The mvoement isstronger than one man.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I have found the perfect solution to the problems in Venezuela. I think you will all agree that we should send in the “Three Amigos”!! They will bravely free the Venezuelans of their own “El Guapo”!! I will send a telegram to hollywood right away everybody! I will tell Meester Boosh about it too, O.K?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I never called Chavez a dictator. I do believe, however, that he is a narcissistic demagogue with delusions of grandeur who caused considerably more harm than good.
jcummings, if you really believe that Bush wields more power within the US than Chavez does within Venezuela, then there is nothing to discuss. You are totally wrong, but no argument or evidence will be sufficient to persuade you of your wrongness.
In any event, Chavez made the Venezuelan presidency much stronger that it was before he came to power, but even before he came to power a Venezuelan president wielded more power than a US president.
It’s amusing how so many of Chavez’s groupies cannot accept the fact that there are progressive leftists that are against Chavez.
This is it. My last on this thread.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
You admit partisanship, and implicitly apolgoize for Bush.
You could fill a large city library with empirical data in regards to Bush’s abuse of power. And the power you speak of is power “on paper” which may well be true. But in reality, things are quite different. And I’ll grant that how power is used – power is not an evil thign unto itself – differs greatly between Bush and Chavez. Even if I were to grant all of the criticisms one has of Chavez, no one denies both his popularity (and don’t go dismissing that lest you sound like such an anti-democratic snob) and what George Cicariello Maher, in a recent piece on “dual power” (I’m sure conceptually you’ve never heard of that) in Venezuela, in Monthly Review, shows to be a profound growth in democratic practice, communal councils, decentralized decision making, endogenous development. Chavez’s critics can’t deny these things so they talk around them, forgetting that these things, not Chavez’s undeniable ego, is what angers capitalism and its enforcer Yankee state.
You give the caveat “within the US” as if that wipes away the fact that while Bush has indeed retaiend nominal bourgeois freedom, with heavy limitations and chills on civil libertie and “law and order” style surveillance culture, the real revolution in Bush’s power
The onus is on you to provide me with eviden ce that Chavez has, even in his entire time in power, done an iota of what Bush has done. Further, empirically, what is wrong with pursuing a different political model? Have you lost money or property or something? Do you have something to lose?
You have a world to win.
And yeah yeah yeah, I sound dogmatic and didactic. But I fucking mean it. Its people who think that they can be nice and liberal and “pox on everyone” who serve the dominant powers.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Second paragraph chopped up…should read the real revolution in Bush’s powers has been in his warmaking and being “Deciders” on international law and creating an office of “conceptualizers” of raping and kidnapping young brown people.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:51 am
@ Leftside.
Interesting report. I’ll read it.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Two articles on Venzuela and El Chávez, for those interested in learning more about Venezuela.
http://www.economist.com/world/ l…ory_id=10251226
http://www.economist.com/ opinion…ory_id=10252006
Compare w Chavista Weisbrot
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120507H.shtml
December 7th, 2007 at 11:40 am
My apologies for breaking my promise of quitting this thread. Gringo, the Economist article is actually quite good. Thanks for the link.
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10251226
Of course, most Chavez groupies will dismiss it because of the source.
I’ve been reading some of the discussions in the various fora of the Aporreo.org site (pro-Chavez, pro-Cuba site in Venezuela). Some of the discussions are interesting and some of the participants, despite idolizing Chavez, are making an honest attempt to understand their recent defeat. Many among them admit that corruption and lack of follow-through among government functionaries is a major problem. They all, of course, spare Chavez and blame his current advisors for isolating him from what’s really going on. Human nature: we need idols, it seems. When the economic hardships in Venezuela will become worse they will probably blame the yanquis, pitiyanquis, traidores (an increasingly common word over there), and so on. But not Chavez.
And Venezuela is already importing milk from Europe.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I’m not a “groupie” but I wish you’d actually respond to the points I make as opposed to posting somethign from a great magazine that makes no secret of its alignment with Capital.
Give me substantive responses.
Are you being expropriated or something? And yes, I read Apporea too, and the Left is split – as I said I would have abstained – BUT – I wouldn’t talk out my ass by saying that Chavez is somehow worse- or evne equivalent to- Bush. I care about social change and loyalty- not to a government, but a movement. Your bona fides aer definitely questionable.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
See Mark Weistbrot’s piece at Thenation.com
December 7th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I’ve seen two types of commenters on blog-comments boards and listservs that argue against logic and engage in sleight of hand…
Ulra-Zionists
Anti-Chaviztas
Often the same people.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
No, I’m not being expropriated. I am not Venezuelan and don’t live in Venezuela, but I did live there for many years and I understand fully well why people in Venezuela became fed up with their system. Unfortunately there were seduced by a power hungry demagogue. I don’t like Chavez, so yes, I’m an anti-Chavista. As to who is worse, Bush or Chavez. Frankly, I have no idea who is worse as a person, but I’m sure happy that Bush (or any American president) does not have the executive power that Chavez has in Venezuela.
Probably sooner, but five years from now we will surely know whether it was people like me or people like you who turned out to be right about Chavez and Chavismo.
Take care.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
By the way, the mild problem of shortages of some food items (on certain days) is directly related to the massive increase in incomes of the poor and therefore demand for these items. Meat and milk consumption has increased some 30-40% in just a couple years and the country’s producers have not been able to keep up. But when you read the newspapers the shortages are all blamed on Chavez. That is only true if you assign responsibility to Chavez for the massive rise in incomes of the poor.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I’m sure happy that Bush (or any American president) does not have the executive power that Chavez has in Venezuela.
So, back to the beginning….is Chavez figuring out how to interpret the law as to implementing plans to use rape, electrocution, waterboarding, etc. to “interrogate” terrorists?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Here is what El Chávez says about freedom and dictators on the occasion of the visit of Byelorussian President Lukashenko to Venezuela.
“They call him the last dictator in Europe and me the last dictator in Latin America, but it is written in the Bible, the last shall be the first.â€
The article previously stated that El Chávez said that the presence of the Byelorussian President Lukashenko in Venezuela is “a papable demonstration of how free the Venezuela people are.†(my translation.)
Keep talking, Hugo, but the PSF’s won’t listen.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:34 am
“Here is what El Chávez says about freedom and dictators on the occasion of the visit of Byelorussian President Lukashenko to Venezuela.”
Oh, big deal. The USA not only says nice things about dictators, but funds them as well. If Chavez had a change of heart about socialism and orchestrated a coup that returned control of oil to American corporations, he’d get the red carpet treatment from the White House and all the cheap propagandists in the bourgeois press, as well as their friends in the blogosphere like gringo.