Third Party & Independents: Archives

The things I saw in Central and South America during the Drug War gave me a good primer on how exactly to kill a middle class, kill an economy, and kill the well-being of an entire nation. Tax the aspiring middle class, give a small cut of it out as bread and circuses to the ignorant poor, and pocket the difference.

In particular, I know Chavez is a quick study of those methods. What I detest is seeing the U.S. going down that same road, at the hand of both mainstream parties.

Excellent article, Misha.

According to all the sources I’ve read, heard or seen, the Venezuela election was a fair and free election. So, I’m not sure why you call this “a sad day for freedom, individual rights and sustainable democratic institutions” when clearly the decision to reject the recall was made democratically. Don’t confuse the excercise of the people’s will with the misuse of presidential power. They’re clearly not one in the same.

Daniel, i was very careful with my wordchoice. The election was fair, but the result will be “a sad day for freedom, individual rights and sustainable democratic institutions.” Chavez has shown time and time again that he does not respect individual rights- be they the right to protest or the right to one’s own property. he has shown repeatedly that he does not carea about the institutions that protect freedom and made LONG TERM democracy sustainable- as shown by his admission that he is gonna crack down on the courts (meaning there wont be an indepedent judiciary, which is indespesible for the rule of law). The election was democratic- the result is extremely unfortunate.

So a democratic result isn’t always fortunate? He won. Time for us to respect the results, if he continues to respect the Venezuelan constitution and to govern lawfully, as he has up to now.

The big landowners and rich oil men don’t like his policies? Tough break. They lost. Sr. Chavez has won 7 elections in 5 years, including a recall, by the will of the people.

Is Sr. Chavez a Libertarian sort of fellow? Of course not. Neither are John Kerry of President Bush. But I fail to see how an election with two options — Sr. Chavez, or these semi-feudalistic terratenientes who own over 90% of Venezuela’s farmable land — had any “absolutely great” option.

Today’s not a “great” day in Venezuela. But it’s certainly not a sad one. With the terrantenientes screaming “if you take all this away from us, there will be civil war,” I didn’t see “happy” written on the line beneath Sr. Chavez’s on Venezuelan ballots.

That’s how democracy works, you know. If you create an environment where over 50% of the people are peasants, they can do something about it. Score one for the people.

Unless you’d rather the terrantenientes had their way. Dirt-poor masses are great for a plantation-filled economy, you know.

I haven’t followed Venezuela very closely, although I do know that this is precisely the kind of issue that ignites KPFA/KFCF Berkeley radio types. It’s marxism in action. Hugo is the new, young, and vibrant Castro.

I don’t put much stock in the ‘democratic’ results considering who certified the election. Jimmy Carter is kind of like Mr. Magoo when it comes to seeing the misdeeds of communist dictators. And make no mistake Chavez is a communist dictator. Here’s an article about how great the glorious leader is and why he won the election: the people love his socialism!

Walk through poor barrios in Venezuela and you’ll hear the same stories over and over. The very poor can now go to a designated home in the neighborhood to pick up a hot meal every day. The elderly have monthly pensions that allow them to live with dignity. Young people can take advantage of greatly expanded free college programs. And with 13,000 Cuban doctors spread throughout the country and reaching over half the population, the poor now have their own family doctors on call 24-hours a day—doctors who even make house calls. This heath care, including medicines, are all free.

The programs are being paid for with the income from Venezuela’s oil, which is at an all-time high. Previously, the nation’s oil wealth benefited only a small, well-connected elite who kept themselves in power for 40 years through an electoral duopoly. The vast majority in this oil-rich nation remained poor, disenfranchised, and disempowered. With the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 on a platform of sharing the nation’s oil wealth with the poorest, all that has changed. The poor are now not only recipients of these programs, they are actively engaged in running them. They’re turning abandoned buildings into neighborhood centers, running community kitchens, volunteering to teach in the literacy programs and organizing neighborhood health brigades. common dreams

It’s interesting to note that this glowing praise for the Marxist leader is by, “Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the human rights group Global Exchange and the women’s peace group CodePink, is an election observer in Venezuela.”

But he won a ‘democratic election’. And I’ll bet you he never loses any ‘democratic election’ ever again. Such is the way of most Revolutionary Governments.

Here’s another (insightful) leftist piece about Chavez and the Venezuela “Revolution”— beware, it’s the nascent leftist utopia you’ve all been waiting for!

“We’re trying to have a revolution with the enemy inside,” explains Enrique Vila, a poet, professor, artist and now a leading planner in Venezuela’s populist government. “It’s not easy.” Vila is in charge of building a series of large, experimental, economically self-sufficient, ecologically sustainable rural communities, complete with local currencies and organic farming—the kind of thing most Berkeley anarchists only dream about.

…Since taking office, Chavez has done more than just hire bohemian planners. His “Bolivarian Revolution”—named for Simon Bolivar, the 19th-century South American liberator—has ratified a new constitution, abolished Venezuela’s plutocratic upper house and overhauled the country’s corrupt judiciary. His party, the MVR (or Fifth Republic Movement), also has won big in congressional, state and local elections. More important for the impoverished majority, Chavez has reined in inflation, boosted growth rates, beefed up social spending, launched a massive public works program and clamped down on tax evasion.

…The rather backward, USAID-inspired curriculum too is being overhauled. Leading the educational revamp is a Marxist sociologist and former guerrilla named Carlos Lanz. He wants a curriculum that teaches Venezuelans to reject “individualism and competitiveness” and the “concentration of property among few people, classes or social layers.” But the schools have been derided in the U.S. press as militarized brainwashing academies and denounced by critics at home as a sign of creeping “Cubanization.”

The government also has quadrupled spending on health care, is constructing rural clinics, and now provides free emergency care in Venezuela’s public hospitals. The state funds a nationwide chain of subsidized pharmacies called SUMED, where drugs sell for 30 to 40 percent below market prices. Similarly, the military has created subsidized “popular markets” in which soldiers with otherwise idle military vehicles are sent into the countryside to buy produce from farmers, transport it to towns and cities, then sell it at below cost to small vendors who pass on a 30 percent savings to consumers. inthesetimes.com

It goes on and on. The Kerry campaign should take note.

Shem- Chavez has no respect for the Venezuelan constitution. I awknowledged that this was a democratic result, but it will put Venezuela toward an end to its democracy. Consolidation of control over courts, direct government control over the media, crackdowns on opposition protestors, and repossession of property without due process are the hallmarks of a despotic regime, and the people of Venezuelan have voted themselves a tyrrant.

Eric - So all that’s left for you to do is accuse the Carter Foundation of lying? Gotcha. Impressive argument.

Misha - Examples of Sr. Chavez defying the Venezuelan Constitution?

Misha, this is hilarious! It is damned hard to argue with success, except to throw questionable labels on it. You do that very well.

Chavez is doing a great deal of good for a great number of people in his country. The problem the people will face eventually is what to do if power corrupts Chavez’s distribution of the country’s natural resource wealth among the people, and what to do when a far less beneficent leader succeeds him?

But what country doesn’t have its ups and downs? And history shows no government or civilization lasts forever. I say great good for great hosts of people is a positive thing. Hopefully, they will deal with the problems of having a less than perfect government better than we do today when those problems harm great numbers of people.

Nothing scarier to the right than socialism that succeeds with the blessings of the people in a democratic election - scary stuff that! Hilarious!!!

Misha said: “while also protecting the checks and balances that allow the long-term survival of government by the people.”

Nice to see that sense of humor again, Misha. Our checks and balances have checked out, broken at the fulcrum, as far as I am concerned. The one bright hope for checks and balances today is the product of the 9/11 Commission, but I see the Whitehouse is already hedging on its willingness to implement the recommendations as Rumsfeld fears for the loss of budgetary control currently held by the DoD and his Whitehouse.

Misha said: “and the people of Venezuelan have voted themselves a tyrrant.”

The Venezuealns have voted themselves a leader who instead of using the plight of the poor and struggling as a stump for campaign promises he knows he will not keep like some President’s and candidates here, is actually doing something to enrich the lives of the poor and struggling in his country. How dare they be so self-interested as to vote for a leader who promotes their welfare. After all, Venezuelan Oil should belong to the wealthy and corporate interests with ties to America, Shell, BP, Exxon-Mobil. The Gall of these people’s leader to treat his country’s natural resource as if it belonged to the people. Damn these tyrants who frustrate American profitability. Damn them!

I’m glad someone brought this up. I was thinking of indulging the pinko commie bastard in me and posting a glowing article on the victory for the Venezuelan people. I just get so sick of all these laissez faire capitalists who feel that the only freedom that matters is the freedom to horde cash and land.

Around 3-6% of the population owns 70-77% of the farm land. Chavez was elected by clear majorities in every election he has faced. The changes in their constitution that was instigated by the Chavez administration and affirmed in a national referendum created the ability to recall him. Instead of recalling him through the new constitutional power, the opposition called for a consultation referendum to “support the resignation of Chavez.” Chavez never resigned, so I don’t know what the referendum was actually affirming. The strike of 2003 was causing their recent economic turmoil. The opposition was using this as evidence that Chavez is mismanaging Venezuela’s economy. The opposition owns all the major media outlets.

Then there is the alleged US support of the failed 2002 coup. And Ashcroft using the war on terrorism as a pretext to acquire many Latin American voter census data, including Venezuela. Each target country of this waste of money has expressed reluctance in accepting the Washington Consensus.

So began the Bush-Cheney campaign to “Floridate” the will of the Venezuela electorate. It didn’t matter that Chavez had twice won election. Winning most of the votes, said a White House spokesman, did not make Chavez’ government “legitimate.” Hmmm. Secret contracts were awarded by our Homeland Security spooks to steal official Venezuela voter lists. Cash passed discreetly from the US taxpayer, via the so-called ‘Endowment for Democracy,’ to the Chavez-haters running today’s “recall” election.

How does Venezuela figure in the war on terrorism? They seem to want to get rid of terrorists training in Florida.

Of course, the administration is cautious about the Chavez win since they were so quick to recognize the 2002 coup in the two days that it lasted. And there’s the alleged CIA involvement in the recall.

Of course Chavez is loathed by the rich since Venezuela is the sixth largest oil reserves in the world and Chavez has been giving more of Venezuela’s wealth to services for the poor.

To get a more realistic and mostly impartial view of Venezuela’s recent problems, there this opinion piece from an American living in Venezuela during the 2003 strike.

My take on it?

I’m not the biggest fan of pure socialism, but given the choices I’m not surprised what the Venezuelan people chose. In part, it’s the fault of the right-wingers there, as they are so absorbed in maintaining their privilege, and trying to overturn the will of the Venezuelan people, that they don’t stop to think what their gathering of privilege to themselves and their hardball tactics do to their ability to maintain political power and popularity.

Misha and Eric, being right-wingers themselves are stumped that the Venezuelan people could make such a decision, and sound like they would would want to intervene at the drop of a hat. Bad Idea. First, you would not be supporting the people the majority of the Venezuelans would support. Second, it’s a patronizing colonial thing to do. We should not, especially with the cold war more than ten years over and done with, be trying to undermine democratically elected leaders, no matter how much we disagree with them. Hell, it was a problem for us when we were doing it during the Cold War. Third, we always have the option to do something about it if he does take things extreme.

Misha and Eric make the mistake of believing that it’s our job to tell these people how to put their government together. They’d like us to support some coup, (wait, we’ve already done that) and do our best to replace Chavez with the right-wingers in Venezuela.

Bad Idea, on both counts. the first is simply something we do not have the time or the effort to be doing. The Venezuelans are mature adults and deserve our trust in running their country for themselves. Let them run it into the ground. When it becomes our problem as well as theirs, we intervene on their behalf, get the creditors off their backs, bring in globalizing reforms and we’re the heroes. We most definitely do not want to be throwing our lot in with the Right Wingers. The public doesn’t favor them, and they are not the exemplars of Democratic values that some of you are tempted to think they are.

There’s a whole movie, entitled The Revolution Will Not Be Televised which recounts their attempts to overthrow Chavez. I don’t think much more needs to be said. Neither side are angels, but one side rules at the will of the people and the other doesn’t. What we need to do is push for democratic reforms, because as it is now, it’s merely a fight over power on both sides, with Hugo’s side winning it democratically.

Our interventions in Latin America have a poor track record and poorer results We have succeeded not in destroying Marxism in those places but in encouraging it. Marxism works best in a dialectic, when you have people in power cracking down on them, while impoverishing the people who become their supporters. We’ve set up situations all over the world, in the interest of containing communism, that ultimately resulted in concentrated power at the top, and impoverishment at the bottom. What better breeding ground is there for Marxism? If we really had wanted to contain contain Marxism properly, we would have worked with democratically elected governments to improve the well being of the people there, allowing reforms that gave the power and the wealth to a growing middle class. In this way we could have avoided much lingering resentment and ill-will in the world, and not associated ourselves with the scuzzballs that we did.

Ah, but we had to do things the “easy” way, and just not let and left-leaning government into power. In the end, what killed communism was the reality that people could live better and richer lives under our system. As people saw that, their tolerance for communism fell dramatically. People will do what it takes to have a living and be free. You can either be in the way of that, or standing by these people’s side.

Shem said: “He won. Time for us to respect the results, if he continues to respect the Venezuelan constitution and to govern lawfully, as he has up to now.”

Absolutely right! But, of course like an angry god who sees his flock deviating from his own image, the U.S. will likely find covert ways to try to undo the democracy in Venezuela yet again. And Americans wonder why billions of people in the world see our government as ‘arrogant’. Get a clue, folks, listen to Eric and Misha for the answer.

Misha, I love the irony of the title of this article. It begs the question, who is sad? Your article makes the claim that the majority in Venezuela are happy. Guess it must be those on the right, there and here, bearing the long faces. Lost another one to ‘Lefties’. One would think it was a DiTech commercial. :-)

Native Americans on three continents have suffered endless violations of their inalienable human rights, primarily at the hands of the good ol’ USA, usually through CIA proxies. All that matters is whether a US Corporation can screw the natives out of their resources through bribery, military coup’s and murder. This thievery continues to this day, like the real story of the Exxon Valdez, where land was stolen, Contracts were violated and native industries and lifestyles destroyed. Pepsi, Kissinger and the CIA planned the murder of Allende, so that Pepsi wouldn’t have to pay more for their Cola beans! When a Republican tells you they love freedom and Democracy, you better look out! We have done it to our own native population after placing them on oil and uranium rich lands. It often seems there’s not a dimes worth of difference between Republican’s and Democrates, but in stealing natural resources for the elite, the Republicna’s have no match.

The terms Marxist, Communist, Capitalists, Socialist are emotionally charged terms which elicit predictable fear and anger responses. Our roads, schools and national defense are socialist, if not communist programs. The former Soviet Union and current Russian empire follow totalitarian fascist methodologies while pretending to be Communists. We have evolved into a Corporate Welfare State, wasting 20% of our national budget on worthless defense programs and questionable farm subsidies. At the same time we have abandoned the young, sick and indigent who would consume 3% of our federal budget.

Labeling Chavez a dictator and Marxist is US Corporate propaganda. He has simply stood up against US Corporate interests. These people deserve to be left in peace to chart their own political future. Bush has already attempted to interfer by sponsoring one failed coup against Chavez. The US record in Central and South America strongly suggests that the greatest risk to the soveriegnty and solvency of Venezuela is the US, CIA and Republican’s in particular.

Shem,

So a democratic result isn’t always fortunate? He won. Time for us to respect the results

That wasn’t the mantra of the Algore camp in 2000. Since when do you Democrats ever respect election results? Cisneros… kinda rhymes with Soros, y’know?

Stephen, there is no real “wing” to Latin American politics. They can give lip service to Che Guevara, but that doesn’t mean they won’t take private sector kick-backs and preserve the privilege of their favorite backers (some rich people being more equal than others in Latin Animal Farms). It’s all about sucking the life out of the middle class, no matter what flag you drape over the process.

And of course Venezuela’s poor is on board for it. They get a tiny cut of the money which looks like big bucks to them. The masses need no opiate other than that.

I am definitely not surprised that many of those who share Chavez’s leanings on socialism would defend this thug- I kind of wish it wouldn’t happen, but I cannot say I am surprised. The different, you see, is when a right wing thug is elected, I do not rejoice. When Putin uses Chavez-like tactics to intimidate opponents, control the national TV, and consolidate power under himself, I do not rejoice- i am saddened and angered (and I am also reminded of how many on the left defended the Krelmin’s tactics with the same arguments- even reading the USSR constitution in United States classrooms to show how much of an open society the USSR was!

Yet, to many on the left (although not all, because I know many good liberals- ones who know the situation in that country well- who strongly oppose Chavez) if Chavez is trying to achieve their misguided socialist goals, his means are justified by his ends- individual rights be damned. And, to think, david calls this “hilarious”. pretty sad. I guess principles of individual rights, independence of the courts and political protest are only valid in some people’s eyes unless they come up against the goals of redistribution of wealth (not really surprising, again, as David has been known to even defend China’s totalitarian government).

As for Chavez undermining the constitution- in this very post he HIMSELF SAID he was going to crack down on the courts- what greater affront can there be to the rule of law and constitutionality than to have the executive take control of the courts? Also, when he came into power he basically redrafted the constitution to give himself a political advantage- a fact that many people like to forget or obfuscate.

Also, I would appreciate if people would read my posts more carefully before grouping me with other’s views and then straw-manning my arguments. For example, Stephen said:

Misha and Eric, being right-wingers themselves are stumped that the Venezuelan people could make such a decision, and sound like they would would want to intervene at the drop of a hat.

Yet I clearly said:

Both Bush and Kerry were correct in calling for this recall, but now that the people of Venezuela have chosen the path of economic centralization and executive control over the courts and the media, there may not be much we can do save Venezuela’s democracy.”

notice, I do NOT think we should be overthrowing Chavez’s government, as my statement illustrates. (although I highly doubt the CIA actually did- but thats an argument for another day).

BV, at times it may not seem like it, but I actually agree with the spirit of much of what you said in that recent comment. Robbing from native Americans was never the right thing to do. CIA-sponsored coups are never the way to go. Respecting election results (which would be nice if your partisan hack comrades in arms would try for a change) is always in order. I don’t like the smell of wealthy individuals trying to influence election results, which is why I also don’t like the smell of George Soros all over the U.S. election this year. To be consistent I have to not like the tectonic plates of wealthy interests trying to disrupt Venezuelan politics. And as you imply, labels like “Marxist” and “Fascist” are meaningless in that part of the world. A thug is a thug is a thug, and it’s always the same thuggery, with some relying a bit more on populist power, and some relying a bit more on monetary power.

The one nit I would pick with your comment, though, is your implied support for a reversal of the 20% for the 3% in the U.S. federal budget. I personally would cut them both down to 0%, because we owe that fiscal responsibility to future generations. Robbing from your grandaughter to supply a loser’s crack habit is no more “compassionate” than doing so to keep Donald Trump wannabes in no-bid contractor corps supplied with ice sculptures for their sumptuous cocktail parties. I say “icks-nay” (in pig latin) to both.

David, these is absolutely no irony in the title. It was a sad day when Putin got re-elected; this is another sad day. Individuals rights matter- even if 60% of the people in the country think otherwise.

You know, being a libertarian, I often find allies on the left when defending the importance of protecting individual rights, the rights to political protest, and the indepedence of the courts in the American context. Yet, when I make these same arguments in relation to foreign nations and especially their socailist leaders, my liberal allies seem to leave me on these very same issues! (well dont wouldnt leave me if I attacked Putin, but if I go after Chavez, you can see the results by this thread). Why is that? I think i know, but it makes me sad and cynical…

Misha, you are damn right I support the people’s of China choice of government, just as I support the choice of the Venezuelans, the Brits, Canadians, and Aussies. I even enlisted in the Army to defend American’s choice of our own government. I believe in the people. So why don’t you?

The people in China have no vote, no matter how you want to spin it. This is like saying my family and I were represented when we lived in the soviet union- its an insult to the people who have to live under this totalitarian regimes. (and by the way, even IF they did have the right to vote, 51% of the people do not have the moral right to throw someone in jail for political protest or to force them to have an abortion and kill their unborn child).

Its funny David, you seem to not believe in the people of the United States when it comes to issues like gay marriage- as I have seen from your post that would support the judiciary of the states overturning the will of the majority to impose gay marriage. I am also sure that you dont believe in the people when it comes to other individual rights- for example, you are against profiling Arab-Americans even if the overwhelming majority of american support such a plan. You also, I assume, would have condemned slavery when the majority of Americans supported that. You see, you agree with me that individual rights matter- even in the face of popular opposition.

Like I said in my original post- there is a balance that must be struck between respecting the will of the majority and individual rights (including the rights of those in the minority). It was perhaps THE motivating factor for the foundation of this country that rights and not just the will of the majority mattered.

I believe that within the context of proper, long term institutions and protections for individual rights, the people should be able to decide on their government. Yet, I do not believe you have the right to take away my life, liberity or right to pursute happiness because you have the bigger mob on your side.

Just to remind you David, the people of Germany once elected themselves a leader who did not respect the rights of the minority (jews). They truely believe that leader would serve them best in very difficult times of infalation and suffering their country. Some democratic results can be VERY sad, dont you think?

I don’t follow Venezuela too closely, but I thought this article was interesting,

“Why did he win? Voters liked his social programs, people want social improvement,” [Michael] Penfold [a political analyst at Caracas’ IESA business school] said. “The opposition didn’t provide a stable alternative and people look for stability.”

Relieved financial and oil markets greeted his win as the least risky short-term scenario for oil-rich Venezuela, where Chavez’s rule has provoked often violent political conflict.

These markets used to wince at Chavez’s acerbic anti-capitalist rhetoric but they recognize that his self-styled “revolutionary” government is careful to pay its debts on time and practices a pragmatic financial policy.

Chavez may be a “thug”. I don’t know. I just thought that analysis was an interesting counterpoint to the picture some here are painting of Chavez as a corrupt, power-mad dictator.

Misha, one of the articles you linked said,

The audit will compare the results produced by touch-screen voting machines and paper receipts of each vote at 150 polling stations

According to Diebold, it’s totally unnecessary to have paper receipts. Could they be wrong?

AP, you never shop online, do you?

Ciggy, I don’t get the joke. But I’m sure it’s funny.

Oh, wait! You mean the Diebold thing. Sorry.

Yes I do shop online, and the credit card company sends me a paper reciept.

Look, I’m not saying that Chavez is the good guy, I’m just saying he looks like that to his people, and we should grant the Venezuelans the sovereign we ourselves so value.

Misha, I am not a marxist by most people’s standards. I believe in Public Education, a basic welfare system, a pay as you go government, Public Television, Funding for the Arts and Sciences, And a free market where the corporations and individuals are restrained from reckless, dishonest behavior, and where human values are more important in the final equation than financial values.

I don’t believe in the government nationalizing industries. I don’t believe in enforced political correctness. I don’t believe that war is always evil, or that peace should be had at any cost. I don’t believe that all guns should be taken away, just as I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns without regulation as to how they can get them, where they can can get it from, and what kind of weapons can be made available. I don’t believe the wealthy are all undeserving of their wealth, or the poor all underserving of their poverty. I don’t however believe that most poor people are poor because they want to be, and that every rich person has gained their money by virtue of a superior character. I agree, for the most part, with Adam Smith, A great deal with Stiglitz, and not at all with Ayn Rand (a woman who literally had a Dollar sign set up as her symbol at her funeral.)

I believe in the virtue of paying attention to self-interest, but think that encouraging selfish pursuit of interests is a different story. I think the market is a collection of those self interests and selfish interests, and that the people who can satisfy the most self interests at once are generally the winners in the market. That said, i don’t believe the market to be naturally intelligent or free from human flaw. It cancels out some bad ideas, but lets others linger on if their falseness is convincing enough.

In short, you have no business trying to nail me as a Marxist. I just don’t fit the profile. I’m trying not to fit profiles. I’m trying to look at things from illuminating angle, not necessarily trying to conform to some ideology. I am a Democrat by the sum of my choices, and beliefs, not because I feel I have to be.

Misha, are you comparing the election of Hitler to that of Chavez?

I think your dislike for Chavez’s socialist outlook has added a certain irrationality to your argument.

No, Bob- david mocked me for saying that the election was a “sad day” because the majority of the people of Venezuela are happy with the result. I was reminding people that getting the majority of the votes isnt the end all and be all. Chavez is no Hitler- he is much closer to Putin. He is a thug who uses the democratic process to centralize power under himself. I consider that to be a very sad thing- and I consider it to be sad regradless of whether he won the popular vote or not.

Stephen- I did not say you were a marxist- i am sorry if something I said gave you that impression (i did not use the term “marxist” anywhere in my posts as far as I can see). I do agree that we shouldnt overthrow chavez (as i have said twice on this very post), but I also believe that those on the left are being FAR more forgiving to him because they are sympathetic to his socialist vision. I certainly didnt see them cutting Putin this slack (as well they shouldnt!).

I want to remind you that democracy is not a one-time deal. If Chavez goes through with his plan to centralize power, undermine the judiciary and control the media- how can you expect the things you value as a Democrat and a proponent of democracy to last? The answer is- they wont. And this, my friends, is why it was a sad day.

Misha, when Bush does one scintilla of it (e.g., the Patriot Act) he’s a Nazi. When Chavez does it, he’s a hero and a champion of the people. You’ve seen how it works, for the left. It’s Animal Farm hypocrisy, all the way.

Stephen,

Misha and Eric make the mistake of believing that it’s our job to tell these people how to put their government together. They’d like us to support some coup, (wait, we’ve already done that) and do our best to replace Chavez with the right-wingers in Venezuela.

Where in my words (or Misha’s) did you read that I want a coup or to intervene militarily? You are argueing against something that isn’t there. I merely said that Chavez a communist dictator who will not leave power voluntarily.

David,

You feel Hugo Chavez is good for his country? Would you support such ‘reforms’ here in the US? What if George Bush changed the constitution so that he could run for a third term? Or shut down radio and television stations here in the US? Or had first tried to come to power by a coup?

Hugo Chavez had the constitution changed so he could run for a second term. He has shut down radio and television stations and ordered snipers to fire on protestors. He has allied himself with Fidel Castro, Columbian Marxist guerrillas, and Saddam Hussein. He controls the National Assembly, the courts, and the Military.

When is democracy not a virtue? Our founding father’s did not endorse pure and direct democracy. They spoke disparagingly of mob rule. That is why we have a Representative Republic. Democracy is not a sancrocanct and holy institution in and of itself. Without gauranteed individual liberty democracy is merely a consensus of a majority of voters who could in fact choose to violate fellow citizens human rights.

I find it bizarre to have some defend this election as the sovereign choice of the people, as if anything the people choose is ok as long as they chose it, but laws passed in our congress are evil and oppressive. (aka the Patriot Act.)

“Bush does one scintilla…… he’s a Nazi”

In early February [2002], Washington seemed to up the ante. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concern “with some of the actions of Venezuelan President Chávez and his understanding of what a democratic system is all about.” And, he continued, “we have not been happy with some of the comments he has made with respect to the campaign against terrorism. He hasn’t been as supportive as he might have been. And he drops in some of the strangest countries to visit”—an apparent reference to Chavez’s trips to Iraq, Libya, and Cuba….

The critical comments of Tenet, Powell, and Hrinak were not perceived in Venezuela as personal opinions; they were perceived as coordinated signals. The opposition felt it had the green light to remove Chávez from power, and the eventual coup leaders were, in fact, reading the signals well. A few days after the coup attempt, a Department of Defense official told the New York Times that the Pentagon had neither encouraged nor discouraged the opposition to overthrow President Chávez. Rather, he said, “we were sending informal, subtle signals that we didn’t like this guy.”

The evidence indicates, however, that Washington may well have gone beyond the simple sending of signals to the emboldened opposition. On several occasions, under the apparent coordination of Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich—an anti-Castro Cuban American and right-wing ideologue who served as Ambassador to Venezuela during the Reagan administration—U.S. officials in Washington as well as embassy staff in Caracas actively met with the opposition figures who were to become coup leaders. And a former U.S. Navy intelligence officer named Wayne Madsen told London’s Guardian that Navy vessels engaged in exercises off Venezuela’s Caribbean coast provided strategic “communications jamming” to the opposition during the days of the coup…

This can be found here, and apparently that’s not the first time that the US has used it’s democratic right to try and free itself from leftist thugs within it’s sphere of influence.

Oh, if only we could find a government that embodied the democratic virtues espoused by Eirc, Misha and Ciggy.

Bob- what in the world does that one-sided “article” built on flimsy circumstantial evidence have to do with the points that we are making? even assuming the united states is oh-so-evil like you seem to be implying- how does that relate to the human rights abuses and manipulaiton of the political system that Chavez is guilty of? Even assuming the United States did try to overthrow Chavez, does that make Chavez less of a thug? We actually DID try to overthrow castro several times- does that mean he is any less of a dictator?

Ciggy’s and Eric’s point is right on. The left (with my support, actually) goes all out after Bush for abuses that are extremely minor compared to what Chavez has done. I understand that in our political actions we have a higher responsibility to keep our own leaders in line, but in terms of discussions, dont the same standards of justice, human rights and political rights apply to all people? Why is it that the minority in America deserves all our adulation and concern, while the minority in Venezuela can be abused as much as Chavez wants without one peep of condemnation from the left? Again, I think I know the answer to these questions, but it makes me feel way to cynical to say it out loud.

Don’t fear the consequences of your belief, Misha. It’s a fallacy the left and right always try to play on the logical center. In another thread, Adrienne threatens me with “you will be insulting me if you don’t agree with me.” I tried to feign concern, but unsuccessfully. Logical is logical.

A = A.

Just a quick question: Can we really take for granted that the Venezuelan anti-Chavez opposition would be any better than Chavez? I mean, were the people healthier and more free under Chavez’s predecessors?

All I know is that Venezuala has had a nearly unbroken string of democratically-elected leaders since 1958, and I know of two coup attempts: One by Chavez himself in the early 90s (to overthrow an embezzling president), and another recently by Chavez’s rivals (which was widely suspected to have been US-backed). Seems like anti-democratic sentiment is alive and well on both sides.

I’m not going to defend the checkered human rights record of Hugo Chavez (although I do find the “charismatic underdog Native American upsetting the the Euro-dominance” story compelling), but I find it hard to believe that any of the many historical right-wing dictatorships of Latin America are preferable to any of the left-wing dictatorships. The day Castro dies will be a good one, but would Cuba really have been better off with Batista and his successors?

Would anyone who is condemning Chavez care to enlighten me on Venezualan politics and history to back up their perspective? It’s one thing to decry dictatorships, but it’s not at all obvious to me that the alternative to Chavez is even remotely preferable.

-Cf

Misha said,

Its funny David, you seem to not believe in the people of the United States when it comes to issues like gay marriage- as I have seen from your post that would support the judiciary of the states overturning the will of the majority to impose gay marriage.

It may seem that way to you, Misha, but the gay marriage issue, as you well know, is nothing close to the black and white scenario you just painted. I do believe that in a democracy, there is no better substitute for a Constitution first, and the will of the people, second. Our courts interpret the constitution and the authors of legislation as a means of resolving disputes over intent and meaning of the language of each. So, I flatly reject your simplistic characterization.

David, there is absolutely no irony in the title. It was a sad day when Putin got re-elected; this is another sad day. Individuals rights matter- even if 60% of the people in the country think otherwise.

You of course are entitled to feel sad if you wish. But, the greatest civil rights and civil injustice in any society with wealthy natural resources is starvation, joblessness, and homelessness. Chavez for all of his other faults, is meeting the needs of the majority on this most basic of civil rights and justice. Poverty is the greatest violation in a country of wealth.

The people are happy. That is good. Once they have beat back starvation and homelessness and joblessness, they will do what all satiated people do: They will want more! Then it will be time to decide if they can do better than Chavez, and hopefully for them, they will realize they can.

when I make these same arguments in relation to foreign nations and especially their socailist leaders, my liberal allies seem to leave me on these very same issues!

Many on the left, (on social issues I fall in that group), are both capable and willing to acknowledge without condemnation, differences from ourselves. We often appreciate that what is good for us, will not be good for others given differing circumstances. The Venezuelans have been ruined under “democracy” over the last decades. If democracy did not provided food, jobs, and homes, stability, and hope, that says to me, their experience and therefore views of government are different from Americans.

We know democracy is inherently the best form of government, but, we have to be careful. We make that judgement based on our own history, often turning a blind eye to the horrors our democracy wrought on individuals as it grew, adapted, developed, and matured. Our own pre-civil rights era was nearly as bad nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews before the ovens had been built. Did that period define our democracy as unworkable, worthless, and without future? Of course not.

Chavez is no angel of a leader in our eyes. But he was elected democratically, and the fact that he is meeting and fulfilling vitally important needs of his people is laudable. The fact that he is squashing aspects of the system through the power of his office and military, and is not going to make Venezuelan democracy a mirror image of our own, is fact of life Venezuelans will have to come to grips with one day. Just as the U.S. knew after the Civil War, that someday, black civil rights were going to become a preeminent issue. Some 80 or so years later, we finally got around to giving true meaning to Emancipation Proclamation.

The Venezuelans will one day deal with the lack of checks and balances in their democracy. But, to say that a successful democratic election in Venezuela of a leader who is committed to meeting their most basic needs, is a sad thing, I think is extremely parochial. Chavez has given the majority of his people hope. And where there is hope, there can be progress.

Just to remind you David, the people of Germany once elected themselves a leader who did not respect the rights of the minority (jews). They truely believe that leader would serve them best in very difficult times of infalation and suffering their country. Some democratic results can be VERY sad, dont you think?

And may I remind you Misha, that Nazi Germany was extremely successful in bringing its people out of depression of both economy and spirit. They created jobs, food, homes, and affordable VW’s. The fact that Hitler was insanely megalomanical does not negate the fact that had he not chosen expansion and conquest the German people would likely never have lost all they had gained.

It is way too soon to say if Chavez will become another Hitler, or a Ho Chih Minh, or another FDR. There have been notable instances in history where less than ideal people rose to the occasion upon finding themselves in a leadership position. One thing is for sure. There will never be another democracy like that found in America. And Americans have simply got to learn to accept that reality. Our democracy was shaped by geographical, religious, and historical factors that will never be replicated in other lands. Therefore, other nation’s democracies can NEVER be like ours. Some will be better than ours in some ways, some will be worse. But, it is naive to use our democracy as a standard to judge other democracies without considering their nations fundamental historical, geographical, and cultural differences.

That is why the U.S. needs at some point, to simply let Iraq go to develop their own democracy, and be wise enough not to hold on to occupation until Iraqi democracy functions and looks like ours. That will never happen. Nor will it in Venezuela.

Eric said: “You feel Hugo Chavez is good for his country? Would you support such ‘reforms’ here in the US?”

Of course not, that is an insulting question. We are not a fledgling democracy still trying to find its way. And our democracy did not begin with rampant starvation, homelessness and joblessness. Our democracy began with every white person having access to the natural resources of the land for the taking. Venezuela’s primary marketable natural resource is not readily accessible to its people like beaver, salt, game, iron and rich soil were for our people at the beginning of our democracy. We were also blessed with a relatively highly educated and literate leadership amongst the host of immigrants.

I am perfectly comfortable and content to let other nations of people define their democracy in accordance with their own cultural, geographic, and historical backgrounds which in the case of Venezuela is radically different than ours.

Eric, I don’t mean this to offend, but, your statement reflects the premise that we are the one and only democracy by which all others must be judged. It is apples, and oranges, Eric. It is a failing in our nation that so many regardless of party, are unwilling and or unable to put themselves in the shoes of others to gain insight and perspective of differences, rather than to just lie back on national-centric egotism and experience and judge all others as inferior.

I would belabor my point to go further, see my response previous response to Misha for more detail.

Hmm… “Evidence of an electoral fraud is growing”

The perception that a massive electronic fraud led to President Hugo Chávez’s mandate not being cut short in the recall referendum on Sunday is rapidly gaining ground in Venezuela. All exit polls carried out on the day had given the opposition an advantage of between 12 percent and 19 percent. But preliminary results announced by the government-controlled National Electoral Council at 3:30 a.m. gave Chávez 58.2 percent of the vote, against 41.7 percent for the opposition.

At first people scratched their heads in disbelief, including many Chávez supporters, but accepted these figures after César Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States, and former President Jimmy Carter said their own quick counts coincided with the electoral council’s figures. Two days after the referendum, however, evidence is growing that the software of the touch-screen voting machines had been tampered with.
iht.com

The entire article goes into more details about the evidence of fraud. And this minor detail about Mr. Magoo:

Although the Organization of American States and the Carter Center have called the election free and fair, their quick count justifying this statement was also based only on the numbers provided by the voting machines. The two organizations had brokered an agreement to examine, in the presence of government and opposition representatives, a sample of 150 voting points chosen at random. A comparison of the results printed out by these machines with the papers contained in the corresponding boxes was to be concluded this week. But the opposition now wants all machines and ballot boxes to be examined.

I am perfectly comfortable and content to let other nations of people define their democracy in accordance with their own cultural, geographic, and historical backgrounds which in the case of Venezuela is radically different than ours.

Eric, I don’t mean this to offend, but, your statement reflects the premise that we are the one and only democracy by which all others must be judged. It is apples, and oranges, Eric. It is a failing in our nation that so many regardless of party, are unwilling and or unable to put themselves in the shoes of others to gain insight and perspective of differences, rather than to just lie back on national-centric egotism and experience and judge all others as inferior.

I know, the left sees no evil when it comes to third world dictators. Especially when they are socialist dictators. Frankly, you must have misunderstood my question. My point is that there are standards that transcend national-centricity. Your point is apparently that human rights and liberty are not universal to mankind but are temporary and man given artifices. It would seem to me that your position is a lot more national-centric or group-centric. Liberty for me but not for thee?

The same arguments were used about Iraq. “If they didn’t want Saddam Hussein, they would overthrow him themselves.” Their cultural historical background doesn’t include democracy.

Frankly, if it’s not good enough for them why is it good for us? Perhaps I should have phrased it that way.

Ciggy:

That wasn’t the mantra of the Algore camp in 2000. Since when do you Democrats ever respect election results? Cisneros… kinda rhymes with Soros, y’know?

Cheers.

Eric said, “I know, the left sees no evil when it comes to third world dictators.”

Well, then, Eric, you would be flat out wrong and obviously so.

First, you have not interviewed every person on the left, so NO, YOU DON’T KNOW!

The left recognizes the evil of dictators just as easily as those on the right who live in this country. We also recognize that human beings readily fail to weigh the good and evil consequences of their actions, readily fail to always know what is good and evil, and are capable of rationalizing evil as good and vice versa.

Chavez is improving the economic hardship of a majority of his people. Yet you would rationalize this as evil because it was done by coopting the nation’s natural resource instead of permitting a few to own it for themselves.

Your statement supports the arrogant God Like attitudes of so many Americans, by presuming that those who don’t think like you, or subscribe to your definition of political persuasion are deficient or inferior. (“I know, the left sees no evil when it comes to third world dictators.”) Indeed! Thank you for making my point.

Misha, good commentary. You made excellent points. Unfortunately the history of Venezuela and South America in general is filled with despots who promise the world and deliver nothing but poverty and misery to their populace.

Shem,

Generalizations like referring to me as “you Democrats” are quite the undesirable bit of ad hominem. Just so you know, I’d be writing under the middle column of this site — not the left — were I an author.

You don’t understand “ad hominem”. Allow me to explain. “Ad hominem” is a fallacy by which an arguer says the opposing argument is wrong because it comes from a certain man, that is, arguing “to the man” rather than “to the argument”. Simply IDENTIFYING the political affiliation of a poster who apparently is rather ashamed of it, still isn’t “ad hominem” because I don’t use that as a basis for saying the position of Hugo Chavez’ legitimacy is wrong. I use it to point out the hypocrisy and fallacy of abiding by Michael Moore conspiracy theories of a “thrown election” in the U.S. as if it were gospel, and then turning around and ignoring far worse electoral irregularities in Venezuela.

Then again, as a Columbian friend of mine reminded me last night, Venezuela is exactly the WRONG nation to be messing with, as the U.S. is vastly more dependant on them for oil than even on the Saudis. If anything it would be in U.S. economic interest to send Navy SEAL teams to slaughter the OPPOSITION and let Chavez continue to export that oil in greater quantities, without strikes, etc. There are moments when I consider his point having merit, on purely practical grounds.

All this dickering over “democracy” is proving costly to us, at the gas pump. World crude oil prices are at a new record high, and I suspect that’s NOT just a middle eastern dearth that’s causing it.

Perhaps we should do the hydrogen thing before we get all haughty and snooty about other people’s elections.

Well now,
I have to say that the center column on this site is a much more “rational” debate.
I’m a staunch Republican, however, perhaps not one that could be described as “typicial”.

I’m not going to write my “Bio.” here, just wanted to say that I enjoyed this thread and debate.

Ciggy, quit being childish.

Character attack is character attack. Trying to generalize those who disagree with you as “them” — or in this case, “you Democrats” — just doesn’t hold water. No one’s ashamed of their political affiliations here (hard to be “ashamed of Democrats” when you’re not one), and trying use such brushes on those you simply don’t know a thing about is silly.

And even after all that, the only two criticisms that’ve been made outside of Misha’s initial post run along the lines of a) “the Carter foundation lied” and b) “the Venezuelan people would get rid of Chavez if they knew better.”

The former is absurd, and would perhaps do better on a DRUDGE REPORT flash than here on WatchBlog. The latter is, as David put it, “why billions of people in the world see our government as ‘arrogant’.”

Chris Fahey, who made the point of the day in this discussion, asked (at length) what I’d already pointed out:

Just a quick question: Can we really take for granted that the Venezuelan anti-Chavez opposition would be any better than Chavez? I mean, were the people healthier and more free under Chavez’s predecessors?

Neither outcome would have marked a genuinely happy day for Venezuela. All we’re watching now are the left and the right argue which was the “lesser of two evils” according to how closely the contenders meet our own political affiliations.

Or at least, I’d like to think that’s what this debate is over. I certainly hope the right-leaning commentors wouldn’t have hailed an opposition victory as a “great day” in Venezuela. It wouldn’t have been such at all.

A “great day” just wasn’t possible for them this time around.

Chavez is improving the economic hardship of a majority of his people. Yet you would rationalize this as evil because it was done by coopting the nation’s natural resource instead of permitting a few to own it for themselves.

Look, I didn’t mean to offend you, David. I honestly don’t understand the left’s defence of Hugo Chavez. I’m saying he is a third world marxist dictator. You are saying that Chavez is good. Is he a good third world dictator? Maybe I should have worded it a little better:

I think because he is a marxist and instituting socialist policies that the left looks past the fact that he is also a dictator.

Your statement supports the arrogant God Like attitudes of so many Americans, by presuming that those who don’t think like you, or subscribe to your definition of political persuasion are deficient or inferior. (“I know, the left sees no evil when it comes to third world dictators.”) Indeed! Thank you for making my point.

How is it arrogant to advocate liberty and freedom for everyone? The Venezuelan people should be free to choose their own form of government. Are they free to choose once under a marxist dictator?

I think you are laboring under some false assumptions about freedom, the arrogance of Americans, and the ‘exploitation’ of capitalism.

Destined to benefit the country’s majority poor

Strengthened by his victory in a recall referendum, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez set his sights Tuesday on centralizing power, including exerting control over the courts, local police and the nation’s broadcast stations.

The leftist government is “going to deepen the social and democratic revolution in Venezuela,” vowed Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel, the right-hand man to Chavez, who is praised by supporters for giving the poor majority better services and a voice in politics.

…Chavez said at a news conference late Monday that the victory will give his government a “catalyzing energy” to carry out its initiatives, including “completing the transformation of the judicial branch.”

Congress, which is controlled by Chavez supporters, recently approved a measure allowing that body to remove and appoint judges to the Supreme Court. One Supreme Court justice has already been ousted for allegedly falsifying his resume, a charge he denied.

The government is also seeking to exert control over TV and radio stations, many of which are deeply critical of Chavez and carry one-sided news reports against him. The government plans to submit a bill to Congress that would allow the government to ban programming it sees as slanderous or an incitement to violence and to punish violators.

The government is also studying the possibility of unifying municipal and state police forces into a national police force, wresting control from mayors and governors, many of whom are Chavez opponents.

Vicente Rangel said the government “will be more audacious, more effective, destined to benefit the country’s majority poor.” sfchronicle

Eric, From the article you just posted, I fail to see the rationale for opposition to Chavez, other than the label you want to attach.

Look he was elected, by definition, he is not a dictator. He was appointed by the people and serves at the will of the the people. Now, if at some point in the future, he declares elections null and void or impedes his people’s access to the polls or freedom of choice in the ballot booth, then there will be just cause for labeling him a dictator.

I think you find the following difficult to accept: “Chavez set his sights Tuesday on centralizing power, including exerting control over the courts, local police and the nation’s broadcast stations.”

But, let’s look at it. He is centralizing power. OK. Isn’t that what every President in this country has done with executive powers since WWII?
Is that not what this administration and Congress are contemplating with the Patriot Act and the recommendations of the 9/11 commission? Yes, that is precisely what we are doing, centralizing power and agencies of the government under the direction of two people, the President and his NID appointee. So what’s the beef?

Control over the courts? Let’s see, his setting rules for removing a court official for falsifying their resume’. Hmmm…. if we found that a chief justice had falsified his records to get appointed would we not revamp our rules for court appointees and seek to remove that chief justice?

Control over the media. Well, your article says. “The government plans to submit a bill to Congress that would allow the government to ban programming it sees as slanderous or an incitement to violence and to punish violators.”

They are going to submit a bill to Congress which is controlled by Chavez supporters. You mean like our Congress is controlled by Bush supporters? My, my, does that make Bush a dictator? Frankly, banning slanderous political programming sounds pretty good. Of course, I would be the first to rail about a slippery slope toward abuse of our 1st Amendment rights, but, hey, we are talking Venezuela here. And who knows, in a decade or so, they may have a political cycle far more civil than what we have here. It’s not impossible to improve on aspects of our own system.

And, Eric, I am sure this causes you disconcert: “The government is also studying the possibility of unifying municipal and state police forces into a national police force, wresting control from mayors and governors, many of whom are Chavez opponents.”

But, I have to ask why? We are consolidating the FBI and CIA and Border Patrol, and incorporating rules for first alert and first response teams under local authority to interface with our national police force. I haven’t heard you squacking about the same measures being taken here. We are doing it, the Venezuelan government is only exploring it as a possibility.

Really, either you are blind to what our own government is doing or, you hold a double standard which says when we do it, it is good, when others do it, it is bad. Good grief!

Shem, in the interest of cheaper oil I am going to concede that Hugo Chavez is legitimately elected no matter what happened to those electronic ballots (which would get the left in an uproar had they been used in the U.S.), and no matter what he is doing to Venezuela’s pseudodemocracy by way of tighter controls on the courts, etc.

To me, personally, a “great day” in Venezuela is when the oil workers aren’t on strike and the tankers are filling up. Currently, that would require Chavez taking tighter control, as you suggest would be best for Venezuela anyway.

If you’re not a Democrat then I can see how the implication of you being one would have offended you. Sorry for that.

David,

Look he was elected, by definition, he is not a dictator.

Bush was elected, and that doesn’t stop a silly circus of charges levied against him by the semiliterate Moore Mob.

Chris Fahey, who made the point of the day in this discussion, asked (at length) what I’d already pointed out:

Just a quick question: Can we really take for granted that the Venezuelan anti-Chavez opposition would be any better than Chavez? I mean, were the people healthier and more free under Chavez’s predecessors?

Thanks, Shem! :)

Still, nobody from the right has answered the question: Would a right-wing “democratically-elected dictator” be preferable to this left-wing “democratically-elected dictator”?

Eric wrote:
> I know, the left sees no evil when
> it comes to third world dictators.

That’s a lie! Here’s the truth: The American right rarely condemns right-wing dictators, and the American left rarely condemns left-wing dictators.

Here’s a list of right-wing dictators who at one time or another were beloved by the American right. I couldn’t find an analogous list of left-wing dictators beloved by the American left, however.

-Cf

Chris, David,

I condemn all dictators, left and right. Right-wing dictators have been little more than fascists.

The truth is that Latin America is plagued by various forms of statism that are characterized by a lack of rule of law and private property rights.

Eric, you are not responding to my reply to you above. That is OK, but, in case you missed, I thought I would bring it to your attention.

The parallels between Bush and Chavez are so obvious and blatant, that if Chavez is a dictator, so is Bush. For Bush and his Congress are doing almost precisely what Chavez is doing, save for helping the poor utilizing natural resources. It is all in my previous reply to you.

Ciggy said: “Bush was elected, and that doesn’t stop a silly circus of charges levied against him by the semiliterate Moore Mob.”

That’s for sure. In addition to arguably defensible claims that Bush validates the Peter Principle.

CF,

I couldn’t find an analogous list of left-wing dictators beloved by the American left, however.

Salvador Allende (Chile)
Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua)
Fidel Castro (Cuba)
Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam)
Hugo Chavez (who himself attempted a military coup while an Army Colonel in 1992)
Luis da Silva (Brazil)
Lucio Gutiérrez (Ecuador)

I would also list all the dictators of the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Republic of China, but America’s left pretends (sometimes unconvincingly) not to like those too much.

David,

save for helping the poor utilizing natural resources.

At the expense of the middle class, as usual. But it’s Venezuela’s middle class, and if defending them means more debilitating strikes that boosts the cost of gas at the American pump, I’m willing to avoid solidarity with them, middle-classer to middle-classer.

I abandon them to leftist depradations out of sheer Capitalistic greed.

Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, yep, they’ve had their fans on the American far left. Before America knew better Stalin (like Hitler) once had thousands of American admirers.

Your other lefty “dictators”, well, I’m not so sure.

Allende was elected president twice and deposed (thanks to the CIA - my father in law played a part in this, by the way) after less than three years. He could barely get anything done as President due to the intense (and obviously violent) opposition. You can hardly call him a dictator.

Ortega stepped down after losing his election in 1990 after only five years in office. He was certainly a bona fide commie, but he wasn’t much of a dictator.

Da Silva? A dictator? Socialist, yes. Dictator, no.

Gutiérrez, although he once participated in a failed coup, was eventually freely elected, and unlike the rest of your list, he isn’t even a Communist!

-Cf

The parallels between Bush and Chavez are so obvious and blatant, that if Chavez is a dictator, so is Bush. For Bush and his Congress are doing almost precisely what Chavez is doing, save for helping the poor utilizing natural resources. It is all in my previous reply to you.

David,

Really? Do you really believe that?

Eric, read my reply to you some 4 of my comments back from this one. Yes, I do believe if Chavez is a dicatator on the premises you proferred, then Bush is too, for they are both implementing very very similar programs. The statement is both rational and defensible based on the criteria you set forth to make your case against Chavez.

All kidding aside about who’s a dictator, who was elected (and let’s also not forget that Hitler was “elected”), etc., I think the increasing trend in America of questioning election results is starting to get into a danger zone of edging the country toward civil war. It may sound ridiculous, but when the losing side of an election cannot accept that the election itself was valid, the losing side is sorely tempted to turn violent (e.g., Manuel Noriega’s treatment of his victorious opponent after their last election before American invasion).

Some say the presence of U.N. observers this coming election is a sign of how bad things have gotten, but I see that as an opportunity to boost the legitimacy of the result, and reduce the spiraling hatred that sparked in Florida in 2000. Probably, the more neutral observers the better, and the more means of verification the better.

Ciggy, the danger of any society being split down the middle from the electorate point of view, while living under a government controlled by an opposing point of view has the potential of being a seedbed for revolution. But, a radical catalyst is needed to fertilize the rhetoric into action. Often that catalyst comes in the form of suppression of the opposed electorate. It is not sufficient that half the electorate be disgruntled about power control. Offenses by power against their liberties and freedoms or quality of life must appear to have been perpetrated by those in power.

While there is a growing number of folks with that perception today, it still, from all I can gather, appears to be a small fringe population. Another attack with devastating loss of life, or gross abuse of the powers afforded under the Patriot Act may prove sufficient as the catalyst. Especially if the justice dept. and policing authorities counter protests with ever increasing physical measures.

That is a lot of conditions to be met before we have to worry about armed insurrection in this country.

David,

It is not sufficient that half the electorate be disgruntled about power control. Offenses by power against their liberties and freedoms or quality of life must appear to have been perpetrated by those in power.

There’s been no paucity of that since even the Bush Sr. years with Ruby Ridge, or the Clinton years with Waco, or the Bush Junior years with the Patriot Act. Each side has plenty to point out in the other’s policies that are abusive of freedom and quality of life.

Militia types talk about three “boxes” that defend liberty: the Soap Box; the Ballot Box; and the Cartridge Box (which is why they see any threat to the 2nd Amendment as something far worse than the Patriot Act in violating essential rights).

That is a lot of conditions to be met before we have to worry about armed insurrection in this country.

Okay think of it this way: President Kerry will be pretty much like a far less charming and less charismatic version of Clinton. Even under Clinton with all his power to persuade, there was still Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing. And Clinton didn’t have a Patriot Act handing him extraordinary powers to shake down political opponents. Kerry will. Add the rancor of this year’s campaign, and the increased perception (established by the Gore recounts in Florida) that elections are typically stolen by the victor, and “all hell breaking loose” becomes a very real possibility.

Plus, it’s already happened here once.

Here’s another way to look at it: what if all of Michael Moore’s mindless fanatics were gun-toting rednecks?

Ciggy said I think the increasing trend in America of questioning election results is starting to get into a danger zone of edging the country toward civil war.

It’s definitely worrisome. I’m still holding out hope that we aren’t so polarized. It’s actually one of the reasons I want Kerry to win. I think a Bush victory will drive more Dems to the Michael Moore type fanaticism.

I fear the Moore type fanaticism is more appealing to a majority of the left than the extreme right is to most conservatives. The last thing I’d want is the left to become more comfortable with indefensible propaganda and dogma. Moore is the poster boy for polarizing politics.

Since Kerry will likely be more like Bush than Dems care to admit and possibly ineffective in the first two years, I don’t think he will drive many conservatives to a more extreme right position if he wins (though if the Republicans call foul and recount, I might worry a bit more).

Joseph, I mostly agree, although a Kerry administration would have to be VERY careful not to do “Waco” type raids on far-right groups. To the militia whacko elements that’s the political equivalent of W defecating on a Shiite shrine in Najaf. Bad juju. That might not drive large numbers of moderate conservatives to the far-right camp, but it would make the far-right camp much more volatile, more prone to become more of the terrorist problem than the anti-terrorist solution, shall we say.

What would radicalize more conservatives and drive more of them into a far-right camp, would be if (and I say WHEN) Kerry decides that his tax increases can’t come from just the rich ($200K+ annual income), but have to come from the middle class. That sort of treachery will sear to the core of middle class conservatives who already feel squeezed in this economy. It might not send them into the militia camps in the hills right away, but it would definitely boost the sales of “hunting rifles” and such. The natives will be quite a bit restless over such taxation, and if manipulated by a clever enough far-right demagogue, could spell some extreme trouble for a Kerry administration. A right-wing Michael Moore leading ARMED devotees, could be just the final straw of instability to push things over the edge.

A right-wing Michael Moore leading ARMED devotees, could be just the final straw of instability to push things over the edge.

Why does everybody assume liberals are unarmed? Ooops! Sorry guys, I just gave away the element of surprise, didn’t I?

Armed insurrection is not a new topic here. This was discussed from varying points of view in A vote for Revolution and A Vote For Revolution Seconded.

The divisiveness and intolerance is (I believe) largely party/media driven and while most voting Americans side with one side or another, as long as they have a job, a home, a car, and some semblance of order in their neighborhood’s, an extremist will have a helluva time trying to find recruits among the American people to strike back at fellow Americans.

That is not to say we won’t see more incidents of mailed ricin, or clinic bombings, or even campaign headquarters vandalism, but a concerted armed attack by Americans against Americans is not in our immediate future. An atrocity committed by a partisan against the opposition would be condemned by most on both sides of the aisle.

Move out 20 years, though, with a scenario of elderly dying for lack of funds, and 12 to 15 percent unemployment, and a history of 3, 4 or 5 large terrorist attacks, and all bets are off.

Living it and talking about it are two different things…..
I haven’t read all the posts but let me tell you this:

Venezuela está ( si claro! ) en un buen momento debido al alto precio del petroleo, aumento de impuestos, control de cambio, control de precios, enormes ingresos fiscales que permiten financiar una politica populista al extremo, programas de ayuda a los mas necesitados “olvidados en los 40 años de Democracia”.
Chavez entrega dádivas a los más pobres para ganar su simpatia y lo ha logrado con un exito sin precedentes. Mientras la clase media debe decidir si acepta sus Nuevas Reglas o desaparece (es eso democratico?), a los ricos por su parte el efecto es menor, ellos siguen haciendo dinero no importa que suceda pues se venden al mejor postor.
Yo formo parte de la juventud de clase media que intenta “sugir” en este mercado, pero Sorpresa, esto ya no es un mercado, es una economia centralizada, regida por el estado. Si firmaste o votaste en su contra pues no encontraras un buen trabajo. Muchos piensan en emigrar a los EEUU o España por esta causa. Muchos ya lo han hecho.
Mi pregunta es simple: Que va a pasar en 2006 cuando los ingresos petroleros no sean suficientes para Comprar a la poblacion y el hambre acose a nuestra gente? Es EEUU lo suficientemente grande para acoger 20.000.000 de venezolanos?

Translate it if you want