Venezuela's Chavez: An Outsized Personality, A Domineering Figure

[Charles Kozierok]

An interesting piece on Hugo Chavez, who died yesterday. Talks about his "legacy" and influence within Latin America, where he's viewed rather differently by many than how he is portrayed here in the US, often as some variation of "Hitler of the Americas".

Personally, despite his supposedly being a "populist", I find it hard to argue that in the end he really did much to help his people.

 

[randomrogue]

Seems to me reading the world leader responses to his death that the US was the only one who didn't like him. Did he shit in our cornflakes?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Worse, he donated heating fuel to our poor:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3...g-aid-to-u-s-poor-following-obama-budget-cuts

 

[randomrogue]

Venezuela, and Chavez in particular, refused to bow down to us. He then poked Bush with a hot poker in regular intervals by giving away fuel or selling it really cheap. He went on these anti American government tirades. We tried to paint him as similar to Mugabe.

I'm not really sure what to say about the guy. He was a socialist. He was well admired in Latin America. That shouldn't make him America's enemy.

 

[K1052]

He was most definitely popular because of his personality if not all his political views.

The larger question is was Venezuela's oil wealth effectively used to implement all the gains he claimed. The available evidence is inconclusive since the vast majority of the money was controlled by entities that only answered to Chavez and a few close advisers. In short, the public and outside world has no idea how much money went where and how effective the investments really were. The only thing that isn't debatable is that the nationalization had a very negative impact on the oil infrastructure which was supposed to fuel all these initiatives with oil exports down 30% and imports of refined products now accounting for 20% of the nation's oil output.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/?source=newsletter

 

[Murloc]

Venezuelans I know were happy of his death.
He just threw away all the oil money, the country is corrupt, and the nazionalization policy failed, like K1052 said. The money went to his cronies.
Gulf arabs started from being medieval shitholes and then used the oil to become advanced countries. I know Venezuela is much bigger, but how come it actually got worse under Chavez despite all the money flowing in?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Venezuelans I know were happy of his death.

Not to dispute your experiences, but what I heard on the radio is that support for him is so strong that they're planning to embalm him and display him under glass "for eternity". Yuck!

 

[randomrogue]

Not to dispute your experiences, but what I heard on the radio is that support for him is so strong that they're planning to embalm him and display him under glass "for eternity". Yuck!

Lenin is embalmed and on display in Red Square outside the Kremlin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Mausoleum

 

[EagleKeeper]

Not to dispute your experiences, but what I heard on the radio is that support for him is so strong that they're planning to embalm him and display him under glass "for eternity". Yuck!

Is the media in Venezuela under government control?

 

[CPA]

Venezuelans I know were happy of his death.
He just threw away all the oil money, the country is corrupt, and the nazionalization policy failed, like K1052 said. The money went to his cronies.
Gulf arabs started from being medieval shitholes and then used the oil to become advanced countries. I know Venezuela is much bigger, but how come it actually got worse under Chavez despite all the money flowing in?

Not to mention that the press was squashed and political rivals jailed.

 

[Craig234]

Is the media in Venezuela under government control?

As I understand it, no. The media in fact is owned by the wealthy class of Chavez's worst enemies and was used for contant attacks.

As I heard it, the media there made Fox News look like a pro-Obama station. Huge enemies, the truth did not get in their way.

But the main case of Chavez doing something I've heard of is that beyond their constant efforts to attack him, which were continuing, is that the plot that removed Chavez in a coup had the media outlets - one station in particular - participate in the coup. The story is told in a documentary, 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' by a couple of journalists who happened to be there at the time for a story on Chavez, and basically involves that the way the coup happened was that one day there was a pro-Chavez rally at the Presidential Palace; and some anti-Chavez figures organized an anti-Chavez march, and then to everyone's surprise steered it to clash with the pro-Chavez rally. Along the way, sniping broke out from perches above the march and people in the march were killed.

This is where the media especially comes in - the media ran stories claiming the snipers were Chavez forces killing the Anti-Chavez protestors, and used very misleading footage to make the claim. In an important shot, they showed a few people on an overpass taking out guns and shooting, and made it appear as though they were the ones shooting at the anti-Chavez crowd; but the documentary showed the same thing from another angle, and showed there was actually no one on the ground where the people were shooting, and they were actually shooting up where the sniper shots seemed to be coming from. The media blacked out any other versions and this was used as the basis for the coup.

It appeared the media, at least the one station especially, was part of the coup plotting that included these killings.

Years later, the license for that station was not renewed.

Now, I think if a station in the US participated in a coup that removed our President, and our President returned to power, we'd see a bit more happen to that station.

Chavez's one tv outlet was the government owned station. He'd speak on that regularly.

Now, a couple qualifiers, one is I'm not that familiar to know other anecdotes that might have happened, and there are probably some other repressions that happened.

But I've heard reports that the anti-Chavez outlets that were pretty much at war with Chavez representing the wealthy class that hated him continued. I've seen examples from the broadcasts that were aired and very anti-Chavez and seemed to care for the truth a bit less than a Donald Trump interview.

But the situation there was pretty tense as well. It'd be like discussing whether our founding fathers were entirely protective of any pro-British media during the revolutionary war; Chavez was leading a sort of revolution against the ruling and wealthy class of the country. Things happened like that class trying to also force him from power by shutting down the economy early in his presidency to pressure citizens to get rid of him - that was a devastating economic hit for six months.

So that should be remembered as the context where he may have not been a poster child for media freedom.

I do remember hearing some anecdotes I didn't approve of that were a bit stronger, but while we'd not approve of some actions, it seemed the opposition media continued ok.

Wish I had more info to have a bit clearer picture, but it seems there is no comparison to the typical 'tyrants' that people try to say he was like, where the press really was badly monopolized by the government, in places such as Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, the USSR, China (China still pretty strongly censored but a bit freer than the others today). But ask a Venezuelan in the wealthier class for their opinion - I have - and it's like talking to the tea party about Obama. He's just this Hitler Stalin monster. They were whipped to hate.

While I'd hoped to get a bit better info on the situation, the basic situation sounded like in the US our only tv was PBS and some channels owned by tea party billionares.

As we criticize, I remember, where is our access to the excellent news source, Al-Jazeera America, anywhere but the internet, where all cable companies have refused to carry it?

If Chavez did more that was repressive, I'd not like that, but I'd also remember the situation where the media actively participates in a coup is not the normal 'free speech'.

When FDR was trying to save the US economy with his liberal programs - which were actually more programs designed to protect capitalism from a growing socialist movement by providing some relief - some corporate figures plotted a coup here pretty much the same way, as exposed by the military leader they tried to recruit to participate, Gen. Smedley Butler.

Plenty of left-wing democracies, especially in South America, had their democracy taken away, sometimes with US support and pressure. Salvador Allende in Chile is just one example. And the revolution in Cuba to more of an actual dictatorship under Castro had us trying to assassinate him dozens of times and to invade his country to overthrow him. After he was removed in a coup, it's a little more understandable Chavez might have overstepped to keep his democracy and presidency from being overthrown.

Edit: the above I should also say is from nearly a decade ago. I just checked Wikipedia to see what it has to say:

Many of Venezuela's mass media are privately operated and derive most of their revenues from advertising, subscriptions, and sale or distribution of copyrighted materials. A small proportion[clarification needed] of the Venezuelan television, newspaper, and radio markets is controlled by state-owned outlets.[citation needed] The government has its own news agency, Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias.

The main private television networks are RCTV; Televen; Venevisión; Globovisión. State television includes Venezolana de Televisión, TVes, ViVe (cultural network) and teleSUR (Caracas-based pan-Latin American channel sponsored by seven Latin American states). There are also local community-run television stations such as Televisora Comunitaria del Oeste de Caracas (CatiaTVe). The Venezuelan government also provides funding to Avila TV, Buena TV and Asamblea Nacional TV (ANTV).

The major Venezuelan newspapers are El Nacional, Últimas Noticias and El Universal; all of which are private companies and based in Caracas. There are also many regional newspapers...

After the 1998 election of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan press "failed miserably in their duty to provide information that their fellow citizens needed to navigate the storms of Venezuelan politics under Chavez. Instead, media owners and their editors used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez."[3] The programme of Bolivarian Missions was (until 2005) "virtually invisible in the mainstream press".[3] Encouraged by verbal attacks by Chavez and other officials, editors "began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts."[3] This contributed to a polarization such that for a time reporters were regularly attacked in the street by Chavez supporters with bottles and sticks.[3] According to a political reporter for El Nacional speaking in 2005, "the common attitude has been that we can leave aside ethics and the rules of journalism".[3] Alonso Moleiro said that "Reporters bought the argument that you have to put journalistic standards aside, that if we don't get rid of Chavez, we will have communism and Fidelismo."[3] The head of the Institute for Press and Society in Venezuela said that "here you had the convergence in the media of two things: grave journalistic errors - to the extreme of silencing information on the most important news events - and taking political positions to the extreme of advocating a nondemocratic, insurrectional path."[3] After the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, in which the media played a significant role, there was a change in editorial policy of the major newspapers, with a wider mix of opposition, pro-Chavez and independent commentators. The generally non-partisan Últimas Noticias gained circulation at the expense of El Nacional and El Universal, which remained more associated with the opposition. Television networks also moderated their tone, with several of the opposition talk shows with the most extreme rhetoric, including talk of violence against Chavez and his followers, taken off the air.[3]

In 2009 the government reviewed the broadcast licences of hundreds of radio and television stations, and declared many to have been operating without a licence or without having paid the appropriate regulatory fees.[4] As a result over 60 radio stations were closed.[5] The government said the frequencies would be reallocated to community media,[4] and passed a law limiting ownership of radio and television licences to three per private owner. This was aimed at tackling what it called "media latifundios", with 27 families controlling a third of radio and television.[4]

In 2010 declassified US State Department documents showed over $4m of funding (in the previous 3 years) to Venezuelan journalists and private media opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution, part of a larger $40m funding for opposition groups

That is different than one thing I've heard - that Chavez had one public station for his views to get aired, while it mentions several public tv stations, but still "a small proportion". It's possible that only one of those public stations was used for politcs, I'm not sure, just that I'd heard just one station carried a pro-Chavez message earlier.

It sounds like that loosened up later.

 

[spittledip]

Chavez had lofty goals and some noble ideas, and it was good that he wrestled the grasp of Venezuelan oil and other resources out of the hands of foreign powers. It is also good that he assisted the poor who were much more marginalized than they are in the US. However, he was a bit too reactionary like most politicians, and he did not approach issues with sense. He wasted an excellent opportunity.

 

[busydude]

I am no expert in Venezuelan politics, but I found this comment by a Venezuelan posted on reddit(originall from CNN comments section!!) to be quite informative:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/world/americas/obit-venezuela-chavez/?hpt=hp_t1#comment-820370943

"Rest in peace, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. As a Venezuelan, I didn't agree with most of your policies and politics, but I do not rejoice in your death and I do respect the pain of your family and supporters.

In 1998, when you campaigned for the presidency -and promised to end corruption- despite my disappointment with the traditional parties, I did not support you because you had led a coup against president Carlos Andres Pérez. I didn't like Pérez, but he was elected by our people and attempting to overthrow him was proof that you did not respect the will of Venezuelans.

I didn't oppose 100% of what you did. I was grateful, for example, that you placed the issue of poverty on the table and you put the spotlight on millions of Venezuelans that until then had been excluded. I knew that the Cuban doctors in the slums were unprepared and unequipped, but I understood that they meant the world to the mother that knocks on their door at 3am. I was also happy of the way most Venezuelans started to care about politics again (some because they supported you; others because they opposed you). The anti-politic feeling we saw in the 90's was precisely what got you elected. And I also kept in mind that a majority of Venezuelans did support you, so you certainly had a right to be in office.

These are my 10 reasons why I will not miss you:

1. Your authoritarian manner (which reflected a flaw probably most Venezuelans have), and your inability to engage in an honest dialogue with anyone that opposed you. Even from your death bed, you had a Supreme Court justice fired because she didn't agree with your politics.
2. Your disrespect for the rule of law and your contribution to a climate of impunity in Venezuela. In 1999, you re-wrote the Constitution to fit your needs, and yet you violated it almost on a daily basis. With this example, it is no surprise that crime exploded in Venezuela. In 14 years, our homicide rate more than tripled from 22/100K to 74/100K. While judges were busy trying to prove their political allegiance to you, only 11% of homicides led to a conviction.
3. Your empty promises and the way you manipulated many Venezuelans to think you were really working for them. In 14 years you built less public housing than any president before you did in their 5 year periods. Hospitals today have no resources, and if you go there in emergency you must everything from medicines to surgical gloves and masks. The truth is that you were better at blowing your own trumpet than at getting things done.
4. The astounding level of corruption of your government. There was corruption before you got elected, but normally a government's scandals weren't made public until they handed power to the opposing party. Now we've heard about millions and millions of dollars vanishing in front of everybody's eyes, and your only reaction was to attack the media that revealed the corruption. The only politicians accused of corruption have been from parties that oppose you, and mostly on trumped up charges. For example, Leopoldo Lopez was never condemned by the courts but you still prevented him for running for office. His crime? Using money from the wrong budget allocation to pay for the salaries of teachers and firemen -because your government withheld the appropriate funds.
5. The opportunities you missed. When you took office, the price of oil was $9.30, and in 2008 it reached $126.33. There was so much good you could have done with that money! And yet you decided to throw it away on corruption and buying elections and weapons. If you had used these resources well, 10.7% of Venezuelans would not be in extreme poverty.
6. Your attacks on private property and entrepreneurship. You nationalized hundreds of private companies, and pushed hundreds more towards bankruptcy. Not because you were a communist or a socialist, but simply because you wanted no one left with any power to oppose you. If everyone was a public employee, you could force them to attend your political rallies, and the opposition would not get any funding.
7. Your hypocrisy on freedom and human rights. You shut down more than 30 radio and television stations for being critical of your government, you denied access to foreign currency for newspapers to buy printing paper (regular citizens can't access foreign currency unless you authorize it), you imprisoned people without trial for years, you imprisoned people for crimes of opinion, you fired tens of thousands of public employees for signing a petition for a recall referendum and you denied them access to public services and even ID cards and passports.
8. Your hypocrisy on the issue of Venezuela's sovereignty. You kicked out the Americans but then you pulled down your pants for the Cubans, Russians, Chinese and Iranians. We have Cuban officers giving orders in the Venezuelan army. Chinese oil companies work with a higher margin of profit than any Western companies did. And you made it clear that your alliances would be with governments that massacre their own people.
9. Your hypocrisy on the issue of violence. You said this was a peaceful revolution but you allowed illegal armed groups like Tupamaros, La Piedrita and FBLN to operate. You gave them weapons. You had the Russians set up a Kalashnikov plant in Venezuela. You were critical of American wars but yet you gave weapons to the Colombian guerrilla, whose only agenda is murder and drug-dealing.
10. Your hypocrisy on democracy. Your favorite insult for the opposition parties in Venezuela was "coupists", but you forgot you organized a coup in 1992, and the military that was loyal to you suggested they would support a coup in your favor if the opposition ever won the presidential elections. There was no democracy in your political party: you chose each of the candidates for the National Assembly and for city and state governments. When the opposition won the referendum that would have allowed you to change the Constitution in 2007, you disavowed the results and you figured out a way to change the articles and allow yourself to be reelected as many times as you wanted. You manipulated the elections in 2010 to make sure the opposition didn't get more than a third of seats in Parliament even though they got 51% of the popular vote. Your democracy was made of paper, you made sure there were no meaningful checks and balances and all institutions were your puppets.

So no, Hugo I will not miss you. Rest in peace now, while we try to rebuild the mess of a country that you left us."

 

[Craig234]

busydude, that's an unusually honest piece for the most part, but it's not very honest about one thing - twice he attacks Chavez for leading a coup attempt, but besides the atrociously corrupt situation with the majority of Venezuelans in terrible poverty, reportedly the thing that triggered it was the President ordering force against protestors where hundreds of civilians were killed. He doesn't mention that reason, and it's a pretty good one.

In 2010, the murder rate in Venezuela was horrible - nearly ten times that in the US, at 48 for 100,000. El Salvador was 65, Honduras was 78. Oh wait, we don't hear that, why is that?

Because it's people looking for 'what's bad about Venezuela we can use to attack Chavez for', not a very honest discussion of his policies' good and bad.

The homocide rate more than tripled under him - we could ask why. By the way, the US homide rate is triple that of Canada, and six times that of Germany. Are we a terrible country?

That's the problem, people get a few 'talking points' cherry picked to try to prove something and repeat them, and it's not very helpful to the discussion of the issue.

Show me a country and I'll give you a list of 20 good things and a list of 20 bad things, all correct, each designed to 'prove' the government is good or bad.

 

[randomrogue]

Sometimes I think people need to read the preamble to our Declaration of Independence. If you throw a coup, for good reason, there's nothing wrong with that. The status quo doesn't always work.

I can see us doing the same thing here in the states. At some point people are going to get fed up choosing between 2 lousy candidates.

 

[cwjerome]

Chavez was power-hungry, petty, and most importantly he had little respect for institutions and the rule of law. That last part is the key for any modern, civilized, prosperous society. A person (or group of people) can come in with a ton of good ideas but unless you build the right institutions with an over-arching obedience to the rule of law, there will not be the deep, broad, systemic changes that move things forward and last.

 

[Craig234]

Sometimes I think people need to read the preamble to our Declaration of Independence. If you throw a coup, for good reason, there's nothing wrong with that. The status quo doesn't always work.

I can see us doing the same thing here in the states. At some point people are going to get fed up choosing between 2 lousy candidates.

Sorry to disagree, but first, ok I agree that in principle people have the right to a coup in extreme circumstances. As you note our own country was founded on revolution.

But our country is not close to the situation justifying a violent revolution - we have the vote, even if it is a right violated at times; and two, there can't be a revolution again.

It's almost embarrassing to discuss 'revolution' with how good Americans have things - not a case where a majority are powerless without much of anything in terrible poverty, and not a case where the president is protecting that system by ordering hundreds of protesters killed by his military.

We do have a terrible takeover of our system by wealth and corporatism but we could largely fix that by voting.

Your post is a reminder how crazy tea party rhetoric is, as they use the language of tyranny and revolution - even with their name - where it does not fit.

First, how about they stop supporting a movement with an agenda and funding from the actual threats we do have - billionare interests like the Koch brothers.

 

[randomrogue]

Sorry to disagree, but first, ok I agree that in principle people have the right to a coup in extreme circumstances. As you note our own country was founded on revolution.

But our country is not close to the situation justifying a violent revolution - we have the vote, even if it is a right violated at times; and two, there can't be a revolution again.

It's almost embarrassing to discuss 'revolution' with how good Americans have things - not a case where a majority are powerless without much of anything in terrible poverty, and not a case where the president is protecting that system by ordering hundreds of protesters killed by his military.

We do have a terrible takeover of our system by wealth and corporatism but we could largely fix that by voting.

Your post is a reminder how crazy tea party rhetoric is, as they use the language of tyranny and revolution - even with their name - where it does not fit.

First, how about they stop supporting a movement with an agenda and funding from the actual threats we do have - billionare interests like the Koch brothers.

I'm not sure you're really disagreeing with me. I didn't mention tyranny. I didn't mention revolution. However I could see a coup happening where someone simply throws out the corporate pandering leaders. The economic inequality is pretty bad and at some point when you've had multiple generations with a lower standard of living then their parents you're going to get a reaction. Will the be able to change it by voting? I hope so. However I could see a coup happening. I'd think that people would riot and burn down the buildings that our mass media broadcasts from first though. A lot of things would happen first.

 

[Craig234]

Chavez was power-hungry

It's funny how often that is thrown out as an epithet.

People like power for a variety of reasons - look at Romney and Bush for some of the worst.

Chavez pursued power in the face of a majority of his countrymen facing no repreentation and terrible poverty and the government killing them if they complained. He used it to return power from foreign corporations exracting wealth to his country, to keep the money for its resources for his country, to give more fair representation, to provide education and healthcare, and yes, he wanted the power of the presidency.

He ran for all his elections, in elections more fair than some of ours. He faced a recall election under a provision for recalll he'd added to give the people more power against corrupt leaders and announced if he lost he would leave peacefully as the law required. He won the recall vote. Where's the tyranny for 'power-hungry'?

He did face pretty much all of his country's wealthy as bitter enemies as their unfair positions were made more fair, as the media not only assailed his power but he faced a national economic shut down for several months organized by the country's rich to try to deny the people who they wanted as president, and then an actual military coup supported by the US that removed him from office. So ya, he had some excesses.

petty

Again you provide no examples to support your attack, so let's remind you what it means.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19951116&slug=2152925

Or the false stories from the new Bush administratin that the Clinton administration had 'trashed the White House' and 'stolen everything including the China'.

But I'm sure you can point me to your posts calling them petty also, right?

and most importantly he had little respect for institutions and the rule of law.

It's pretty rich that you attack him for that, when we're the ones who supported a coup to remove their democracy, a coupe that as soon as it removed Chavez abolished the legislature and courts and constitution. In that scenario, you cite him as the one not respecting the law.

He had his excesses in that environment (so did Lincoln and FDR and most presidents by the way). Where it counted especially - he as I noted did things like adding that recall provision for the citizens to have more power and he honored the provision when it was used to try to remove him.

That last part is the key for any modern, civilized, prosperous society. A person (or group of people) can come in with a ton of good ideas but unless you build the right institutions with an over-arching obedience to the rule of law, there will not be the deep, broad, systemic changes that move things forward and last.

The attack just seems baseless - nevermind the irony as we run around with 5-4 votes of the Supreme Court destroying our institutions with 'corporations are people'.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not sure you're really disagreeing with me. I didn't mention tyranny. I didn't mention revolution. However I could see a coup happening where someone simply throws out the corporate pandering leaders. The economic inequality is pretty bad and at some point when you've had multiple generations with a lower standard of living then their parents you're going to get a reaction. Will the be able to change it by voting? I hope so. However I could see a coup happening. I'd think that people would riot and burn down the buildings that our mass media broadcasts from first though. A lot of things would happen first.

We're disagreeing. A coup where 'the people violently overthrow the government' is a revolution. The Declaration of Independance's justification for it is tyranny.

As bad as some of our issues are, there's not much comparison between the conditions for people in the US and in 1998 Venezuela. And our vote is mostly still working ok.

Not every time some people don't win an election is grounds for the violent overthrow of the group who won. That's abusing 'revolution' similarly to Republicans abusing the filibuster.

Sure, they talk of tyranny and a burning desire to secede because they're nuts, but it's not reasonable.

Our demcoracy is under attack and undermned, but people are largely voting for it.

It's the tea party people who are yelling tyranny who are the ones doing the attacks, and supporting the corrupt interests generally.

It's the tea party people elected where minority voting rights are suppressed, in gerrymandered districts giving them a big majority in states they lose the vote.

 

[cwjerome]

It's funny how often that is thrown out as an epithet.

Let's make this clear, when I say he was power hungry am I not referring his decision to run for office or become a leader. I am talking about the way he governed.

Again you provide no examples to support your attack, so let's remind you what it means.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19951116&slug=2152925

Or the false stories from the new Bush administratin that the Clinton administration had 'trashed the White House' and 'stolen everything including the China'.

But I'm sure you can point me to your posts calling them petty also, right?

This is silly, I do not have to make public declarations of pettiness in all cases to believe a situation to be petty. I'm sure there are literally thousands of instances where people have been petty but that's neither here nor there. Hugo Chavez was petty because he was a very minor "villain" who gathered way too much attention and concern, mostly from Republicans. He was a fairly trivial blowhard.

It's pretty rich that you attack him for that, when we're the ones who supported a coup to remove their democracy, a coupe that as soon as it removed Chavez abolished the legislature and courts and constitution. In that scenario, you cite him as the one not respecting the law.

He had his excesses in that environment (so did Lincoln and FDR and most presidents by the way). Where it counted especially - he as I noted did things like adding that recall provision for the citizens to have more power and he honored the provision when it was used to try to remove him.

The attack just seems baseless - nevermind the irony as we run around with 5-4 votes of the Supreme Court destroying our institutions with 'corporations are people'.

You really think that accusations of Chavez being undemocratic are false? Or are you saying that he's was just doing what everyone does? Or are you saying his was justified in his excesses?

I believe his tendencies towards dealing with political opponents, self-advancement, and arbitrary power nearly puts him on the lowest rung of the dictator scale.

 

[Craig234]

Let's make this clear, when I say he was power hungry am I not referring his decision to run for office or become a leader. I am talking about the way he governed.

It's more helpful to say what you are talking about than what you're not sometimes.

I mentioned you provided no support for your criticism, and you still didn't.

He faced an uphill battle against the interests who wanted to maintain the situation of screwing the majority of people badly - ya, he pushed major changes. He asked for and received changes to give him the power to do things. In the long term it was going too far. Given the fact he was practically at war with the entire wealth class in the country - including their using most media, nearly all of which they owned, to lie to undermine his support, to shut down the economy for six months and remove him in a coup?

Come on. You are pretending he was 'just governing in a normal situation', and if he pursued more powers under the law it was some extremist thing.

That's not understanding the situation.

He added the power for the people to recall the president - a power used against him - that's not exactly power hungry, that's democratic.

He did have excesses, but given the situation he was in, it's somewhat defensible in the short term. When you have the powerful interests ready and wanting to take you out.

FDR tries some strong measures, and the very right-wing Supreme Court, whose Chief Justice was a former Republican presidential nominee, killed almost everything he tried. So he tried an 'extreme measure' of adding seats to the Supreme Court so that his policies wouldn't face that type of obstructionism. It didn't work - but did his trying make him a terriible power hungry 'villain'?

This is silly, I do not have to make public declarations of pettiness in all cases to believe a situation to be petty. I'm sure there are literally thousands of instances where people have been petty but that's neither here nor there.

You're the one who made an issue of it going out of your way to accuse him of pettiness.

Hugo Chavez was petty because he was a very minor "villain" who gathered way too much attention and concern, mostly from Republicans. He was a fairly trivial blowhard.

Who says he was a 'villain'? I'd agree that the right treated him as a huge 'villain' and wasn't justified to do so. How was moving his country from a corrupt dictatorship horrible for its people to one where the majority got representation, and making it more democratic with things like fair elections and the recall option, even if he did some things wrong, something so terrible, while we ignore a lot of repression among his neighbors because they are serving our demands more?

Blowhard? Well, radically changing a country to get rid of corruption often includes that. You can say he was; maybe the authors of the federalist papers were 'blowhards' also.

You really think that accusations of Chavez being undemocratic are false? Or are you saying that he's was just doing what everyone does? Or are you saying his was justified in his excesses?

I believe his tendencies towards dealing with political opponents, self-advancement, and arbitrary power nearly puts him on the lowest rung of the dictator scale.

To directly answer your questions, I think many accusations were false any many were true. I'm not saying everything he did is what everyone does, but that his situation wasn't like everyone's situation and some excesses were needed. I'm saying some excesses were justified - economic shutdown, coup, massive war against him; some weren't, he wasn't perfect.

One minute you say you aren't attacking him for pursuing the power to change things, the next you attack him for 'self advancement'. Which is it? Did he make himself dictator for life? Did he refuse to run for re-election? Did he pocket billions of Venezuelan wealth like the typical dictator we support and allow to do that, to get them to sell out their country to serve us instead? What exactly did he do wrong there? He ran for the presidency and asked for powers to be approved to overcome obstructionism and received them.

What did he do that's really all that different from when Democrats had a super-majority and passed some big new program the Republicans said would doom our nation to tyranny?

I mean, take Medicare. Ronald Reagan got his start in politics by being hired to be the national spokesmen for the enemies of Medicare which JFK was running to create.

Reagan said, "pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him...

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it." ...

"We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."[/quote]

So, I guess Kennedy was a villain for using a super-majority to get Medicare passed, and that now our country has no freedom.

Of for the days when the elderly went without healthcare, with freedom.

That's the same sort of rhetoric used against Chavez for building hospitals for the poor.

Chavez went too far at times - but look at the horrible situation he was in, the amount of threats to justice, the power of the interests wanting to keep a terrible situation.

You have no answer for how to overcome the injustice in Venezuela when he was elected - you would only demand he not be pushy, and defend his getting nothing done.

We saw what would have happened - a corporate figurehead as president removing the legislature, courts and constitution to run as an actual dictatorship.

You think that doesn't allow for some excesses to fight it?

Hopefully Venezuela stabilizes as a progressive democracy without the excesses being needed as the threat to return to a terrible situation is reduced.

 

[cwjerome]

It's more helpful to say what you are talking about than what you're not sometimes.

I mentioned you provided no support for your criticism, and you still didn't.

I told you, they way he governed. I am sure you are fully aware of the ways he silenced political opponents, the ways he essentially monopolized the airwaves giving rambling speeches lasting hours, got elections laws changed to stay in power, and basically ran the nation as an autocrat. He "joked" that he wanted to stay in power until 2049... but that was not a joke.

You're the one who made an issue of it going out of your way to accuse him of pettiness.

Who says he was a 'villain'? I'd agree that the right treated him as a huge 'villain' and wasn't justified to do so. How was moving his country from a corrupt dictatorship horrible for its people to one where the majority got representation, and making it more democratic with things like fair elections and the recall option, even if he did some things wrong, something so terrible, while we ignore a lot of repression among his neighbors because they are serving our demands more?

Blowhard? Well, radically changing a country to get rid of corruption often includes that. You can say he was; maybe the authors of the federalist papers were 'blowhards' also.

I didn't exactly go out of my way to say he was petty... I just mentioned it. I did so because he was of little consequence to the US and was turned into a "monster" by some even though he was relatively trivial to US security or major interests.

Yes, I would have to call him a minor villain (and not some 2nd-coming-heineous-tyrant) because of his vicious, incoherent rhetoric that bordered on "North Korean silly," because he was a wannabe-dictactor, because he stiffled opposition and used the government to promote himself, because he nationalized the oil industry and ran out much of the wealthy, because he supported the FARC, and because he used arbitrary power.

To directly answer your questions, I think many accusations were false any many were true. I'm not saying everything he did is what everyone does, but that his situation wasn't like everyone's situation and some excesses were needed. I'm saying some excesses were justified - economic shutdown, coup, massive war against him; some weren't, he wasn't perfect.

One minute you say you aren't attacking him for pursuing the power to change things, the next you attack him for 'self advancement'. Which is it? Did he make himself dictator for life? Did he refuse to run for re-election? Did he pocket billions of Venezuelan wealth like the typical dictator we support and allow to do that, to get them to sell out their country to serve us instead? What exactly did he do wrong there? He ran for the presidency and asked for powers to be approved to overcome obstructionism and received them.

Well, we can agree to disagree, I believe most of his "excesses" were not justified.

I do not attack him for pursuing power to become a political leader, the self advancement I have talked about repeatedly is the way he used power in office... namely, the manner in using it to stay in power and get his policies passed. Things like using government workers, money, and facilities to run his campaigns, shutting down or jailing media, monopolizing the airwaves, using neighborhood goons to encourage people to vote for him, etc etc etc. You realize there is a reason Human Rights Watch heavily criticized him and Freedom House consistently ranked Venezuela rather poorly?

 

[Craig234]

I told you, they way he governed. I am sure you are fully aware of the ways he silenced political opponents, the ways he essentially monopolized the airwaves giving rambling speeches lasting hours, got elections laws changed to stay in power, and basically ran the nation as an autocrat. He "joked" that he wanted to stay in power until 2049... but that was not a joke.

FDR ran for third and fourth terms breaking precedent because he felt the country needed him facing the threat of WWII. Bloomberg got the rules changed to run again.

Are they villains and dictators and tyrants for doing so? If FDR had not done so and someone won who kept us out of WWII and Germany and Japan did far better, it's ok?

These aren't simple issues that can just be condemned. Chavez did not kill the competition (ask Mexico's presidential candidate about that, but do you attack them the same?)

You say he 'monopolized the airwaves giving rambling speeches lasting hours'.

Wrong. He gave rambling speeches lasting hours on ONE CHANNEL, while the rest of the airwaves had dishonest attacks on him constantly from the wealthy class. That's not "monopolized the airwaves". He was talking to poor people who had not had any power, he was staying in touch with the people, he was a people's president. He was letting them get to know him well. FDR had fireside chats - oh, the horror.

Who are you to say he wasn't joking about staying in power 50 years? Lots of presidents think it wouldn't be a bad idea to stay in office a long time. Clinton and other presidents have come out for repealing the two term limit for presidents - I guess they're 'dictators' for supporting that? Man, we could have used a third Clinton term.

Where's the substance? Your basis for attacks are paper thin here - I know there are better criticisms available, but again, look at how things were earlier.

I didn't exactly go out of my way to say he was petty... I just mentioned it.

Wow. 'He's petty!' Response you are making an issue of nothing 'I didn't make an issue of it!' You mentioned it and made an issue of it 'I didn't make an issue I just said it!' Oh boy.

Yes, I would have to call him a minor villain (and not some 2nd-coming-heineous-tyrant) because of his vicious, incoherent rhetoric that bordered on "North Korean silly," because he was a wannabe-dictactor, because he stiffled opposition and used the government to promote himself, because he nationalized the oil industry and ran out much of the wealthy, because he supported the FARC, and because he used arbitrary power.

Listen to yourself. What "vicious, incoherent rhetoric"? There are whole books of Bush incoherence and Cheney viciousness, does he really stand out? Where's the substance?

Bordering on "North Korean Silly"? You're the one guilty of vicious rhetoric bordering on North Korean silly to compare Chavez who did not threaten to attack the US with North Korea's crazy leader. Where's the substance? You're just recklessly making wild accustions without basis. He was a blowhard as we agreed, and he was over the top sometimes, darn why would he say anything against people who removed him in a coup - but he wasn't out threatening to attack the US, he was sending generous amounts of charity heating oil.

How was he a 'wannabe-dictator'? He ruled under the rule of law as an elected leader. One who pursued more powers - but was still a democratic leader under the law who was trying to serve the people, not like the actual dictators who generally are keeping their power to repress their people using secret police forces and torture and murder and stealing fortunes from the people. You are again using baseless hyperbole.

How did he 'use the government to promote himself'? I guess every US president is guilty of that with fancy expensive inaugurations wit hbig parades for themselves and televised speeches. OF COURSE he did what any leader does in 'promoting himself' and pursuing popular support for his policies. What crime did he do there?

The oil industry was being run by US corporations who totally dominated it, had all the operations and took nearly all the wealth from it. So yes, he changed from leaders who put the US corporations ahead of their own country to take back the oil for Venezuela, and of course it was rough going and still is. These companies did everything they could to sabotage him, refusing to hand over passowrd to run the systems as required.

What if China completely dominated the US oil industry, operatingour extraction and refining and took all the profits - would 'nationalizing' that be so bad?

This comes up a lot where there is exploitation. Chile, for example, has a main export of copper. For a small investment in building the mining, a US company took massive wealth from Chile's copper - and finally chile had enough and took back control of their copper so it would benefit their country. It's pretty normal. Did Chavez run it well? I doubt it. Room for improvement there. But it's a challenge to build the infrastructure and train people.

Ran out the wealthy? Hardly, though they'd say they were 'run out' by having their paradise of exploiting the majority ended, much the way US billionares say that having their top tax rate raised from 35% to 39.6% - even while few pay close to that and it's still historically low - 'runs them out' of the US. It's hyperbole. Venezuela still has plenty of wealthy people, I suspect. Got evidence they don't?

Wealthy people in the UK move to the US over high tax rates - is England a 'dictatorship'?

Supporting the FARC... on the one hand I do think this was a bad thing how he did that. On the other, again he's struggling against strong enemies not only in his country but other countries as well - Columbia was very hostile to him, and people sometimes need imperfect allies in those fights. The US has recruited the Nazis after WWII to be our helpers in the cold war and allied with all kinds of monsters far worse than FARC in the name of 'our interests'. There's a lot of double standards being applied there.

When simply wanting to not get screwed by a powerful country makes you an 'enemy' it's ok to attack with all kinds of programs, people will make the alliances they need to.

Look at the middle east - we spend billions for proxy allies for our interests, and people there are tensions with arm and help each other. Of course Iran exports arms to prop up allies as we do. We can rightly criticize the Iranian government for human rights abuses - and the Shah we put in power who served us could be accused of plenty of human rights abuses. Chavez faces a lot of threats, so ya, he formed an alliance with a desperate group against corruption but that has done wrong and turned to crime for resources.

Finally, he 'used arbitrary power'. That's a bit meaningless. You mean arbitrary power like to start an aggressive war based on lies? Or to deprive tens of thousands of innocent people of freedom in big roundups and send them to secret prison camps, some to rendition to foreign countries who torture and kill them? Did he operation secret drone programs in other countries killing thousands of people he alone decided it was ok to kill? You get the point, I assume. What were his big crimes?

Well, we can agree to disagree, I believe most of his "excesses" were not justified.

It's easy from the peanut gallery to say tisk, tisk at someone who fights to bring a country out of massive corruption.

I do not attack him for pursuing power to become a political leader, the self advancement I have talked about repeatedly is the way he used power in office... namely, the manner in using it to stay in power and get his policies passed. Things like using government workers, money, and facilities to run his campaigns, shutting down or jailing media, monopolizing the airwaves, using neighborhood goons to encourage people to vote for him, etc etc etc. You realize there is a reason Human Rights Watch heavily criticized him and Freedom House consistently ranked Venezuela rather poorly?

How did the country rank under the previous president?

I'm open to things he did wrong, but the attacks are way, way overblown it seems.

You didn't even respond to points such as how all the right-wingers run around waving the murder statistic as an attack - but say nothing how our allies there ar even worse.