Originally posted by: Craig234
Mill on Carter's role in the 2000 Venezuelan election when he disagrees:
Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel.
Mill on Carter's role in the 2000 Venezuelan election when he agrees:
BTW, here's what your buddies at the Carter Center had to say:
The Carter Center concluded that while the election irregularities would not have changed the 2000 presidential outcome, in which Hugo Chávez won with 60 percent of the vote, the significant politicization of the elections and organizational deficiencies contributed to a lack of confidence in the process and the nonpresidential results, thus leading the Center to characterize the July 2000 elections as flawed.
While I understand what you are trying to insinuate (that I speak out of both corners of my mouth), that is not at all what I did. Since my evidence was not being accepted, I turned to the source that is oft mentioned by believers in the fairness of the Recall election -- the Carter Center. I still believe they badly boggled their observation -- in both elections. However, I felt it was possible to reach some common ground if even the great Carter Center had found irregularities and problems in prior elections.
Wow. Reporting how the elections had significant politicization and organizational deficiencies and concluding the election was flawed is pretty good for a senile guy who saw two stations in 30 minutes.
Well, you have to admit that Carter isn't exactly the best choice for an International Observer. He's been doing it for years, but he has greenlit some pretty horrible elections and leaders. Again, I was attempting to show that even the Carter Center -- who certified the elections -- still found problems.
Mill, you have some valid points to make, but you screw it up by overstating your position - your time in Venezuela not only gives you legitimate info to report (reasonable), but you insiniuate that no one who has not spent time in Venezuela can have any valid opinion on anything about Venezuela, however else they've gotten informed (absurd).
I do insiniuate that to an extent, but here's why: there are a lot of people on this forum that argue about Chavez from a political viewpoint instead of a learned viewpoint. They think people don't like him because of his politics. They pigeonhole you as a rightwinger and try to discuss the politics instead of his actions. So, I think, if someone hasn't been there to see the actions -- or hasn't taken the time to educate themselves -- then how valid is their position going to be?
Your comments offer some truth, in my view, about some problems with Chavez, while being extremely one-sided in not recognizing the 'other sides' view at all, such as the issues with the extreme concentrations of power, wealth and land ownership among about 500 families, and the difficulties faced by those like Chavez who want to improve this (however good or bad the changes he's making).
First, you have to understand that I do understand. I see extreme poverty everytime I'm in South America. My fiancee's family is hardly wealthy, and her extended family is simply struggling to survive at times. Her Uncle is trying to get political asylum in Canada because the FARC is trying to kill him (his family was starving so he ran drugs and got caught, and now the FARC doesn't have their money or drugs). Not 30 minutes ago I got off the phone with a friend who's mother was a politician in Cali, Colombia. He's trying to get political asylum here. His mother was a member of the Liberal Party there (supported in part by FARC monies), and her job was to "educate" the poor on how to vote. Well, that's exactly what she did, and it wasn't what the FARC meant by educate them on how to vote. They meant it a bit more literally i.e. tell them WHO they better vote for. But ,she was teaching the rural populace how to read, educating them, and then telling them to vote for what they thought was right. The FARC really didn't care for that. Remember -- she was in the Liberal Party, too. Attempted kidnappings and violence ensued, and now his entire family is in a nice pickle. He was just explaining a story of a friend from school who came and stayed with him for a bit (he came illegally) because the FARC had kidnapped some of his family, and he was trying to get away and get money to pay the ransom. I see the poverty up close everytime I am down there. I see the Mansions in North Bogota and the slums to the South -- shantytowns that few people here can even imagine. I've seen human degredation and life treated as if it were a simple economic decision -- its intrinsic value was considered that of less than a few dollars. The concentration of power and wealth is no joke in either Venezuela or Colombia. However, movements like the FARC and Chavez's actions are not going to bring about the change they claim to desire. In fact, the FARC and Chavez are duping the hell out of the poor. They are taking advantage of them. They are using them for political power, and in case of the FARC as soliders (young kids, too, I might add). Sure, there are true believers in the FARC camp, and in Chavez's world. However, neither Chavez nor the FARC are using legitimate means, and they both are harming liberty in democracy while creating promises they cannot keep, and being unfair to those that worked hard and are in the middle and upper classes. Not everyone in both countries that are well off simply inherited it. It isn't that I don't understand or discount the other side, it is that they exploit the poor to gain power, wealth, and stature just like the wealthy families and the old governments did.
As for your experiences - they are valid, but you lack the bigger picture context, judging by your posts. You could ask two Americans who live here what's going on, and get extremely different answers, including the facts, from a democrat and a republican - much less if you asked a foreign visitor to the US, like you are in Venezuela. Use your experiences visiting reasonably in your posts.
I've barely scratched the surface. I haven't just talked to a few random people. I talk to people all the time, and I e-mail with several professors at think-tanks as well. Plus, I have my own eyes and ears, and I'm always engaging friends and strangers in a discussion. Not always the smartest thing to do, but I am genuinely curious and honest, and not seeking to validate my own opinion. Chavez and the FARC have their supporters, or they wouldn't exist. The problem, however, is that many of them have been fed lies, and are being screwed the same way they were screwed in the past. BTW, I want to clarify that Chavez is a far cry from the FARC. I'm just saying they are in the same league as far as being less than honest in my opinion, and the way they attempt to achieve political change is not the right way. My experiences are not just of casual visits and conversations. I am actively involved in the lives of many people and I relate their stories here. If people choose to give it credibility or not is their decision. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means, but I am very informed on this issue.
I'm going to respond a lot less with challenges to the fact that Chavez has done some questionable things, than with the issue of what anyone in his shoes, facing the powerful and wealthy of his nation, who could and did try everything from a national economic shutdown, to a recall, to a military coup, not to mention the opposition of the US and the CIA and such, making him have to do some things that aren't ideal to keep power.
Well, the problem I have with this is that Chavez himself tried to overthrow a democratically elected government in 1992. Furthermore, if we go on the tangent of doing what a person can to work in the bounds of a bad political system, then why feel that RCTV is doing anything different than what Chavez and his supporters did? Unconventional means perhaps by both, but if one can do it why can't the other? That goes for the Coup attempt in 2002 as well. I can't see how it was ok for Chavez to try to overthrow the government because he didn't think he could get elected in a fair election, but then it wasn't ok for others to think and do the same thing because they were worried about the electoral process.
If you like the idea of his being gone and the extreme concentrations of wealth and power to remain as they were, you will not give him much room for measures to deal with the rabid opposition. I suspect it has a lot to do with sympathies.
There are many strategies of dealing with inequity in society and an economy. Capitalist means and conditions can work as well as, or in my opinion, much better than Socialist approaches. I don't even consider what much of Chavez is doing is true to Socialist means. He's more of a dictator reducing liberty to implement a political system that HE VIEWS as necessary and correct -- not necessarily the people. The ones that agree with him do so in large part because someone on their side is better than no one at all. Plus, his views and ideas are palatable to those that don't have education and training.
Of course, our founding fathers were traitorous, murdering no-good criminals to some with different sympathies. It's a tricky discussion to try to navigate the evil dictators from the great leaders. You do have someting to offfer that discussion, if you can refrain from the overstatement. BTW, all the Venezuelans I know of who come to the US are not among the poor who are Chavez's base, trying to eat; they're sympathetic to and usually among the wealthy.
Well, I'm not even referring to US based people -- I talk more with Mexican immigrants in the US than I do immigrants from Colombia or Venezuela. I talk to the latter in South America. But, you are right that it is tricky to navigate between evil dictators and great leaders. However, I think there's plenty of evidence that Chavez is doing quite enough to put himself in the former category rather than the latter. I don't feel that any great leader permanently restricts liberty or shuts down the freedom of the media -- or attempts to be elected for life (20 years is what Chavez wants these days). Ego gets into the way at some point, and I think Chavez's ego is part of the reason that he doesn't have the patience to affect social change with more patience and equitable ways. I'm not about to act like the US has always been a bastion of liberty or didn't support dictators. I've seriously questioned our foreign policy in Latin America and the Middle East for sometime. However, I'm not here on behalf of the government. I'm here as an individual that expects MORE out of my government and Chavez. But, I can say that the US press has much more freedom that Venezuela's does (just look at the Reporters Without Borders rankings), as well as economic freedom. I've been less than happy with the Patriot Act and other liberty reducing tools. In essence, I'm no hypocrite on the issue of liberty, yet I do also understand the pressing need for reform in Thirld World countries with large gaps between the rich and the poor.
Of course they'll have stories they're outraged about, some of which are true, just as opponents of Bush and Bill Clinton each had theirs, some of which are pretty questionable - how many times have I read about the Clintons and Vince Foster and accusations of murder, despite the clear evidence to the contrary? But you need to consider the larger issues for Venezuela and poverty globally as well.
I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.
But, the balance can teeter the other way as well. The FARC has strayed largely from its communist message, and plenty of its leaders are high hog off cocaine proceeds, and they torture and tax the hell out of the poor to maintain their lifestyle. Sure, there are some true believers, but not so much anymore. Same goes for Chavez, his extreme actions have taken possible good and replaced it with a restriction on the media, lip service to the poor, corruption, and a way to inflate his own ego (fighting Bush and associating with Rogue States just to rub it in the face of others). Chavez's ego is fully in the way of any change he might have been able to accomplish. Unless he gets it into check, and actually follows through with his promises (see Caracas' crumbling infrastructure and roads), instead of little minute programs that sound good but do much less, and reduces his attack on liberty, he will go into the history books as a dictator -- he's already seen by much of the world and many of his people as one already.