Reply #134: Can you prove this tendency?

[K-W]

Not that this would be true at all. I certainly don't consider myself an enemy of Chavez, or Evo Morales for that matter. You'd be surprised to know that I actually support Chavez and think he's done a lot of good for his country.

Its a proven fact.

I also happen to believe that he has a tendency towards the autocratic,

Is this belief based on evidence?

and a penchant for grandstanding.

So did the founding fathers, Abe Lincoln, FDR, and MLK among others. The fact that the man can give a good speech that people want to listen to is a POSITIVE, not a negative. This is just another catchphrase used to stigamitize people who have something to say.

I certainly have no love for the people who want to see him overthrown or voted out. However, I believe in balance of power, and I worry that the balance in Venezuela is tipping too much in his favour

Do you have any evidence to support your worrying?

Im guessing you dont since you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Venezuala pre-Chavez was a deeply corrupt republic that served the interests of the very wealthy and foriegn investors. I sure as shit hope the balance of power is changing and I hope it is shifting to Chavez's constituents rather than the constituents of the old guard. This Chavez grabbing power thing is a red herring. The people are grabbing power, Chavez is thier elected representative.

But I could be wrong, if you have some evidence showing Chavez grabbing power for selfish reasons I would be more than happy to look it over.

- that whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing, you know.

Except we arent talking about George W. Bush who has claimed absolute power, we are talking about Chavez who HASNT.

The fact of the matter is that legitimate NGOs have concerns about this as well.

Everyone has concerns, but concerns and evidence of malfeasence are two very different things.

I am by no means clamouring for his head, and neither are the NGOs. It's still possible to support someone yet have legitimate questions about their actions, isn't it? Or am I damned for not falling into the with-us-or-against-us trap?

The issue here is that many people on the left want desperately to jump to the conclusion that Chavez is just another corrupt powermongering liar. He might be, but the cry of the cynics that anyone who doenst autmotically suspect Chavez of being a bandit is a Chavez lover does nothing but poisen legitimate discourse. Of course we are all deeply concerned about the future of Venezuala, and of course we all know how difficult it is to establish real democracy in a country, but sitting around fretting about Chavez because he isnt perfect doesnt accomplish anything.

I would also like to point out that both FDR and Abe Lincoln changed the balance of power in our government in order to accomplish thier goals. Both were accused of autocracy when in reality, particularly in FDR's case, the reforms were neccessary to get around the deeply autocratic institutions in our government.

I just wonder why so many people are worried about protecting a balance of power that served the interests of wealth. I am happy Chavez is destroying the old balance of power, that is a good thing. And so far I have seen zero evidence that the new balance of power is anywhere near as authoritarian as the last.