|
I was about 25. And, let me tell you, that was a lo-o-o-ong time ago. I don't trust ANY politician--even people I consider "good guy" politicians. But I also have a respect for the facts. And these casual and VERY BRIEF comments--amounting to "hit and run" posts--impugning my judgement and my command of the facts as being enraptured with a "rockstar" (Hugo Chavez) are as insulting as your presumption that Venezuelans would put up with a "dictator."
If you had any facts and brilliant analysis to bring to this matter, I expect that you would provide them for us. So, where is it? Where's the beef?
For others reading this thread, I recommend www.venezuelanalysis.com, as a good beginning for de-brainwashing yourselves about Hugo Chavez, "dictator."
And I want to point out just one fact regarding the strength of Venezuela's democracy, and the genuineness of the support for the Chavez government: In Venezuela, they have electronic voting, but it is with open source code, and they handcount FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the ballots, as a check against machine fraud. By contrast, in the USA, we have electronic voting run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code--code that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review--owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. Many states have a ZERO handcount of ballots--because there are NO ballots. In the best states--the best!--they do a lousy stinking 1% audit (automatic recount), which means that 99% of the ballots are never seen by human eyes.
Now tell me: Which of these two countries--Venezuela or the USA--has what could be fairly described as a "dictator"? The one (Chavez) with a president elected by 63% of the vote, in elections with a 55% audit, that were closely monitored and certified by hundreds of election monitors from the OAS, EU election monitoring groups and the Carter Center, or the other (Bush) whose so-called election was conducted by major donors and supporters of Bush (Diebold and ES&S), under a veil of corporate secrecy?
It seems to me that, in the latter, what we have is a Stalinist-type voting system that produces tyranny, and in the former, we have a transparent election system that respects the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
Chavez is not a "rockstar"--or, he may be to some people, the way popular politicians can be, but that is not the most important thing to know about him. That he is popular. The most important thing to know is that he was ELECTED in an open and honest process, and that his ideas and policies are supported by the great majority of Venezuelans. Can we say the same? To which country--Venezuela or the USA--are the words "tyranny" and "dictatorship" applicable?
And what entity is most responsible for claiming that Hugo Chavez is a "dictator"? Lo and behold...the Bush Junta!
This allegation that those who approve of Chavez are worshiping a "rockstar" is a lesser version of the Bush Junta allegation that Chavez is a "dictator." It impugns the judgement of the people of Venezuela, and the views of those who have closely studied their political process and other developments in South America--such as myself. I know what I'm talking about. And you come back at me with an insult.
I don't at all mind argument, and alternative and contradictory information--if you have any. EVERY politician on earth is to be distrusted, in my view. No exceptions. So if you have info on Chavez that supports your notions about him--either that the majority of his supporters are falling for a "rockstar" (--that is, that his policies are substanceless or all glitz), or that he is "authoritarian" (--in some personal way, apart from the RIGHTFUL AUTHORITY of the Venezuelan people to elect him and to empower him according to their own constitution), I welcome it. ANYONE can become a "dictator"--even someone whom I judge to be a well-meaning politician such as Chavez. But I've looked into the matter quite extensively, and I find this allegation to be baseless.
What I see in Chavez is strength--of the kind exhibited by our own FDR--not "authoritarianism." Strength in combating corrupt fascists and Bushites. Strength in advocating for the poor against the Oil Cartel, and other global corporate predators. And, if there is any doubt who Chavez gets his strength FROM--and on whose behalf it is being employed--I suggest viewing the Irish filmmakers' documentary, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (available at AxisOfLogic.com). The people of Venezuela came out into the streets en masse, and defeated a violent fascist military coup attempt, in 2002, and demanded that their Constitution and their National Assembly be restored, and their kidnapped President be returned to office. Without them, Chavez would be dead.
Would these same people suffer a "dictator" after all the trouble they have gone to, to have a democracy? Would Chavez, who owes his life to them, dare to insult them now, with personal greed for power? Perhaps. Always possible. But, so far, there is simply no CREDIBLE evidence that this is the case. Every allegation that has been brought forward by the Chavez nay-sayers, here and elsewhere, has turned out to be bogus. These are the kind of 'factoids' that Condoleeza Rice or Alberto Gonzales or Dick Cheney use, in their creation of a false narrative for war and brutal oppression. Not convincing--once you penetrate to the surface. Lies. Disinformation. That's what we're getting from our war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and Bush's State Dept., about Chavez.
Should we be cautious, in our defense of true democracy, that the emphasis remain on good policy and good government, not on "personalities" ("rockstars," "knights in shining armor")? Absolutely! I think that is a danger in Venezuela--not a reality, but a danger--for one thing, because the rightwing political opposition to Chavez has been so criminal, and so greedy, selfish, stupid and lame (much like here). His best criticism comes from the left! (--he's not radical ENOUGH!). The policies of the Chavez government are in response to decades of naked looting by the rich elite and their global corporate predator sponsors. As with FDR and the New Deal, strong remedies are needed. The rightwing has been utterly discredited--and has nothing to say for its misrule, except that CHAVEZ--CHAVEZ!--is a "dictator." What nerve!
It's kind of like Orrin Hatch calling Nancy Pelosi and the new Democratic Congress "dictatorial"--because the Bushites no longer have 100% of the floor time. Or the far right calling the interrogation of Alberto Gonzales "a witchhunt." Hugo Chavez is no more a "dictator" than US Congressional committees, now under Democratic rule, are the Spanish Inquisition. Both accusations represent the twisted fear of those who are seeing their UNTOWARD, tyrannical power, appropriately cut down to size.
Substance, friends, substance. Not insults. Give us some reliable facts and good analysis, as to why we should buy the Bushite line that Chavez is a "dictator" and that those who support him are deluded.
|