Reply #35: "I was...against him from the start." Hm-m. Some open mind you've got there,

[Peace Patriot]

for a president and government that have actually been elected by the people, repeatedly, in highly monitored elections, and that enjoy widespread support within the country and in the region.

Chavez, his government and his policies have been vetted by Venezuelans, repeatedly. Everything bad that could be said about Chavez and his policies has been said, and still Venezuelans overwhelmingly support him. Do you know something that THEY don't know, that caused you to be "against him from the start"? And what is that--that makes you want to replace the leader THEY have chosen with someone else? It seems to me that, if the elections are honest and aboveboard--and that is certainly the case with Venezuelan elections--there is no good reason to oppose the choice of the people "from the start," unless you know something that most other people don't know. The presumption should be that the people of the country know what they are doing, and have good reasons for their choices. And if you have no good reason for being against this leader "from the start"--it's just some unreasonable prejudice of yours--then why should anybody heed anything you have to say about him later? You've been against "from the start." You will likely continue to be against him, no matter what he does.

"...its been a power grab from the start." First of all, what politician does not seek power? You can't do ANYTHING, for good or ill, without power. And there are many kinds of power, some good, some bad. A 70% approval rating is power--the power of the people supporting your policy. Election by 63% of the people is power--again, the power of the people. Boffo oil revenues flowing into the government is power. Could be used for good, could be used for ill. How has Chavez used that power? To enrich himself and friends? There is no evidence of it. The evidence is that the oil revenues are being used to build schools and medical clinics, to subsidize education, for land reform, for small business loans and grants, and for vast improvements in the quality of life for Venezuelans, and for long term economic purposes, such as kicking the World Bank loan sharks out of the region, and creating regional, cooperative development projects, with Argentina, Brazil and other countries.

The rightwing media and the robber barons also accused FDR of being a "dictator" and of "grabbing power." Yup, FDR was very powerful, and he most certainly "grabbed" power with both hands. But what was the EFFECT of the power he "grabbed"? The effect was to empower OTHERS--not just himself. Was that bad? Only Bushites and Reaganites think so. The vast majority of people were greatly benefited--politically, economically and socially--by FDR's "grab" of all the power he could get, to act on their behalf, against powerful corporate and financial interests that had grievously harmed them.

"Visionary" and "power grab" are not necessarily antithetical. And, again, you have to look at EFFECTS (as well as process). Hitler was both visionary and a power grabber. But he was most certainly serving his own maniacal ego, both with his "vision" and with his ever-increasing--and increasingly violent--power.

What are the EFFECTS of Chavez's power in Venezuela and the region? What is the process by which Chavez has achieved power? And is it violent power--or oppressive power--in any way?

Can you name ANY ill effects of Chavez's power? What power has he "grabbed" that has violated the Constitution or the rule of law? Has his personal power not ENHANCED the power of the Venezuelan people? They now get benefits from the government that they never had before. They now participate in government and politics in ways that most people could never even dream of before. You really need to produce facts and evidence of the MISUSE of power, if you are going to make the case that "its" been "a power grab from the start." A power grab by whom? The people of Venezuela? But...don't they have a right to power and to elect a leader who has power, to do their will and act in their interest?

Power needs to be watched, for sure. I totally agree with that. Is Chavez being watched? You bet he is. He is subjected to pervasive, and often very hostile, scrutiny. And nothing has come of it, as to detecting corruption or oppression by his government. And power needs to be balanced, and spread around. Venezuela has a national legislature, which the Venezuelan people have chosen to fill with Chavistas, also in honest and aboveboard elections. It has many small political parties, though, and there is much discussion within it, on all sides of issues. The rightwing opposition boycotted the last legislative elections--for really stupid reasons--and thus lost seats. (One of the "balance of power" problems in Venezuela is the stupidity of the rightwing opposition--it is no wonder that the Venezuelan people vote against them in such huge numbers! They do not fulfill the function of a "loyal opposition." They are a lot like Bushites.) And Venezuela has several democratic features--that we don't have--including a presidential recall provision, and national referendums on constitutional change and on important issues. (The Chavista proposal that the president not be limited to two terms will be voted on by all Venezuelans, for instance. And the rightwing opposition--funded by us--tried a recall election, and lost.) I know less about the court system--which Chavez has been accused of trying to interfere with (so did FDR, don't you know?), but the REAL interference with the court system came from the rightwing opposition, when they SUSPENDED all the courts--along with suspending the Constitution--during their 2002 attempted violent military coup. Is Chavez more of a threat to judicial system than that?

"Power grab." Hm-m. It seems to me that Venezuela has suffered a power vacuum--into which Chavez and his government have stepped. We are seeing a similar phenomenon here. Bush & Co. have very little legitimate power. 70% of the American people despise them. They have little or no people power. All they have is bludgeon power--the power to FORCE their will on us, on the Iraqis, on others. And that was the situation in Venezuela when Chavez was first elected, evidenced by some events that happened just before that, and the really terrible social and economic conditions in the country, and by the ways that the rightwing has tried to remove this legitimately elected leader. They have the brittle power of fascists--guns, tanks, CIA money, dirty tricks. They don't have legitimacy, which can only come from the people. Chavez and his government has filled that legitimacy void. And I think they've done pretty well, in respecting constitutional limits, in this rather out-of-balance situation, in which no other leader can even come close to Chavez's popularity. In fact, the Chavistas--and Venezuelans in general--are passionately devoted to their Constitution.

One other criteria by which to judge Chavez's power--is it "power grab"? is it legitimate?--is the relations that Chavez has with other leaders in the region, and with institutions like the OAS. Chavez has REALLY GOOD relations with the other leftist leaders in the region, and is good friends with Evo Morales (president of Bolivia), Rafael Correa (president of Ecuador), and Nestor Kirchner (president of Argentina). Would THEY be friendly with Chavez if he were a "dictator" or had ill intentions? On the contrary, they defend him (against the Condi Rice's of this world), and work closely with him. So does Lula da Silva (president of Brazil). And the OAS just voted for Venezuelan membership on the OAS Human Rights Commission. What do these South Americans see that Muryan--who's "been against Chavez from the start"--didn't want to see "from the start" and doesn't want to see now? That Chavez's power is legitimate, and being used to good ends, and that he is, indeed, "visionary" in a good way--and an inspiration to all of them, as a matter of fact.

Be ever vigilant, I'd say, over all political and government power. But, for heaven's sake, let's also give credit where credit is due, as to democratic achievements, or at least keep an open mind, most especially about countries and leaders that the Bush Junta has an avid interest in demonizing. Venezuela has a better democracy than our own, in many respects. They are also very poor--by design of the rich--and have been battered into submission by our government and corporate rulers for decades. If we had a decent government ourselves, the U.S. would be friends with Venezuela, and aiding them in every way we could toward social justice and self-determination. But we DON'T have a decent government. And it's a stretch to call what we have a democracy. The Venezuelans could teach us some things, if we bother to find out what's really going on there, and ignore our delusional news media. THEY have transparent elections. We don't. Start with that. And maybe we, too, would have a leftist (majorityist) congress and president, if our system was counting all the votes. Then we could start worrying about things getting too out-of-balance toward the left. I'd prefer that worry to the one we have now.