Let's play a game ::: For Hugo to be right, these must be wrong...

[jefferson_dem]

In no particular order --

The Carter Center
Reporters without Borders
Committee to Protect Journalists
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Freedom House
"Universities"
"The (Unnamed/Undefined) Opposition"

These come to mind right away. Please feel free to add your own.

[onenote]

1. yummy!

:popcorn:

[RB TexLa]

2. Aren't those all run by the CIA?

[leveymg]

3. WTF are you talking about? Seen a lot of posts on Venezuela here lately.

Is there a psyops -- er, public diplomacy -- program for that country now, too? Isn't Iraq and Iran enough?

[Chemical Bill]

6. It's getting sickening. n/t

[bryant69]

10. Yes it's quite clear that the only way people could come to the wrong opinion

On Hugo Chavez is through a psyops program.

Bryant

[Codeine]

62. It's BadWrongThink

and I demand that you stop it at this instant!:crazy:

[originalpckelly]

65. That's doubleplus funny, but humor is doubleplusungood...

So I don't know what the hell to do.

[Codeine]

59. Of course.

I'm totally getting paid big bucks by Uncle Sugar to disagree with creeping fascism. :eyes:

Can we have a moratorium on accusing other DUers of being Freeps, paid shills, or CIA PsyOps? Please? It's fucking pathetic that every difference of opinion is met with the same song and dance.

[comsymp]

78. Can we have a moratorium ...?

It certainly would be nice, but it would be the first time (despite all efforts) that it's happened in the 6+ years that I've been here - more's the pity.

WTF, even with its flaws, it's still better than holding it in, right?

[immoderate]

4. How do you win this game?

:shrug:

--IMM

[TahitiNut]

5. You can add Cheney/Bush. Big Oil, and the neocons to that list.

I think it's heartwarming that DU accommodates people who echo the Cheney/Bush attitudes regarding Hugo Chavez.

That's the "big tent" for ya! Whoopee.

[Dave From Canada]

7. So if Cheney/Bush say the sky is blue, we're suppose to ignore the truth?

Bush = Chavez, Chavez supporters = Bushbots.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Umm.

So if the Carter Center and "universities" say it, we're supposed to believe it?

[leveymg]

12. So much for Bush's telling remark, "I call you my base"

No, there's little similarity between Chavez and Bush supporters.

[doggyboy]

19. The OP and whole thread is pure Ad Hominem

It's right because so-and-so says so

[TahitiNut]

21. Well, perhaps you should ask the Lou Dobbs bashers that?

:eyes:

[walnutpie]

9. It is quite possible to be against Bush

and still be wrong. Opposition to the administration does not validate one's behavior.

Chavez is an ogre and a buffoon tilting at windmills for a moment in the spotlight on the world stage. I pity the suffering the Venezuelan people endure for his posturing, as I do the people of North Korea

[leveymg]

20. Another inappropriate comparison.

There's as much difference between Chavez and "Dear Leader" as there is between Venezuela and NoKo.

Here's a real ogre and a buffoon:



Actually, Hugo was pretty funny at the UN. Even veteran diplomats couldn't help but laugh in agreement at his "I still sulphur smell" joke.

[eridani]

86. Living in the fastest-growing economy in Latin America is "suffering"?

On what planet? And the private sector is growing much faster than the state sector to boot.

[NoPasaran]

11. And I'm proud we can accomodate the dictatorship fans

Now that Pol Pot is out of the game.

[High Plains]

13. Falsely calling Chavez a dictator doesn't contribute to anything.

[High Plains]

14. Neither does calling his supporters "dictatorship fans"

Gawd, the level of argumentation on DU lately is just pathetic.

[sniffa]

36. i'm missing something good

x(

[High Plains]

15. Nor does comparing Chavez to Pol Pot accomplish anything.

Actually, I encourage the poster to do a point by point comparison of the two, and then get back to me.

[ellisonz]

71. How about Robert Mugabe?

[doggyboy]

17. I'm agnostic on Chavez

but if the best the Chavez-haters can do is name-calling, then maybe I should reconsider

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Telly Savalas]

57. I'm agnostic on the guy too.

But I find the obsession with him strange.

Even if every anti-Chavez talking point were 100% true, he still wouldn't crack the Top 20 list for Asshole World Leaders.

[originalpckelly]

66. That's absolutely true, but the problem is that the Top 20 don't have people...

supporting them on our side. It worries me personally to have people on our own side so incapable of reason and common sense that they'd be in there supporting a dictator. That sort of thing could happen here in America with a person from our side doing it, and these people probably wouldn't question it. That's terrible thing to have to say, but after the last couple of days of this stuff, I'm really worried about this. That's why I keep talking about it, I can't say anything about the other people who do the same.

[Usrename]

90. That's just more hyperbole.

He does not have dictatorial powers. And he supports democratic socialism.

I think he is what he appears to be, a popular leader who refuses to let himself get caught cow-towing to the elites?

So what is your real problem with this guy?

[TahitiNut]

18. Indeed. Dear Leader wouldn't have it any other way.

:eyes:

[eridani]

87. How do you get to be elected as a "dictator"? n/t

[Sapere aude]

22. At least there is a diversity of views allowed here.

My wife's aunt is in Maracaibo and she is scared shit-less. She was one of the rich ruling class that may get killed soon.

I don't support the past of having the very rich and the very poor but both ends of the extreme are very dangerous and very wrong.

[High Plains]

26. "one of the rich ruling class that may get killed soon"

What are you talking about?

[Sapere aude]

45. My wife's aunt fears for her life everyday.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Yeah, so did my grandmother in suburban Minnesota

She actually believed everything she saw on TV and was convinced that robbers and murderers lurked everywhere after dark. When I offered to take the trash out to the curb after dark, she tried to argue me out of it and when I insisted, stood fearfully by the window with the phone in her hand.

It's the same mentality that prompts people to build gated communities and avoid going downtown.

I wonder how much your wife's aunt has been propagandized to believe that Chavez supporters are about to ransack her house with machetes any day now, or how much rich people in Venezuela sit around scaring one another with what they hear on the opposition TV stations.

I can remember what happened during the 1960s when there were race riots in major American cities--lots of white people sitting around scaring one another with what they imagined black people were going to do to them.

[pokercat999]

96. I remember that time also. Small minds in small towns

in Central and Northern Pennsylvania that had never seen a black face had their guns ready and waiting. It was pathetic.

[1932]

103. This is the best post of read here in days.

That is some excellent perspective.

I wonder if any of the anti-Chavez crowd think we need a coup in suburban Minnesota so that your grandmother can take her trash to the curb. I wonder if they think the drive for civil rights in the '60s was bad, because it upset uniformed and mislead privileged white people.

[eridani]

89. As incomes get more equal, she'll be in less danger

Kidnapping of upperclass people for ransom is very common all over Latin America, and having an income of much over 60K a year puts you in serious risk of it. That should change as poor people get more options in life.

[Usrename]

92. I'm fairly certain that Hugo won't let the poor folk get too uppity.

They are his base, and most, if not all, of the poor seem to be in much better straights since he's been in office.

[1932]

104. They're also getting what they need from the government these days

so they're not about to jeopardize the situation.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Good on them.

I'll add that to the list of things they got right, then.

- national "do not call" registry
- planned mission to Mars
- longer daylight savings time
- don't like Hugo Chavez as Venezuelan president

[NoPasaran]

39. Don't forget the aqueducts!

Wait, wrong bunch of tyrants... I got nothing

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. As Far As I Know, Cheney/Bush Support The Concept Of Gravity Too. Should I Be Wary Of Doing So?

Using the sentiments of cheney/bush as a barometer for anything and everything is a surefire way to become a fool.

One must have the ability to think for themselves and make their own deductive opinion on each individual circumstance without having to first consider if it would or wouldn't be popular based on who does or doesn't also see things that way.

[TahitiNut]

29. It's every bit as valid as the stance taken in the OM.

Take it up with the OP. :shrug:

While you're at it, let me know how there's something invalid about a head of state re-elected by a 62.8% to 36.9% majority with a 74.7% turnout. Find an American President with that kind of support and I'll eat him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election%2C_2006
:eyes:

[Dave From Canada]

81. Yep, and Saddam won his elections with 99% of the vote.

I find that usually, leaders who win "elections" with extremely large percentages, tend not be elections at all. Our Liberal party had election monitors in Venezuala for their "elections" on several occasion. They spoke very unkindly to the system in which King Hugo "won" his terms in office.

[Usrename]

91. After the "recount" Saddam had 100%

The elections in Venezuela have a clean bill of health, though. They are much better than ours, and so is their leader.

I think you are just jealous, when you get right down to it.

[Wilms]

98. Saddam allowed a recount???

Did he hang Harris and Blackwell. :shrug:

[Usrename]

100. Sure..

the way the story goes, a recount was ordered to track down all those dead people that voted against him. :hide:

[Wilms]

101. .

:rofl:

[1932]

105. The Carter Center OK'd them

so, if you're down with the OP...

[doggyboy]

33. Well, it is "just" a theory

.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. No It Isn't. Not Sure What You're Talking About.

Or are you talking about those wacko freaks that think it's a theory much like the wackos that deny evolution?

[doggyboy]

44. I made a little joke

Obviously, so small it was imperceptible. Sorry for the confusion.

I was referring to the theory of gravity and relating that to how the creationists say "Evolution is just a theory". You turned the OP argument around to argue against gravity, because Cheney believes in gravity. I facetiously added to the argument against gravity with the "just a theory" quip, which is just as silly as the OP's ad hom argument.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. I Wasn't Sure If You Meant It Seriously But In A Wiseass Way, Or Were Referencing Those That Truly

do believe it's just a theory. It's a law, not a theory.

But I do know there are some wacko groups out there that actually DO think it's just a theory and isn't for real LOL

[NoGOPZone]

40. Are you sure they do? I think it's just as likely

that they believe in Intelligent Falling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling

[krispos42]

110. Using Bush/Cheney's stances is a powerful indicator

on who or what a particular policy or political action will benefit, so it must be taken in that context. We know who and what BushCo supports and favors and who pays their bills, and why.

Is it absolute? Of course not. But if BushCo likes somethings, the chances are very high it favors Christian theocracy, the rich and powerful, or large corporation first and foremost. And the chances are very low it is supporting the Constitutional, the democratic process, or economic fairness.

I remember when Bush touted his plan to teach a second language to all schoolkids in elementry school, when their minds were still so adaptable to learning vocabulary and grammer. I thought "Wow, that's a really good idea!" Then I got suspicious and tried to see how this could make the rich richer!

Outside of the foreign-language-textbook industry, I can't see any other beneficiary, so I think it is a stand-alone good idea. It kind of surpirsed me!

[doggyboy]

16. So they can't both be partially right, and partially wrong?

It's all black and white?

[Forkboy]

30. That would seem to be the way it goes on this issue.

:shrug:

[doggyboy]

32. It figures

I never fit in anywhere

:cry:

[jefferson_dem]

43. Shame that we seem to have reached the "are you fer us or again' us" point.

In my view, an absolutist position on Hugo's recent free press/speech clamdown is perfectly understandable.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. And Don't Forget; OPERATIONMINDCRIME. Cause He's Almost Never Wrong. So What Would The Odds Be?

:evilgrin:

[underpants]

24. What? Huh? please help

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

31. Oh... and add 7,309,080 Venezuelan voters to that list.

62.84% of the votes cast in 2006 - one of the most-audited national elections in history. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election%2C_2006

I find the rabid anti-democratic postures taken on DemocraticUnderground to be very noteworthy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. It's Anti-Democratic To Think Chavez Is A Power Hungry Piece Of Shit? Really? Since When?

Please forward me the new rules dictating the democratic postures, so that I may brush up on them. :eyes:

[Codeine]

63. All of your new Acceptable Viewpoints can be found

on the ever-helpful Venezuelan Government websites. Please inculcate these into your worldview within the next 48 hours, Citizen.

[Balbus]

35. And cross two tv stations off the list...

Doh!

[NoPasaran]

46. I hear at least one of those stations showed soap operas and stuff

Mindless entertainment is counter-revolutionary, don't you know. Up against the wall, Simon Cowell!

[frylock]

51. soap operas, inciting the overthrow of the democratically elected government..

mindless entertainment, don't ya know.

[NoPasaran]

53. Of course, the coup did happen during sweeps

Ratings! Ratings! Ratings!

[frylock]

56. !!

:spray: oh man... that was good! peace.

[jefferson_dem]

41. The Chimp-in-Chief received more votes than any US presidential candidate in history in 2004 too.

Does that also make him "right"?

At any rate, i'm not questioning his position as "President", only his recent anti-free-press/speech shenanigans.

[jefferson_dem]

42. dupe.

sorry 'bout that.

:bounce:

[originalpckelly]

68. Would you explain to me what's so democratic about electing a person...

who has a history of coup attempts?

[TahitiNut]

76. Nope. Sorry. I taught high school math

... not special ed. :shrug:

[Usrename]

93. .

best evvahh..

[Kingshakabobo]

111. LOL

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[TZ]

99. BTW--I want to know since you are big on democracy..

How big an election win did Chavez buddy Fidel Castro win? Oh wait...
That's my problem with Chavez. He is friends with a no doubt dictator and he does strike me as having those kinds of tendancies even if he is popularly supported now. Most dictators got hold of power by being extremely popular at the outset.....

[TahitiNut]

114. Gosh. You're right. The Saud 'Royal' Family is sooo much better.

:eyes: And the Kuwaiti royals. And Pervie Musharrif. And the Sultan of Brunai. And the Dubai royals. And the Kink of Jordan. Yep ... those are certainly great 'friends'

(Sheesh!) :puke:

[Truth2Tell]

38. Right about what? nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. He shut down a Teevee station that was anti-Chavez and is thinking about shutting down another one.

:hi:

[Truth2Tell]

85. By "anti-Chavez" you must mean...

a station that knowingly and enthusiastically participated in an illegal and violent coup attempt against his democratically elected government?

But hey, "anti-Chavez" is all you need to say, right?

[Codeine]

94. Which illegal coup was that now?

Was that Chavez's coup, or the coup that ousted Chavez after his own coup? I'm having trouble keeping score at home.

[1932]

106. Chavez is Venezuela's only president whose party, MVR, didn't come to power through a coup!

Copei, AD and -- if I remember Richard Gott's book correctly -- every party other than MVR that has won an election to the presidency in Venezuela, came to power for the first time through a coup (including the one Chavez tried to oust -- that president was a participant in the coup that first brought his part to power).

Chavez's coup attempt failed. He went to jail.

His coup attempt was so popular (because it was against a government that killed over 1000 of its citizens in a crack-down on protests over neoliberal economic policies, including bus fair increases) that the next president (after the one Chavez tried to oust, who was convictved of crimes unrelated to the murders) had to pardon Chavez. Chavez then won the first of a series of democratic elections.

Chavez may have tried a coup. But, by Venezuelan standards, his party is pretty democratic in that it didn't gain the presidency for the first time through a coup.

[pork medley]

49. oh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwmIZtqYjfI

[Gabi Hayes]

50. thanks for that link. I just posted my first response on youtube in reply.

how many of these self appointed Chavez experts get there "intelligence" on Venezuela ANYwhere but from the same mainstream media which they excoriate for the slavish coverage given to the real dictator?

why are they so eagerly, credulously swallowing the selfsame media's CLEARLY dishonest coverage of Chavez?

mindbogglingly idiotic, WILLfully ignorant hypocrisy abounds

very very sad

[frylock]

52. ignorance is bliss

[ellisonz]

72. Amnesty and HRW are MSM?

[1932]

107. Are they advocating a coup to get rid of Chavez?

[ellisonz]

113. That is not the question.

HRW and Amnesty International are well-respected, independent human rights groups.

[1932]

115. ...who never said a word when Mexico threatened to jail an anti-neoliberal presidential candidate

because he built a road to a hospital.

But, nonetheless, I don't think they're advocating that Chavez should be deposed.

[slipslidingaway]

84. Thanks, according to Palast the U.S. State Dept. told the news

sources that Chavez had resigned, the same message Ari Fleischer delivered on 4/12/02

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html

"MR. FLEISCHER: Let me share with you the administration's thoughts about what's taking place in Venezuela. It remains a somewhat fluid situation. But yesterday's events in Venezuela resulted in a change in the government and the assumption of a transitional authority until new elections can be held.

The details still are unclear. We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis. According to the best information available, the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations. Government supporters, on orders from the Chavez government, fired on unarmed, peaceful protestors, resulting in 10 killed and 100 wounded. The Venezuelan military and the police refused to fire on the peaceful demonstrators and refused to support the government's role in such human rights violations. The government also tried to prevent independent news media from reporting on these events.

The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been installed. This government has promised early elections.

The United States will continue to monitor events. That is what took place, and the Venezuelan people expressed their right to peaceful protest. It was a very large protest that turned out. And the protest was met with violence."

[DireStrike]

54. From a tinfoil viewpoint

The water around Venezuela is now incredibly muddy. That about does it for any new Chavez supporters.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slipslidingaway]

70. Great reply! n/t

[unkachuck]

75. me too....n/t

[Monk06]

83. The morning of the coup RCTV was congratulated by the plotters...

for making the success of the coup possible.

They bragged about it.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTRlPKQWbI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkcq7WpoAmc&mode=related&search=

[ellisonz]

97. Balls and strikes, I call em like I see em.

1. The issue is more the slide to dictatorship than RCTV per say. The fact of the matter is that open media markets tend to be associated with democratic society. I would not deny the right of FAUX news to equal access even though I hate them from the very depths of my soul.
2. Ad hominem, and frankly against the spirit of DU rules if not in violation.
3. Change the subject.
4. That's a real stretch.
5. Venezuela could have had genuine democracy but Hugo does not seem to be interested in that given that he's most likely going to break his own constitution and extend his term.
6. Chavez has been power hungry for quite a long time.

Edit: For subject folksiness.

[burrowowl]

58. Go here for some Myths and Facts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1024022

[jefferson_dem]

60. Y'right. Get your pure, unfiltered propaganda right here.

We've got ourselves a modern-day "Squealer" right here! Orwell would be proud.

[Gabi Hayes]

61. it's interesting that, instead of responding to ANY of the points in the link provided, you

can only resort to name calling, like most of the substance-free antichavez people here

I know it would take actual effort on your part to REFUTE the points made in the link provided


assertions, which you failed to do, of course, in your OP

I won't hold my breath

you can start with one itty bitty point from the link. you can do that, can't you? and try providing some backup for your assertions for once

thanks so much

[jefferson_dem]

64. If you find support for your Hugo in government-issued propaganda releases, that's your prerogative.

If others aren't so easily persuaded...you should also respect.

Perhaps if you can conjure up some more "independent" perspectives you will find the refutations you are seeking.

By the way, i do refute that my use of "Squealer" was name-calling. It was an historical reference that is, sadly, becoming more and more appropriate by the day.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. And you definitely haven't been able to refute my point that,

for whatever faillings Chavez may have, the opposition have proved themselves to be WORSE, not "Jefferson Dems," but Cheney fascists.

[jefferson_dem]

73. You may be right, Lydia. However, i will not give Hugo a pass since he may be the lesser

of several evils.

A tyrant is a tyrant...whether he wears a red hat, demagogues for "the people", and calls Chimpy "el diablo" or not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Then I'll be watching for your indignant rants against the

leaders of Uzbekistan, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, China, Myanmar, and others.

[jefferson_dem]

77. If we start seeing some within the DU community celebrating their

"leadership" i'll likely be there to offer an opposing viewpoint.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Have you seen the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised?

You may call it propaganda, but nothing condemns the opposition more than their own words and actions. They don't want democracy--they just want to return to the good old days, when the rich ran the country for their own benefit and oppressed or (at best) ignored the poor.

You have to be realistic and put it all into perspective. If Chavez is a dictator (and I don't believe he is), he's sitting on the bench in the minor league dugout.

You wouldn't even know about him if the Bushies and their friends in our media weren't condemning him 24/7 as if he were the second coming of Fidel Castro (who is no saint, but not nearly as bad as our propaganda machine paints him--and that's according to a genuine political refugee from Cuba who was sponsored by my former church).

If Chavez were doing exactly what he's doing now with the TV station BUT didn't disturb the oil companies or make the wealthy landowners give their unused land to landless farmers (something which the U.S. required Japan to do in more enlightened times), the Bushies and their mouthpieces would think he was just fine.

I don't know how old you are or how well you remember the Reagan administration, but they condemned and tried to overthrow the Sandinistas of Nicaragua and paint them as "tyrants," while buddying up to Argentina, which killed 30,000 of its own people in the name of "fighting terrorism."

A few years before (1973), Henry Kissinger had helped the CIA mastermind the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. Up till then, the type of nationalistic propaganda fed to schoolchildren in the 1950s and '60's had declared that no nation had ever freely elected a Communist, and then Chile went and did it. Allende was a very mild sort of Communist, and to my knowledge, he never had anyone killed, but once the CIA had engineered the overthrow of this "tyrant" (who favored the poor over the rich, oh, the horror!), the government was taken over by Augusto Pinochet, whom you may remember as the recent subject of an extradition fight for his decades of human rights violations.

This tendency goes back to the early 1950s when the CIA overthrew one of the few truly democratically elected presidents in the history of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, at the request of the United Fruit Company. His replacement? One bloodthirsty dictator after another.

There was also heavy interference in Brazil, Haiti, Bolivia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.

So when the U.S. government, especially the Bush administration, starts demonizing a foreign leader, I wonder which one of their rich buddies is complaining about losing money. Seriously.

Frankly, I can't think of any instance in which the replacement of a U.S.-designated Latin American "tyrant" actually improved the lives of the average citizen. In most cases, it made it much worse.

You don't have to "worship" Chavez to see that. You just have to know the history of U.S.-Latin American relations. If you do learn that history, you'll wonder why the Latin Americans haven't tried to throw us out of the hemisphere.

[jefferson_dem]

82. Yes, i have seen "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and found it to be a captivating

piece of journalism. I love those sorts of "behind the scenes" political documentaries anyway.

Thanks for the historical perspective. I would never even attempt to defend the US's shameful involvement in Central and South America during the past half century. Nor am I advocating any sort of American-led opposition movement in Venezuela now. The deal is this -- I'm opposed to what i see governmental abuses of power, *especially* abuses that are exercised in the name of some progressive goals that i may share. I see the writing on the wall in Hugo's Venezuela...and it ain't pretty.

[Usrename]

95. What?

"Nor am I advocating any sort of American-led opposition movement in Venezuela now."

The reason you hate him is because he is resisting the US interventions in his country.

Unless you hate him for the literacy program or health care programs or jobs programs...

[jefferson_dem]

102. What indeed?

The reason you love him is because he is exercising unbridled authority.

Unless you love him because he wears a cool red hat and one time mentioned "sulfur."

Your comments reflect as much wisdom and insight as those above.

[1932]

109. How can you like that film and disparage the press release above?

Had I only looked through CNN's lens (and heard through NPR's microphones) their version of the story of the coup, I might have reacted the same way you are to this story about RCTV. But watching that documentary is very similar to reading the press release -- it was gave you the government's perspective first hand.

Why do you dismiss the fact-filled embassy press release but then praise the documentary?

[UTUSN]

67. Oops!!1 I've already recommended this thread!!1 n/t

[LynnTheDem]

88. The vast majority of Venezuelans say Hugo is correct.

And that, as they say in a true democracy, is that.

[Codeine]

112. Putin's vastly popular too.

I don't care for him much either. Just because they like the guy doesn't mean I have to like him; it's not like I'm calling for his assassination or anything.

[Cleita]

116. Are you Russian? Do you live in Russia?

Because if you don't, it doesn't matter that you don't like Putin. It's the same in Venezuela. At least the Venezuelan majority have a President they like. We in America can't make the same claim. The majority of Americans do not like Bush as their President. His approval rating says it all.

[Codeine]

119. I never said it mattered.

The Chavez supporters on DU voice their opinion, I voice mine.

[FreepFryer]

108. (re-post) Bush and Chavez are ideological opposites engaged in the same program.

(reposted since there are so many anti-Chavez Venezuela posts cropping up)

Bush and Chavez are both engaged in a game of 'Constitutional Hardball', in which they make every possible effort to reconstruct the government and social institutions in a way that (they hope) secures a permanent future for their ideology. It's 'constitutional hardball' because it's a 'winner-take-all' game - as arch-conservative Grover Norquist once said, "The Democrats are playing for lunch, we're playing for keeps". Left-wing or Right-wing, the game is the same. Both men are advancing their ideology without reinforcing their party position and are actively seeking to reform national institutions to favor their ideology through extreme and at times, extra-legal means.

After 30 years of relative party equilibrium in Venezuela collapsed into unprecedented anti-party sentiment, Hugo Chavez Frias won the presidential election campaigning on a platform of constitutional and social reform. After a landslide victory, he made good on his promise by calling a constitutional assembly and instituting a series of fundamental reforms that drastically transformed the political and social landscape of Venezuela. Chavez' reforms touched all areas of Venezuelan society, including the existing political party system. The effects of his movement’s reforms upon existing party structures have been deep and lasting, and while his popular support remains strong, it has yet to translate into institutionalization for even his own party. Even Chavez’ MVR party has seen its influence dwindle as the populist President has encouraged an ongoing collectivization of local political bodies in place of prior party dominance. From governors to regional mayors, Venezuelan politicians have had to contend with a new political environment in which the accumulated distrust of the political parties has itself been institutionalized.

Similarly, in the United States since taking office in the year 2000, Republican President George W. Bush has instituted a series of authoritarian reforms intended to consolidate power at every level of government. In this case, the Republican Party has facilitated a shifting of conservative coalition groups within its ranks, in favor of neo-conservative and those on the ‘Religious Right’. From agencies like the Department of Justice to FEMA, IRS to DOJ, the executive has systematically placed great power in the hands of ‘loyal Bushies’ – unquestioning ideological adherents – with little if any apparent concern for the qualifications, competence or non-partisan objectivity those positions have historically required. The damage done by the politicization of these government structures by the use of ‘constitutional hardball’ tactics on a myriad issues has greatly facilitated conservative goals, transforming the society into a decidedly authoritarian model amidst record public disapproval. The result has been a serious dilution of the effectiveness and public perception of government institutions (including the political parties themselves) in favor of an unfettered unitary executive and a rapid institutionalization of the neoconservative ideology.

In short, I believe the reason we care so much in this nation about what Chavez is doing in his nation is because the parallels with the United States are so profound - even despite the diametric opposition between their ideologies. THe reason the conservative American administration so excoriates Chavez is because he illustrates how the methodology of 'constitutional hardball' can be used to recapture political power from upper-class corporate elites and to establish a populist movement in its place. This opposite application of 'Constitutional Hardball' to achieve populist ends is what has the authoritarian Bush administration terrified.

Given the nature of democracy (rule by the people) I'm FAR more concerned about the actions of our own neo-conservative president than the perceived (and so far largely undemonstrated) claims of excesses by Chavez' populist movement.

However, I believe it's true that in both nations, it may not end soon - but it will end badly.

[Cleita]

117. Just to put what you said in capitalistic terms, Chavez has

improved the economy of his country across the board in a meaningful way with more employment and social welfare for the poorest, and Bush has destroyed ours heading into bankruptcy. The manipulation of the stock market is pretty artificial because the gains come from a lot of foreign investment. If it's the same means, the results are surely different.

[FreepFryer]

118. The opposite results are the obvious evidence of the opposing ideologies.

But again, neither president's political party has benefitted from the game of 'hardball'... Bush's GOP lost the majority Congress in 2006 and Chavez' MVR gets approval ratings far lower than his own personal approval ratings. While they each continue to institutionalize their ideology (far-right Regent University grads in highly-placed DOJ jobs, the nationalization of Venezuelan oil, electricity and telecomm infrastructure, etc.), each movement seems fairly disinterested in the 'non-hardball' game of 'getting along' in a party context.

As Grover said, each is "playing for keeps".

In each case, it's an 'end-run' around the political process, in favor of a direct (un?)-constitutional redefinition. If Bush had had the opportunity to call a constitutional convention in 2000, the U.S. constitution would have been as radically redefined as the Chavez-inspired Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 (which devastated existing party power bases). Instead, his administration behaves according to its own (Rovian) interpretation of constitutional law, with little regard for precedent - expanding his power and his ideology in every instance in which his opposition fails to challenge him. That's 'Constitutional Hardball' in America. In Venezuela, the first big score of the game was the formation of the Assembly and Chavez continues to utilize the Enabling Law to advance the movement's aims.

Needless to say, whether left- or right-wing, Capitalist or Socialist, I'm trying to avoid personal opinion and judgment on each man's political ideology and truly understand their political behavior in context. I believe both men are following the same program to advance radically different political goals - which while diametrically opposed, share a common thread in that they each discourage a robust multi-party system.

[originalpckelly]

120. Both of your posts are filled with very good analysis.

Thanks! :hi:

[FreepFryer]

121. Thank you, originalpckelly! :)

Your journal makes for a very thought-provoking experience as well. Thanks for the kind words. :D

One thing - I omitted the obvious role of U.S. legislation like USA PATRIOT and the MCA (Military Commissions Act) as part of the American 'hardball' game. Each of these 'events' has effectively and radically redefined public, judicial, executive and legislative structures, functions and laws, and so each legislative 'event' appears functionally equivalent to a 'de facto' modern constitutional congress, except without the participation of the public and indeed, most of the public's representatives.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

122. Venezuela isn't really our business

I'm not pro-Chavez, nor anti-Chavez.

I don't see what the big deal is here. He's not the only leader to censor the press. Let's focus on what goes on in our country instead of playing the world policeman.

[Odin2005]

123. I swear some DUers have lost touch with reality. Too much tin foil going around.

The enemies of our enemy are NOT necessarily our friends or necessarily good people.

Some people need to mellow out and not go into a crazed, irrational frenzy of righteous indignation when a negative news story about Venezuela or Iran is posted. :eyes: