Chavez is gracious in defeat--where's the tyrant right wing sycophants feared?

[yurbud]

Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.

"I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent.

***

Chavez told reporters at the presidential palace that the outcome of Sunday's balloting had taught him that "Venezuelan democracy is maturing." His respect for the verdict, he asserted, proves he is a true democratic leader.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3944652">FULL TEXT

[acmavm]

1. He doesn't sound like the evil bastard I've been hearing about.

[dmallind]

2. Neither a fan nor a right wing sycophant

....which OF COURSE are the only two choices right? Sheesh.

But speaking as one who approaches Chavez with considerable skepticism, I'd have been a lot more reassured if he didn't end his speech with a pledge to keep trying this. That doesn't mean I think he is the devil, or he's about to break out the torture prisons and start disappearing people. I just suspect he will do whatever he can to not have to relinquish power. The future is still very much murky on whether he will do so honestly and in a real democratic manner, or not.

[madokie]

7. so in the mean time keep on trashing him as someone who can't be trusted

conflicted much or is it just me
did he just now show trustworthyness???

[dmallind]

It's a good sign. Never said otherwise

But when ANY leader starts setting in place the mechanism to allow leader-for life status, it's not exactly a stretch to be a bit worried that's what he's trying to do. And yes I'm fully aware not all democracies have term limits. However Venezuala DOES. Wanting to change that - whatever else is on the ballot and how dubious or otherwise that may be too - is not going to be without a cause for concern surely?

Consider this perhaps - even if a Democrat wins this election - even your favorite candidate - would it not raise some concern if they tried to repeal presidential term limits here - in a much more mature democracy?

[madokie]

22. On the one hand with honest paper ballot voting it scares me not in the least

but on the other hand with rigged elections it scares the hell out of me though.

[dmallind]

24. Therein lies the difference I think

I would be dubious of the suggestion even if I knew the votes would be backed up by signed affidavits and DNA evidence. I can't think of any reason other than megalomania for why someone, even with the best and most altruistic of intentions (which would be indication of nigh on inhuman personal nobility if that were the real intention - not exactly consistent with megalomania), would feel that the best thing for the country would be to have him or herself as perpetual leader.

2013 will provide the answer methinks. If not sooner of course.

[madokie]

25. no to me you are all wrong

in a society where we all have a vote and we have honest voting a tyrant is of no concern, take away the honest vote and you have a problem. I say forget about worrying about the term limits and worry about the honest elections side of the equation. wedge issues are the tool of the re:puke:s is it not? Is term limits a wedge issue to me is the issue, not the concern that paper ballots hand counted is. We didn't have term limits for 175 years or so and it was made the law not because of someone wanting to be a tyrant rather it was because the re:puke:s didn't like the idea of a president doing to much for the common man, don't forget that.
wedge issues belong on the other side of the isle if you ask me, not here on this side with us after all that is how they win elections and not on the face of their merits

[Horse with no Name]

3. Imagine that

but...but...but if he was a dictator, then how come the people got to vote in the first place?
And, when the vote came as something he didn't like, why didn't he nullify the election?
Oh wait...HIS election was certified personally by Jimmy Carter (who has said he wouldn't certify Bush's election)...
methinks folks are unsure about which country is the dictatorial one.

[Deep13]

5. Don't be so naive.

Hitler was lawfully elected by the people. Both Julius Caesar and later Caesar Augustus held power completely lawfully and with wide popular support. Napoleon became the dictator of France under popular vote.

[mogster]

That's not entirely right

Hitler did not gain any more than app. 35% of the German electorate. In fact, he lost seats in the parliament before becoming dictator, and the way he became dictator was a game 'high up there' which had nothing to do with the wish of the German people when they voted in the previous election. Most neutral German media did not despise Hitler, but supported at least some of his views.
Once in power, he utilized the new inventions of propaganda media, most notably the new invention of radio, to keep a hold on the people. The Nazi party in addition held several newspapers prior to taking over, which helped them gain momentum.

Chavez came to power the other way around; in a very hostile system, despite the media's aggressive front, due to successful campaigning on the ground. And, a strong wish in the population for _real_ system change, the same wish you can see manifested in the US grass root today.

[rAVES]

28. Hitler... Julius Ceaser... Napoleon...

We are talking about Chavez here for christ sake.. are you insane?

[Deep13]

31. Not sure what your point is.

I am well aware that Chavez is the subject of this thread. I don't know what I have said that makes you think that I do not appreciate the nature or consequences of my actions.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

33. You forgot Caligula, Ivan the Terrible and Mothra.

:rofl:

[Ignis]

38. I voted for Mothra and all I got was this damn dictatorship!

:rofl:

[Selatius]

35. Incorrect. After Hitler assumed power, he suspended all future elections indefinitely.

That's not the same thing as removing term limits.

With a dictatorship, there is no more elections. With the removal of term limits, there will be an election as proscribed by law. Whether or not the man in power wins again is still a decision up to the people. That's the key you're forgetting. The removal of term limits is not the same thing as removing the people's right to an election every four years or six years or however long the term is set by law.

[Deep13]

4. He lost. Now Chavez has to deal with the situtation as it is.

Frankly, trying to become president-for-life means he intended to become a dictator. During the reign of Augustus, the Roman Empire was still republican in form and the first emperor had very little legal power. Nevertheless, there is little dispute that in practice he exercised sole control over the whole nation.

[Cronopio]

8. How did he lose?

He's still the President, and he respected the results of a popular election. The voters will remember this.

If he was a real tyrant, he would have made it an executive order a la Bush, not a referendum to be voted on. Real tyrants don't take those kinds of risks.

Chavez will end up gaining far more than he "lost" by this.

[Deep13]

9. He tried to become president-for-life and failed.

Tyrants often are selected by popular election.

[LakeSamish706]

12. Some people really don't get the concept that Chavez is the good guy! n/t

[Deep13]

13. What's good about a dictatorship?

I got the concept that he is a "good guy." I then rejected that concept when he started shutting down the press and tried to become a dictator.

[LakeSamish706]

15. If you had the people messing around in your country like they are doing in...

Venezuela you would be shutting down these organizations too. If it were me they would not only be shut down, but in jail for what some of there rolls were in the last attempted coup.

[rAVES]

30. Shutting down the press?

Would a TV station be allowed to operate inside the US after being caught being part of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government?

[eridani]

40. Most of the press in Venezuela is still owned by the rich white opposition

Where do you get this "shutting down" crap?

[Cronopio]

19. He didn't try to become "President for life".

He tried to give the Venezuelan electorate control over how long he could retain the Presidency, rather than to a legal statute.

Yes, tyrants can be selected by popular election (Election 2000, Election 2004). That's the constant risk of democracy - that it can be voted out. How does that help your argument against Chavez?

Have you heard word that he's challenging the results yet? Mobilizing the military? If you have, I'd be curious to know about it.

[King Coal]

20. He wasn't trying to become president for life, he was merely trying to remove term limits.

Don't fall for the spin.

:hi:

[Selatius]

34. Removing term limits does not mean being president for life.

Augustus was president for life after having obtained office in a one-time bid for power.

The removal of limits simply means a person who wishes to remain in office will be forced to take multiple bids to hold onto the same power, with no guarantee of winning each new bid for office until death. FDR was not a "president for life" situation because he ran for office each and every time the Constitution mandated a new election.

He was so popular that he won four times and ultimately died in office, but the power of the people to elect someone else--and this is terribly important here--was not suspended.

[Ignis]

39. Yes, because Ancient Rome is EXACTLY the same as Modern Venezuela.

Or...well...maybe not.

[Cronopio]

6. I was never convinced that he was turning into a tyrant.

Removing term limits is *not* the same thing as "president for life". It means that he is leaving the question of how long he should be a President entirely up to the voters, not a legal statute. That's a populist idea, not an authoritarian one.

We had an extraordinarily successful populist President here back in the 1930s and 40s, and it's always seemed like a strange rationalization that term limits here were a response to a successful Presidency, not an unsuccessful one. Why should our system put a limit on success and competence?

After all, people like FDR or Gorbachev don't grow on trees. You're more likely to lower the standard by barring the Presidency to a competent person than maintain it.

[EFerrari]

36. You're right. Chavez has been unbelievably successful

at countering the multinationals' cr@p. He's well into his 5th or 6th life and he's a young man.

[Turbineguy]

10. Gad Zooks!

How I hate it when somebody does something reasonable! It really makes it difficult to take an extreme position if people are going to thwart me by doing something rational.

Luckily I don't have to worry about Chimpy McShitforbrains.

[BuyingThyme]

11. The oil companies will ready a reply.

Please stand by.

[gratuitous]

14. Don't confuse folks with facts

And as for Chavez' animosity to the Bush administration, it's because he is - first, last and always - a commie dictator! Never forget that. And it has nothing to do with that attempted coup, when the Bush administration immediately recognized the 48-hour junta when they temporary gained control of the presidential palace back in 2002. So stop saying that. Never remember that.

And thanks to the curiously selective coverage blared out by our faultless media, you never will forget and you never will remember.

[yurbud]

23. exactly

[Kingofalldems]

16. Moles, disrupters

I notice a few who oppose anyone critical of Mr. Bush, including Chavez.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Did you notice also that some people simply don't like Chavez?

It is quite possible to be a Democrat to the marrow and thoroughly dislike Chavez.

[Kingofalldems]

18. I didn't say that--read the post.

Regarding certain posters, Chavez is one of many they are critical of, including Democratic pols.

[spoony]

42. Look at his bloody screename, he's our king and sets the standards.

Lol.

[Peace Patriot]

21. No strong president. No "New Deal." Simple as that.

You can't fight Exxon-Mobile, which lives forever and holds ungodly wealth and power, with a wimpy presidency--just as FDR couldn't have strong-armed our country out of the Great Depression, and set it on a progressive path--with measures like Social Security and other pro-worker, pro-poor people policies, and, indeed, couldn't have won WW II, by being a weak sister. You know how Social Security was saved? By FDR trying to "pack the Supreme Court" (robber barons' words, not mine)--i.e., add liberal justices (9 justices is not mentioned in the Constitution--it's an arbitrary number). The fascists of that day called him a "tyrant" and a "dictator," but the pressure of that "tyranny" caused one justice to change his mind about the "New Deal." The program that was thus saved was Social Security.

The rich and the corporate always throw unwarranted charges of bully, loudmouth, tyrant, dictator, asshat, nuts, megalomaniac, egotist, powermonger, and on and on, at any strong leader who uses his energy and ideas and strength to help the poor. Not to say that power cannot be abused. Of course it can. The key is "unwarranted." They've done it to NUMEROUS union leaders, leftist leaders and populist populations, during the industrial age, in this country and elsewhere, whether it was warranted or not. Some of us recognized this tactic. That's why we have so passionately defended Chavez. Because the facts DON'T WARRANT the charge of "dictator." On the contrary, the facts overwhelmingly point the other way. And you don't think our war profiteering corporate news monopolies make shit up? Christ, WHAT have we just been through, with Iraq, but ALL OF THEM MAKING SHIT UP BEFORE OUR VERY EYES?

Chavez lost the vote by a hair (50.7% to 49.3%), immediately accepted it (will not contest it), and graciously conceded. This did not surprise those of us who have bothered to find out the truth about this "dictator." Would his rightwing opposition have done the same? The evidence of their past behavior, and their on-going threats, and who they are allied with, and who is funding them (the Bush Junta) indicates that they would have torn the country to pieces over such a close vote. Rumsfeld as much as called for U.S. military action in support of a rightwing coup. (Read his WaPo op-ed of 12/1/07, the day before this election, in which he virtually declares war on Venezuela.) If the numbers had been the reverse, what do think would be happening in Venezuela today?

It is THEY who are the "dictators"--the Venezuelan fascists and their fascist allies in Washington DC, not Chavez. He has done nothing--nothing!--to warrant that charge. He and his supporters simply want him to be strong enough to resist what's coming. (Read Rumsfeld!) Similar efforts to strengthen the presidency are on-going in the two other countries with big oil/gas/mineral resources--Ecuador and Bolivia--both with Bolivarian presidents who believe in a NEW DEAL for the poor. It is the clear strategy of the Bushites to deny them that power. In Bolivia, the right, in cahoots with the Bush Junta, are trying to split the country up, so the rich can control the resources. I hope Evo Morales wins that fight. And I hope the Chavistas re-group and propose another referendum--say, a year from now--that is not so complicated and piled with items like the 4.5 day work week that can be done legislatively, that does not contain a red flag to the fascist Catholic hierarchy (gay rights), and that there is sufficient time for people to fully understand what they're voting on. (3 million Venezuelans abstained from this vote--meaning they did not fully understand it. It had some 60+ provisions on numerous issues. And--something I didn't know--there was only one month to discuss it.)

Chavez still has 4 years as president (unless Rumsfeld gets his wish). He's had 9 years of electoral wins, and 1 loss. Not a bad record. He remains a formidable leader of this peaceful, democratic revolution of the poor in South America, with strong allies among the continent's other leaders. He and his supporters have EVERY RIGHT, in a political sense, to regroup and try again, on core issues like federal control of the central bank, socialized property, status of the community councils (grass roots, participatory democracy), and Chavez being able to run again, if needs be (if no other strong enough leader emerges who can consolidate these gains in democracy, sovereignty and economic fairness). They lost by less than 1%, with evidence of voter confusion (--not to mention the barrage of scurrilous rightwing propaganda, for instance, telling mothers that the government would take their children away!).

Would the rightwing here give up, after a 1% defeat? Yet posters here are saying Chavez should give up and never again dare to seek strengthening the presidency. What bloody arrogance to "dictate" to the president of another country who enjoys as 72% approval rating, and has never before lost an election, that he better mind his manners and shut up now, like the king of Spain told him to. Where would we be if Franklin Roosevelt had taken such advice?

[eridani]

41. Winning by 51 to 49 would NOT have been a good thing

Major changes imposed by a very slim majority can have a way of backfiring.

[pberq]

26. See related post: FEAR OF CHAVEZ IS FEAR OF DEMOCRACY by Greg Palast

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x324351

The above post is a big help - the propaganda about Chavez is deep.

[Gold Metal Flake]

27. Chavez is a threat.

We don't want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. He has recently tried to obtain significant quantities of yellow cake uranium from Africa. The threat of Chavez stands alone. Apply directly to the forehead.

[Gregorian]

29. Quick, seize the oil fields! Draw up an Executive Order.

When he didn't go on a "witch hunt" after the coup, it was obvious what kind of guy he is.

We could use more like this man.

I thought he was asking for a bit much. No problemo. The only problem I see is that knowing whether votes are valid, here or there.

Go Hugo! :)

[yurbud]

37. I remember Rummy getting apoplectic because Chavez was buying GUNS

[Igel]

32. Jury's still out.

Sorry, that's how it is.

Let's play devil's advocate. He knows that if he tries an armed imposition of tyrannical rule on the country it'll blow up in his face. He may win, he may lose, but it's not what he's about: Given how he takes things personally, how he identifies the country with his person and the State with his persona, to impose himself would deny what he believes himself to be. (Similarly--in an imprecise analogy--it's difficult, I think, for an Episcopalian Jesus to impose his will by violence and still be the same kind of Jesus.)

However, that doesn't mean that he's not a demagogue--everything points that way, and it's surprising with the sheer number of threats, real and imagined, that could only drive people to support him out of fear, terror, and hate for the Other, that this lost. Or perhaps he was simply over the top. (I mean, "Operacion tenazas" should at least sound as good in translation as it does in its original language, but "Operation Pliers" just sounds stupid; somebody wasn't thinking, the association between Venezuela's enemies being tenacious versus plying just didn't carry through.) If he realizes that he's lost supporters, he has to do something to get them back, right? And what better way than to say (a) their votes need to be respected and (b) they're not traitors, the benevolent father welcomes back to the fold ... even though they've sinned, they're forgiven.

However, he's also learned a bit. Lenin wasn't a nice guy. Lenin re-opened the concentration camps, including Kolyma. It didn't take many years before he was turning sharply tyrannical, in some ways. And this created problems. They weren't all *that* visible, and he recognized the excesses that others in his camp wanted to rush to. But he was smart enough, even while hating the stupidity of those that didn't rush to embrace his program, that things like the NEP, things like rejecting RAPP's exclusive authority over the arts, and numerous other things that were implemented in the few years after his death, were counterproductive. He just viewed them as the wrong policy in the short term: There had to be more productive ways of achieving his goals, other things that could be tried first that would bring *better*, albeit *slower*, results. Not that the harsh measures were ruled out: When necessary, he implemented them, and didn't really care about the deaths. This got him a better economy and much more loyalty, at the risk of a divided populace and delayed utopia. Dissing Lenin is much harder among ex-communists than dissing Stalin for this reason: His tyrannical tendencies are harder to ignore, his death probably prevented him from being as clearly the monster he was.

He's also seen what the cult of personality can do. Stalin still has probably millions of followers that would follow him into hell, singing Pioneer songs and waving red banners.

Now, Chavez understands this: He can't help but do so. The problem is that just because there is a model for justifying the claim that underlyingly he's a tyrant, just one with self-control, one that thinks his vanity is an important part of his tyranny, for discounting exculpatory evidence and seeing dictator-hood in his actions and words, doesn't mean he actually is. It's very nice abductive reasoning, but you can't prove squat through abduction. It means that his conciliatory words are predicted by two different theories, and don't furnish useful evidence for deciding between them. It means that making a choice between Chavez-qua-tyrannus and Chavez-qua-soter is still difficult, given the absence of recordings made while he's talking to himself in the bathroom or his home office.

So the jury's still largely out; there are hints, but on both side of the ledger. Check back in in a couple of years.