The Hugo Chávez Show
The president of Venezuela promotes populist anti-Americanism.
By Eli Rosenberg, UCLA
Monday November 13, 2006
Every Sunday morning in Venezuela, public television cuts off abruptly to reveal a black screen. This is the silent pause before the airing of the country’s most famous show: Interrupting regular broadcasting around 11 a.m., “Aló Presidente” is President Hugo Chávez’s weekly show—forcibly aired on all public channels—in which Chávez is allowed to be simply Hugo, talking, singing, and even reading poetry for hours on end.
 The leader of a 1992 failed coup, Hugo Chávez has been making waves across the globe ever since he was elected president in 1998. Everything he has done in office has been to his sole political benefit: stacking the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices from 20 to 32, changing the constitution to increase the presidential term from five to six years, and increasing executive control over the nationalized petroleum company by gutting the leadership after more than half the workers went on strike in late 2002.
With a National Assembly without a single representative from the opposition and 22 out of 24 state governors part of his political movement, there seems to be no limit to Chávez’ power. He is all but guaranteed reelection in the upcoming Presidential contest in December. With nobody to challenge him and nothing to contain him, “Aló Presidente” is Hugo Chávez at his finest: uninhibited, spirited, and clearly in his element, he is almost always amiable and intimate as he denounces fellow world leaders (usually George W. Bush), dreams about future projects, or even dismisses executives of the state oil company, PDVSA, by exclaiming “You’re out!” while he fires each with the blow of a whistle—reality TV style—as he once did in 2003. Watching “Aló Presidente,” one gets the feeling Chávez is serious about wanting to change the constitution (again) so he can remain in office until 2031 or beyond, as he so often asserts is his desire.
And while one has to wait until Sunday to watch “Aló Presidente,” the Hugo Chávez show never ends. Chávez is always putting on a performance, flaunting, appeasing and appealing to his audience simply because he can.
According to a March press release from the Inter-American Press Association, Chávez appears for 40 hours a week on Venezuelan television. To say he enjoys the spotlight would be an understatement; Chávez seems to thrive on the conflict he is able to generate with a microphone.
At the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September, Chavez stood at the same lectern that George W. Bush stood on a day before, denouncing the man he typically refers to as Mr. Danger and now calling Bush “the devil,” to the giggles and gasps of a crowd unaccustomed to such theatrics. But this was hardly a shocking turn of phrase from a man who has called Bush a donkey, a drunk, and a coward in recent months. This kind of rhetoric has become commonplace in Chavez’s frequent speeches, in which belligerent rants are a near daily occurrence. It is this kind of talk that causes many Venezuelans to shake their heads in disbelief.
To his loyal followers at home, sensational rhetoric may be an effective show of rebellion against world powers, but it is unclear how Chávez’ behavior plays on the world stage, where his abrasive manner and hubris—the swagger now referred to as Chavismo—seems to give credibility to his opponents.
Undoubtedly, Chávez’ Bolivarian Revolution relies on having something and someone to fight against. And through his pugnacity, Chávez has found a way to stay perpetually in international headlines
It is this ubiquitous presence that makes it impossible to imagine Venezuela right now without Chavez. He is treated in some corners as an almost messianic icon. Indeed, he paints himself as the representative of the leftist movements sweeping South America, and has come to personify a solution to the profound inequality and poverty that has plagued Latin America for decades: opposition to the Western free market system.
Most recently, to the deep concern of the Bush Administration, Chavez has forged strong ties with Iranian President Mahmoud Amahdinejad. “We stand by Iran at every moment, in any situation,” Chavez said in late August after accepting a golden High Medallion of the Islamic Republic of Iran from Amahdinejad in Tehran. The two countries are bonded by their common goal of higher oil prices and common enmity toward the United States and Israel.
Yet despite the surface level tension between Venezuela and the United States, and Chávez’s seemingly hollow threats to stop selling oil to the U.S., business between the two countries is still being carried out as usual. Venezuela continues to provide around 15 percent of U.S. oil, which accounts for a majority of Venezuelan sales, revealing a surprisingly symbiotic relationship.
Recently Chávez purchased weapons from Russia; he is training and recruiting a “million-man” civilian army prepared to defend Venezuela in what he terms a “hundred years’ war” should the United States ever decided to invade Venezuela. While this is nothing more than pure speculation at the moment, Chávez’ fear-mongering becomes slightly less ridiculous with the knowledge that Venezuela has been surging to the top of all U.S. government watch lists in recent years due to its alleged ties to Colombian guerillas and Chavez’s alliance with Iran.
Last April, as tensions heightened between Venezuela and the United States, the U.S. Military’s Southern Command launched Operation Partnership of the Americas, a large-scale military operation involving more than 6,000 troops and numerous battleships in the Carribean, as part of what they termed “efforts to improve training and readiness of U.S. naval forces in the region.” Often docking at ports in the Netherlands Antilles, not more than 30 miles off the coast of Venezuela, the military posturing was taken by many in South America as a warning from Washington that it is carefully watching the leftist turn in politics on the continent. This saber-rattling had the effect of intensifying the sentiment among most Venezuelans that regardless of their feelings about Chavez, they are united around a profound hatred of George W. Bush and the Iraq war.
Venezuelans are also aware of the undeniable advances that Chávez and his revolution have brought to a country where around 60 percent of the 26 million people are poor, and half of the poor lack the means to eat a full diet.
Chávez’ vast network of lavishly funded social programs—Las Misiónes—are obvious in any Venezuelan city as new schools, medical clinics run by Cuban doctors, literacy programs, housing projects, and subsidized supermarkets are visible in nearly every poor community in the country. The feeling of hope and progress inspired in these communities is palpable even to the outsider in the men who are employed to staff programs benefiting their own neighborhoods, the children who will tell you they can eat now because of the nutrition programs in schools, and the old women who smile as they recall being flown to Cuba, free of cost, for cataract removal surgery.
Venezuela feels like a country in the middle of a growth spurt, as the opening of new buildings, public transit systems and water treatment plants is a near daily experience in most cities. Yet however widespread the improvements are, the question remains as to whether these programs—all products of oil money—have actually addressed the roots of Venezuelan poverty, or if they have only temporarily alleviated its daily manifestations. In a country with very little economic production outside of the petroleum industry, it remains to be seen whether the poverty level has actually decreased as much as the government likes to claim, or whether Venezuela is simply benefiting from the growth provided by high oil prices.
In Venezuela, there seems to be little space between loving and hating Chávez. He provokes such emotional responses that it becomes difficult for many to analyze him objectively. Numbers pertaining to poverty, the economy, or exactly how and where government money is spent are in perpetual dispute.
Depending on whom you ask, there seem to be two realities here: the Venezuela that is progressing like never before, or the Venezuela that has become a nightmarish autocracy, so much so that thousands of Venezuelans have fled the country. So many Venezuelans have settled in Miami that they are now the second-most populous immigrant group there, after Cuban exiles. Under Chávez, it has become nearly impossible for Venezuelans to get visas to even travel to the United States. Many Venezuelans I have spoken to attribute this to the fact that the U.S. government increasingly fears that Venezuelans travel there to seek permanent asylum.
Overall, Chavez seems to embody the contradictions inherent in a country overflowing with them; uniting while dividing, inspiring hope while inciting anger, indicting the rich of the world while unabashedly sporting a Rolex watch, preaching peace while purchasing weapons and recruiting an army. If Chavez’s presidency is embodied in his television show, it is the hope of many that his promises will become more of a reality and less of a soap-opera.
Eli Rosenberg is a junior at UCLA. He spent 6 months studying in Mérida, Venezuela, where he also taught English at a public school.
An earlier version of the article appeared on www.beyondchron.org.
Illustration: Matt Bors
--------
Comments
|
!
You wrote “it is unclear how Chávez’ behavior plays on the world stage, where his abrasive manner and hubris…seems to give credibility to his opponents.”
From my perspective — and notwithstanding the ominous bullshit and kneejerk critiques that make their way from the Jewish Telegraph Agency to the Miami Herald to FT to the Economist to Reuters to AP — Chavez plays very well on the world stage. He would have my vote in a nanosecond.
— VP Cosmicum - Nov 13, 08:47 AM - #This article has some inaccuracies. The claim that there is “nobody to challenge” Chavez in the upcoming election is patently false. Manuel Rosales is challegning Chavez for the Presidency. Also, the author fails to mention that the reason the National Assembly is controlled entirely by pro-Chavez elements is because the opposition chose to boycott the last election.
— AKM - Nov 14, 01:17 PM - #Rock on, AKM. You’re absolutely right.
It’s also worth noting that Eli spent six months in Merida, which is one of the most conservative and anti-revolutionary areas in the country (along with San Cristobal, Maracaibo and Nueva Esparta). I wonder if that location was his choice.
— Liberaltarian - Nov 15, 09:25 AM - #You know, sometimes I wonder why articles like this one don’t get fact-checked. Its quite despicable; this article had some VERY basic factual errors and yet no red flags were raised. Why?
— AKM - Nov 15, 03:16 PM - #Yes, I too agree with AKM—this article was not fact checked. In fact, it is a rather bias report from someone—like you said, Liberaltarian—who spent time in a conservative area of the country. Eli, did you go to the poor sections? Did you actually talk to the poor people?
Also, in the second paragraph, Rosenberg writes: “The leader of a 1992 failed coup, Hugo Chávez…” Maybe it’s just me, but the sentence structuring is confusing. It leads the reader to believe that Chavez was the leader of a failed coup, when he is actually the democratically elected victor of the 1998 Venezuelan presidential election. It was the United States’ CIA who tried to oust Chavez in 2002’s failed coup d’etat.
Eli—and every one else who reads this—I recommend you watch the documentary film: “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.”
Also, the people that have fled Venezuela are the rich, land-owners who don’t want to share the wealth. It’s the same thing that happened in Cuba. Why do you think the Miami Cuban-Americans are so conservative, which is such an anomaly in the way Latinos politically lean. They get political asylum in the U.S. because they oppose Castro. Yet, Haitians, who truly need the asylum, are denied and immediately deported.
I’m disappointed Campus Progress would post such a “Bush-speak” article.
— Caroline - Nov 16, 03:25 PM - #If you are going to criticize this article for factual inaccuracy, I suggest you get your facts straight first. Chavez did, in fact, lead a failed coup in 1992, as well as have a coup attempted against in him 2002. Additionally, the article states “With nobody to challenge him and nothing to contain him, “Aló Presidente” is Hugo Chávez at his finest…” – not saying that no one is opposing him in this election, but that Chavez’s power within Venezuela is unopposed and unconstrained. This may or may not be true, but it is a wholly different point.
As for the basic point of the article, no comment so far addresses its fundamental point – that Chavez has systematically undermined the democratic institutions of Venezuela. His popularity is no excuse for his efforts to centralize control of all elements of Venezuelan government and society in his hands and to eliminate alternative centers of power. He has used oil revenues to enhance his personal stature among the Venezuelan people rather than make smart policy choices. His foreign policy is based not on any interest in the poor, but rather on cozying up virulently anti-American regimes (no matter what you think of the US, Belarus, Iran, and Syria do not have “nice” governments). And Chavez’s purchase of millions of AK-47s and funding for politicians in neighboring countries does nothing to help the people of Venezuela.
Whatever you may think of his efforts to help the poor, a post-Chavez Venezuela will be farther from a stable, democratic system and closer to an authoritarian, closed, and abusive system because of his centralization of power and undermining of democratic institutions.
— Ben - Nov 16, 04:16 PM - #Regard the above as Eli Rosenberg’s propaganda. USA paid for the (failed) coup of Hugo Chavez,hence making him even more popular amongst his people. Bush has forced the world into an arms race with his hegemony. (“You’re either with us or against us” blabber). Any country South of our border that has tried to have a democracy has found the USA assassinating their democratically elected presidents (ex.,Allende in Chili & supporting an mini-equivalent to Saddum Hussein:Pinochet). You have to work to get the truth. Read “The Greatest Story Ever Sold”.) lggoodier
— L.G.goodier - Nov 16, 06:26 PM - #I am also curious as to why such a bias report on the current state of Venezuela would be posted. If this website is really about progress, then I think that it should filter its articles a little more closely. Progress in this country and around the world is not going to come about through this us vs. them or good vs. evil mentality that for so long has plagued our human race. The article states, “Yet however widespread the improvements are, the question remains as to whether these programs—all products of oil money—have actually addressed the roots of Venezuelan poverty, or if they have only temporarily alleviated its daily manifestations.” To me it seems that that the daily manifestations of poverty, little to no food or poor education, are the exact physical realities that need to be adressed when confronting poverty. I guess the alternative would be to let the IMF or the World Bank alleviate the poverty of Venezuela and a attach a guaranteed failed plane for democracy. I would like to believe that campus progress posted this article to test the responsiveness of college students in todays day and age, but am not naive enough to believe that the powers that be have not penetrated this website and the spread of truth amongst the movers and shakers of the college age.
— Jim - Nov 16, 07:20 PM - #Regarding the statement that “however widespread the improvements are, the question remains as to whether these programs—all products of oil money—have actually addressed the roots of Venezuelan poverty, or if they have only temporarily alleviated its daily manifestations.” Changes like this alter the reality of the people involved. Entrepreneurs can only and will naturally arise after people are fed, housed and educated.
— Bonnie Holsinger - Nov 16, 09:55 PM - #No Ben, the statement “with nobody to challenge him” clearly implies that Chavez has no challenger in the upcoming election.
Also, you don’t know Chavez’s motivations any more than I do. To think otherwise is judgemental. So don’t say that his programs “aren’t really targeted at the poor.”
And finally, you criticized Chavez for buying weapons and AK-47s. Gee, I wonder why Chavez would be so paranoid? Maybe it has something to do with the US plots against him that have continued since the coup attempt of 2002.
— AKM - Nov 16, 10:03 PM - #I thought the piece was decent and well-written. I am not an expert on Venezuela, and would not pretend to be one; hwoever, I am disconcerted by the whiff of anti-Semitism in the remarks of “V.P. Cosmicum” and the sarcastic rebuttals of AKM to Ben. What’s with that? Why not just debate the merits of what is posted or actually read it with an intent to learn, as opposed to searching for things with which you can immediately disagree because you don’t like the tone? We’ve got plenty of examples of ad hominem attacks and a failure to listen to one another honestly in the world around us. Caroline seemed disappointed that a piece from Eli who is probably in line with the mission of Campus Progress (supporting young advocates, activists, journalists, and artists as they develop fresh ideas and perspectives and seek to communicate in new ways) is not in consance with her views. I think we are missing a larger point.
— 53egradstudent - Nov 16, 10:51 PM - #Kudos to all the readers who read this article and saw the inaccuracies. I’m not saying Chavez is an angel, but his work to actually “Make Poverty History” should be commended.
Also, I think the larger issue this article highlights is that Campus Progress & the Center for American Progress are both essentially Clinton hold-overs who are not seriously looking to create alternatives to corporate-led globalization. Clinton was welcomed as a hero at the Summer conference two years ago and no one seemed to mention his role in increasing corporate control globally through the IMF, WB and trade agreements, welfare “de-form,” his stance against gay rights, his inaction in Rwanda, I could go on and on. Chavez is important because he is working to build an alternative to the current model of globalization which obviously does not work for the majority of people around the world. His work with other Latin American countries (as well as assisting poor communities in the US) is important because it is the start of realizing a different economic and social model (ie: not the FTAA) in the era of globalization. Thus, it should be taken seriously by people who are concerned about poverty elimination, indigenous rights, women’s rights, etc.
The publishing of this article shows us that Campus Progress is essential not concerned about challenging elite-driven economic policies and the increasing oppression of poor people. I suggest that as “progressive” students we start to develop counter-institutions which can bring like-minded students together in a way that is more empowering and progressive than this organization.
PS: When Eli complains about Chavez changing the Constitution, that is another huge distortion because that was a democratically decided process. The new constitution even included clauses which allowed the opposition to do the recall election (which Chavez then won in an election which has been approved by third party monitors).
— TN - Nov 17, 08:43 AM - #Good points, TN: I’ve always had a bad taste in my mouth from CAP/CP’s Clinton-cuddling and tendency of sycophancy toward big-name powerbrokers.
It’s useful to look at the new democratic structures that Chavez’s party and independent activists are setting up across the countryside. For those students of Dual Power, it’s a fascinating program. Local neighborhood, community and regional assemblies are being organized from the ground-up, in a very decentralized, rhizomic fashion. Don’t simply equate democracy with parliamentarianism.
It’s also inspiring to look at what is going on in the economic sphere. Taking a page from Argentina’s grassroots movement, Venezuela is offering workers at state-owned jobsites/factories to reorganize them democratically, giving workers actual democratic control of their economic lives. Several banks are currently being set up to finance worker-controlled buyouts of private firms as well. It’s a brilliant move in the right direction, and I only wish there was a comparable movement in the U.S.
— Liberaltarian - Nov 17, 09:24 AM - #I have to agree with 53e that’s what’s most disappointing about this discussion is not that most posters disagree with me, but the tone of the whole thing. The comments seem to not only disagree with what was said in the article, but also with the fact that this issue is even being discussed. I respect not everyone views this issue like I do, but if one is only allowed to have the “right” viewpoint and all other views are not just wrong, but harmful to even discuss, it’s impossible to figure out what is really right and who is really wrong. The Bush Administration is brilliant at fitting the national discourse to this model, and that’s why Iraq (to name one example) has gone so horribly wrong. Stick to the facts and to reasoned argument, and you’ll get a lot farther with people who disagree with you (like me) than if you resort to ad hominem attacks.
— Ben - Nov 17, 02:32 PM - #I appreciate the concerns of Ben, etc. about this debate, but in the defense of the other writers, I think they definitely were using facts to reasonably dispute the “facts” Eli presented. It is also important to put this specific debate in context which is that in mainstream US media, Chavez is grossly misrepresented. I am merely stating this as a “fact” and “reasoned argument” that the fact that the US government has made very clear their involvement in trying to oust Chavez by any means necessary complicates this discussion and makes it difficult to engage in any sort of type of “rational” and “neutral” discussion of facts.
Which brings me to a second critique about Eli’s article: the subtitle. I really think that it is extremely important for us to be specific in our language choice. This country is the United States, it is NOT America. Venezuela and the US are America, as is Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico, Chile, etc. And honestly, why is there the implicit argument in this article (and in public discourse in general) that people from other countries should not be angry with US foreign policy and the Bush administration. Quick reality check: the US government is actively seeking to overthrow Chavez — I think he is allowed to speak openly about this. Look at the recent US actions in Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, the support for repressive governments in the Philippines, Colombia, etc. as part of the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. There are some very justifiable reasons for world leaders to be extremely angry with the US and instead of complaining about “anti-Americanism” we should be working to change our government policy so that it actually promotes human rights, equality, peace, etc.
— X - Nov 17, 10:36 PM - #Ben,
It all comes down to this: if the assertions made are wrong, they should be corrected. They haven’t been, and you don’t want them to be. And where are the “ad hominem attacks” you are referring to?
— AKM - Nov 18, 05:02 PM - #For ad hominem attacks, my post was referred to as “Eli Rosenberg’s propaganda” – no argument there, just rhetoric. AKM also misquoted me – I said Chavez’s foreign policy, not him programs, were not aimed at the poor, not his programs (many of his domestic programs undoubtedly are aimed at the poor, and it would be a a stretch to make that claim). Not an ad hominem attack, but a misrepresentation of my point none the less.
As for the remainder of this argument, I’m not sure what there is to back up the assertion that the U.S. is planning on invading Venezuela or plotting to overthrow it’s government. The U.S. is certainly no fan of the Chavez, but it is quite certain that the U.S. has not been planning to invade Venezuela as Chavez claims (any student of international politics should know this, as should Chavez’s advisors). And if you consider the history, the US has gotten out of covertly sponsoring coups since the end of the Cold War 15 years ago.
Despite all the hostile rhetoric, Venezuelan oil is still sold predominantly to the U.S. – suggesting that all of Chavez’s talk is more rhetoric designed to stir up anti-American sentiment then serious policy. His rather ostentatious trips major U.S. enemies and declarations of friendship with regimes like Iran, Syria, and Belarus (who are among the most repressive governments in the world) do not speak well for his human rights credentials.
However, my main concern his over-the-top rhetoric, but his demonstrated disregard for democracy. In 1992, he attempted to lead a coup (for which he was imprisoned). When he was elected, his first act was to rewrite the constitution. During this process, he governed without opposition, and the final document granted him increased powers. His party granted him the power to rule by decree for one year in 2000. He appointed his supporters to the elections board, which subsequently disqualified a substantial portion of the signatures on his recall referendum. He has also made a clear effort (as the television program discussed above demonstrates) to identify the programs he has implemented (and the benefits that flow from them ) with him personally, not with the Venezuelan government.
Now, imagine Pres. Bush mandated that all the major networks carry an hour long address from him every week. And that he appointed the majority of elections monitors before the 2004 elections, who proceeded to disqualify. millions of voters. And that he regularly talked about how the U.S. was threatened by foreign powers that wanted to overthrow him and oppress the American people. And that he personally endorsed the election of radical conservatives in France, Germany, and Italy (who all happened to oppose him before the war), and supported their elections using government money. This would make you very, very uneasy, I assume. Then why should similar behavior by Chavez be acceptable?
— Ben - Nov 20, 12:17 AM - #Well said Ben.
— Roberto - Nov 20, 10:17 AM - #But Ben the USA has always financed elections in the developing world and the industrialized world. Witness the USA government support of mainstream right wing parties in W.European elections. Just look at Iran-Contra documents and the CIA funds deposited for the right wing parties in the Piedmont regional elections in Italy. Or how the CIA has always got involved in French departmental, labor union (CGT vs FO), and national elections. Moreover are you telling us that the USA is not funding (NED) National Endowment for Democracy “work” on Venezuela? Or that Freedom House is not getting USA government support for its “human rights” work?
Great now we have identified another hang-out of the cold-war “left” wing neo-conservatives – Campus Progress. However, your work never did anything for the US labor movement domestically and given your support for the war in Iraq, has done nothing for the Democratic party electorally. We need progress not old tired out tirades against those foreign leaders who actually do something for their people. Join the Republicans and leave the Democratic Party once and for all please!
— albert - Nov 20, 11:52 AM - #I live in Venezuela and know this revolution from within. Eli`s article is filled with mistakes and misinformations (i.e. The sunday program is trasmitted only by VTV,and not forced on any other TV station). Unluckily you don`t have the choice to change the path on which your republicrat government is driving you and the rest of the world to hell; even more, it`s no longer the US, it`s the new mutant USrael the one ruling the world for the benefit of a tiny bunch of greedy murderers. Progressive leaders in the third world have to fight against a vast media machine aimed at brainwashing & creating consumerist habits regardless of the repeated calls and warnings about the unsustainability of this predatory approach to nature and mankind.
— Franco Munini - Nov 21, 08:55 PM - #And there`s more: Ben, what on Earth are you talking about? You`re a liar or you just spit out what mainstream media injects into your mind… without further checking? You`re talking about a real country with real people who learnt to read the truth, something that will take decades in your country (I assume you live in USAmerica) due to massive, dedicated brainwashing techniques aimed at making USAmericans believe that switching between Reps or Dems will solve present day problems. You need a true revolution, and it must spark out from these very forums. You cannot and shall not keep on delegating YOUR power to the bunch of elected, appointed or career officers presently running and ruling YOUR country.
— Franco Munini - Nov 22, 04:53 PM - #Chavez opened our eyes about this issue: we realized that the originary power lies in our, and only in our hands (by ours I mean WE THE PEOPLE). We had a countrywide referendum to recall the old Constitution and write a new one, which we approved by majority through another referendum, an example you should follow: I perceive that the growing discontent will not be ammended by just voting Dems in… they belong to the ruling class, and YOU THE PEOPLE are just tools for their game. Kick`em out and start building a true democracy.
It’s interesting to me that there are so many readers of this article who cannot handle an issue being looked at in all of it’s complexity as if someone on the left ,Chavez , is some kind of sacred cow. What’s especially disturbing to me is that the disagreement with the author then becomes an opportunity to express anti semitic ,anti Israeli and anti Berkeley feelings, no doubt aimed at the writer of this article as well as other Jewish readers.I think those writers need to take a hard look at themselves ,to see where they are truly coming from and to realize that maybe that place really isn’t very progressive after all.
— Diane Gerstler - Nov 22, 07:30 PM - #I happen to have read this guy’s stuff at the other website, BTW; and I must say that his being of “two minds” — both here and there — only points up the sad fact that the ultimate result of the struggle within his divided mind was for him to go over to the Dark Side. Another loss to Humanity. A win for The Empire.
Note too that this kid comes from a middle-class venezuelan-U.S. background, as per his own admission; and that his mind was filled with an apparently endless stream of anti-bolivarian propaganda tripe the whole time he lived there, among trite enemies of the Revolución. At least we got that much honesty out of him. However, anything beyond the merely personal — i.e. to the political — is where this person simply loses his grip on Reality, and his pathetic upbringing begins to express itself by way of jerking knee (like for a few commenters here). It seems that where this Clueless One starts to lose it is with any reality existing outside a comfortable middle-class coccoon. Any “revolutionary” act then, for instance, would be simply “illegal” — not to mention illogical and irresponsible — to him. Right, chum? So then go call the police: that’s the solution to everything, when we come down to it. Because the world works according to how the mass-media and Mom and Dad and all their country-club friends say it works. And the hired help has no say in this petty little kingdom. Private Property uber alles.
Frankly, the dishonest, biased, impoverished logic of at least one half of this piece has me wondering the value of this guy’s degree, once he finally graduates. Luckily however, there will very likely be a cushy job available for him at the Heritage Foundation, or with AIPAC or such, when he does graduate — that’s if he plays his cards right, and schmoozes the “Right” people betwixt now and then. And I do mean Right.
This is one sorry, lost, mean little article, bub. You should be ashamed of yourself and that mind of yours.
Say ‘hi’ to Darth for me too, huh?
— Comandante Gringo - Nov 23, 12:40 AM - #eli,
this paragraph in particular shows a profound insensitivity to those who live in survival mode.
“Venezuela feels like a country in the middle of a growth spurt, as the opening of new buildings, public transit systems and water treatment plants is a near daily experience in most cities. Yet however widespread the improvements are, the question remains as to whether these programs—all products of oil money—have actually addressed the roots of Venezuelan poverty, or if they have only temporarily alleviated its daily manifestations. In a country with very little economic production outside of the petroleum industry, it remains to be seen whether the poverty level has actually decreased as much as the government likes to claim, or whether Venezuela is simply benefiting from the growth provided by high oil prices.”
for those who are hungry or poor all the improvements are miraculous. What government in the world today takes these kinds of actions for it’s citizens?
get a grip, young man. your facts are not and your lack of awareness/experience shows your extreme bias in favor of those who would stop progress and go backwards in time.
keep the faith!
— juan listo - Nov 23, 12:26 PM - #Yo, Diane! Your little snippy “...disagreement with the author then becomes an opportunity to express anti semitic ,anti Israeli…fellings…”
What’s the matter? Does the truth hurt? In other words, AIPAC is a figment of imagination? The “Israel Lobby” is a figment of imagination? PENAC is a figment of imagination? You can take all your “anti” drivel and shove it where there is no daylight, Diane! After witnessing the actions of the Zionists with regards to Lebanon and the Palestinian people in general, there is no defending a muderous, illegal entity calling itself “israel”! Scream all the “anti” you like. The entire civilized world knows what “israel” is!
bikertrash
— badcompany - Nov 23, 04:03 PM - #Ben,
In case you didn’t know (which I doubt), the US still intervenes heavily in the affairs of other countries. Your argument to the contrary is both laughable and disingenous.
— AKM - Nov 25, 07:47 PM - #Remember to keep this debate in a light of constructive criticism, not destructive, in an open-minded fashion, not closed-minded and all assuming.
There are many things we do not know about what is going on in Venezuela, and of course we can look at different aspects and get a different conclusion.
The best thing to do would be to divide the issue of Chavez in an objective fashion. Looking at his development of democratic institutions, changes in welfare of people.
There has to be standards created for growth of discourse. Many of these responses are just attacks back and forth, many assume knowledge, or assume a singular perspective.
To progress, no matter what starting point, we have to aknowledge some common standard, and build from there. If you use “facts” cite where you got this information from. Essentially, all information carries with it the bias of its author.
— Progress - Nov 27, 01:19 PM - #To whoever said “Also, the people that have fled Venezuela are the rich, land-owners who don’t want to share the wealth.” I beg to differ. I used to live in Venezuela and moved to the exterior thanks to my parents’ decision to leave, even before President Chavez got to be what he is today; we are not landowners and are all hardworkers who took the chance to leave when it got to us. I am an example of the everyday person who understands the situation and believe I have an opinion that might be superior to that of someone who has never actually been in the country or is blinded by false promises and ridiculous comments. Now I go back to Venezuela every six months and observe the situation directly – to say that he is doing a good job or that he has “your vote anytime”, go back and see what it’s really like to live in insecurity that is a thousand times worse than it was before and then try to make a statement on something you have not experienced.
— IBPF - Dec 1, 09:24 PM - #I’m so happy to see most people on this listserve recognize this article as factually inaccurate and loaded with anti-Chavez bias. I spent 1 month in Venezuela, some of which was spent working in one of the “misiones” that have been created to serve Caracas’ poorest by President Chavez. It is amazing to see real empowerment among people of the third world and witness real alternatives to neoliberalism. I don’t agree with everything Chavez says or does, but I encourage everyone to visit Venezuela and see for yourself, as clearly many already have. Venezuelans welcome Americans and want to help them learn about their country.What a drag to see this kind of stuff on CAP! Read “The Chavez Code” by Eva Golinger for the real story on the US and Venezuela. The elites whose views are expressed in this article are scared silly of Chavez and what he represents. Give ‘em Hell, Hugo!
— RA - Dec 23, 04:24 AM - #It seems that our misunderstanding is Chavez best ally. Like ‘28’ I lived in Venezuela for 30 years, and I saw how the resentment against aliens grew up. Corruption was too high and government ineffective.
— Angelo Molari - Nov 19, 11:57 AM - #I wanted to see poor less poor.
Then I moved to the States.
But now wheen I read that 85% of this country’s money is in 0.5% of people’s hands, well I would like to see rich people a little less rich.
Anyway don’t under valuate Chavez. He IS dangerous.
Like Fidel, every time encounters difficulties in doing what he wants, makes one step further toward communism.