Can someone explain why Hugo Chavez threads blow up like kegs of old dynamite?

[WilliamPitt]

I'm seriously asking.

I made a point to learn as much as possible about Chavez and Venezuela after the coup, and because he was chairing OPEC. I researched Bolivarianism - oil revenues translated into social infrastructure enhancements, free schooling with breakfast and lunch for students, etc. - and also made damned sure to investigate claims about his heavy-handed tactics.

Chavez has kinda slid off my screen over the last couple of years; Iraq, Iran, Katrina, midterms and the rest of the zoo didn't leave much room for him on my plate. I am, therefore, more than 24 months behind on tracking Venezuelan affairs, politics, etc. Ergo, this may be just a big bag of dumb.

But.

1. South America still endures post-colonial aftershocks that affect every economy down there, every culture, every government, every power structure.

2. Bolivarianism basically ended the rule of oil-baron families in Venezuela, and they remain pretty irate over that. Their weath makes them formidable foes.

Basically, it doesn't really surprise me to see a populist South American leader throwing his weight around in a fight against wealthy oil barons, especially since Bolivarianism puts a big damn dent in their profit margin because that money is being used to help poor people and students. I don't like strong-arm tactics, but then again, I'm a spoiled American.

I offer this to make clear where I'm coming from in asking the original question. Am I totally wrong? I just can't get too worked up about a post-colonial leader using oil revenues to enhance the social infrastructure of his nation, because it just sounds like a good idea on its face...and I can see why he's had to break some furniture fighting the old power elite to get this stuff done.

Like I said, I'm way behind the times on this. Why do those threads cause so many flip-outs?

[BuyingThyme]

1. Because he met with Fidel!

[WilliamPitt]

3. That's it? Really?

So did Cindy Sheehan. Hell, Castro almost played for the Yankees.

Egads.

[BuyingThyme]

No, that's not it, but it's reflective of the programming which

goes off in robots whenever so-called Commies poke their heads out of the water. All you gotta do is plant a Commie seed and you own a segment of American society.

[hlthe2b]

31. It does seem very reflexive and "black versus white"

Even progressives seem to get stuck on that "socialist" label as though the hand of Joe McCarthy will reach out from his grave to nab anyone who says anything favorable about Chavez (or Castro, for that matter).

It is almost akin to some on the RW that feel saying ANYTHING positive about Arab Muslims is heresy...:shrug:

[Raksha]

192. It's a leftover Cold War mindset

and pretty much a conditioned reflex at this point. I'm old enough to remember when EVERYONE had to give lip service to anti-communism, even Democrats who hated Joe McCarthy. To be labeled soft on communism was political death in those days, kinda like being labeled "soft on crime" a generation later, or like being called soft on terrorism right now--although I think finally people are starting to see through this last one.

[rog]

183. Will ... "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is online ...

... in its entirety at Google Video.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

An Irish film crew just happened to be in the palace filming a documentary on the Chavez administration. They were there when the coup went down and filmed the entire thing. This is a 1'15" documentary on the coup, behind the scenes with both sides. Amazing, really, and it makes clear the complicity of the media in staging the coup.

Chavez's speech to his opposition in the closing minutes of the film is quite amazing.

I hope this doesn't fly under your radar, since there are so many posts. If you happen to see this, let me thank you for all you've done, and continue to do. I've been following you since before your first book, so though I'm a low poster, I've been here for quite a while.

I hope you get a chance to watch this short film if you haven't seen it yet.

Take care ...

.rog.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Because Chavez is quickly turning into his own enemy.

His performance at the UN made him look like a buffoon.

Like Putin, he's made it difficult for political opposition. He's no democrat.

[BuyingThyme]

4. I think his performance at the UN made him look like a hero.

[barb162]

105. That UN performance showed he's a buffoon.

[BuyingThyme]

133. How so?

[originalpckelly]

142. Diplomacy 101: Don't insult other leaders...

or countries. Just because we have our own buffoon, who's broken the same rules, a good diplomat will never stoop to such silliness at such an event.

[bvar22]

177. The rest of the World loved it.

Chavez drew a standing ovation from the REST of the World for that speech.
The overwhelming majority of his own country LOVED it!

You know, Chavez doesn't really care if YOU think he is a buffoon.
Chavez is a HERO to the majority of Venezuelans, and after all, Venezuela BELONGS to the Venezuelans, not to pro-colonial USA conservatives.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[BuyingThyme]

180. What is silly about what Chavez did?

I think it was boldly appropriate.

[LynnTheDem]

191. It was that standing ovation he got.

;)

[Cha]

184. Yeah, that's was classic..

Chavez!~ Any leader who is helping his people and goes to the UN and calls bush "the devil" gets an A+ in my book.

[WilliamPitt]

5. "He's no democrat."

Can you shoot me a link for the UN thing?

As for "He's no democrat," has he ever claimed to be? Serious question.

[Hissyspit]

7. "Bush Is The Devil"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html

Chavez touted Chomsky. HORRORS!

[WilliamPitt]

9. Oh shit, now I remember

Thanks.

[lonestarnot]

41. Stink'n sulfur piece of crap!

[originalpckelly]

143. The sulfur joke was funny, albeit inappropriate.

[lonestarnot]

161. Since when do we have to be appropriate with someone who lied us to war?

[Dhalgren]

8. Then neither are any of us...

[EFerrari]

36. He got a standing ovation. n/t

[dogday]

57. For his performance at the UN?`

I did not get to see that... I know many were laughing....

[EFerrari]

67. After the devil comments, there were smiles and even laughter.

I think part of the reason some people are upset by Chavez is that George Bush is an embarrassment as an envoy for the American people. (This week he's going to Europe and when I heard that, I couldn't help wincing.)

[dogday]

99. Yes and it looks as though Germany is all set to

Welcome our Dicktator.... Even in Italy, they want to declare a "No Bush" Day... They love him in Europe, no doubt....

[trotsky]

6. The main reason I think...

is the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of reasoning.

The Bushies & Republicans hate him, so therefore he must be a good guy, right?

[Captain Hilts]

45. There you go....Correct! nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. OTOH, he talks to Castro so he MUST be a bad guy, right?

:eyes:

[trotsky]

86. Well, I'd say the same kind of phenomenon happens with Castro too.

Castro was the first PITA for the communist-hating right wing.

I don't think Chavez or Castro are 100% bad, nor do I think they are 100% good. So roll your eyes if you want, I'm just making an observation and speculating.

[originalpckelly]

144. Very good observation, they've accomplished some things...

and no one should downplay those, but unfortunately they've also not been clean in the political arena, especially in the case of Castro and the making illegal all other parties in Cuba except his own.

[Cha]

186. No, I like Chavez..and it's

extra perks that he thinks bushit stinks.. but why wouldn't any sane person?

[LoZoccolo]

10. Because it brings out lackeyism in his more staunch supporters.

I don't think any of these threads you talk about are about oil and oil barons. They are more about civil liberties and demagoguery. There are people here who will justify most anything he does and says, when he seems to be a left-wing version of Bush* in some respects.

My most controversial threads tend to be about responsibility. Joining a personality cult is like, the opposite of responsibility. It's weakness; it's boot-licking. It's abdication.

[LoZoccolo]

18. And say what you will about my reply, but at least mine is based on what people do...

...rather than think. I could show you the threads where people are justifying things that most of us would think intolerable to Bush*. My opponents seem to be taking the route of ascribing unverifiable ulterior motives to what I and other people uncomfortable with Chavez are doing. We're afraid of this, don't like to be outdone in that; whatever, no one can prove it and that's why the accusation is so easily thrown out there. They can make up any bullshit strawman they want.

[Blue-Jay]

29. "My opponents..." LOL.

[endarkenment]

53. I say replying to yourself is a sign of inner turmoil and doubt.

Do you often these arguments with yourself in public?

[Morgana LaFey]

124. But there's a difference -- that's South America and this is U.S.

very, very different histories, different people, different current milieu. You can't compare them as if they are equivalent otherwise. Of COURSE we would howl if Bush did some of those things, but this is a long-term (relatively) stable democracy (or democratic republic), NOT a South American country which is used to coups and hyperinflation and on and on.

[hlthe2b]

40. Conversely, LoZoccolo

I see many who reflexively condemn any posts that try to discuss Chavez, "warts and all." It feels as though discussing Chavez in any but with the maximum condemnation, is perceived by some as total acceptance of him and his policies.

I agree with Will. It is amazing that Chavez seems to be a subject--given the preconceived notions-- that can not be calmly debated.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

114. Egg. Fucking. Zacktly.

"It feels as though discussing Chavez in any but with the maximum condemnation, is perceived by some as total acceptance of him and his policies."

Spot on.

[hfojvt]

185. which topics are calmly debated in GD?

We know which ones aren't

Israel/Palestine
Guns
Immigration
death penalty
religion
truthout
GLBT issues
sexism
Nader
primaries
IWF

What else am I missing that we have had huge flame wars over?

Maybe we don't have huge flame wars about abortion or evolution because there is very little dissent.

[The Straight Story]

11. Because no source is ever to be trusted by opposing views

If Jesus himself said chavez was a saint or a sinner Jesus would be called biased and people would say to ignore the source, he is a cia plant, or a chavez bunny, etc.

Both sides rarely listen to the other, and accuse each other of things like 'you like chavez because he hates bush' or 'you hate him because our government has told you to' and so on.

To recap: No sources trusted, so discussion can only remain on the emotional level.

[thoughtanarchist]

55. That is, imo, a very accurate assessment.

How can we tell what reports are objective, what reports are accurate?

The oil barons that oppose Chavez are leveraged in the media outlets down there, and state sponsored media is equally vulnerable to accusations of pushing an agenda.

It becomes extremely difficult to feel well informed when you cannot believe anything you read on the subject.

[glitch]

65. Poisoning the well - hard to build a community when no one trusts anyone. nt

[mconvente]

74. Now THAT's the straight story, TheStraightStory! n/t

[Az]

12. Because our irrational fear of socialism still lives with us

Lets face it. The greed inspired drive to demonize socialism and communists did a really good job. People are still scared of it. Heck liberals are tarnished by that fear as well because we keep mentioning plans that put people ahead of corporations.

People may use the word fascism as an insult but the truth is that those who like money and power love it. They want to see the economic aspect of society in charge filling their pockets with cash and power. The idea of the people being the focus of the government scares the willies out of them. Thus the terror of socialism is kept alive in our society by greed and corporations.

[hlthe2b]

48. Given a high percentage of Americans can not differentiate

socialism from communism, from fascism-- nor a representative republic from a democracy.....and that the level of understanding that exist is purely based on simplistic categorizing of "bad" versus "good," is it any wonder?

[Recursion]

104. Marx used the two terms interchangeably

What distinction do you make?

The two terms as far as I have been able to find were not distinguished until Brezhnev, when western socialists started to declare a difference between socialism and communism to disassociate themselves from Stalin. Left quite undiscussed by anyone in the mix was the possible distinction between "workers' ownership of the means of production" and "state ownership of the means of production". To the extent that socialism remains a political movement, it seems it will always gravitate towards the unfortunate condition of state ownership. Worker-owned (ie, truly socialist or communist) companies are actually quite nice; I've been part of several.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

123. No. He did not.

For Marx, Socialism was an intermediate stage on the supposedly inevitable path towards Communism, which would be the Utopia.

[Recursion]

151. Funny, I've got "Capital" and the Manifesto in front of me...

Can you give me a citation for that claim?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

155. One is the advanced form of the other. Which means they're not the same.

Although I never read Marx in the original, every explanation of Marxism I've read (and I've read many) cites Communism advertised as the "final form" of Socialism. In other words, Socialism, while it hasn't "advanced" enough, is not Communism.

That is the commonly held view of Marx's use of the two words. Are you telling me that's wrong?

[Recursion]

159. I've never read that in Marx or heard anyone who has read Marx claim that

I've read Capital, the German Ideology, and the Manifesto and I've never seen Marx make any distinction between "communism" and "socialism"; but I've only read them in English translation so I'm not really sure. If you can find a passage where these explanations you've read justify their claim that Marx distinguished between these terms, I can evaluate their argument; otherwise, it sounds pretty much extra-textual to me.

Lenin, I believe, distinguished between the two, but never as far as I have seen in his writings did Marx.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

171. Here's the Manifesto online so people can judge for themselves:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.txt

(Crap, what a pain to read.) You'll see he describes various forms of "weaker" Socialisms, Communism being the one he advocates.

[endarkenment]

131. "not distinguished until Brezhnev"?

That would be news to the socialist international and to the many non-communist, in fact anti-communist socialist parties that have been in existence for a very long time.


"The Socialist International, whose origins go back to the early international organisations of the labour movement, has existed in its present form since 1951, when it was re-established at the Frankfurt Congress. Since then it has been increasingly active and grown considerably in membership, particularly in recent years doubling the number of its members during the 1990s. Labour, social democratic and socialist parties are now a major political force in democracies around the world. Numerous member parties of the International, in all continents, are currently leading governments or are the main opposition force."
http://www.socialistinternational.org/1What/info.html

[Recursion]

150. 1951 is close enough to Brezhnev for me

It's a Cold War distinction

[endarkenment]

153. Not it isn't.

Nice back peddle though. How about just admitting that you are simply wrong on the facts? Is that so difficult?

[Recursion]

160. Except your post does nothing to dispute my point

You linked me to the 5th International which was formed by socialists who had broken with Stalinism. And I don't see any evidence they were opposing the term "socialist" to "communist" in 1951.

And nothing going on in 1951 or 1953 addresses the fact that the author Karl Marx did not distinguish between socialism and communism but used the terms interchangeably to signify a dictatorship of the proletariat to effect the workers' control of the means of production.

[endarkenment]

167. Social Democrats never broke with Stalin.

They never had to break with Stalin as they never sided with him. Lots of other marxist factions did of course break with moscow over time. Heck our own government here in the US had to 'break with Stalin' after the end of WWII, remember?

The primary difference, between socialists and communists, as the terms are generally understood, is the split in marxist theory between revolutionary communists and democratic socialists, and that split goes back to the 19th century, to the time of Marx himself. To lump all of us who believe in both socialism and democracy, and reject violent revolution into the same camp as Lenin and Stalin, which is exactly what you have done, is just rightwing bullshit. It is also typical of the political naivity of americans. Is Sweden a Stalinist nightmare?

At any rate, calling 1951 'the brezhnev era' is just back peddling on your part. You can continue to bluster away, but you will also continue to be wrong. You made an assertion of fact, your assertion of fact was wrong. Deal with it.

[meegbear]

56. DING! DING! DING! We have a winnah!

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. I find it interesting that when France or Canada or Finland elects

a socialist leader we call him names, but when anyone in Central or South America elects a socialist the CIA has him overthrown or assassinated.

If Chavez was the president of Spain, nobody would give a damn what he did.

[endarkenment]

200. We own latin america.

It is ours to do with as we will. We'd like to own Yurp too, but right now we are bogged down owning mesopotamia.

[originalpckelly]

145. Oh of course, and that whole bit about not having any freedom and re-education camps...

has nothing to do with anyone's feelings about communism in particular.

[daa]

13. He appears to be destroying the country

Since he took over the oil companies, oil revenue is down by half. They have a oil economy but there are food shortages because of price controls. The guy is a first class jerk that has no idea what he is doing. At least we have some democrats to check chimpy somewhat, but Chavez is just running wild.

[EFerrari]

28. Source? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

195. Not these sources...

The economy grew by a remarkable 16.8% in 2004 when compared to 2003, led mostly by non-petroleum sectors - the oil industry directly provides only a small percentage of employment in the country. International reserves grew to US$27 billion. Polling firm Datanalysis noted that real income in the poorest sectors of society grew by 33% in real growth in 2004
http://www.search.com/reference/Economy_of_Venezuela

Economic growth has been the fastest in Latin America for each of the past two years. In the first quarter of 2006 growth continued apace, registering 9.3%. Yet in the midst of the economic boom, inflation has been halved. This year, at least one forecaster expects Venezuela to experience its lowest inflation in 18 years though it will still be one of the highest in Latin America.

Unemployment has been steadily dropping, reaching 10.1% in April 2006. In 2005 the government's index of social wellbeing reached its highest level in 10 years. Incomes of the poor doubled in the past two years. The poverty rate, which had been increasing for most of the past twenty-five years, has been dropping. In fact, the World Bank recently noted that "Venezuela has achieved substantial improvements in the fight against poverty."
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1766

Chávez rides wave of Venezuela's economic growth
Economic growth this year is set to pass 10 percent, making Venezuela's the fastest-growing economy in the Americas.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/03/news/venez.php

Perseverance paying off in Venezuela

Despite being vilified by his political opposition at home and the Bush administration in the US, President Hugo Chavez has reversed years of Washington-influenced economic policies in Venezuela, spurring strong economic recovery.
http://www.ameinfo.com/42051.html

[madokie]

201. Thanks

[ieoeja]

130. As opposed to before he took over?

After pulling the coup then destroying the rebel Communist army that controlled most of Venezuela while his predecessor diddled, Chavez became America's "enemy" for the drastic actions he took to prevent mass starvation. Venezuela produced a surplus of food, but following the rules of capitalism, the owners of that food were exporting it to wealthier nations and letting the people in Venezuela starve. Chavez confiscated the food from the warehouses and fed the people.

So apparently there was even more starvation BEFORE he took power.

Back to why this made him our "enemy", the confiscations pissed off the owners of that food including several US based corporations, Coca-Cola chief among them.

Now, flip that scenario around. Let's say the US was exporting food to Eurpose while the people of this country starved because the Europeans could pay more for the food. Would you prefer an American president who (a) protected ownership rights, or (b) saved our lives?

[Bonobo]

14. Some people are very offended when faced with the suggestion that we have

lost the moral highground to a country to our South. They think that we should still be teaching them about Democracy.

I am in complete agreement with your assesment. Gonna have to break some eggs to overcome the lingering effects of our colonial meddling.

[endarkenment]

15. I dunno will, lets see where this one goes.

No seriously you don't understand that DU has a rightwing and a leftwing faction and that we are at war with each other and that one of the battlegrounds is the bolivarian movement's actions to reform latin american society (our view), or Joe Stalin returned in the shape of Hugo Chavez (their view)?

[Buzz Clik]

16. I'm sure those who support Chavez, even to the degree you do, ask the same question.

I've been in the middle of a few meltdowns over Chavez, and I'll give you my reason for being dogged in my anti-Chavez remarks:

1. For the most part, I recognize that what he's done for his country is positive.
   
2. His desire to migrate northward to the US to bring socialism to the underrepresented and poverty stricken in our country is ironic and fascinating, but it's also annoying (from the meddling perspective).
   
3. His towel-snapping comments at the UN about Bush being the devil and leaving the residual smell of burning sulfur are best suited for bars and locker rooms. Yeah, I hate Bush, but that was typical third-world "nya nya nya" tongue wagging.
   
4. And, his latest trick -- shutting down an opposition television station and threatening a series of others with the same. I still can't see how anyone justifies that Soviet-style hamfisted action.

Will, my goal is not to debate this with you or anyone else on this thread. You asked, and I replied.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Many thanks for the detailed reply.

I also have an odd Chavez connection: he basically airmailed billions of gallons of heating oil up here two winters ago, and saved a lot of poor folks a hell of a lot of money.

We do have the Chevron sign by Fenway, after all. ;)

[Buzz Clik]

23. Yes, exactly -- the heating oil.

That was behind my comment #2. My reaction is an odd combination of "wow, that's great" and "okay -- why is he doing this?"

I can never help being cynical when politicians start handing out "freebies" on someone else's turf.

[RaleighNCDUer]

202. Why'd he do it?

Maybe, insurance? If he very publicly sent heating oil to the Americans when the American government was unable to control the spiraling cost of the same, perhaps Americans who received it would be more inclined to look favorably upon him and object when the American government decides to declare war on his country.

I don't think he was trying to spread socialism to the Norte Americanos so much as trying to stave off another coup or an invasion.

During the cold war, how many times did we hear politicians and presidents say "We respect the people of Russia - we know they are good people, but good people living under a bad government."

Same thing.

[leveymg]

46. Used to be a Citgo Sign by Fenway

Has it changed to Chevron? If so, that says a lot in itself.

Obviously, Chavez has made some powerful enemies, and I would not be surprised if there's an orchestrated campaign to disparage him in old and new media, at home and abroad, left, right and center, alike. Like Iran war propaganda, there doesn't seem to be much distinction made anymore between foreign and domestic psyops.

[WilliamPitt]

58. My bad

Duh. I'm an embarrassment to my city for that one.

[mconvente]

80. lol Will - John Kerry "Fenway Field" moment, eh?

Haha we forgive you! :hi:

[WilliamPitt]

91. I was for Fenway Field before I was against it.

*ducking, fleeing, giggling like titmouse*

:)

[mod mom]

37. about the shutting down of television:

I am a big advocate of free speech, but when free speech entails distorting reality and passing it off as fact (think FAUX) over public air waves then I think something needs to be done. Opinion is certainly fine when labeled as such but when giant corporations (or anyone) spreads lies and misinformation and passes it off as news, then it is dangerous.

I am not saying Chavez's shutting down of tv stations is ok, I don't have enough knowledge to make that call, but I can certainly see reasons why a television station might be closed.

[EFerrari]

54. RCTV lied to the people and led them to believe he had resigned

and Globovision seemed to be calling for violence against the governmnet. That's not just misinformation, that something else imho.

[davekriss]

203. Sounds like sedition to me

So the fact that the Venezuelan State refused to renew their license to broadcast seems a small penalty in light of the crime.

[hlthe2b]

71. That one is disturbing to me too... for multiple reasons...

While I certainly don't condone shutting the stations, I have to wonder how much is a reaction to US propaganda targeting? We know that James Carville was hired to try to block more leftist governments in Brazil (Lula won anyway)and with Bolivia, Venezuela, there is definitely an "anti-imperialistic" anti-US momentum down there. After multiple coup attempts against Chavez, we know the CIA is doing everything possible with propaganda to destablize leftist governements--nothing new, this has been going on for decades (just read Confessions of an Economic Hitman should you have doubts).

SO, on its face Chavez's shutdowns looks horrendous. But, I don't think it unreasonable to ask what is behind this...:shrug:

[johnaries]

47. Can we discuss his "latest trick"?

I'm no expert on Chavez, but I know one of the mantras against him is that he opposes Free Speech. From what I understand, the Government does have censorship laws on the books, but Chavez has never used them. In this case, the TV station was actually behind a coup attempt to try and oust Chavez. That goes way beyond "Free Speech". I don't blame him for shutting down the TV Station, since it was a front for revolutionary activities. If the FBI discovered a TV Station that actively participated in attempts to bring down the government, you can bet that station would be shut down.

[arikara]

107. That plus he didn't even do it

after the failed coup, but waited until the license expired and simply failed to renew it. That doesn't seem overly antagonistic, especially as I've read elsewhere that its funded by the CIA and that it has always continued pushing for his removal from office. Could you imagine if Faux was funded by secret service from another country and openly supported a coup against the chimp? How long should they be able to broadcast?

[mike_c]

17. can't answer the direct question because I too cannot understand...

...why some here cannot seem to acquire an historical and local perspective from which to view Chavez. No, I don't think we would want someone like that as president in America, although I'd damn sure like to see some of his ideas applied here. But that is irrelevant to whether he is the right leader for Venezuela and I think he is. Obviously the majority of Venezuelans agree.

[camero]

20. A combination I think

He works with Fidel and the obvious attempt to have a successful socialist state, the oil, and his PR campaign in the US to help the lower income people get heating oil for the winters (something that's severely underfunded here and exposes our hypocrisy).

All this scares quite a few people who think that US style capitalism should rule the world.

[Cerridwen]

21. Because he refuses to act like the swashbuckling hero

from old Hollywood in which we could tell the bad guy from the good guy because the bad guy was a lousy swordsman and couldn't fight backwards retreating up the stairs; or because he wore a black hat. Because our heros must be pure as the driven snow while they fight the bad guys and they must never use the bad guys' weapons against them; it isn't honorable.

Because, while we want the Democrats to take control of our Congress and throw their weight around, we don't like what it really looks like to go after one's enemies using the enemies' tactics against them.

Because we are convinced that it's possible to fight a fight honorably and cleanly by playing by the Marquis de Queensbury rules while our opponent fights no-holds-barred and that we will win without ever getting a speck of dust on our white hats.

Because sometimes the good guys become the bad guys when they get in charge and so maybe they weren't so good in the first place or power corrupts or, or...

Because those of us who have accepted the "fact" that socialism is the worst form of evil may be confronted with the "fact" that socialism just might work; now what the hell will I believe if my most firmly held belief is proven false?

edit: punctuation

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Well For Me, It's Because Of Some Having Almost Like A Cult-Like Allegiance To Him.

I find it to be dangerous and misguided. Though he's done some good things for sure, I'm also quite wary of his hunger for power, his shutting down of the stations, his best friends of Fidel and Ahmadinejad, and his childishly provocative nature. I don't trust him or his intentions.

But when I see the seemingly cultish posters respond with their 'Viva Chavez!' and other statements that try and put forth a premise that this guy's someone to be worshiped, I feel the need to provide a counterbalance to the sentiment in order to offset. When doing so, one must match the passionate sentiment with an equal and opposite one; which in my case is a good ole "Fuck Chavez" or a "he's a piece of shit scumbag". That way, it offsets some of the worship and brings him back down to flawed human status.

[BuyingThyme]

26. Stations? Best friends? Worshiped?

Now, whose post is cult-like?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Yes.

He's going after a second station, he is close with both of those leaders (though best friends was obviously dramatized if you're gonna get all technical, but the point was clear), and yes there are many posts on him that would give off a vibe of worship.

[WilliamPitt]

38. Question

Who owns the shut-down stations? I ask because, if they are owned by and beholden to the oil elites, there may be justifiable method to Chavez's madness. For the record, I know nothing about this, so bear with me.

A power struggle can lead to carnage quite rapidly. If those stations were promoting violence, disorder, or actually threatening the social order and safety of the populace by trying to incite anti-Chavez mayhem, shutting them down makes sense.

Don't get me wrong, it really sucks. But a US station advocating for the assassination of Bush or Cheney would get closed down in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. If those Venezuelan stations were advocating similar acts against Chavez or his civil servants, a shut-down is required. Your right to free speech stops at my nose, right?

I lay this out because I feel safe to assume that these closed-down stations weren't just showing reruns of Family Ties. You know more than I, so let me know: what was the programming involved?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Here's Some Info For Ya Anyway:

Just from wikipedia, though it appears to be edited recently to favor the more pro-chavez position on things. It was quite different when I read it last week, but I'll supply it anyway.

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

From all accounts I've known, rctv did not in any way incite violence or call for a coup. Instead, they merely acted like a fox news type outlet in giving more positive tone coverage to the opposition and more negative tone coverage to Chavez. Most of it was simply about the protesters marching themselves, prior to any coup escalation, and their coverage of those protests. There's also criticism because as the coup was falling apart, RCTV didn't do any reporting towards that end, which I do actually strongly disagree with the ethics of. But I don't think that alone over 5 years ago justfies their actions of not renewing their license now. Though RCTV was obviously anti-chavez, that isn't justification enough. If they actually called for a coup or made specific calls for violence or incited riots somehow, that's different. I don't see any accounts of that having been the case though.

Like I said, I look at it like the Venezuela version of Fox News but the opposite. As much as I hate fox news and their blatantly propagandic nature, I wouldn't ever think they should have their license pulled. The point of democracy is that we have choices and the ability to exercise those choices. Chavez just took that choice away for the most watched newschannel in Venezuela

[WilliamPitt]

90. Thanks

A good starting point here. Much appreciated.

[AlCzervik]

97. from an interview on Democracy now-

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1412206
an interesting read, addresses the RCTV shutdown.

[originalpckelly]

147. You know that re-affirmed my support for Democracy Now!

They gave two sides of the story, I doubt you would never see this on any MSM TV programs, they'd probably just put up the anti-Chavez fella and leave it at that. Other pro-Chavez media outlets might have only put up the pro-Chavez guy, but they did both and I'm glad they did, it puts stuff in perspective.

[ieoeja]

136. I think FNC should have their license pulled.

Anyone watching The Daily Show knows to take their "news" with a grain of salt. But a lot of people believe the news on FNC is real.

No news organization is going to be 100% error free. But look at the difference between CBS and FNC. CBS made one mistake. Reported a correction. Then at least two people lost their jobs. FNC reports factual errors on an almost daily basis while almost never reporting corrections. Their audience remains convinced the errors are true.

I believe a news organization should be held to some standard on accuracy or have their license pulled. Show us some tittie, drop the FUCK bomb, and you get fined millions. But report lies as truth? No problemo. Now which do you think does more harm to the public?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

140. And I Thoroughly Disagree

As much as I find their tactics disgraceful, I'm also cognizant of the double-edged sword such standards would create. Who would be judge and jury? Do you truly think there are those that walk amongst us who could be trusted to be 100% unbiased in their interpretation of the standard? Unless there was a competent robot that could decipher such a standard, which of course does not exist, then the rule would be susceptible to biased interpretation. That would lead down one hell of a risky path. I don't want to go there.

Personally, about the only thing on fox news I agree with is the 'we report, you decide' meme. Though arguably we could challenge the whole 'we report' aspect, putting that aside I still think it's about choices. The stations can report how they want and it is up to the public to choose which channel they trust. If some choose to live in a bubble and convince themselves that fox news is accurate, what can ya do. But they have other choices and means necessary in which to become aware to the spin of fox news. But they should still have the ability to choose that for themselves. When you shut down stations you take choices away. Alternative, challenging and differing opinions are all important even when we heartily disagree with them

[ieoeja]

146. I don't mind differing opinions.

I disagree with the anti-gun spin most other news broadcasts slip into their broadcasting when opportunity comes up. But there is a difference between opinion and outright factual errors. FNC frequently reports demonstrably false factoids as the truth. That is (somewhat) okay in opinion pieces. But it isn't just the O'Rielly and Hannity segments. They tell outright lies in their primary news broadcasts. And for that they should have their license pulled or at least be fined.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

149. I Think You Completely Missed The Greater Point

I understand what you're saying but what you don't realize is that much of what you're saying is opinion or open to bias. Under your rules, we open the door to walk down a risky path of interpretration for who should or shouldn't lose their license.

You say they report factual errors. Much of the factual errors we balk at are really just our strong opinions of what 'the facts' are, even though common sense would be on our side as being correct. And though there are some provable factual errors, the problem is that there isn't a news station out there that at times won't make them.

Now granted, we know full well that fox makes them far more frequently and often times on purpose. But once you put such standards in place then how do you regulate who is in charge of making such decisions of who is or isn't worthy to continue being licensed? Since much of it is up for interpretation, you run the risk of having someone in there that has the power to interpret the standard however they want and if they chose, could more than likely find cause to pull licenses from whatever station they wanted if they didn't like it. That's the problem we'd face. Fox news might be glaring for us in its violations, but to someone else who is a right winger they might bring the hammer down on msnbc for olbermann etc and build a case, even if a far weaker one, that they are violating some standard somehow.

You are expressing your strong opinion and as an opinion towards fox I'm in agreement. But the risk you raise is that someone else would be casting their opinions in judgment of who should or shouldn't be licensed based on THEIR OWN criteria, and that's opening a pandora's box I'd rather stay closed.

[originalpckelly]

148. I don't think cable channels have licenses.

[rustydad]

121. Please read this article before judging

Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot
To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a familiar story.

And in this case it is wrong.

Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter.

Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have omitted or buried:

1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.

2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.

3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands, they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the opposition. RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith. Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.

Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its broadcast license renewed.

The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”

In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup. One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people, when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major justification for the coup.

RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.

If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.

RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so, without government censorship.

The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to shed light on that subject.

Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our foreign policy.

Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).

[AllieB]

137. You should start a separate post with this article

in order to debunk all the crap that gets thrown around on these threads. :-)

[NashVegas]

24. This Is Not the DU of 2002

Most of us who were on DU then were watching the coup, and the events leading up to it, in real time, and were using sources that were not in the NYT, CNN, Miami Herald, etc.

There were what? 20-25k posters, then? There were also far less "institutional" Democrats than we now have.

[High Plains]

25. One last villain for reflexive anti-communists.

It must be good reliving the 1950s.

[peacetalksforall]

27. Commie. Someone declared he is a Communist if for no other

reason than being a friend of Castro - tossing out recognition of what they have in common - the U.S. is trying to 'take them out' - tossing out recognition that Castro was abandoned by the USSR and the U.S.-Cuba wall should have come down with the Berlin wall.

We have to face the hard facts that Cuban-Americans dictate the U.S. policy against Cuba and they facilitate the uprisings against Chavez.

I'd like to know the age of people who cannot recognize any good that Chavez is doing. For some totally unsupported reason, I believe they might be young - at least the ones on DU? I don't know why I say that.

We should keep in mind that many of the deposed leaders who were 'jackled' live in the U.S. - most are in Europe. The ones in the U.S. quite likely live side by side with Cuban Americans if they are in Florida. Why be in Florida, specifically Miami, specifically Coral Gables - because there are tons of businesses involving Latin America.

Keep up your good work, Will.

[The Magistrate]

32. Probably The Most Important Reason, Sir

Is that many people do not appreciate, and in several senses of the word, that the situation in Venezuela is revolutionary in nature, albeit unusually bloodless by the standards of revolution, opposed by the inevitable riposte of counter-revolution.

Not appreciating this, many attempt to apply the standards of normal political life in a state of settled order to the situation. By these, it is fairly easy to paint Col. Chavez as a small-bore tyrant, quashing an opposition party through suppression of a hostile press, packing courts and legislatures, and acting by decree. In ordinary, peaceable political life, these are indeed wrongs that ought not to be done. In a revolutionary situation, however, in which a ruling caste is being systematically stripped of its inherited power, and is fighting to preserve its rank and priviledges, they are extraordinarily mild measures for a revolutionist with control of the organs of state in his hands. In the normal case, counter-revolution is dealt with by gun-fire and mob, mass arrests and torturous confinement and execution.

[Bonobo]

34. The Magistrate nails it.

[Zodiak]

52. I agree

The Magistrate and I are one in this opinion.

Unusual, but welcome.

[WilliamPitt]

44. You describe

those who would bring a knife to a gunfight.

Deftly put, sir. Many thanks. I have achieved clarity.

[EFerrari]

50. I think that's an eminently fair assessment, Your Honor. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

115. Thank you n/t

[Gold Metal Flake]

126. In light of your description...

How would you compare Chavez in the dacade of 2000, and FDR in the 1930s?

[The Magistrate]

128. Short Answer, Sir: Apples And Oranges

President Roosevelt was engaged in staving off revolution, by smoothing the sharpest edges of a system, whetted sharp indeed by it collapse in financial panic. This certainly resulted in improving the lives of millions of people in the country, and was bitterly opposed by much of the plutocratic and business classes, but it was anm exercise in reform, not in over-throw.

Col. Chavez is engaged in something roughly analagous to what classical Marxism would call the 'social' revolution, aimed at displacement of an essentially feudal order. His program is similar to that of the modernizing radicals of pre-Marxian Europe, a group which, it is worth pointing out, very often included rising young military men. These people wanted to improve their backward countries, and saw such things as hunger and lack of education afflicting the mass of the people as mill-stones around the neck of the nation, that would have to be disposed of to achieve its general improvement.

[Gold Metal Flake]

135. I am seeing some similarities.

Surviving a coup attempt by conservative powers, Conversion of the courts from judges and justices outrightly antagonistic to expanding freedoms (or the reduction in denied freedoms) and social programs to those who would further the progressive movement, improving working conditions for workers, empowering or not impeding labor, providing for truth and fairness in the media, creating a fairer tax system.

Considering the general tone of the various Chavez threads, I doubt a new FDR could operate in the US.

[The Magistrate]

139. There Are Similarities, Sir

Between a tuna-fish and a dolphin, too, but the internal differences remain profound, and they are very different beasts.

But it is not necessary for us to wrangle over the matter, eh?

Be well, Sir!

[lostnfound]

190. Wow.

Nicely put.

[nolabels]

193. The oligarch is being forced out with a velvet glove

Not even being able to use martyrdom as a back drop for how much they have been wronged.

Sort of like when a girlfriend / boyfriend dumps the other and tells of still wanting to be friends to be sounding good and civil to outside observers. The underside is they are saying other is inconsequential and will ignored at the leisure, in essence a double slap-down for those who would be desiring homage :shrug:

[Cleita]

33. People are buying into the anti-Chavez propaganda put out

by those interests who have much to gain from the overthrow of Chavez, the rich Venezuelan oligarchy, the global oil consortiums and American corporate interests there. It's no different than how half the country here bought into the idea that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11.

I am Chilean born, although I'm considered an American born overseas and I remember what they did to Allende, an elected president, who would have done what Chavez is doing. First he nationalized all the mines in order to gain the revenue to rebuild the economy of the country like Chavez did the oil. I remember people here in the USA buying into the "OMG he's a commie!" and "the Russians are coming scenario".

This enabled the Nixon administration with Henry Kissinger at the helm to back a military coup and assassinate Allende. They then installed the brutal dictatorship of Pinnochet for forty years of hell in a country that was a democracy in the midst of banana republic dictatorships, that had never known a revolution since they broke with Spain.

They are trying to do the same with Chavez and frankly many here are buying into the astroturf that is being spread. Years ago I told people that if Allende turned out to be a dud, the people would vote him out of office. I say the same about Chavez, but I hate to see our American hegemony, as Noam Chomsky calls it, try to bring him down with a coup that our State Department
is behind. Yet many usually intelligent and well read DUers are accepting the propaganda thrown their way.

[Zodiak]

61. but that is just it, Clieta

I would think that any long-time DUers would know that our government puts out a ton of propaganda to tilt the scales in the favor of the moneyed eite, so I am deeply suspicious of any DUer who comes here spewing pure anti-Chavez rhetoric.

How can one buy into anti-Chavez propaganda but ignore the propaganda when it comes to Democrats/Republicans or liberal/conservative?

[EFerrari]

79. Chavez has surrounded himself with leaders. I said this in another thread

that got locked but I'd like to restate it here.

Watching the film of the coup, you see his government brainstorming and working together as a creative team of peers. It was remarkable. Compare that to the sycophants and power mongers that surround Junior the Chest Beating Decider.

It's unlikely that an authoritarian would assemble the kind of team Chavez has put together.

[unpossibles]

134. thank you. To Allende

and to Mohammad Mosaddeq (Iran 1953), Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán (Guatemala 1954), and probably more that we don't know about, as well as other US-backed coup attempts.

[Greyhound]

198. Very well put, thank you. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Because there's too much black or white thinking

He does some good stuff - those who hate him will never admit to it.

He does some bad stuff - those who love him will never admit to it.

Thus blowups occur.

[Captain Hilts]

59. That's exactly correct. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I agree with you Will, my biggest criticism of Chavez is that his policies will probably fail

Because from what I've read from Paul Krugman and others, Chavez isn't making long term investments in education and other things needed to build a strong middle class.

But I'm not Chavez's economic adviser and I don't live in Venezuela, so I'm not going to throw a fit because I disagree with is economic policies.

[eridani]

187. Wrong on education

There has been a very dramatic increase in literacy, which is an absolute foundation for further educational attainaments.

[Hippo_Tron]

188. sources please

[eridani]

194. Bearing in mind that even before Chavez was elected, Venezuela was no Afghanistan

with majority illiteracy. Stats tend to show moving from 88% to 93%, with a lot of noise. It's the stories of individuals who were completely shut out of educational opportunities before that are now available to them.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1427

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2040

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1880

An innovative series of social programs known as misiones, or missions -- set up to parallel ineffective and often exclusionary government agencies or services, and largely funded through oil sales, which account for 47 percent of government revenue and 80 percent of exports -- has delivered concrete benefits to Venezuela's poor. As one example, roughly 3 million Venezuelans have enrolled in one of the four free educational missions -- basic adult literacy, primary school, high school equivalency and university -- since the programs began in 2003.

[Hippo_Tron]

197. Your sources are biased, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

A five percent increase in literacy is certainly a good thing. But 3 million enrolling in the missions out of a population of 26 million leaves the question, are the rest being educated? And what is the breakdown for what level of education those 3 million have achieved.

The missions are a first step, but what is Chavez's plan for the future? As was asked down thread, who is his economic adviser?

[eridani]

199. We're talking 3 million of the poorest of the poor--

--many adults who otherwise wouldn't be able to make up for opportunities lost long ago. For those who are of school age, regular schooling would be what they do.

[DBoon]

42. In the past some very ugly regimes have been lionized by the left

Stalin in the 1930's and 1940's, Mao in the 1960's (per the Progressive Labor Party and its role in the anti-Vietnam war protests)

I'd put Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro in the same category, though their offenses to human rights are far less than the above, and they may have actually benefitted their people.

There is now a reflexive reaction against this admiration of potential dictators, because in the past the uncritical acceptance of their regimes has seriously hurt the left's credibility and allowed the accusation that progressive are secretly working to establish a police state. Brandishing Viet Cong flags during 1960s anti-war demonstrations did not endear the average Americna to the cause (and yes, I'm sure most of the folks waving these flags were police plants).

I think many folks are now very sensitive to regimes that don't respect basic civil liberties as a result of this.

FYI, I personally think Chavez has done a lot of good, though I question whether nationalizing some industries is really going to be in Venezuela's best interest, and shutting down a private TV station is a very bad thing.

[EFerrari]

62. Have you seen the film of the coup? It shows RCTV's complicity

quite clearly.

[Zodiak]

70. yes, I have

it was disgusting and a clear-cut reason to deny renewal of their liscence in favor of publc broadcasting on that frequency.

That video is exactly like FAUX news would cover the overthrow of a Democratic President who got too "uppity", I would wager.

[EFerrari]

82. CIA has to clear these places of foreign filmmakers before

they pull this cR@p. I'm sure that's on a "lessons learned" list somewhere now. :)

[DBoon]

100. I completely believe they were involved in the coup

Shutting down independent news media is not a good thing to do regardless.

Just because they deserve to be shut down doesn't make it politically smart to do so.

[EFerrari]

102. Well, aren't those two different issues?

This isn't an independent news outlet. It is part of a conglomerate controlled by the oligarchy that has kept Venezuela in chains.

As for the political consequences, well, that's a different issue. BushCo (from the height of their own shining record) is sure playing it up as a free speech violation which it isn't. We'll have to see.

[Leftist Agitator]

141. "Just because they deserve to be shut down doesn't make it politically smart to do so."

Actually, it is smart to shut down a network pretending to be news when it skews the information so badly to make it look like murders happened that were not even real. Even our f'd up news doesn't do that (I hope). Although there will be a lot of opposition to that move, this is Socialism, not even a pretend Democracy. It is not the U.S.' job to assassinate or overthrow someone they don't like in another country, unless they are committing atrocious acts. I can't judge whether or not he has good judgment, but he doesn't appear malicious. Maybe he is a bit of an idealist, but so am I, and I hope this works out for them.

[Zodiak]

66. Man, I'm glad I wasn't born then

it would have been heartbreaking to see the defense of Stalin and Mao.

I draw the line at murder, torture, executions, political assassinations and mass-roundups/detention. If those things do not occur, then I would say that regime is at least acting in good faith (altough I do resrve the right to widen my criteria as new methods arise).

Not sure I can say that about our own govenment, to be honest.

[Swamp Rat]

43. Because many here do not understand what is happening in Venezuela.

Their uninformed comments are reactionary. Sometimes I think I am reading Freeptard Republik.

Personally, I think we have a much worse problem in the USA and should cast our eyes homeward, leaving the Venezuelans to their own destiny.

Nevertheless, since they have oil, the right wing propaganda is going to flow, often spilling over in to progressive websites as they are infiltrated by trolls.

[smiley_glad_hands]

49. Because he is a Foreign Leader and I owe him no allegiance. eom

[Zodiak]

73. I agree with that, too

I owe Chavez no allegience, but I do find his story interesting and his part of the world desperately in need of his kind of reform. For that reason alone, I watch this story develop with interest, rooting for the Venezuelan people all the way.

[Warpy]

51. Idealistic people are very hard on the imperfect

and Chavez is showing his imperfections more every day.

However, his heavy handed censorship tactics must be viewed in the light of the coup attempts against him by the former oil barons who screamed "Communism!" at Washington and got help. One can hardly blame him for wanting to stifle that sort of dissent, although the tactics seem extreme to Americans who are used to free speech as a given.

My own world has little place for saints and demons*, so I'll have to reserve judgment on Chavez for a little while longer. I do understand how idealists who are looking for a hero feel let down by his rule, and I do understand their need to vent their frustration, though I don't share it.

*I may have to rethink that one given the nature of the current US administration.

[unpossibles]

63. personally, I think it is mainly due to the remnants of cold war

anti-communist feelings/training.

It's not an easy thing to get over when you grow up hearing about the "Evil Empire" and how they all hate us and want to kill us, and how it's a good thing they're starving in bread lines because it shows how bad their system is.

I look at Chavez this way: he's not my leader. Period. I think he's doing a fairly good job, albeit with some problems. But as someone said, he's the democratically elected leader of Venezuela not America, and while I think we could learn from him, the situation is not the same. I think it's ironic and hypocritical for some to get so worked up about him (HE CLOSED THE TV STATIUONS!!!) when we do the same thing here, and in some ways we are worse with our censorship. How long would anti-American propaganda live on a network here? Not very, and certainly not for 5 years until their license expired.

Hell, showing a boob here gets you quite a fine.

I am pretty skeptical that any of the info we receive about him here is accurate.

I see a healthy economy as being able to take elements of whatever system is the right one for the specific cause and working with that, which is why I am pro-capitalism with most things, but support social medicine 100%. Making health profit-driven is proving to not work so well here.

I also think about our intelligence community's rich tradition of sowing discord and dissent abroad in left-leaning countries using media outlets, and would not be surprised if that were the case there. If so, I have no problem whatsoever with him shutting them down. On a semi-related note, I have noticed that a few of the threads ended up with some tombstones, and some of them may have indeed been plants to make DU look bad by feeding the monster.

[Forkboy]

64. I only like him because I hear he sleeps in a racecar bed with footy pj's on.

And that's just adorable.

[glitch]

68. Lol! Thanks for that. nt

[hlthe2b]

77. Wonder if he'll send me a pair? (pjs with footies)

I've missed them for so long!

Alternately, a few billion barrels of oil would do.... LOL Now, THAT's adorable!

[sniffa]

69. one couLd say the same for some of your threads

just sayin. ;)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Red baiting is always popular with the right wingers.

[JNelson6563]

75. The DLCers hate him

He is opposed to things their leaders hold near and dear.

Julie

[Zodiak]

81. One more thing

only because it has not been mentioned.

I once read in a Chavez thread that someone hated Chavez because he was pals with Iran's Ahmedinejad and therefore support Iran's foreign policy.

I failed to see that connection, but there you have it.

edit: sorry JNelson, thought I was posting to the OP

[EFerrari]

85. Well, there's that, too. n/t

[Lars39]

88. Paying off the World Bank debt early and encouraging the other

South American countries to do the same is one example.

[KoKo]

108. That and Big Business (Oil + Bushies) hate him for taking their

control...along with some in South America sick of being meddled with by US BIG Business interests.

DLC/Big Business/Repug/Libertarian...

[helderheid]

78. BOOM!

Your thread asplode. :)

[EFerrari]

83. All your booming Chavez threads are belong to us!

lol

[WilliamPitt]

92. All your thread are belong to us.

:P

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. Someone set up us the Chavez. Turn off every 'RCTV'. For great justice. -nt

[EFerrari]

163. Jinx!

[question everything]

87. Like Hitler, he was democratically elected

and then decided the hell with democracy, he wants to shut off all dissents and nationalize everything.

Yes, I know, there are many in this country who have some romantic notion about "sticking" it to capitalistic corporations, who use the word fascist so freely with our government.

To these people I advise to go live in Venezuela, or Zimbabwe, or other real fascist countries to experience up close and personal living under dictatorial rule - whether from the left or the right.

[Forkboy]

89. There it is!

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one

[sniffa]

93. nice post hitLer

[Forkboy]

95. Either you're joking or missed the point.

:shrug:

[sniffa]

98. hitLer got points too

of course i got it. ;)

[WilliamPitt]

94. Ouch, Godwin's Law says all your debate are belong to us.

I'm not disagreeing with you, because I don't know enough...but you uncorked Adolf, and that gets you the hook. :P

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

117. Invoking Godwin's Law and AYBABTU in the same post? That is SO 20th century!

:hi:

[Bucky]

125. Oh Lordy, another one of you "GodwiNazis".

I remember a pool director at one of my daughter's swimming competitions who used to refer to herself as a "pool safety nazi." At some point claims of Naziism devolve from hysterics to banality.

[endarkenment]

96. I knew we'd scrape the absolute bottom in short order.

And the only question was who would it be?

[Chemical Bill]

132. I question that.

>he wants to shut off all dissents and nationalize everything.

Please provide your proof.

Bill

[Leftist Agitator]

138. Hey

Have you ever lived in such a country yourself?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Bucky]

106. Ohh, ohh, which group am I in?

I can't wait to find out which category of "not a real Democrat" I fall in.

Oh, and while I've got your attention, let me thank you for maintaining the liberal tradition of respectful dialog.
.

[KoKo]

109. BINGO! n/t

[Bucky]

103. First hand reports of what it's like to live in Venezuela today

The Venezuelan ex-pats I know are not from the oil baron set. They're young professionals, all but one of whom came from working class origins. But they got educated and were working toward bettering themselves with their careers. They're a pretty progressive bunch, but tend to paint Chavez and Bush with the same brush. When Chavez took over, like many many other middle class Venezuelans, they stomached it for a while, then got the hell out. They loathe Chavez & what he's doing to that country.

They say street crime in Caracas and Maracaibo has gotten tons worse in the last few years. The way they describe it, it's worse than any US city I've been to. I feel relatively safe walking down any street in Houston, in the day time, even in ones that my more uptight friends say they're scared of. Getting robbed in broad daylight on crowded streets, by my friends' description, is a common occurance. One very dear friend describes four different instances when she was mugged. She's a fairly demure girl in her 20s, but was so blasé about the whole experience that the last time it happened she had the presense of mind to ask her muggers to give her her national ID card and her cell phone back.

Now, on the one hand, I tend to be suspicious of most people's accounts of being mugged. Everyone knows you pick up cool points from being the victim of a street crime. But the number of people who relate these kinds of events suggests to me that Maracaibo is not the sort of town you'd want to visit. This is the sign of a corrupt society where basic human civilities are breaking down. In the past, other Venezuelan regimes have dealt with crime in a pretty brutal fashion. When the lid comes off a history like that, some chaos is inevitable. But my Venezuelan friends universally say it's getting much worse under Chavez. And the anecdotal evidence of all those young professionals running out of the country is not a good sign.

I won't say Chavez is evil, per se, but he is scaring off a lot of talented people his country would be better off retaining. He's a bit of a little Castro: long on rhetoric, strong on poserish confrontations with Uncle Sam, and very weak on allowing open, honest criticism. He can deliver improvements in health care to the poor millions in his country because that's the sort of thing a militaristic organization does well. But the housing problem is apparently getting worse, because housing is something that command economies do poorly.

He's a mixed bag. The problem is that he doesn't have to be. He's divisive, but he doesn't have to be quite as divisive as he is. He's an Elmer Gantry, basically. There certainly is some basic good behind what he's attempting, but eventually he's gonna burn himself out. In Latin American history there are two traditional ways for men like Chavez to leave office: on a plane to Paris with a suitcase full of money and a name full of shame or going down in a hail of bullets. Neither prospect sounds very good for my friends' homeland.
.

[Balbus]

110. What the hell do they know - they only live there.

[Forkboy]

111. These people live there too.

But what do they know?

Right?

[Balbus]

112. And 32% of this nation still support Bush

Idiocy knows no right or left.

[EFerrari]

118. You're right. It really doesn't. n/t

[Forkboy]

119. So second hand accounts that you agree with = good.

Actual pictures that don't agree with your position = idiocy.

Check.

Thanks for playing.Here's your parting gift.

[endarkenment]

129. Actually you have the tense wrong - he cited ex-pats

That would be people who used to live there.

[WilliamPitt]

113. Huey Long leaps to mind.

[Bucky]

116. Maybe not that bad. Chavez screwed up the time he tried to use guns to take over.

Remember that Long ended up holding the Louisiana state legislature at gunpoint with the state guard. Maybe Hugo's more of a grown up version of Huey.

[Judi Lynn]

154. Please provide more information on what you know about Chavez' coup against Carlos Andres Perez,

the man who ordered his forces to fire into crowds of protesting citizens who poured into the streets after he raised the cost of their public transportation far beyond their ability to pay, killing off hundreds (by his administrations count, 3,000 by the public's belief), injuring thousands, and later was impeached, jailed, removed from office for embezzlement, corruption.

We really need some actual information on that armed coup you mention. Please be good enough to post it.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

182. OMG I was in Caracas on 2/12/92 and witnessed an incident

that I am more confused about than ever.

Here is a little of the detail:

In February 1992 , his (Perez, added for clarity) government survived two bloody coup attempts. The first attempt took place February 4, 1992, and was led by Lieutenant-Coronel Hugo Chavez, who was later elected President. Hugo Chavez' troops occupied the presidential palace. Carlos Andrés Pérez escaped through the garage of the palace and flew to a TV Channel, from where he was able to
control the attempt. The second attempt took place on November 27, 1992, and was controlled by Pérez shortly.
from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Andr%C3%A9s_P%C3%A9rez

I was on the Carnival cruise ship Tropicale. We were scheduled to arrive in Caracas on Feb. 12, 1992, however, the ship informed us that we might be diverted to Curacao, because of the recent coup attempt in Venezuela. I was (and still am) ignorant of the entire Venezuela situation.

It was decided, first thing in the morning that it was safe enough for passengers to disembark into Puerto La Guaira, and travel on to the city of Caracas. My SO at the time, and I, along with 1 other couple, left the ship that day (the others were terrified by the coup attempt 8 days prior).

It was a very strange (funny in some respects and very sad in another) day, I will only relate the eye witness account of an incident that day.

We had taken the bus to Caracas, and then the subway (please forgive my lack of remembering the name of the transport, I only remember it was deemed to be the second best in the world at the time), and just wandered around downtown. We visit Plaza (de or la) can't remember Bolivar and the main government building (can't remember the name) but it was white with a golden roof.

We were walking down a main street in the Plaza area, when a crowd started to form and ran toward a building in the direction we were heading. Then all of a sudden, militia appeared with machine guns, one step right in front of me, I along with my SO, stopped along with those around us. They marched out between 10-15 young men, all handcuffed individually and to each other with a chain. I remember thinking at the time, they will never be seen again.

I looked at the building and it was a university, but I cannot remember it's name.

It was so weird, because like Manhattan on New's Years Eve, masses of people in just minutes dissappeared. It was a chilling experience, and my SO, demanded that we return to the ship immediately, I protested (I wanted to speak to the people of Caracas as to what had happened), but he was terrified and I ceded to his concern.

We returned to the US on Sunday, and I believe it was that Tues., we saw on the news that the windows in front of the white building with the golden roof had been shot out, less then a week we had stood there and taken pictures.

I loved Caracas, and even though we were Americans, they treated us so kindly, some even went out of their to help us get back to the ship.

[Recursion]

162. Careful, I've gotten reamed for that comparison

But yeah, I do liken Chavez to a Venezuelan Kingfish (pescado del ray?)

[Swamp Rat]

127. My Venezuelan friends say the opposite.

They are professors, graduate students, and professionals.

After attending a week long conference on urban planning and politics, that included plenaries given by Venezuelan professors, I have a different picture than the one you describe. It's been 3 years since I've been to South America, so it was refreshing to get an update from academics directly from Caracas. They were critical of a number of minor issues but all of them had positive things to say about Chavez's policies (i.e. Communal Council Law 2006).

As for the crime, it has always been bad and corruption will exist no matter the administration. Things have become volatile there because the USA (CIA) began gumming up the works by directly supporting Carmona's coup d'état, training paid operatives who shot pro-Carmona protesters who then blamed pro-Chavez people on Radio Caracas Television, using a television station (RCTV) as a front for the overthrow of a legitimate government (that produces CIA propaganda), etc.

[treestar]

175. Too few opinions to rely on

I'd go for a broader cross section before just agreeing, even with friends.

Are these people still there and do they intend to live there for life? Or are they now American citizens, or intend to become so? Because the opinions of the former would carry some more weight.

[FreepFryer]

122. Will - here's my take: Chavez is ideologically opposite to Bush, but both follow the same game plan.

(re-post) 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.

However, I believe it's true that in both nations, it may not end soon - but it will end badly. 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, to the direct detriment of the health of the representative democracy.

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.

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.

[Taverner]

152. They explode because people can't handle non black-and-white assessments

Either is is the Bolivarian Savior to lead Venezuela into prosperity, peace and equity, or he's a Meglomaniac Stalin-esque leader who wants to kill freedom.

I have come to the conclusion that he is neither. He did some great things that no one would have even thought have doing by deposing the oil barons of Venezuela. He also ended Democracy in Venezuela.

[malaise]

156. The thing is WIlliam Pitt

You researched Bolivarianism. Additionally you don't start out imposing an 'American' interpretation of democracy.

That's a good thing. :D

[EFerrari]

164. OT: So are you finished overtakiing DU?

:)

[malaise]

165. LOL

DU is great as it is.

[EFerrari]

166. And so much better for your membership.

:toast:

[malaise]

178. And yours

:toast:

[Jed Dilligan]

157. I've been a bystander to this debate,

mainly because I don't feel informed enough. In fact, I would really like to go to Caracas and assess the situation for myself.

I have to say the pro-Chavez posters are people I tend to agree with on other issues where I'm better-informed, so I tend to trust them more. Also, the recent pictures of the pro-Chavez demonstration were clearly not pictures of a canned rally put together for propaganda purposes. Someone posted a picture of a parade in Pyongyang (alliteration accidental) to make the opposite point, but to me it demonstrated the authenticity of the Chavez event. The NK parade had as many soldiers as people, the "demonstrators" were in orderly rows, and it was much, much smaller than the crowd in Caracas. I don't think an unpopular leader could bring out this kind of support. Hell, even when Bush was riding at 70% he couldn't have brought people out like that!

My general sense is that there are a number of posters on here who are eager to distance themselves from any suggestion of socialist leanings. They are uncomfortable as members of a progressive community because of the "taint" of socialism that has always been ascribed to progressives. Chavez is an easy target for distancing purposes, so... There you have it.

[KittyWampus]

158. Chavez is now fucking with the Venezuelan economy and he's no Krugman

He is no MacroEconomist and has been essentially in reactionary mode.

I want the people of Venezuela to succeed.

When I asked all the pro-Chavez DU'ers who his economic adviser is, who is planning ahead no one could answer.

[LoZoccolo]

169. That is another thing that bothers me.

At the very least, there is going to start being massive brain drain from Venezuela. Smart people do not take kindly to demagoguery and will run to the rest of the world who will hold them in esteem if their government does not. Look at how Einstein and Freud and so many other intellectuals fled Germany.

[MasonJar]

168. Chaverz and his other leftist cohorts are the best things to happen to

the Southern Hemisphere since we started corrupting it generations ago or maybe since the Spaniards invaded. I love them all. They are using their resources to help their citizens, citizens that have been prey for so-called leaders and money grubbers and American corporations and politicos for all those same generations. Viva Chavez!

[EFerrari]

174. Que Viva!

:toast:

[rustydad]

170. Please inform your selves people

Jeeze the amount of ignorance and miss information on these anti Chavez threads is unreal. Is this DU or am I having a bad moment? From the Christian Science Monitor. Bob

Chávez is no enemy of free speech
Hugo Chávez let Radio Caracas Televisión continue to air for five years after the station supported a coup attempt.
By Bart Jones
Page 1 of 2

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's refusal to renew the license of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) might seem to justify fears that Mr. Chávez is crushing free speech and eliminating any voices critical of him. Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; the Committee to Protect Journalists; and members of the European Parliament, the US Senate, and even Chile's Congress have denounced the closure of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest private television network. Chávez's detractors got more ammunition last week when the president included another opposition network, Globovisión, among the "enemies of the homeland."

But the case of RCTV – like most things involving Chávez – has been caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard. The demise of RCTV is indeed a sad event in some ways for Venezuelans. Founded in 1953, it was an institution in the country, having produced the long-running political satire program "Radio Rochela" and the blisteringly realistic nighttime soap opera "Por Estas Calles." It was RCTV that broadcast the first live-from-satellite images in Venezuela when it showed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969.

But after Chávez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy, including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chávez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.

Snip

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html

[BeHereNow]

179. Thanks for the article- maybe some of the knee jerkers will take the time to READ it.

I swear, there are days on DU that I think I have actually stumbled
into freeperville by accident.

BHN

[Arkham House]

172. Because, sooner or later, we're going to have this happening HERE.

Eventually, we will have a Chavez--or another Huey Long--or *someone* like that--rise to prominence in the USA. I think everyone knows this, on some level--a few more years, or decades, of corporatism, one-party-state Republicanism, a bought media, rising inequality...the seeds are there, and eventually they'll blossom. And we're all interested in Chavez, because the same dynamic going on in Venezuela will occur here. How do you think "conservatives", and Fox News, say, will react to *real* democracy breaking out in the good old USA??? Much as the establishment in Venezuela is acting, only worse...so, I think we all sense that figuring out *now* how to deal with this, while avoiding becoming monsters ourselves, is going to become a pressing issue some day--and maybe sooner than we think...

[EFerrari]

173. Why don't you read up on Chavez? I bet it would allay your fear. n/t

[pork medley]

181. oh dont worry, i dont think anything like whats happening in Venezuela

is going to happen here any time soon. the only way "the American way of life" will end is by slow strangulation - no coups or violent revolutions or great awakenings, just living to see the inevitable conclusion of an unsustainable system of selfishness and personal greed

[EFerrari]

176. You devil.

:evilgrin:

[eridani]

189. There is a minority faction here who thinks that cramming neoliberalism--

--down the throats of every other country in the world, particularly those with resources we covet, at gunpoint is a good thing. They think that anyone who lives behind barbed wire in gated communities is a Real Person (TM) and the rest of the world is disposable human garbage. They are cheerleading the demonization policy that precedes any attack, direct or indirect, by our elite on countries which don't want to be part of the New World Order. They think that having 700+ military bases around the world actually has something to do with "defense".

Two countries in South America--which is which?

A. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in April 2007.
B. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in January 2007.

A. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations in April 2007.
B. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast license of one TV station in May 2007 and has made threatening noises about a second.

A. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 51% of the vote.
B. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 67% of the vote.

A. Almost nobody but hard core Internet users know anything about what's been happening in this country recently.
B. A lot of users of regular media in the US and elsewhere have heard the name of this country and worry that it might become a dictatorship if it isn't already.

A. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--crickets.
B. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--thundering and righteous condemnation.

Vanna--the envelope please!

Most people have no problems guessing that B is Venezuela, but hardly anybody knows that A is Peru. H. Con. Res. 77 (and the Senate resolution passed last week) are utterly hypocritical and unnecessary attacks on a country that Bush would like to get Congressional approval for waging terrorist warfare on. Why is Congress enabling this after being suckered on Iraq? If it's really the issue of not renewing media licenses that people are in such a tizzy about, why aren't they upset about Peru? Not to mention upset at the fact that the Bush-supported Carmona coup involved shutting down a number of TV and radio stations by armed force--they certainly didn't wait for broadcasting licenses to expire.


Substantiating references--
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=3554&blz=1
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/US_Coup_Venezuela.html
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1953
http://lanr.blogspot.com/search?q=decree
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6602551.stm

[twenty4blackbirds]

196. Thanks for the info! eom

:thumbsup:

[donsu]

204. professional disruptors

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

205. Five minute hate?

Seems to me all the right wing pundits are telling people to hate Chavez, and their fans are doing so without really thinking it through.

Chavez kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton of the 2000s.

[rucky]

206. We focus on the left-right scale, but don't really analyze another spectrum:

Authoritarian - Libertarian

Chavez is more on the authoritarian end of the Left spectrum. That touches a nerve with the more libertarian-minded folks.

I see the cultural and political need for Bolivarian-type leaders in South America, and I think it's a wonderful thing that's happening down there, but I don't really know enough about the culture to know if I could personally live in that environment and what price it would be to my principles.

[BootinUp]

207. I am now staying out of them - (forgive this slight contradiction)

I have basically decided its too soon for me at least to make any judgment on how his strong arm policies will affect the future of their form of government. Hopefully there will still be something resembling a democracy when he is through. As I said in another thread I applaud some of his actions and deplore others. As you say the history indicates that change wouldn't be easy.