|
...that is, that the natural white roses are "in fact" red because the Red Queen is red, so they had better get PAINTED red, real fast, or she will have your head chopped off.
Donald Rumsfeld kind of thinking--someone who also compared Hugo Chavez to Adolph Hitler (as bherrera recently did). But who actually resembles Hitler--Chavez, who has no resemblance to Hitler at all, in the real world--if you respect real world facts--or Rumsfeld, who slaughtered a hundred thousand innocent people in the bombing of Baghdad alone, tortured thousands of prisoners and shredded Iraq's secular society with assassination squads and other horrors--in the actual, real, palpable, bleeding human world? Remember how he had a policy of not counting the Iraqi dead? That's your "Red Queen."
bherrera has put himself/herself in the company of congenital liars and psychotic (not living in the real world) mass murderers. As with Rumsfeld, nothing that bherrera says can be trusted, and, indeed, the best rule of thumb is to presume that, whatever bherrera says, the opposite it true. In the REAL world--on the basis of real world facts--Chavez not only bears no resemblance to Hitler whatsoever, he is the opposite of Hitler and bears a great deal of resemblance to FDR, especially as to FDR's "New Deal" policies, and also in respect to what the rightwing of the "New Deal" era called FDR, a "dictator." Rightwingers and corpo/fascists perceive rule by the majority as tyranny. They think that the elite should rule. They are anti-democratic. And how anyone can construe Chavez's policies of empowering the poor majority, doing the will of the people--on health care, education, land reform, use of the country's resources, such as oil, to help the people who live there, maximizing citizen participation in government, opposing U.S. corporate domination, and U.S. bankster and war profiteer looting, fostering cooperation among Latin American countries, and so on, as "fascism," is inexplicable except, as I said, that bherrera lives in the upside down, inside out, backwards world that Lewis Carroll so brilliantly mapped in "Alice in Wonderland" (aka, "Through the Looking Glass").
In the real world of the politics of democracy, the Chavez government would be quite unusual if it hadn't engaged in "gerrymandering." I don't know if they have. I do know that "gerrymandering" can be used for good or for ill--for instance, drawing a district so that African-American votes don't get diluted (denying them representation) but get concentrated, guaranteeing them representation.
Say you have an urban area with a lot of poor black voters concentrated in one place. Would it be fair to splinter off pieces of that area, combining the pieces with adjacent wealthier white suburban areas, so that the districts end up majority white/wealthy and poor blacks can never elect an candidate from their own ranks to represent their interests in, say, a state legislature or congress? It would seem to be fair--if the overall region is majority white/wealthy and blacks are a minority in the larger jurisdiction. But is it, in truth, fair? What is totally fair is that no one sees race or class and no one votes race or class, and all elected officials act in everyone's interests, but that is not realistic. To "gerrymander" a black district--as artificial as that seems--is actually both the fair and the realistic thing to do, to insure representation of the interests of the poor black urban citizens and also to insure the development of political organization and leadership in that area. If the Chavez government is "gerrymandering," and if they are doing it for some analogous reason--to better represent the interests of excluded groups--or for something similar, such as to break up unfair, undemocratic, elite landowner control of an area, then I would say that that is a good purpose. And, given everything else that I know about the Chavez government, I would expect that to be their purpose.
Questions of how representation is structured are very important ones. Our Senate/House structure, for instance, is very undemocratic, in that a huge progressive population like that of California gets only 2 Senators, while a tiny rightwing population in some rural Midwestern and Southern states also gets 2 Senators. The Senate is very powerful. Progressive California (and New York) have extremely poor representation in this very powerful public entity. Political parties and politicians have ever sought to gain or enhance their power through manipulations of the structures of representation. It is a GIVEN in democracy. As I said, it would be unusual if the Chavez government were NOT doing it. (Somebody has to figure out where the population is and how to represent them.) So, to simply say that they ARE "gerrymandering" is meaningless. If the "gerrymandering"--if it is occurring--is being done by a political party, does that party represent most Venezuelans? Has it won lots of elections, by big margins? Is it a party that has taken a particular interest in being a "big tent" to excluded groups--workers, the poor, minorities (as the Democratic Party once was, here)? The answer to that would be yes, in Venezuela. Chavez's socialist party is a "big tent" party. So, if they are "gerrymandering," they are likely "gerrymandering" to improve the political representation of various groups under their "big tent." Are other political parties, including the rightwing opposition, being included in the discussion? I don't know the answer to that. The rightwing parties boycotted the last National Assembly elections, so maybe they excluded themselves, stupidly. I don't know what entity is drawing district lines in Venezuela, but if it is the National Electoral Council--an independent, non-partisan body that sets the rules for elections--all parties must be included (no matter how stupid or unsuccessful they have been). According to Carter Center and other international election groups' reports, all relevant parties and stakeholders have been included in writing the rules for Venezuelan elections. If the power to draw district lines rests with the National Assembly, or a committee of the National Assembly, then the Chavez government and its new political party, the PSUV, would have difficulty insuring opposition participation in drawing district lines. How do you participate with people who won't participate?
When bherrera is challenged to produce facts, information and reality, on yet another of many anti-Chavez statements, he/she descends into extreme name-calling and becomes off-the-wall unreliable on known facts. So I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that this poster says about this matter. But it would be interesting to know how district lines for representation are drawn, in Venezuela, and what the actual rules and actual politics of it are.
And, really and truly, I wish with all my heart that the rightwing opposition in Venezuela would stop taking USAID money, stop taking its "talking points" from the CIA, stop acting like assholes, stop seeing government as a looting opportunity for the rich (as some of their leaders have done), and start becoming a "loyal opposition" that has Venezuela's interests at heart. They were lazy, self-seeking, spoiled and ultimately brutal, when they governed Venezuela. They have displayed the same characteristics throughout the POPULARLY, FAIRLY elected Chavez government, and it is no wonder that, when they deign to participate in Venezuelan democracy, they struggle to get 25%-30% of the seats in the National Assembly and 40%, more or less, in presidential elections. They DON'T represent the good of the country, in the view of most Venezuelans--despite having the constant propaganda of the corpo-fascist press and the U.S. government bolstering them up. Venezuela NEEDS a "loyal opposition." I am the first to say that. And it is only by BEING a "loyal opposition"--a political movement that doesn't have coup d'etats at its heart, a truly representative political movement with constructive ideas, not ideas manufactured in "think tanks" in Washington DC--that it can help Venezuela solve its problems and govern itself in service to all of its people. It is only by BEING a "loyal opposition" that the anti-Chavez opposition can ever hope to achieve legitimate power in a democratic system. Indeed, by being kneejerk anti-Chavez and in service to U.S. corporate interests, and NOT having a positive program in line with what most Venezuelans want--peace and social justice--they deal themselves out.
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on earth. It has the wherewithal to be a key player in achieving peace and social justice in the greater region, and in the world, even here in the USA. The Chavez government has been the first Venezuelan government--and maybe the first government anywhere--to recognize that oil wealth can be used for good, and to begin formulating policy to that purpose. But it is not perfect, and I am sure that there are elements within the society that have something to contribute, and positive interests to advocate, that don't get a good hearing and aren't served--for instance, small business food retailers impacted by the state grocery stores--vital middle- and lower-middle class business interests, for instance, who, in this country, are the biggest employers. Chavez advocates for a 'fair market,' as opposed to U.S.-backed "free trade for the rich." But does a large government enterprise help create a "fair market"? How is it anything but a stop-gap measure to provide good nutrition to the poor and to help bootstrap the poor? Compassion may require it. But how do you, at the same time, lay the groundwork for a "fair market"--that is, a lively, colorful, truly competitive (non-monopolistic), marketplace, with a wide variety of products and venues--one of the delights of humanity, and probably an essential component of human happiness and a good society?
This is what a "loyal opposition" should be doing in Venezuela--THINKING, as LOYAL opponents, not of the riches to be had, if only they could control that oil again, but of the common good of their country, their region and the world. Instead of relying on corporate TV moguls and other corporate interests to set their agenda, and when all that fascist propaganda doesn't succeed, to organize coup d'etats to put them back in power, they need to jettison those DISLOYAL elements, and become bigger, better people.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
