Noted. Also note that most of our dealings with Chavez and some of the American governments ire towards him came about in the last administration. It remains to be seen where the Obama administration will go with this relationship.
I don’t for a sec believe that Chavez would invade elsewhere, but long term stability is indeed affected when one nation undertakes a large scale military build-up. If your neighbor propped up a 50 cal on his front porch one day wouldn’t you feel a tad bit nervous driving past it?
That being said, I don’t see where they have pushed for anything that would destabilize in a major way like new missile technology and such. So this could have been a case of the former administration making it sound worse than it actually is.
Just because free elections exist doesn’t mean the government isn’t coercive, especially since the mass media is under state control and the opposition is ostracized. Robert Mugabe’s government isn’t automatically benevolent because they allowed elections.
Yeah, the difference between Chavez and Mugabe on this count is that Mugabe just ignored the results of an election where he lost. Mugabe’s elections were a complete sham. Chavez lost those elections that would have dramatically increased his power and honored the results. Say what you will about the man, but he’s not cut from the same cloth as Mugabe.
and the fact that the percentage of poor people is high despite the country’s natural resources, and despite a decade of Chavez’s “populist” rule, is an indication of this.
How can you say this with a straight face? I oppose a lot of what Chavez does - and it’s obvious that he’s an egomaniac. But you can’t deny the fact that infant mortality has dropped by 20%, literacy rates dramatically improved, and that he established thousands of medical clinics. They spend 44% of their national budget on social investment. Quality of life for the poor has risen - that’s why he’s so popular. Of course, he’s been able to pull it off thanks to the high price of oil, and that drop is likely going to be destabilizing. But he’s done a lot of good for Venezuelans.
My point was not so much to equate Mugabe with Chavez, but to illustrate that elections don’t necessarily mean that the process is fair and untainted. Perhaps a better example would have been Putin and the lengths to which he’s gone in circumventing presidential term limits in Russia.
How can you say this with a straight face? I oppose a lot of what Chavez does - and it’s obvious that he’s an egomaniac. But you can’t deny the fact that infant mortality has dropped by 20%, literacy rates dramatically improved, and that he established thousands of medical clinics. They spend 44% of their national budget on social investment. Quality of life for the poor has risen - that’s why he’s so popular. Of course, he’s been able to pull it off thanks to the high price of oil, and that drop is likely going to be destabilizing. But he’s done a lot of good for Venezuelans.
I’m not criticizing his record on social welfare programs. My tortured argument was that despite his rhetoric, his economic program failed to create equality among Venezuelans after 10 years in power. They’re obviously better off under Chavez, but they’re still poor despite the country’s wealth in natural resources. 60% of households are still poor.
Yeah, whatever you can say about Chavez, including his followers’ propensity to invent words like “Chavista” and “Chavismo”, the elections in Venezuela have been pretty free and fair. The opposition’s main complaint is that the ruling party outspends them, which I’m sure John McCain can relate to.
Whatever Chavez’ faults, the people keep electing him. Eventually the money will run out and then, well, either they stop voting for him and he loses power, or he overturns the election - at which point the “omg undemocratic” cries will have a case.
He still has a way to go before matching Mugabe, though. For one thing you can still spend the Venezuelan bolivar!
Of course having elections doesn’t mean that you’re having free and fair elections. But that’s why we have outside agencies certifying the elections as free and fair.
Whatever Chavez’ faults, the people keep electing him. Eventually the money will run out and then, well, either they stop voting for him and he loses power, or he overturns the election - at which point the “omg undemocratic” cries will have a case.
More incidents of journalist oppression, destroying free media by taking over stations that give voice to the otherside. And of course telling workers that if they aren’t members of the socialist party, then they are conspiring against the social revolution!
It seems like this path has occurred again in history!
But I’m sure the elections are fair and he abides by the results(except for the fact that anytime the opposition whens an election, Chavez takes over all their power and threatens them with criminal activity)
And where is DemocracyNow and Alternet, so sympathetic to the western demonization of Chavez and trying to spread the truth about Chavez’s true motivations?
Oh, those darn liberals. You’ve unmasked their hideous socalist agenda, hurrah hurray, and toppled Hugo Chavez from his position as sacred cow and idol of liberalism everywhere! Congratulations, gentlemen, you’ve done good work here today.
It isn’t really fair to discuss Chavez without discussing the US sponsored coup that momentarily ousted him, or the way Salvador Allende, another fairly elected socialist, let his military get won over to the US’s side and eventually murder him and at least 4,000 other Chileans.
The US consistently gives leftist leaders in Latin America (and the world) reasons to fear for their safety and the safety of their countrymen. Sadly, a large majority of those leftist leaders then use that fear to consolidate their power and abuse rights.
NPR had a ridiculously even handed facts-only story (NPR stories are only even handed when the subject is a repressive regime) about how Chavez is seizing (aka stealing) well run efficient farms from wealthy farmers and then giving them to random people that barely know how to farm.
I’m just saying, it’s ok to stand for your principles, but only if you stand for your fucking principles. The site is called Democracy Now for god’s sake, you’d think they’d mention how, you know, it’s Democracy Then in Venezuela now. They’ve had interviews and stories full of praise for Chavez when he was a good boy, but now that he’s turned rogue it’s like he doesn’t even exist. There’s no integrity in that.
Not, of course, that I’m suggesting that integrity is some sort of well-distributed value on the internet tubes. Not by far.
Only if you believe literally everything a leftist does today is justified by acts committed by rightists 40 years ago. Which, apparently, plenty of Chavistas do!
You’re in good company, though, Iran still blames all their troubles on the US and the UK ousting Mossadeq 50 years ago.
He has? Do you have a link about that? That would be news to me. (However, given the fact that I don’t follow Venezolano politics closely, I wouldn’t be too surprised if I missed it.)
The Mayor off the opposition went on hunger strike is meeting with OAS head about it. Also some of the opposition has fled the country. Read most of this in the hard copy of post but a quick google says this. It’s from the globalpost and I have no idea who they are but the story jibes with the wash post hard copy. And it’s hard to fake a quote. Accusing your political opponents of treason against the fatherland sounds like something from a different era of not good times for people in the opposition to a government.
AN CRISTOBAL, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez’s increasingly confrontational line against leading opposition leaders gathered pace recently when he accused the governor of Tachira, Cesar Perez Vivas, of criticizing the Venezuelan government abroad and of conspiring with right-wing paramilitary groups. “Look, Governor, I could accuse you before the courts of treason against the fatherland,” said Chavez, who was hosting his weekly television show on a cattle ranch in this mountainous southwestern state. “I’ll tell you from here: If you carry on like you are, I see you in Lima, playing domino with the other one,” he said, referring to Manuel Rosales, another opposition politician, who is currently in exile in Peru.
