Chavez power grab: is this our future, too?
Hugo Chavez says “just give me ten more years, and everything will be great.” Today’s referendum on abolishing presidential term limits will allow him to seek those ten years and more, in the grand old tradition of predecessor and mentor Castro.
Unfortunately for Hugo, oil prices have been tanking lately (pun intended), which may make further giveaways more difficult for him. But his power has become quite entrenched, and is about to become more so if the vote goes his way. On the other hand, according to Edward Schumacher-Matos, the end is drawing near for Chavez’s reign even if he wins today. I wonder.
Here’s a piece on Hugo’s strong-arm tactics. I include it not because it’s so wonderful, but because it’s from NPR. If that organization is willing to publish facts that reflect poorly on the socialist hero, it’s a sign of how bad his administration actually is.
The excellent blogger Daniel in Venezuela has a great deal of further background on Chavez and the referendum. He writes:
[Sunday] we have a chance to validate one way to do politics or to reject it. I have also expressed it in no ambiguous terms: [Sunday] if the SI wins Venezuela will be declaring that blackmailing, power abuse, corruption, insults form above and justice in the hand of a a single man are OK, are acceptable, are desirable even. As such Venezuela will reveal itself for what it might have always been and that we just chose to ignore: a wretched country where the people are always on the make, regardless of the consequences. We should have known better: Monagas, Guzman Blanco, Cipriano Castro, Juan Vicente Gomez, Perez Jimenez and now Chavez were not historical accidents, they were the expression of Venezuelan people, adapted to the times they lived. As such, the 1958-1998 period was the historical accident.
If the SI wins tomorrow, then indeed Venezuela deserved Chavez and they can enjoy it further. If the NO wins, well, maybe we will have a shot at another 40 years of relatively benign period once we resolve the exit of Chavez, and until a new one comes.
Sobering thoughts. They put me in mind of a passage from Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, from the chapter known as “The Grand Inquisitor.” I have posted it before. Now I will post it again.
The speaker is the Grand Inquisitor, and he is addressing Christ, who has returned to earth only to be imprisoned by the Inquisition:
Oh, never, never can [people] feed themselves without us [the Inquisitors and controllers]! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man?
[ADDENDUM: Then again, there’s this (hat tip: Instapundit).]
Can anyone confirm the rumor I heard about a similar bill already in Congress to repeal the 22nd Adm.? It was put in (according to the rumor) right after BHO was elected. We may have our own Chavez.
There are lefty dopes in Congress who attempt to repeal the 22nd ammendment every single time a democrat is elected president.
The thing I find amusing and edifying is that our military wouldn’t stand for a Chavez-style coup. Our military and it’s officers have been steeped in defeating dictators and delivering democracy for the past 8 years!
We have a military that has fought and died for the ideals of democracy in the Middle East and are not sworn to the President, but to the Constitution.
No reason they couldn’t bring democracy back here the way they did in Iraq if Obama tried to play Strongman….
Chavez is making a grave mistake, made by autocrats throughout history, that suppressing the opposition is the best way towards optimal policy. In fact, a healthy dynamic discourse between opposing views is really what creates the healthiest political culture, even if it leads to periods of suboptimal policy. In Chavez’s case I believe he sincerely believes his rule will result in better outcomes for his people (unlike someone like, say, Saddam Hussein, who was in it purely for selfish reasons), but he is wrong — he can and should encourage pluralism, obviously, but he isn’t.
At the least, however, he hasn’t yet destroyed voting altogether …
Chavez is making a grave mistake, made by autocrats throughout history, that suppressing the opposition is the best way towards optimal policy.
He doesn’t want optimal policy. He just wants to be in charge. Forever.
How can you not see that?
In Chavez’s case I believe he sincerely believes his rule will result in better outcomes for his people (unlike someone like, say, Saddam Hussein, who was in it purely for selfish reasons), but he is wrong – he can and should encourage pluralism, obviously, but he isn’t.
I feel the very same way about Barack Hussein.
Is it hard for you to constantly come up with this level of unintentional irony, or is it just a gift?
The 22nd Amendment is not going to be repealed … just relax! Remember there were those who wanted to repeal it so Nixon could run again, too. This is a fringe idea that never gets anywhere be it from the right or the left.
>He just wants to be in charge
Well, I agree, he just wants to be in charge, but I also think he thinks his rule will be good for Venezuela. That’s just my take on the guy. In either case, I certainly oppose his attempt to get rid of term limits.
Well, I agree, he just wants to be in charge, but I also think he thinks his rule will be good for Venezuela.
Why does that matter in the least?
“In Chavez’s case I believe he sincerely believes his rule will result in better outcomes for his people…
So what? That observation is irrelevant. So did Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Mugabe and Pol Pot. Hitler was a real nice guy, if he liked you, so what? How do you spell s-h-a-l-l-o-w? You’re becoming a bore Mitsu…
They were all real nice guys, if they liked you, but especially if they thought they could use you….
More contradiction, Mitsu? At least you managed to combine them into one sentence this time. Does Chavez “just want to be in charge”, i.e. for the sake of being in charge, or does he “think his rule will be good for Venezuela”?
There was a fairly decent novel called “Wizard’s First Rule” in the Sowrd of Truth series (the series went downhill rather quickly after that IMO).
One of the main themes in the book is truth as you percieve it. The main antagonist in the book is quite evil, the guy really would make Hitler seem a great person to have rule you. Part of seeing the “truth” is that few, if any, of the evil tyrants see themselves as evil.
In other words we rarely ever (I would almost go so far as say never but that is too strong a word) have Dark Lords of the Sith who revel in pure evil. They *all* think they are doing the best for their country, world, or even universe.
Most of us can recognize when a persons rule moves over that line (though we do not always share the same spot for the line). Some of us can not and some of us choose not too.
I’m not sure which of the two Mitsu is, but posting drivel like this mainly puts you into either a “stupid” or “dishonest” category. When I (or others here) read future or past posting from you then your inability to see actions that are clearly over the above mentioned line color our perceptions of what you write – indeed you have shown this level of “inability to see clearly” so many times I (and I’m sure other long time readers) normally just skim over what you write. There is no need to agree, but when your reasons are so clearly and massively out of step with reality I see no reason that any of your other conclusions are any better, if they are correct it is simply luck.
Good to see Mitsu responding. It keeps him/her/it from doing anything destructive at the time.
It may be that most of us, even though otherwise gifted, are simply moral idiots unable to find the righteous path through any but the simplest thicket–and fortunately, most of us never have to.
Of course, most of us don’t get that much practice (as opposed to watching others). I suspect that in large families, there is more opportunity to practice, but that’s just a guess.
Said it before, I’ll say it again: Obama=Chavez.
Mitsu:
Well, I agree, he just wants to be in charge, but I also think he thinks his rule will be good for Venezuela. :
Of course Chavez does. Warren Harding also thought his rule would be good for the US, as did James Buchanan. It sounds as if your empathetic nature might want to have dialogue with Chavez. Unfortunately Mitsu, those who wish to have “dialogue” with Chavez will soon find out that for Chavez, dialogue is one way. His idea of a good conversation is someone listening, and Hugo talking. His cadenas, where he preempts all radio and non-cable TV in Venezuela to speak to the country, usually go on for hours, though generally not as long as the 8 hour marathons for which his mentor Fidel was noted.
Here Chavez says I chew coca paste every morning.
my title
“Proof that Hugo Chavez is a Red Sox Fan.” He repeatedly shouts, “Go to hell, Yankees made out of SH$%$#.” ( or, “shi##$ Yankees”) What precipitated this was nothing that occurred in Venezuela, but from Evo Morales expelling the US ambassador.
Friends of a feather flock together.
From a former version of the Caracas Chronicles homepage. As Neo’s software cuts off postings with too many links, I will not link, but I have documented them all.
“…he’s a brother…”
–Ché¡vez on Saddam
“You are and always will be a true freedom warrior.”
-Ché¡vez on Mugabe
“I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Ché¡vez.”
–Ahmadinejad on Ché¡vez
“…a friend and brother.”
–Ché¡vez on Qaddafi
“I am only a soldier in this battle. Fidel is our president. If we had to name a president of the world with enough powers to set it right, it would be Fidel. I believe in one decade he could set the world right.”
–Ché¡vez on Fidel Castro
“We have the same political vision.”
-Chavez on Bashar Al-Assad.
Would that be killing Lebanese politicians?
Sorry about those bad links. Need to test before posting.
Here Chavez says I chew coca paste every morning.
“Proof that Hugo Chavez is a Red Sox Fan.” He repeatedly shouts, “Go to hell, Yankees made out of SH$%$#.” ( or, “shi##$ Yankees”) What precipitated this was nothing that occurred in Venezuela, but from Evo Morales expelling the US ambassador.
The Carabini book you mentioned looks interesting. I like this quote from the back cover:
Every attack on capitalism masks the desire to rule others through force.
Yeppers.
[Inclined to Liberty: a defense of free market capitalism. Including the index, just 112 pp.]
BTW, ignore Mitsu. It’s just a time-waster. There are a lot of them on conservative blogs, sapping everyone’s energy by waving the Red flag and tempting us to charge, over and over again.
This tactic reminds me of the Devil in Perelandra. C.S. Lewis described a Devil who asked the same mindless, soul-deadening questions over, and over, and over, and over again. Objective: to madden the victim.
Not to have fruitful discourse.
Neo summed it up beautifully a few weeks ago, talking about trolls, her definition of.
Man, you guys really know how to miss the point.
The point is that people who try to monopolize power in the service of an ideology are usually MORE dangerous and potentially more destructive than those who do so merely for their own self-enrichment. They’re less likely to be pragmatists, less easy to deter militarily, etc. They also think differently from dictators who are in it for the money and power alone — and thus should be dealt with differently.
Saddam Hussein is an example of a self-interested dictator; he didn’t give a shit about his people, he cared only for his own power and wealth. Mao, on the other hand, was an ideological dictator, and, ironically, did far more damage to his people than Hussein, bad as he was, ever did.
My remark was in response to Gray’s comment: “He doesn’t want optimal policy. He just wants to be in charge. Forever. How can you not see that?”
The fact that he is an ideologue who believes much of his own rhetoric is why, I believe, he is dangerous and needs to be dealt with very carefully. On the other hand, he does seem to have at least some democratic instincts, and while he’s been suppressing the opposition he’s stopped short of some tactics that, say, were used in Cuba or other full-on dictatorships. One can only hope his power grab is eventually overturned by the voters in his country.
Chavez has no democratic instincts. None. He has the soul of a dictator, through and through. It’s simply that his power isn’t great enough (yet) that he could trample what remains of Venezuelan democracy under his jackboots without repercussions to his continued rule. If he wins on the term limits issue, then you’ll see the true Hugo come out, and it won’t be pretty. It may eventually be his undoing, but then again, maybe not. How many US presidents has Castro outlasted? It’s tough to overthrow the dictator when the state security forces are loyal to him and have all the guns.
Gringo, the only quote missing from your collection of quotes from and about Chavez was one where he praised (or was praised by) Jimmy Carter. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can turn one up. After all, Carter never met a dictator whom he didn’t praise!
You may have a point, Mitsu (at 10:01).
Unfortunately, the danger of loyalty to ideology is also part of the reason why so many of us are terrified at the thought of what Obama will do during his reign in office. Obama isn’t a pragmatist in the way Bill Clinton was, and his first few weeks have made that abundantly clear. Instead he’s an ideologue dedicated to doing whatever he can to cement his party’s grip on power. That’s why the so-called stimulus bills was so filled with patronage jobs and gifts to unions, ACORN, and other core, corrupt Democrat constituencies.
Chavez isn’t anything but another Castro wannabe.
Look at who the man idolizes, who the people are he hangs around with, and even the fact that he provides aid and comfort to violent terrorists attacking his neighboring country!
Good intentions for his people my a$$…..
Well, we clearly disagree on Obama. I believe he is a pragmatist. We’ve discussed the merits of the stimulus bill at length in the other topic and I don’t want to rehash it here at length, but Obama made a number of gestures towards compromise, such as modifying a family planning provision, putting in far more tax cuts than the liberals in the Democratic caucus wanted, and many of the programs criticized by Republicans as “pork” have been cut, something which he agreed with. It includes tax incentives for buying cars and homes which were proposed by Republicans. Most of the big spending goes to things like energy and transportation infrastructure, education funding, medicaid funding, etc. I don’t doubt there are some programs that shouldn’t be in the bill, but if you have evidence the bill is heavily weighted towards such things, I’d like to see it. Keep in mind that this is a bill that already had $80 billlion in programs cut by Republicans in the Senate.
We’ll see, but I really don’t see the reason why you’re concerned Obama, one of the more centrist Presidents we’ve had in a while, is going to turn out to be some sort of left-wing ideologue. If he does, believe me, I’ll be criticizing him along with the rest of you.
On the other hand, he does seem to have at least some democratic instincts, and while he’s been suppressing the opposition he’s stopped short of some tactics that, say, were used in Cuba or other full-on dictatorships.
He does that so lefties like you will give him the benefit of the doubt–which you are. He’s playing you for a sap–which you are.
We’ll see, but I really don’t see the reason why you’re concerned Obama, one of the more centrist Presidents we’ve had in a while, is going to turn out to be some sort of left-wing ideologue. If he does, believe me, I’ll be criticizing him along with the rest of you.
Bullshit.
You’ll be giving him the benefit of the doubt, just like just did for Chavez. You’re a dope, and they know it.
These guys know how to pull your strings, and you like to have your strings pulled….
To compare Obama with Chavez is pretty extreme, Gray, even for you. You think he’s about to shut down opposition news stations, abolish term limits, etc.? And you really think if he did that, I would sit back and say or do nothing?
If you think that, then you’re really pretty deluded.
And I am not giving Chavez the “benefit of the doubt.” I am absolutely opposed to him, if I were there I’d be working for his defeat, I have friends from there and I fully believe they are right to be implacably opposed to him. I have observed that he has been behaving somewhat more moderately than Castro did, that is an objective fact. As for why he’s doing it, there are a lot of possible reasons, but it is a fact that he is — however, that doesn’t change my opposition to him, his policies, and his tactics.
To compare Obama with Chavez is pretty extreme, Gray, even for you. You think he’s about to shut down opposition news stations, abolish term limits, etc.?
The “Fairness” Doctrine. Bank nationalization. Energy nationalization. Car indistry nationalization. Growing regulation and beaureaucracy. Constitutional ammendments are a hard thing to change, by design.
Etc?–like the “stimulus” bill? Yeah, he believes in sharing my wealth….
Obama is a hard left redistributionist, like Chavez. We just have a better system. As long as we can keep it.
I think as long as Obama parroted the “elite” lefty ideals and promised “universal health care” you’d support him wholeheartedly.
I’m no extremist.
“one of the more centrist Presidents we’ve had in a while.”
First big interview in a CENTRIST publication in Saudi Arabia
Dropping trade sanctions on Syria.
Hints of dropping trade sanctions on Iran.
BIGGGGG spender. I won. You better listen to me. Really reaching across the aisle.
Centrist according to what metric?
Moderately kowtowing to terrorists and tyrants, our enemies.
Love that moderation. Such moderation makes me vomit.
Obama is the most extreme leftist we’ve EVER had as President. And the Democratic leadership in Congress is pretty far out there too.
Obama’s first three weeks didn’t surprise me in the least. It’s what I’ve been expecting all along. I have to admit, though, that I didn’t expect the political takeover of the census. That was an imaginative touch, and frightening as hell.
I think he probably has ideas about taking the United States in the same sort of direction that Chavez has taken Venezuela. I still have a hard time seeing him as a Chavez clone, since he’s kind of a metrosexual rather than a macho tough guy.
I don’t quite see Obama as personally being a dictator. I think he is more a puppet of George Soros and heaven knows who else. He may even be expendable. The important point is that the far Left has finally taken over the American government, and they will never ever voluntarily relinquish power. They will do everything they can to ensure that no conservative can ever again win a national election.
Chavez won out on the term limits — so it’s no longer an academic argument.
As to Obama: as he said in Fort Myers
“I’m not going to make any excuses,” Obama said at a town hall meeting, in perhaps the most pivotal political state in America. “If stuff hasn’t worked, if people don’t feel like I’ve led the country in the right direction then you’ll have a new president.”
Of course, before any tin foil hat conspirators say it, “that’s just what he says now”
(insert evil laughter here)
In any case, every knee will bow. Just you wait.
(peel of laughter, wolves howling, mirrors breaking etc.,)
They will do everything they can to ensure that no conservative can ever again win a national election.
Well, yes, I try to do that every time I go to the polls to vote.
Well, Logern, that’s certainly your prerogative to do so. I also do what I can to ensure that no leftist ever triumphs at the polls. In my center-right voting district, my side did ok in November. National level, not so much. But at least we can say that we saw this slow-motion train wreck coming, and voted against it. Speaking of tinfoil hats, how many times did the left warn that W. was going to establish a “Christian theocracy”, and that he was going to “suspend the Constitution” to become “dictator for life”? Go and read the archives on Kos and DU to refresh your memory in case you’ve forgotten already. Didn’t exactly happen that way, did it? Glass house, meet brick.
Chaves chose the path of Salvador Allende. Without foreign investments Venezuela is doomed. Soon it will became incapable to extract its own oil, its only exportable commodity. Capital flees away any country where nationalization looms, especially when socialism is declared as government policy. Most of Chaves support is due to walfare programs payed by oil revenues. When these programs would be cut, social unrest becames unavoidable, and military coup will put an end to his rule.
Neo,
Your question presumes that, after our betters have spent all our resources on their new production of “Black Orifice,” that “we” have one.
Outbreaks of socialism are probably inevitable, but since this system is inherently unworkable, disillusionment follows any attempt to establish it. Social dynamics of such events is like that of manic episodes of delusion grandeur: a severe depression sets in. How to deal with it? Either a regime became terroristic and paranoid to suppress all opposition, or return to normalcy after some period of havoc, civil war or military coup follows.
There are at least 3 essential differences between US and Venezuela:
1) US constitution is not so easy amendable. Founders were wise enough to understand inherent weaknesses of pure democracy and included republican principles more robust against power grab.
2) US population still is mainly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, and so has stronger immunity against totalitarian temptations than Latinos and Catholics usually have. (Orwell described this point correctly.)
3) US population is armed, and this alone imposes strong limits on possible government use of terror or intimidation.
Sergey,
With all due respect, the military coup you referred to could just as easily be in support of Chavez as against him. After all, the military had to have a hand in helping the terrorist organizations in his neighbor’s country, so it’s not that big a step to see them sticking with him if things go to hell in a handbasket.
If the economy totally tanks, then the poorer citizens may just become even more entrenched in their support as they ignorantly back the man who put them in that very position since he will be promising them bread when they’re hungry.
After he has complete power, for all Chavez cares they can stay hungry of course and it doesn’t matter – he will have complete power and won’t give a damn about what the people think and the average Venezuelan’s miseries will all be blamed on outside capitalistic forces.
Regarding leftist ascendancy in the US, yes we still have our constitution. Unfortunately, much of our federal level government simply ignores that restraint now except for token lip service.
Contrast how the federal government had to come up with an excuse during the 1920’s to involve themselves against various criminal activities vs. how they simply assume authority today over any activity they desire to control.
It took an amendment to the constitution to make booze illegal, even though it was never specifically named in the constitution as protected from federal control. Nowadays, they just pass a law and dismiss constitutional authority issues with nary a concern, and the courts uphold them in it – even if it involves arms which are specifically protected in the constitution.
I even remember hearing Justice Kennedy state once that the USSC assumption is that laws passed by congress are constitutional until they are challenged, and that congress critters have considered constitutional issues when writing laws.
When all 3 branches of government have become so subordinated to the protection of federal authority rather than acting as checks and balances, and when the federal government simply becomes something of a *super-state-government* rather than a creation and servant of the states, and when the federal government loses sight of the fact that all of it’s power and authority is only justly derived from the consent of the people, that is when things will get really bad…..
Our task is to extrapolate present politics into the future; that yields bleakness and our present anxieties. It is so painfully clear and obvious, but the many do not see it.
Gun sales are way up, though. And gold is surging.
Yes, it is. Now I have to look at Fausta’s blog. But first, I’ll put on these protective asbestos undergarments.
In other words we rarely ever (I would almost go so far as say never but that is too strong a word) have Dark Lords of the Sith who revel in pure evil.
Hi.
Mitsu wrote, You think he’s about to shut down opposition news stations, abolish term limits, etc.? And you really think if he did that, I would sit back and say or do nothing?
Dishonesty is dishonesty. Sorry to be tough but you brought it on yourself. Try being honest. 🙂
Mitsu wrote, I believe he is a pragmatist. We’ve discussed the merits of the stimulus bill at length in the other topic and I don’t want to rehash it here at length, but Obama made a number of gestures towards compromise,
For your benefit:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:pragmatism&ei=Y7WZSciOHZqqtQPfu9CSAQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
If he were Mitsu, he would’ve done much more to stimulate the economy, not stimulate Democrat constituencies and big government. His approach did little to affect the 75% of the economy and in fact did HARM to it.
The most liberal Republicans cannot be held against us as you did in that post. Hardly did we see conservative ideas put into that bill. We saw BIG GOVERNMENT liberal policies.
All of which have been implemented over the last 70 years. Big government liberalism caused this credit and banking crisis. Big govt liberalism caused our health care costs and college costs to skyrocket. Big govt. liberalism is the cause of our federal and state budget defecits.
Of course you come back and do identity politics and blame Republicans.
It is the policies Mitsu. It is the policies of big government liberalism that is the problem.
As a centrist, my plan would’ve been to keep government spending the same for the next 10 years except for spending on things that actually hire people like NASA, infrastructure, DOD, etc.
As a centrist who cares about this country knowing that it is better to teach a man to fish than give him fish, I would’ve have expanded dependency as this bill did I would’ve been reducing dependency. Big govt liberals and yourself are interested in increasing dependency. I’m interested in reducing it.
As a centrist and pragmatist, I would’ve done more to have POSITIVE results in growing the 75% of the economy that is the private sector. People need hope and change. The economy needs hope and change. Obama and you are not for hope and change but radically increasing dependency, government and spending.
You do harm to this country. We need you to be truthful with yourself and others. We need you to learn how big govt. liberalism is wrong.
We need you to move to the center.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=279483
Feminist opposed to the return of the fairness doctrine.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022854.php
In the Coleman/Franken debacle, the courts might be the stopgap in these next few years against legislatures run amock.
Including in CA (where I live) where Arnold won in the courts and furloughs of state employees are happening currently.
To compare Obama with Chavez is pretty extreme, Gray, even for you. You think he’s about to shut down opposition news stations, abolish term limits, etc.? And you really think if he did that, I would sit back and say or do nothing?
If you think that, then you’re really pretty deluded.
And I am not giving Chavez the “benefit of the doubt.” I am absolutely opposed to him, if I were there I’d be working for his defeat, I have friends from there and I fully believe they are right to be implacably opposed to him. I have observed that he has been behaving somewhat more moderately than Castro did, that is an objective fact. As for why he’s doing it, there are a lot of possible reasons, but it is a fact that he is – however, that doesn’t change my opposition to him, his policies, and his tactics.
I’ll make sure to remember that for later.
Mitsu has a thick skin. That’s a mark of quality, independent of all else. He certainly has a lot of energy to withstand the various negative sentiments here about him. And where does he that energy?
I would say from belief. But as to whether the Dems or other Leftist factions are using the beliefs of those like Mitsu to make dupes out of those like Mitsu or not, is something that will show itself in due time.
I have one question to ask:
“Is Jimmy Carter there to certify its authenticity?”
If the answer is Yes, then Chavez is home free.
If the answer is No, then Chavez is doomed.
Pingback:Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Chavez, Now and Forever? Plus today’s Carnival of Latin America and the Caribbean