Defending Chavez: enemy of their enemy
I was thinking of Hugo Chavez recently because I was at a party Saturday night and his name came up in a rather odd context. I noticed a youngish women carrying a fluffy white dog in her arms. I went over to admire the pooch, a very amiable animal. When I asked its name, her answer was “Hugo Chavez.”
I wondered why the moniker, and the owner said that, although when Chavez came to the UN and called Bush a “devil” he wasn’t exactly exercising good diplomacy, she admired him for telling the truth and she wanted to pay tribute to him in some small way. I’m not so sure naming a small curly-haired dog after Chavez is really a form of homage, but I asked what she thought of Chavez now. Her answer was rather evasive; she said she knew some Venezuelans who liked him and some who didn’t like him.
No doubt. But when I asked her whether they’d changed their minds since the recent closing of the TV station, she said she hadn’t spoken to them since that had happened. But clearly she was predisposed to like and to defend Chavez.
This may seem a small thing. But the incident pointed out to me the ubiquity of the old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Chavez is clearly a dictator who has imperiled the democratic process in Venezuela, and anyone on the right or the Left who truly believes in democracy should have no problem recognizing that. But hey, he called Bush a devil, so he can’t be all that bad, can he?
And then today I read Richard Fernandez of Belmont Club’s post pointing out the fascinating spectacle of figures on the British Left (including some journalists) defending Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s war against the dissenting media in his country.
Hypocrisy and double standards are certainly not the sole province of the Left; I’m well aware that the Right is capable of such things as well. But this seems to be an especially egregious case, as Fernandez points out in a later comment to the thread:
A lot of people in the media argue that “giving the other side a voice” is part of their job. Nor would they concede that a news outlet can be guilty of “abetting” anything until it is proven in court. It seems to me that the closed TV stations have been nowhere convicted — and here is the irony — except in sections of the Western press itself.
And what is so amazing is the sight of people like Pilger justifying a level of media censorship he would never consent to be applied to himself. You have the spectacle of professional journalists cheering the shutdown of large sections of a country’s media industry simply because because it is politically convenient.
Lest you think Pilger’s opinion is irrelevant, please read this for some of the man’s history. Like quite a few of today’s Leftists, he’s been a journalist since the days of Vietnam. If you read the linked article, you’ll notice that back then Pilger was responsible for the meme that US bombing of Cambodia caused the rise of Pol Pot and that therefore America was implicated in the horrific killings that followed. That line of argument is accepted as an article of faith by the Left and even by most liberals today. It’s been exceedingly influential, and yet it rests strongly on the undocumented evidence of the utterly partisan, socialist-leaning, and far-Left Pilger. Thanks to our guarantee of freedom of the press—which I of course support—Pilger is free to say whatever he wishes and would defend his own right to do so as well as Chavez’s right to do the opposite. Go figure.
Read Pilger’s recent love letter to Hugo Chavez. Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and Pilger is glowing in his praise of this enemy of his enemy:
In the time I spent with Chavez, what struck me was how un-self-consciously he demonstrated his own developing political awareness. I was intrigued to watch a man who is as much an educator as a leader….What he’s clearly doing is building ordinary people’s confidence in themselves. At the same, he’s building his own political confidence and his understanding of the exercise of power.
Well, I certainly have no quarrel with that last sentence. Chavez understands the exercise of power, as does Pilger.
Pingback:Animal abuse….someone call PETA, please… at Amused Cynic
Hypocrisy and double standards are certainly not the sole province of the Left; I’m well aware that the Right is capable of such things as well.
capable Neo? The Left has made hypocrisy, which is the use of beliefs that you don’t believe in to manipulate others, into an Art Form.
It has gone farr beyond capable.
And what is so amazing is the sight of people like Pilger justifying a level of media censorship he would never consent to be applied to himself.
That’s because power can make these people bend, if applied to them. Bush doesn’t apply power to them and neither does the West. So they’re free. They’re free to support tyranny. Others are not so free.
You have the spectacle of professional journalists cheering the shutdown of large sections of a country’s media industry simply because because it is politically convenient.
It is no different than what the Democrats did with Fox News, by boycotting them. Fairness Doctrine even.
Well, I certainly have no quarrel with that last sentence. Chavez understands the exercise of power, as does Pilger.
Except Pilger seems to think he can use Chavez as a useful idiot and Chavez thinks the same of Pilger. But there is only one useful idiot, Neo, in this game.
Pardon me being blunt, but the woman is an imbecile. She probably named her cat Cindy Sheehan. I suppose, the left being what they are, there was at one time a fellow traveler somewhere in the comfy bourgeoisie West who named her terrier Stalin, to honor a hero of the people. There is no fatuousness like the fatuousness of people who risk nothing, know nothing, and learn nothing.
Hard to believe I was a leftist once myself. Reminds me of all the east coast leftists who carried on a long love affair with Stalin until the evidence of the purges and bloodletting became too great even for the willfully blind to ignore.
These people are desperate for a saviour, and if Al Gore can’t do the job, then they’ll take Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim—-anybody! “Just give me the foque somebody who hate Bush!!!”
None of you mention RCTV’s breech of over 600 Venezuelan broadcast standards, standards which were in place before Chavez was elected, nor do you mention RCTV’s active involvement in a coup against a democratically elected president. RCTV is still able to broadcast via cable. Surely you’d agree that any broadcaster that breeches existing standards and even breaks law shouldn’t have it’s licence renewed when it comes up for review?
The girl in the story serves an unwitting purpose — she drives people to the right, hopefully to park somewhere right of Left.
foreignpolicy.comNeo,
If you haven’t already read it, Alvaro Vargas Llosa’s The Return of the Idiot sums up the romance between the uber-left and Chavez (and Castro) quite nicely.
Hamish,
Please explain to me why Chavez chose to replace RCTV with a nationalized telecast as opposed to another private telecast.
Also remember, Hamish, that Chavez’ popularity (and bloated social social rebuilding) is solely dependent on the volatile demand for a limited and exceedingly unpopular source of energy.
I, too, once met a disagreeable person whom I held to be representative of large groups of other people I had never met for no good reasons. I hate them all, those people! Damn them!
Hamish: None of you mention RCTV’s breech of over 600 Venezuelan broadcast standards … nor do you mention RCTV’s active involvement in a coup against a democratically elected president.
That’s because we don’t believe Chavez’s propaganda.
Ashamed American, I must beg to differ with you.
There are very good reasons you haven’t met a great many people. Why, even if you had a private jet whisking you around to meet people, and let’s say you had a list of everyone on the planet, it would take you a lifetime just to meet all the Japanese. Perfectly lovely people, but could you spend your life going door to door saying Hajimemashite, hazukashii amerikajin desu. Yoroshiku onegaishimasu? And that’s before you made it to China!
To say nothing of the impact on global warming, of course, jetting around like some movie star.
When I was in Mexico on a recent vacation, I had a chance to speak to a guy from Venezuela; his take was that Chavez basically bought the loyalties of the poor people (IOW, the majority) in his country, so his reign will continue for the foreseeable future.
Surely you’d agree that any broadcaster that breeches existing standards and even breaks law shouldn’t have it’s licence renewed when it comes up for review?
I surely do not agree.
Chavez did not resort to due process when that took place. He waited to close the station until the Enabling Law granted him powers to rule by decree.
The Brazilian Congress, Chile, and all the Spanish press have condemned the closing because of that.
Chavez himself has stated that his goal is “informational hegemony”, and is now suing Globovision and CNN for broadcasting a press conference by the Inter-American Press Association (see my article http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/chavezeula.php)
So don’t assume that I’d agree to your statement.
Neos, libs, right and left, who cares? You sheeple get so hung up on the love of the order of bi-partisianship, you are blinded by it.
The original issue was Chavez kicking out all the Corporate oil companies and nationalizing the oil infrastructure, thereby being in control of the profit which was to be re-invested in Venezuela. Which I believe any country has the right to do.
As for the shutting down of a radio station by way of not renewing its license, I say, why is that any different than this country? If our administration had fairly conclusive evidence, that the radio station was participating in politics considered to be of a terrorist nature, our government would do the same thing or worse.
In addition, he does have the will of his people, right or wrong, just like this country, right or wrong.
Doesnt majority rule?
Anyone who can rationalize the tyrannical behavior of Hugo Chavez is not a friend of liberty. No advocate of kumbaya peace-love-dope 60’s BS can pretend to care about rights while excusing a marxist bulldozer like Chavez. If the left ever learns the difference between a caudillo and a Cincinnatus, they might appear less like idiots.
And no, TJ, majority rule does not count when it infringes on individual’s rights — including those of owners of South American TV stations.
It’s amazing the length leftists will go to justify censure, murder, repression of students, torture, genocide – when it comes from a leftist or any anti-western source.
Which goes to show, leftists are merely anti-west.
I’d be shocked if there actually were 600 Venezuelan broadcast standards.
And tj, the only “corporate oil company” in Venezuela is PVDSA, the state-owned oil company, which Chavez has now put under his personal control. I must say, your know-nothingism is impressive.
yours/
peter.
“Doesn’t majority rule?”
So, tj, if 50.1% of the population vote to reinstate slavery, then you would go along? Majority rule, right?
tj, ya lost at the word ‘sheeple,’ a neo-fascist projectionalist term of elitist infantilistic temper-tantrumism
Which I believe any country has the right to do.
The Left believes the country is the leader. Which means when they hate Bush, they translate that as hating America. And when they love Chavez… they automatically love Venezuela as well. A weird sort of 1984ish doublethink Neo.
As for the shutting down of a radio station by way of not renewing its license, I say, why is that any different than this country?
You see what action based propaganda is, Neo? It is when you get folks likes this talking about and believing in crap that never even occured. Okay, technically that’s not general action based propaganda, that’s propaganda based upon the actions of the Left. But to make a reference point to what you said about VDH’s post, explanations isn’t just about saying whatever you believe is true. It is about making other people believe in your explanation. Huge gave an explanation, and folks believe in it because… of whatever. Duplicate it. Just for your side, should be the goal.
Creating a narrative and taking advantage of certain events, either done by you or by someone else, is an art form in manipulating human psychology. Sometimes you succede, sometimes not so much. But regardless, the attempt should be made. It is tricky because it depends almost wholly upon the target audience. Say, propaganda that is effective against Leftist targets is very different from propaganda that could affect military people for example. Military folks are notoriously hard to affect using any form of propaganda because of their position in the war and their critical thinking and BS meters. But Leftist targets easy to affect. So your methods start to diversify. The Left wants to believe Chavez is good, so… fullfill their expectations and your propaganda becomes effective.
Counter-Propaganda then has to deal with the question of “how do you make an effective propaganda campaign, a total disaster for the other side”.
Sounds like the typical leftie that is hard pressed to recognize reality when it strikes them in the face………steve
slate.comI agree that there is a general tendency for radical leftists to link onto any anti-American political movement. However, in the case of Chavez, he also has been experimenting with some moves to put more power in the hands of local communities and take it away from the national legislature. This is accomplished through political organs that are faithful to Chavez, of course. This sort of exercise in “grassroots democracy” is appealing to large sectors of the radical left who consider multi-party democracies, elections, a free press and independent workers organizations to be the trappings of corrupt capitalist systems. In Cuba, similar committees of “Popular Power” exist as well. These functionaries supervise some small local projects but they don’t have any actual decision-making power.
BTW, my dog’s name is “Che” which simply means “pal”. He is not named after Che Guevara. Guevara was another butcher who is lionized by the radical left, useful idiots and fellow travelers. Here is a critical article on Che written by Paul Berman, a man of the left:
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/
Tj asks, “Doesnt majority rule?” Yes, and no. If you are talking about pluralistic, liberal democracies, “majorities rule” but there also needs to be a healthy dose of minority rights to prevent any one faction or elite group from seizing absolute power as well as to protect the individual against the state. The framers wrote a great deal about this in the Federalist Papers. They are widely available online.
Lastly, there are people from the democratic left writing critical things about Chavez. Here is an article from The Guardian CiF:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ben_whitford/2007/05/the_revolution_will_not_be_tel.html
“n pulling the plug on RCTV, Ché¡vez appointed himself judge, jury and executioner; and in doing so, struck a dangerous blow against Venezuela’s proud traditions of democracy and free speech. Worryingly, he did so as part of a wider campaign to stifle dissenting voices and independent views. Since coming to power, Ché¡vez has pushed through a barrage of regulations designed to breed a compliant and uncritical media sector; organizations now face swingeing fines and license suspensions if they fail to meet vague and arbitrary “social responsibility” criteria, while draconian defamation regulations and “insult laws” make it illegal to show disrespect for government officials and institutions.”