Comments on: Hugo Chavez Gobbles Up Power

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:51:08 +0000

Weightman,

Was your comment aimed at anything in particular?

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:50:36 +0000

I didn’t say it was going to work, I just said that that is what put Chavez in office. The previous officeholders did nothing for the majority of the population so they decided it was time for a change. As Gray pointed out, Chavez has actually done some of what he promised which puts him ahead of his predecessors and explains why the things he’s doing wrong don’t hurt him enough in public opinion to make a difference. When a huge number of the populace lives in abject poverty any improvement looks like a very good thing.

By: Gray

Gray — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:24:45 +0000

“So their answer was to elect someone who will ensure that Venezuela no longer has immense wealth while doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty?”

Now, come on. Say what you will about Chavez (I’m critical about his latest decisions, too), but at least he tries to improve the lifes of the poor. Under him, many barrio residents experienced medical support for the first time in their lifes. And PDVSA isn’t exactly heading towards bankruptcy, too. Imho the difference between large, bureaucratic oil corporations and their nationalised counterparts isn’t so huge as some like to paint it. Coming back to the main point: Venecuela is a democracy (if you sy it isn’t, then the US isn’t one, too). The majority of voters is pure. The elitist leaders of the past did abysmal jobs at fighting poverty. Chavez success in the elections and his broad support should come as no surprise. Maybe there are others, who would be better at doing his jobs, but that’s true for George II., too. Imho Venecuelan voters aren’t more stupid than their US counterparts.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:30:34 +0000

The elections in Venezuela are more open than our Moderate friends in the ME. Let the Venezuelans decide what they want. They have more of a voice than the Egyptians. Our friends in Saudis Arabia…..

By: enigmatiCore

enigmatiCore — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:11:07 +0000

“Consider why Chavez was elected. Venezuela succeeded in having immense wealth from its oil resources and doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty.”

So their answer was to elect someone who will ensure that Venezuela no longer has immense wealth while doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty?

Brilliant!

By: G. Weightman

G. Weightman — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:21:57 +0000

Was it Wittgenstein who said that if the lion could speak we couldnâ€™t understand him? Itâ€™s hard for me to comprehend how Americans donâ€™t realize that they’ve won history’s lottery ticket.

Can you think of another country or era where the common man has had such a blend of economic opportunity and security, along with the personal freedom to pursue happiness?

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:39:08 +0000

Consider why Chavez was elected. Venezuela succeeded in having immense wealth from its oil resources and doing nothing for the majority of its population, which lives in poverty. In other words severe economic inequality led to a populace willing to elect someone like him since he promised to improve their economic lot. Would the U.S. be immune to this if the current growth in inequality and trends that can reinforce it (Increasing growth in the expense of attending college and cutbacks in grants to help with it among other things.) were to actually continue for a couple of generations?

By: Blue Crab Boulevard » Descent

Blue Crab Boulevard » Descent — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:22:10 +0000

[...] UPDATE: Others: Captain's Quarters, TMV, The Liberty Papers, Never Yet Melted, Stuck In The Middle, Dr. Sanity, [...]

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:03:44 +0000

Well, Chris, that’s the point I’m making: unless and until everyone agrees on drawing lines of what is legitimate and what isn’t, everyone can draw equivalencies according to their own discretion.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:56:12 +0000

1. How should we react to democratic processes that result in election of governments that we believe are antithetical to human rights and freedom? Is such a result still legitimate?
2. Should an international body like the UN formulate the requirements of a just society? Should the international community have veto power over the voters of a country, if it believes that the voters were misguided? If there were conditions that made it impossible for a populace to make an informed decision, or if there was coercion in the election process?
3. If we answer yes to #2, then what steps should the international community take? Does this legitamize either invasion or covert operations to depose a leader? Would such steps be more immoral than imposing sanctions, which ultimately hurt the populace more than they hurt the regime?
4. To what degree can the international community reach consensus on these issues? To what degree would the leaders of the international community be able to uphold their own ideals within their own soveriegn nations? And what happens if one or more of them donâ€™t do so? Who decides if there is a violation serious enough for a nation to lose itâ€™s status of moral high ground?

So when is a UN coalition going to invade the United States?

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:48:34 +0000

Rudi,
But what do you think about my comment #5? Do you think that a democracy that results in a dictatorship is still legitimate?

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:42:19 +0000

Chavez isn’t the only Leftist elected in Latin America. I guess Democracy is bad when W doesn’t get his sycophants he demands. Maybe AG Gonzalez has dual citizenship…….

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:14:33 +0000

egnimatiCore:
Very true, and Gray’s comment (#1 in this thread) proves your point.

By: G. Weightman

G. Weightman — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:04:45 +0000

…why care about the democratically elected president of a small Latin American state, who also tries to enhance his powers and who wants to expropriate obscenely walthy corporations?..

Why not relocate to Caracas and help build the New Socialist Paradise? But remember (if you do go and become disillusioned) you won’t be able to excoriate Chavez as you are now doing to Bush.

By: enigmatiCore

enigmatiCore — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:27:20 +0000

The line about the analogy to replacing one Dick with another is good snark, but as I wrote on my blog, the real value in your post is that blurb from Edward Ellis, Joe. Very nice find.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:22:50 +0000

Some crucial questions that have to be resolved:
1. How should we react to democratic processes that result in election of governments that we believe are antithetical to human rights and freedom? Is such a result still legitimate?
2. Should an international body like the UN formulate the requirements of a just society? Should the international community have veto power over the voters of a country, if it believes that the voters were misguided? If there were conditions that made it impossible for a populace to make an informed decision, or if there was coercion in the election process?
3. If we answer yes to #2, then what steps should the international community take? Does this legitamize either invasion or covert operations to depose a leader? Would such steps be more immoral than imposing sanctions, which ultimately hurt the populace more than they hurt the regime?
4. To what degree can the international community reach consensus on these issues? To what degree would the leaders of the international community be able to uphold their own ideals within their own soveriegn nations? And what happens if one or more of them don’t do so? Who decides if there is a violation serious enough for a nation to lose it’s status of moral high ground?

Some things to consider, and if we choose not to do so, then we have to accept that there will always be Castros, Saddams and Chavezes.

By: at-Largely

at-Largely — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:07:40 +0000

Chavez passes Patriot Act…

Why does Chavez emulate Bush’s power grab (signing statements, Patriot Act, etc.)? Probably because power still corrupts and absolute power still corrupts absolutely. Although nationalizing the energy sector is a fantastic idea, such “nationalizing…

By: Lynx

Lynx — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:07:19 +0000

I don’t like Chavez, but, wasn’t he democratically voted in? Venezuela es a sovereign nation. We can dislike their politics, we can say how bad it is for them to have Chavez, or how bad it is for us, but unless it’s clear that opposition is impossible, there’s not much we can fairly do. I’ll bet that the elections were less than squeaky clean, but that probably goes for every single third world nation, and we aren’t complaining about all of them. If the populace is allowed to vote and votes for Chavez while having other options, well, sorry. There seems to be a lot of speculation about “Is he dictator yet?” because the minute he is one he can be openly opposed. Right now it looks like he has the votes of a majority of his country, so he’s a democratically elected leader, albeit one we don’t like very much.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:42:15 +0000

Itâ€™s sort of like watching the old TV show â€œBewitched,â€? as another actor assumed the part of Darrin.

LOL…great line, Joe!

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:10:00 +0000

Yawn. In a time when Bush claims extraordinary executive powers and doesn’t even try to pretend he’s observing the laws anymore, where billions of taxpayer dollars are regularly handed out to already obscenely wealthy corporations, why care about the democratically elected president of a small Latin American state, who also tries to enhance his powers and who wants to expropriate obscenely walthy corporations? It’s har d to decide who’s worse, but very easy to chose the more important and more dangerous guy of those two.