New York Times (3/8/13)
“On Eve of His Funeral, Debating Chávez’s Legacy” is the headline over William Neuman‘s piece in the New York Times today (3/8/13). Funny headline, since there was no one in the Times‘ “debate” who argued that Chávez left much of anything.
Former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo ticks off the countries that supposedly didn’t follow the Chávez model. A former U.S. ambassador weighs in, talking about how unappealing Venezuela is to other countries. “The intention of Venezuela to be the shining light of the new left has not been realized,” explains a Brazilian professor. He was “a very polarizing figure,” says ubiquitous media source (and walking conflict of interest) Michael Shifter.
Neuman almost seems puzzled, at one point writing:
Yet Mr. Chávez had many influential and enthusiastic allies, as evidenced by the international outpouring that followed his death on Tuesday.
This is the way he introduces former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who wrote a glowing op-ed for Neuman’s own newspaper (3/7/13) about Chávez’s legacy. It began:
History will affirm, justifiably, the role Hugo Chávez played in the integration of Latin America, and the significance of his 14-year presidency to the poor people of Venezuela.
But Neuman references Lula only to make the point that Brazil’s economy is the real inspiration:
Brazil, in particular, has emerged as a model that some governments in the region are seeking to emulate, balancing a friendlier approach to private enterprise with innovative social programs that have lifted millions from poverty into the middle class.
The only people in Neuman’s piece who speak up for Chávez are a retired military officer and his vice president, Nicolás Maduro. Is this because there’s nothing good to say about Chávez’s record? Of course not. But the Times wants you to think that’s the case:
And while poverty went down significantly during Mr. Chávez’s years as president, other countries, like Brazil, Peru and Colombia, made progress in reducing poverty while following paths very different from that of Mr. Chávez.
Well, most countries made progress reducing poverty, and there are always going to be different ways to do this. But the Venezuela record is strong by regional standards, as the IMF chart at the right shows, Venezuela’s reduction is among the strongest in the region. The Times cites Colombia, but this analysis would indicate the story there is hardly comparable.
Writing at the NACLA blog (10/8/12), Keane Bhatt observes that Brazil’s record on reducing poverty, while certainly commendable, is less dramatic than the progress made by Venezuela under Chávez. (The Latin American country with the most remarkable record in poverty reduction is Argentina, but it goes unmentioned in Neuman’s piece, presumably because he doesn’t think its model should be followed either.)
It’s possible to debate the Chávez legacy, of course. But in a region that saw a wave of democratic elections usher in leftist governments after Chávez came to power in Venezuela—where Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay and the Dominican Republic all declared periods of national mourning to mark his death—it sure seems odd to suggest there’s not much to be said for his legacy.
Over at the Washington Post (3/8/13), meanwhile, columnist Anne Applebaum compares Chávez to Stalin. Sure, he wasn’t a mass murderer, but he still managed to fool a lot of people into thinking he’d improve their lives. As she writes:
Chávez wasn’t a mass murderer, after all, though he did an enormous amount of damage to his country’s judiciary, to its press, to its public life and to its ever more oil-dependent economy. Like the Soviet dictator, he promised the poor of his country things that cannot be delivered—and still they are expected to turn out in vast numbers for his funeral Friday, while his henchmen begin the battle for succession.
Perhaps poor people in Venezuela have some ideas about the things that actually were delivered during Chávez’s term.
Jake Johnston and Sara Kozameh of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (3/7/13) have collected some of the measures of economic and social life during the Chávez years, which were marked by substantial decreases in unemployment and poverty. I have no idea what makes Applebaum thinks she knows better; she offers no statistics on Chávez’s supposed broken promises.
Just saying one is “of the left” does not prove or do much of anything.
However the list in America of people of the left that have been messed with, harassed, murdered, threatened, blacklisted or otherwise kept from doing what they want in the world is pretty long.
Just as the Republicans, ie. the plutocracy, are doing their best to make sure President Obama can spend nothing and do nothing, the right-wing in South America with the help of right-wingers everywhere are trying to make sure what would be an infectious success of the left does not take hold by whatever means necessary. They know how important it is to fix in the people’s minds the brainwashing necessary to make them subjects and slaves of the elite.
Of course, the economic system cheerleaders like Applebaum champion is based on “things that can’t be delivered” by it.
It can’t deliver justice.
It can’t deliver dignity.
It can’t deliver a livable planet.
So best to not concern yourself with such inconsequential matters
And focus your being on being the best drone you can be.
For all the contradictions of Chavismo
(And the whole mausoleum thing should give pause to even its most ardent supporters)
Compare the tangible gains of the poor in Venezuela to the austerity being shoved down the throats of the same here
And one president who openly championed their cause, whatever you might think of the cult of personality that surrounds him
With another who can barely stand to have the word leave his lips.
(And who has his own worrisome cult following.)
The people of Venezuela will have the last word on Chavez’ legacy
And that sticks in the craw of the corpress and the chattering classes, doesn’t it?
I thought Argentina, the only Latin American country which seems to have reduced poverty more sharply than Venezuela, achieved that by pulling out of a severe depression following its default on foreign debt.
The UN chart doesn’t sufficiently highlight Venezuela’s outstanding poverty reduction. To get a better picture, I translated this chart into numbers for nations with the largest apparent reduction. I then compared these nations by dividing their 2010 poverty level by the 2002 level to get a *proportional* percentage reduction.
Result: Venezuela was the third best performer in poverty reduction among 19 nations, nearly tying with Peru for the #2 spot. (They were separated by less than 1% of proportional reduction.) Far more impressive than the UN chart appears to show — and therefore even less likely to be spotlighted in so-called mainstream media.
The elite hate it when the government actually exists for its ordinary people. Little mention has been made this week of the coup that ousted Chavez, with Bush and Rice sending congratulations to the Chamber of Commerce president who stepped in to replace Chavez, whom the military had exiled to an isolated island, where they threatened him with death if he did not sign over leadership to the oilman they put in charge. Chavez refused, but as the people ralled fiercely in the streets, a frightened miltary agreed to return him to power. To the failed coup, this event marked an example of the dangerous contagion of true democracy, where the people solidified what they had voted for by taking direct action. The elites see this as a dangerous contagion, which if emulated too often, would give the peoples of South America the dangerous idea that they, not the elites, can control their own economic destinies outside the orbit of the Colossus to their North. That’s why Chavez must be mocked or minimized, even in his death.
To follow up, let me say that Chavez brought propsperity in a short time. It was really not until 2006 that he solved the problems of the labor unrest at the refineries and oil wells, disputes kept his country from utilizing the full potential of its wealth. Yes, oil had a lot to do with his ability to help his poor, just like the fertile Midwest has always given the US the natural advantage of relatively cheap food. And, no one complains about Saudi Arabia’s economy, which is just an oil sheikdom that represses women and beheads its poltical opponents, while it slyly buys off terrorists to keep their bullseye off it back. Chavez didn’t run drugs or guns, so his opponents had to labor to find a way to attack him. That his oil economy funded better schools and healthcare is mocked by the elites in the US business press, but no one has ever said a bad word about the annual royalty checks Alaskans get for their oil pipeline. I guess white guys who have to bear 6 hours or less of sunlight most of the year deserve some relief, even if comes in the form of annual payments based on their state’s natural petroleum resources.
Of course it is always classy to kick a dead man., isn’t it? Chavez was a man… a flawed over the top man who loved his country and tried to help it in his own way. How horrible! We are still the best as we dish every other way of life on earth and spit on their graves. GO, America!!!
“that whole mausuleaum thing should give you pause”???
WHA?!
Have you ever seen grants tomb? Ever been to the crypt under the naval academy where the body presumed to be the mortal remains of John Paul Jones lies? How about the grotesque sick and morbid, (and possible only in a capitalist society) cryogenic head banks, containing all the (presumably frozen) heads of those americans who believe its possible to live forever by human technology…But Chavez is a South American . Those south Americans shouldn’t take on such airs? I guess? Or perhaps if he was a capitalism serving, US puppet generalisimo such comments wouldn’t be made. What I never fail to miss, in this general outpouring of Chavez commentariat, is that the commenters who are anglo americans or ignorant buttinsky Europeans, HATE Chavez. They aren’t really sure why, they cant make a reasoned factual argument against him or what he did for Venezuala, but they just have to pop off with some lunacy, half imagined, half gleaned from the propaganda mill being run in major media sources in the US and Western Europe
To whomever replied to my post, but for whatever reason chose not to leave a name
Hagiography is an extremely dangerous thing, regardless of whatever contributions an individual may have made to a society.
And a bloodless body does not embody the spirit of a movement.
That emanates from the acts of those still breathing.
How you divined a perspective on Chavez that dovetails with that of the corpress and US gummint from my comments is beyond me
But as you did, I doubt it would be of any use to attempt to disabuse you of that notiron
So I’ll just let other readers come to their own conclusions, which hopefully will evince a bit more rationality.
Based on the comments I read about Chavez, it is clear that he had his supporters and opponents, believers and doubters. Rather than take one side or the other, I will look at the history as objectively as I can. There should be a lot of admiration for the good things he accomplished — and there were many — but he also deserves some well-deserved criticism.
Natch, the DOD (Defenders of Democrats) will be out in force to point out how the same could be said for President Obama, or even President Bush. To head off such attempts at equivocating, I will only state that Chavez has much more to his credit as a reformer than any US presidents do. Like the DOD folks, and their Tea Party compatriots, I agree that Chavez did some undemocratic things. But I think there is a world of difference in terms of the efforts undertaken by each of these men toward creating a more just and equal society. Chavez did many things to increase equality, which is the main underpinning of a democracy; far fewer things that could be counted as an assault on the people.
Or, let’s put it this way. I’m pretty sure I’d rather have had Chavez for the past 14 years running the US than any of the (even very remotely progressive) leaders we have had here; his worst deeds are no worse than anything Clinton, W, or Obama have done, and probably less so overall.
Love the comments from No Difference. What a great idea for an “alternate history” novel: what if a Chavez-type personality had become US president in (say) 1996, 2000 or thereabouts? The epic sweep of this revision could unfold into a whole series of novels — and tv episodes and motion pictures — personal and gut-wrenching narratives, driven by national and global upheavals as the newly led United States gradually rights itself from the wild, off-kilter wallowing in its current self-made morass.
The possibilities are endless: enforcement of federal law would have kept banksters in check, keeping our economy on a more even keel. Pulling US troops out of vicious authoritarian regimes (including Saudi Arabia) would have eliminated the originally nationalistic resentment of a little-known guy named bin Laden (and others) against US imperialism on their home turf. No 9/11, no jihad, no 10-year, trillion dollar war, no “need” for tragically ironic homeland “security”.
Public resources poured into sustaining true prosperity from the bottom up. And on and on.
Think it through, keep it realistic, no pollyanna utopia, just a different mix of real-world problems but with less inequality and suffering across the board.
Okay, who’s gonna take first crack at it?
Hello! I just want to give you a big thumbs up for your excellent info you’ve got here on this post. I’ll be
returning to your web site for more soon.
Sadly, Venezuela is deteriorating now, after Chavez. But you wouldn’t cover that. I love your site, just forwarded the latest to the BBC and Guardian, which probably already subscribes, but you would be more credible if you didn’t take a hard left position on every single thing. I told the ADL to protest the defamation of Arab Americans. They have, to some surprise. Did any of the press cover a video I saw on Politico of Weiner in an orthodox bakery. (I voted for de Blasio, hoping he IS a class warrior. Bloomberg and Wall St don’t need to worry about NYC and the country’s bridges falling down: coptering out to their private airports). In the video what looks like the owner of the bakery is screaming at Weiner, “You married an arab woman!!!” Weiner’s reply: something about prejudice or racism, then “And in front of my children”. Not the exact wording. Check it out and cover it.
http://www.paydayloanforme.com/fKLxzsXMZi6exQEt2312.html
送料無料,高品質 NBA オンコート リバーシブル ウォームアップジャケット ニックス adidas New York Knicks Youth On-Court Reversible Warmup Jacket 豊富な，正規品