Sunday’s election in Venezuela saw Vice President (or “Hugo Chavez’s hand-picked successor,” as he’s known to many in the corporate media) Nicolas Maduro narrowly defeat opposition candidate Henrique Capriles.
And thus USA Today (4/16/13) gives readers a quick recap of the Chavez legacy:
Supporters of Capriles, 40, an athletic state governor, felt sure he would end Chávez’s left-wing Bolivarian Revolution, which has left Venezuela with high unemployment, soaring inflation, food shortages and falling petroleum production in a country with the world’s highest proven oil reserves. Its $30 billion fiscal deficit is equal to about 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
By that score, Venezuela must also have an especially ill-informed populace. If this is the objective record of the Chavez years, how on Earth did he win so many elections?
Perhaps because Venezuelans know a different reality. As noted by FAIR, poverty was cut in half from 2002-10; extreme poverty was even more dramatic. Access to healthcare and free education increased. As Mark Weisbrot argued in the Guardian, this record was a notable turnaround from the pre-Chavez years.
Unemployment is currently estimated to be 8 percent in Venezuela–but it was above 14 percent when Chavez took office in 1999. Inflation is estimated at 20.9 percent–but it peaked near 120 percent in 1996.
That’s not to say there aren’t significant problems in the country. But a news report that chooses to ignore this part of the Chavez legacy is a bit like saying Venezuelans have been fooled about the state of their own lives.
We need to talk about those “significant problems”, and not simply allude to them in a perfunctory manner, as is usually the case here and elsewhere.
I don’t think we do the people of Venezuela, or the cause of justice globally, any favors by neglecting to engage in an honest critique of Bolivarismo or any other movement that it is opposed by the US.
Indeed, it’s essential to do so, if those movements are to realize their stated goals.
There is no contradiction between that and exposing corpress propaganda about them for what it is, is there?
@Doug, maybe I’m misreading your post, but it seems to me that you feel that the opinion of the US is somehow important to the people of Venezuela, but I doubt that to be the case. They will continue to realize their stated goals by the same method they’ve been using for some time now – fair and democratic elections.
Provided no foreign power tries to… say, overthrow their democratically elected government, I think we should have the good grace to accept that their fate is in their hands. They seem well accustomed to the concepts of voting – yet another part of the wonderful legacy left by Comrade Hugo!
Snowshoe, how did you get from what I said to your interpretation of what I said?
Hopefully other readers traveled a less convoluted path.
Hummm what I found quite curious Mr. Hart that you are, apparently, upset on the misreporting about Chavez and the election on April 14th, and yet you forget to mention one little tiny detail about that election: The disputed results: 50.7% voted for Maduro, and 49.1% voted. The difference is barely less than 2%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22153667
Is it now news-worthy for you to account for the little detail of how close this election was? Or you somehow forgot to tell that the election results are currently disputed by the opposition candidate, due to the number of irregularities observed that day, such as “assisted voting” (more like, coerced voting), PSUV officials and supporters harassing voters in voting centers, voting center illegally closed before closing time, and so on? Why don’t you mention that official results put the difference in less than 300 thousand votes? How about that for misreporting?
And as much as you dislike it, Maduro WAS handpicked by Chávez as his successor. The chavista base didn’t elect him candidate, as I can assure you, chavismo had better candidates among them. That for me is the definition of “hand-picked”.
By the way, have you actually noticed (or even verified) that, with each election, the chavismo loses more and more voters? I should know, I used to vote for them in the past…
How come Chávez won the 2006 election with more than 25 points of difference, and the 2012 with barely 10? And how come Madure barely did it (if he actually did it) with less than 2%?
Chavismo is not a wide majority here anymore…
And by the way, I would check the exchange between chavista lobbyist and propagandist Mark Weisbrot and Francisco Rodriguez, economist and former supporter of Chavez. Apparently, he is not that convinced about how well performed Chávez in the economy field…
http://frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/docs/working_papers/How_Not_to_Defend.pdf
The “link free” version of my post:
Hummm what I found quite curious Mr. Hart that you are, apparently, upset on the misreporting about Chavez and the election on April 14th, and yet you forget to mention one little tiny detail about that election: The disputed results: 50.7% voted for Maduro, and 49.1% voted. The difference is barely less than 2%.
www(dot)bbc.co(dot)uk(slash)news(slash)world-latin-america-22153667
Is it now news-worthy for you to account for the little detail of how close this election was? Or you somehow forgot to tell that the election results are currently disputed by the opposition candidate, due to the number of irregularities observed that day, such as “assisted voting” (more like, coerced voting), PSUV officials and supporters harassing voters in voting centers, voting center illegally closed before closing time, and so on? Why don’t you mention that official results put the difference in less than 300 thousand votes? How about that for misreporting?
And as much as you dislike it, Maduro WAS handpicked by Chávez as his successor. The chavista base didn’t elect him candidate, as I can assure you, chavismo had better candidates among them. That for me is the definition of “hand-picked”.
By the way, have you actually noticed (or even verified) that, with each election, the chavismo loses more and more voters? I should know, I used to vote for them in the past…
How come Chávez won the 2006 election with more than 25 points of difference, and the 2012 with barely 10? And how come Madure barely did it (if he actually did it) with less than 2%?
Chavismo is not a wide majority here anymore…
And by the way, I would check the exchange between chavista lobbyist and propagandist Mark Weisbrot and Francisco Rodriguez, economist and former supporter of Chavez. Apparently, he is not that convinced about how well performed Chávez in the economy field…
frrodriguez(dot)web(dot)wesleyan(dot)edu(slash)docs(slash)working_papers/How_Not_to_Defend.pdf
Doug, this is how I interpreted your post:
“We need to talk about those “significant problems”, and not simply allude to them in a perfunctory manner, as is usually the case here and elsewhere.”
So you’re suggesting that FAIR fails to deal with the “significant problems” as comprehensively as you’d like?
“I don’t think we do the people of Venezuela, or the cause of justice globally, any favors by neglecting to engage in an honest critique of Bolivarismo or any other movement that it is opposed by the US.”
Okay, so you either feel that we’re not being honestly critical enough of Bolivarismo or you’re using “critique” when you mean “assessment”.
“Indeed, it’s essential to do so, if those movements are to realize their stated goals.”
So it’s not fair and democratic elections that bring about change, it’s the criticism of citizens or governments or the press? Lost me there…
“There is no contradiction between that and exposing corpress propaganda about them for what it is, is there?”
Given that I was already lost, this just confused me. You pegged out the convoluted path – I (and I suspect others) were unable to follow it.
Snowshoe, I’m loath to deal with those who aren’t interested in honest dialogue, as your insinuations would seem to indicate, but perhaps it’s good practice to pretend you are.
So here goes
Many folks have a knee jerk reaction to propaganda from the corpress and the gummint, reflexively defending individuals, movements or governments from unfair accusations, but ignoring their contradictions.
I think that plays into the hands of the enemy, by appearing to blindly support those persons/entities.
Self criticism, and the willingness to accept honest criticism from others, is vital to the success of any struggle, and an essential element of solidarity.
Unquestioning advocacy is not.
I don’t see anything convoluted about that view. It’s been expressed many times before by those involved in myriad movements for justice, hasn’t it?
Doug,
You:
Snowshoe, I’m loath to deal with those who aren’t interested in honest dialogue, as your insinuations would seem to indicate, but perhaps it’s good practice to pretend you are.
Me:
You asked me what lead me to interpret your post the way that I did and I told you. How has that translated into me having a lack of interest in honest dialogue? In fact, if you’re only pretending that I’m interested, doesn’t that mean that you’re not engaging in honest dialogue?
You:
“Many folks have a knee jerk reaction to propaganda from the corpress and the gummint, reflexively defending individuals, movements or governments from unfair accusations, but ignoring their contradictions.
I think that plays into the hands of the enemy, by appearing to blindly support those persons/entities.”
Me:
You must be kidding!! Think of it like a marriage – as much as you may love the other person, you don’t necessarily like everything that they do. Nor do you feel obliged to give equal time to the fact that they drink milk from the carton or pick their toes in bed to all the wonderful things about them. What is it that you want? More discussion along the lines of that put out by the press and the government? Why?
You:
“Self criticism, and the willingness to accept honest criticism from others, is vital to the success of any struggle, and an essential element of solidarity.
Unquestioning advocacy is not.”
Me:
So we’re supposed to hold Chavez to that standard while the US government attempts to overthrow his government and the press gets away with lying about him daily? I don’t care that Chavez wasn’t perfect – I believe in what he did. If you want to toe the line, go right ahead.
Snowshoe
Well, it wasn’t the response I was hoping for
But it’s not one that was unexpected.
Moving on …
Doug, the apparent lack of depth to your positions when you’re engaged suggests that they’re constructed mainly of dogma – the very thing you rail against. Condescension and eventual retreat are hardly the hallmarks of constructive discussion.
Okay, Alfonso, you act like Chavez controlled the entire economy of his county. He didn’t. Nearly 2/3 or more of the economy remains in private hands. Chavez took some idle farm from some absentee landlords, but he paid them fair value for it. The US government takes land, builds stadiums, and the lets those who own the stadiums make private profits. And, as a Chevron stockholder, I get quarterly reports on how famously profitable my Venezuelan holdings are.
Most telling is the fact that the top marginal income rate is just 34%, hardly confiscatory; nor is the inheritance tax that levels off at a maximum of 55%. Capital gains are taxed as ordinary income, and the stock marker there has tripled in value over the last thirteen months.
Chavez never attempted a Lenin-like seizure of all the means of production, He basically taxed the oil wealth enough to build social parallel institutions to attack poverty and broaden healthcare and education. Alaskans get oil royalties paid annually to achieve the same ends, and long-time natives often receive sizable checks from the oil barons. Norway does the same with its vast petroleum resources, as does Saudi Arabia.
Maybe if Chavez looked more like Francisco Franco and less like Sitting Bull, you’d like him better. The anti- Chavez forces, especially their more vociferous elements, are simply maddened to be governed by an indigenous man. They’d love the Conquistadors to return.
Snowshoe needs to look at Chavez’s policies through the eyes of the ordinary Venezuelan. When poverty here became extreme, we had the New Deal, which redistributed wealth while preserving the basis of capitalism. This is what Chavez embarked upon, if you can get past his bluster. No one has been slain or dispossessed, though a sizable segment of the oligarchs there actually plotted his overthrow.
Imagine, if you can, the repercussions here if a coup of leftists had used the force of arms to overthrow Bush in 2001, who did not get anywhere near the percentage of the popular vote Chavez did. How many would be executed? How many trials would there have been? How many arrests for treason? Chavez was quite forgiving under the circumstances, and if there were a tyrant in him, if would have come out in April 2002, when he was threatened with death if he didn’t resign, but was fortunate to be rescued by some real democrats in the military.
And, he won his elections, though his USA-financed opposition controlled the media and outspent him 5:1. That’s just too much democracy for most Americans to handle.
@John Wolfe, I (Snowshoe) am an unashamed supporter of Chavez. I’ve never lived under his government, but everything I know about his ideology I like, including the way he thumbed his nose at the US.
John Wolfe:
As I told you in the post of Naureckas, a dosage of more research, and less “Ad-Hominem attack” talk would do some wonders in your posts regarding Venezuela.
Again, you assume too much of a person you barely know…