Is Chavez the Most Incompetent Dictator Evar?
Monday, December 3rd, 2007 - 10:36am
CARACAS, Venezuela - Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.
Now I admit to not following Venezuelan politics closely, but after being assured by many people in the media, on the internet, and our government that this man is a dictator, I was surprised to see this story.
What kind of dictator holds an election to give himself more power and create a socialist state and then loses the election? He's supposed to win this election with 98% of the vote. That's the way it's done.
Also interesting that he didn't invite outside election observers, from what I read. Which, many imagine, would have given him the opportunity to do whatever he wanted to manipulate the results.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
At least now we won't have to assassinate him.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Apparently the "corporate media" (I swear it's the first time I wrote that) don't tell the whole story. It is not exactly new.
Compare for example with the elections in Russia. They also didn't have independent observers, but they already are a western ally, so who cares?
I'm not a Chavez fan - I don't like when all hope is focused in one person - but from what I read Venezuela has used their oil profit to actually help the less privileged (and support neighbouring countries like Cuba - importing doctors, for example).
There were also Chavez supporters against this particular vote, which might show the political freedom in Venezuela. Venezuela also has a very vocal opposition in the media, which are owned by sectors of the population that strongly oppose Chavez reforms'. I just hope there are no unpleseant surprises in the future from both sides: I dislike elected government imposed dictatorship as much as elite imposed ones.
or US imposed
One who thought he had figured out how to rig the election in a way noone would notice...
About Russia, I don't know about the other news channels but Fox has said something about it repeatedly over the weekend in their news blurbs (a local station has some news deal with Fox, Fox does the news spots for everything but local news, and they do local stuff).
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
NPR is saying that Chavez still enjoys a huge majority on most issues, but some of those supporters were reluctant to go along with these amendments. The report also said that the usually fragmented political opposition was better coordinated in opposing the amendments, but not really enough to have defeated them without serious concerns on the part of usual Chavez supporters.
The guy is still one of the murlocs of world political leaders, but I do have to give him kudos for (1) not f*cking with the election to get a guaranteed win and (2) agreeing to abide by the results.
"All that time you waste dating and having sex could be better spent scouring the web for new game developer press releases." - Quintin_Stone
What struck me the most about the Chavez situation is the way the media has so easily slipped into the rhetoric of the administration. Talking about dictators losing elections just seemed bizarre to me. At what point do editors read that headline during copyediting and think to themselves, "You know, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe the Bush Administration and right-wing think tanks who feed us stories are full of sh*t?"
I mean, for all I know Chavez will try to become history's greatest monster. But so far he isn't doing a real good job of it, despite what some of these press outlets would have us believe.
That is an interesting point. I've read a few articles that give him a more nuanced treatment, but certainly the mainstream is not applying too much critical thought to Don Hugo. The NYT Sunday Magazine had an interesting article a few weeks ago about how his messing with the country's oil industry may actually end up lowering the amount of oil revenue the country pulls in.
"All that time you waste dating and having sex could be better spent scouring the web for new game developer press releases." - Quintin_Stone
Huh? Just read the BBC and you'll get the same story. He was implementing huge socialist changes, rebuilt the legislature and judicial branches to better support himself, and in this latest election was asking for indefinite rule. "Please elect me dictator." How is that spin by the Bush Administration?
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
"What misconception traveled down the road and made you want to be here?"
Because dicatators don't hold fair elections or referendums. They dictate. That's part of what dictators do. From the dictionary:
Dictator- a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
I just hope that the combined voice of the electorate and Juan Carlos will get him to shut up and learn some humility.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Seems like you aren't familiar with Hitler's rise to power.
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
"What misconception traveled down the road and made you want to be here?"
So you don't recognize a difference between Hitler's period as Chancellor and his being Fuhrer?
Rather, I recognize similarities between Chavez and Hitler's early political career. I think what you recognize in Chavez is restraint. He's reached the point where we would expect a dictator to seize power by force. However, who is to say that Chavez is finished? History has shown that he never gives up on what he wants.
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
"What misconception traveled down the road and made you want to be here?"
I have no idea of what Chavez will do or will become, but the administration and the press can't just toss out words like "dictator" pre-emptively, based on what Chavez might do in the future. We're talking about what he is now.
Because running a fair elections, abiding by the results and immediately apologizing to the country isn't humble enough? I admit, the guy has a lot to overcome, but he's shown a side that the caricatures missed. We need to re-think our understanding of what he's about.
What if he's actually well-intentioned, for example?
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
It seems to me that his actions for the rest of his term are much more important than what he has recently said. Will he spend the years left to his power attempting to break down the term limits that block his path, and in the end accomplishing the same thing this recent vote would have? Will he continue the consolation of his power in Venezuela's government? The answers to these questions will truly give the measure of the man.
Yep. Exactly. Note that I don't endorse what he's doing; I'm just fascinated how everyone seems to reach for any explanation other than "he wishes to help his people get out of poverty". I mean, he may be *bad* at that, but it's entirely possible he believes he's acting for the good of his country (as opposed to the usual narrative.)
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Do the ends justify the means, Robear?
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
"What misconception traveled down the road and made you want to be here?"
That doesn't mean he's not a jerk generally, though. Did you follow the "¿Por qué no te callas?" news, for example?
Thing is, I've known plenty of well-intentioned jerks. I tend to believe, however, that politics works better when there's some modicum of civility and respect for decorum.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
Which part of "I don't endorse what he's doing" did you mean to address with this?
That's not a question that a reasonable person can answer without specifics. In every case? No. In some cases? Yes. As a core philosophy, it strikes me as repulsive, something the Ayn Rand types use to justify selfishness and moral laziness passed off as superiority of thought.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here.
Word, yeah, he's a jerk. I'm just wondering if he's actually an *idealistic* jerk. He could be the Jimmy Carter of elected dictators.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Err, not quite what I meant, Robear. Does Chavez's ends justify his means? I asking about the philosophy behind his actions, not challenging you. I think Chavez is an ideal person to debate over socialism and democratic process because for the most part his leadership has been free of bloodshed.
In any of these situations, there is a "line" that is crossed, I'm interested in what people think that line is.
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
"What misconception traveled down the road and made you want to be here?"
I don't know enough about it to say. I always assumed there was bloodshed involved in the various street demonstrations and the rebellion, but I could easily be wrong. I guess I don't have a handle on the ends or the means. I just think they'd be better off with a functional democracy, and this is the first sign I've seen of it in years.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
If you don't want to call him a dictator, let's just settle with authoritative leader. Bloodshed is not necessary, there are enough actions that he made or initiated to simply call him undemocratic. Closing down opposing private TV station? Plans to nationalize utility and oil companies? Or just the innocent moving of time half an hour back, because Hugo Chavez believes that it will help the labor productivity? This stuff definitely goes against the basic freedoms that democratic countries seem to enjoy, which I believe is enough to indict him as an authoritative leader, if not a dictator. These things are planned or done purely because he wishes so, not because there was some democratic process involved in passing such decisions.
It's not Wandering Toast. Except in TF2, where it usually is.
So WT, in your narrative, how do you account for his change in behavior with this referendum? That's what I'm getting at, not whether he's called a dictator or Great Leader or something. I'm curious to see what comes next, and whether we've been mistaken in our understanding.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Sorry, got carried away a bit. My purely personal take is that he simply believed that the referendum would be a sure win. I don't know if you have seen him announcing the results, but to me he looked like someone who didn't expect such results and simply couldn't imagine how he lost. OTOH, I'd say that he will find another way how to overcome such obstacle. Just look at the European Union, the European constitution got blasted in the referenda et voila, the almost verbatim "new European act" is being signed into existence, but now by ministers only, screw the vox populi. And this is happening in the countries that are considered democratic, so I guess Hugo Chavez will find an even easier shortcut.
It's not Wandering Toast. Except in TF2, where it usually is.
I agree, WT. The question that I raise is, why did he apologize, and why did he not just go on ahead with his changes? I mean, people are arguing that he's a dictator because he simply decides to do things, and does them. This referendum does not fit that story. So what's different about this? Why is his response not to just continue forward? What's different about him that maybe we have not been told about?
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Just curious, since when is nationalising industry automatically a bad thing? In fact, that was/is one of the reasons he is so popular. I'm not defending the guy but being openly socialist, which isn't an automatically bad thing either or undemocratic, and then following through on his election promises isn't something I see as a mark against him. In fact I fail to see where the problem is. Bad governance, possibly but hardly dictator stuff.
I do agree that the TV situation was terrible but it did openly support the failed coup and then openly supported his opposition. Not excusing his actions but if he was the awful dictator everyone labels him as surely he would have done it a lot sooner? I'm not defending it but to frame the discussion a little, many MPs in Britain, even cabinet ministers and government advisors, have openly called for the closing of the BBC. Does that make them undemocratic?
Yes he is authoritative and that is where I leave it. He is still clearly a democrat. Probably not the nicest guy to work for but still a democrat. In the end view, I him as the male/left equivalent of Thatcher. Mind you, I haven't heard of Chavez Shoot-to-Kill policy just yet.
[off-topic]
As for the EU constitution, 18 countries ratified it before France and Holland didn't, some by popular vote. To describe the EU constitution as unpopular and undemocratic is a little unfair.
[/off-topic]
SteamID: Coyler
Xbox Live: Coyler
Socialism and nationalized industry will only work under one condition, that the ruling power is immune to greed and corruption. In theory, socialism is a great idea. In practice, all you have to do is look at the countries in the past that have been seduced by its promised prosperity to see its grave effects on the populace.
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him, than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on the wall of his cell.
-CS Lewis