of ironic humor in how Chavez echoes Bush Junta tactics. When they demonize him, he demonizes Bush right back. If they personalize the huge, peaceful, democratic, leftist (majorityist) revolution that is sweeping Latin America, and try to make it all seem like one "strongman" ruler, he plays the game and personalizes it right back, by focusing on Bush. If they despise the peasants and the poor of Latin America, and would as soon dump them out of airplanes as look at them, Chavez responds with a peasant joke about "the devil" or "Mr. Danger," or "the little imperial gentleman." Lord, how Latin Americans must roar at these remarks! It's exactly what they would say at the kitchen table.
If you've read any interviews of Chavez, you know how intelligent he is--and how incredibly well read and articulate--so these kind of reverse irony tactics are well thought out. They are aimed at disarming and defanging every Bush Junta effort to lie about Chavez and the Boliviarian revolution, their every effort to assassinate or topple him personally, and their failed effort to "divide and conquer" in Latin America. Chavez is SUCCEEDING in his purpose of unifying these countries against more US interference in their affairs. Even the rightwing president of Colombia, and the rightwing/corporatist president of Mexico, have had to publicly disassociate themselves from Bushite plots against Chavez and interference in elections and in other venues in the region. The theme of "Latin America for Latin Americans" has resonance. The Bolivarian revolution has transformed Latin American politics. TWO Latin American presidents, one on the right (Calderon, Mexico), and one on the left (Lulu, Brazil) publicly lectured Bush on Latin American sovereignty on Bush's recent tour, and Calderon even mentioned Venezuela in that context. So SOMETHING has happened. There is extraordinary unity on this issue. And I believe that it may even have been a CONDITION of Bush's tour--laid down by the leaders of the countries that he visited--that they would not tolerate Chavez-bashing.
And this is why Barbara Walters is interviewing Chavez. Because Chavez has defeated Bush. Oh, Bush still has his rightwing paramilitary pals--the drug traffickers and murderers of Colombia and Guatemala and southern Mexico--and plenty of US taxpayer booty, with which to cause a lot of grief. But the Bushites have failed at propagandizing Latin America. Nobody's buying it. Just as nobody's buying it in North America (--where 75% of the people oppose Bush's heinous war).
Chavez is also a fascinating guy. Wily as hell, passionate--even religious--about empowering the poor, and very friendly and simpatico. The more you read about him, and see him in action, the more the charge of "dictator" becomes ridiculous. (Anyone who hasn't seen it really needs to go to www.AxisofLogic.com and get the DVD of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"--about the attempted rightwing coup--it is a revelation.) Yeah, he's full of himself, he's a showman, but he is also sincere and well-spoken--and has tremendous support among the majority of Venezuelans, a great following all over Latin America, and has been able to forge ties of friendship and brotherhood with most of Latin America's leaders. (That's the word Nestor Kirchner of Argentina used--"He is my brother"--stated in the context of Bush's tour and in particular of Bush's efforts to bully or bribe other leaders into opposing Chavez).
I can see Barbara Walters being intrigued by Chavez's success. I don't particularly like her as an interviewer. She seems too much of a suckup to the powerful. And my first thought was, "Uh-oh, will Hugo's head be turned by his growing celebrity?!" But the fact that she is going to interview him is an indicator of how popular he has become. And how a leader reacts to celebrity and hero worship is not determined by who interviews them, but by who they are--their genuineness and integrity. I just read an interview* of Chavez in which he talks about "authoritarianism." He said there is a difference between government authority--which any government must have--and "authoritarianism." He mentions the "mudslide" into Stalinism. I guess the mudslides that are common in Caracas during heavy rains have become a metaphor for awfulness--he and his interviewer seemed to know what they meant, by "mudslides" and didn't explain it, except to refer to Stalinism and also to dictatorial governments in communist Eastern Europe. He has thought about these matters--the beginning of wisdom in any truly great leader. And what a contrast to our own leaders--who don't worry about "mudslides" into dictatorship. He is worried--worried about keeping his head on straight; worried about respecting constitutional limits and electoral mandates. He tries to make the distinction between STRONG government, and "authoritarian" government. (My analogy is FDR--whom the rightwing accused of being a "dictator," but whose strength was used on behalf of the poor, to pull the country out of crisis, and who was reelected four times, because the country largely AGREED with his policies. Venezuela and Latin America are suffering a comparable crisis to the Great Depression.)
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the Walters interview--because Chavez likes to talk, and talks freely. He is both shrewd and wily and, somehow, at the same time, quite open. A very interesting man.
And, if we want to understand what is happening in Latin America--and what it may mean for us, politically and economically--we need to understand this leader and his immense popularity and magnetism.
-----
*The interview is here:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1985This is also enlightening: "Presidents of Argentina, Paraguay and Ecuador publicly defend Venezuela's Chavez":
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2243
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(530 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
