Chavez: Rhetoric versus Results

[Zomby Woof]

Venezuela President Hugo Chavez demonstrated in the same week an ineffective method one way, and an effective method another, of dealing with the United States and its failure of leadership by George W. Bush.

The ineffective method was using the podium at the U.N. to deliver what would normally be a red meat-and-potatoes kind of speech to his constituents in Venezuela - the poor and disenfranchised of the barrios, and the struggling working classes. He has probably given many similar speeches in the past few years, and understandably so. But on an international platform, it is important to step up the rhetoric, and provide statesmanship instead of stand-up comedy monologues. So my objection isn't so much the message, as it is the medium. One did not match the other.

As for the message, I agreed with many of his remarks, like most of us do, but not all of them. For a non-believer such as myself, the "devil" remarks must only be taken metaphorically, so using my literary appreciation as a guide, I would say that Milton's "Paradise Lost" provides a decent Lucifer archetype. Safe to say, Bush isn't even close. Is Bush an alcoholic? Plenty of evidence that it's likely, but again, is the U.N. an effective platform for such a charge? Doesn't delving into his personal flaws - flaws we are well-acquainted with - detract from the more important points about Bush's policy failures concerning the war and terrorism? Placing the person before the policies - even as they often intertwine - was perhaps Chavez's biggest weakness on the stand.

So several days pass since the speech, and overblown media coverage about it aside, Chavez demonstrated, at Mt. Olive Baptist Church in Harlem, a very effective means of addressing U.S. policy shortcomings. He did so in a way that undermines Bush effectively, and with considerably more subtlety than red-hot rhetoric does. His plan to deliver 100 million gallons of home heating oil to the neediest Americans, is a worthy and welcome gesture - and a triumph of results over rhetoric. First, he does what is right, all other motives aside: He is aiding people in their time of need with one of life's most essential necessities - safe, warm shelter. But there is no denying how this gesture mocks Bush's failure of leadership on the domestic front, as Katrina painfully made us aware. Also, it forces Bush's hand. A narcissist such as he cannot stand being upstaged. If he does nothing in response to Chavez's gift, it will only prove what no amount of rhetoric on the U.N. stage can do - that George W. Bush is worse than any devil. He is all too sadly very real.

Bush is the master of bad results and no results, and can only be handled by other world leaders exceeding his grasp with positive results. When it comes to devil-may-care rhetoric, leave it at home. Chavez probably alienated many potential allies among rank-and-file Americans with his speech. Conversely, his gift of home heating oil can possibly win over many more of us than the speech may have deflected. So my request as a normally sympathetic American on his behalf is: please, more results and less rhetoric. The latter is one thing our politicians have in abundance. The former is as scarce as a winter frost in hell.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Did it ever occur to you that Chavez wasn't speaking to us?

The first principle of rhetoric is that audience counts. Perhaps Chavez was speaking to a whole 'nother audience when he made his remarks. Perhaps Americans aren't the only people in the world? Hmmmm...

This is like one of those moments when the school bully walks into the cafeteria, and someone has stamped "DOUCHEBAG" on the back of his shirt. Sure, all the bully's friends get mad, but everybody else is laughing their asses off. And the bully and his friends realize that there are not only others out there, but many more than their little group.

It's almost as if Chavez caused exactly the result he wanted to cause. By "uniting" even fence-sitting Americans against him, he highlighted the utter ego-centrism of the American people. But ssshhhh, don't tell anybody. He wasn't talking to them. Which seems to me to be precisely the point.

[Zomby Woof]

2. I am clearly aware of that

I understand how much you loved the taste of his red-meat dinner - we all got enjoyment out of it. I still laugh every time they play the clip.

Speaking to the sympathetic minions of the world and telling him what they want to hear has its place. But when it comes down to it, makes no difference policy-wise.

I am not saying he shouldn't have said what he did - only that I prefer it when he acts, rather than acts up.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. I think it makes a world of difference policy-wise

Chavez is attempting to re-forge an alliance of the non-aligned, something which collapsed with communism, since it seemed out of place. The void was filled by all the parasitic bankers and neo-liberals, mainly from the global north, who scavenged the global south with even more ferocity than usual. Chavez is talking to the people of the global south, and building distance from the United States, Republican or Democrat, is the key to such a maneuver. We tend to think only of ourselves in such matters, but there's a whole world out there. It may not make any difference in terms of US policy, but Chavez's point is preciszely that US foreign and economic policy is consistent regardless of regime, so even trying to influence it is useless. He's going for the exit option, and you need to build that. One way to do that is by showing yourself to be opted out, with impunity. On the streets, we know this as the old fuck you. And it works, if you play your cards right. Chavez's rhetoric (rhetoric gets results, too...all speech is rhetorical) seeks to show others (not us) that he can opt out of good relations with the US and continue on with trading (he has an essential commodity) and governing. In that case, you have to give the old fuck you. If the neighborhood kid publicly repudiates the crime boss, and nothing happens to him as a result, guess what happens to the other neighborhood kids, and to the crime boss? That's how it works. Worrying about the response of the wiseguys and consiglieres (that would be us) is ridiculous.

[Zomby Woof]

6. Yes, rhetoric can have results

So I much prefer his speech in Harlem to his one in Manhattan. Of course, the media overplayed the former and downplayed the latter. But you prove my point without intending to: He can be more effective with his "fuck you's" by donating the oil, rather than scoring showmanship points with devil and brimstone comedy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. It depends on the effects he's trying to produce, and with whom

I do not prove your point at all, and I am completely unclear on how you would read that in my post.

With Americans, yes, he may be more effective with the Harlem speech and the oil donations. With other groups and for other purposes, his UN speech may have been just as effective at accomplishing his goal. You have to take the full situation into account in each case.

[RethugAssKicker]

10. Any links to hisspeech in Harlem??

Thanks

[Zomby Woof]

13. I have only read excerpts

The chief among them being his announcement of the oil donation. I have not found a transcript of its entirety.

He also said that he hopes one day we have a president he can have a constructive relationship with - and I am glad he did. He said what needed to be said with bluntness, and rightfully scorning Bush in the process - but without the cartoon imagery.

I think my point in the OP needs reiterating - I agree with more of what he said than not. I don't think it was wrong for him to criticize Bush (I never think that is wrong). I just questioned the substance of one speech versus another because of the immediate results of each.

Here in False Dichotomy Land, I was fully aware of the perils of being skeptical about Chavez. I think I did okay balancing his virtues with his flaws, but I think people will ultimately read what they want to read in my OP, and finer points be damned. :-)

[zeemike]

4. And what other platform does he have?

You do not see the media covering anything about him or anything he says do you?
But they do hang on every word El Diablo says and repeat all propaganda for at least three days.

[Zomby Woof]

8. See post #6

Or just re-read the OP. I make it clear that his actions in Harlem will have much more effect than his gesticulating at the U.N. I agree that the media is doing its normally tepid job - but that doesn't mean Chavez was perfect or heroic by default. ALL world leaders, even ones I often agree with - have to earn it every day. I have higher standards for statesmanship than is probably normal, but I make no apologies for it.

Harlem was a much better platform for him, and I believe I will be vindicated when thousands of Americans are able to survive this winter without selling their kidneys on Ebay. Chavez may be bribing people, but it's a win-win. ;-)

Red-meat rhetoric is self-indulgent, and a dead-end.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Again, it depends on what his purpose is

If his purpose is to win over the American people, then obviously - obviously - the devil bit is worthless as a rhetorical move. If, on the other hand, his purpose is to demonstrate to the other UN members that he can be neither bribed, extorted, nor threatened by US power, and that they should thus vote Venezuela on to the Security Council, because they will act as a real check on that power, then it might be a very good rhetorical move. Making absolute claims about rhetoric is silly. You have to examine the situation and try to get a read of the speakers read of it, his or her various audiences, his or her purposes, the general context. The same speech that may be terrible for US audiences may be precisely what needs to be done to accomplish some purpose with another audience. And what may be "red meat" rhetoric for US leftists, may also be a demonstration of an important function for the voting members of the UN. What we have here is a rather complex rhetorical situation. Simple analyses of it in terms of one particular audience are insufficient. It's like saying that Stephen Colbert's speech at the Correspondents Dinner was a failure because Laura Bush didn't laugh. That's silly. You're saying essentially the same thing here.

[Zomby Woof]

12. Colbert was brilliant

I even posted on how it made him a modern day Twain. He was subversive (besides, Laura Bush is physically incapable of laughing, as she has had that frozen Joker-smile since she was 17).

Chavez wasn't being subversive or ironic, or any of the things which made Colbert's speech work. He was being Chavez, which isn't a bad thing, but not necessarily brilliant or heroic either. Sometimes it's great, other times it misses. That's par for the course with 99% of world leaders, so it's no crime, and I am not saying he should be ashamed, or do it over.

In another thread, I decried the argument that Chavez had no right to speak, or any right to criticize America or Bush. I fully support his right to speak up to any audience which will listen, on any subject he holds dear. My critique is my opinion, but I don't go so far as to say the sky is falling, nor do I buy into the media flak over it. I think his speech may have some effect in cementing some dissenting world opinions - but not much more than that.

I generally support Chavez, reserving the right to be skeptical of him as anyone else with considerable power. I know fully well that the American media has a vested interest in demonizing him because of his policies. I am not joining in with that demonization - I am offering my critique on how he demonstrated two styles of his leadership - and how I believe one method is much more effective than the other, regardless of media spin or DU agonizing. I have never been much of a fan of the hot/cold dichotomies that are prevalent in ths forum.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. I'm not so sure

It's easy to write Chavez off as a bit of a loose cannon rhetorically. I don't know that that is the case. You say "I think his speech may have some effect in cementing some dissenting world opinions - but not much more than that." I don't think we have enough information to make such judgments.

I find it plausible that Chavez knew exactly what he was doing. The man is clearly an able rhetor. He was essentially telling members of the general assembly that - unlike other possible candidates for the Security Council seat - Venezuela cannot be bribed, coerced, threatened, extorted, or otherwise pressured by US economic, military, or diplomatic means. The message was this: "Hell, I called the President of the United Statesd the devil, and shit still ain't come down on me, so how're these fuckers gonna force my vote when the chips are down?" And that may be precisely what the swing votes may want to hear as they make their decision for that crucial seat.

I don't know. But the point is, neither do you.

You don't know what goal he was trying to accoimplish in making the speech, so your evaluations of it ring hollow for me. This is not a question of dichotomies, demonization, or any of the other nonsense. I don't even really care all that much for Mr. Chavez, or whatever. But I do care about responsible and plausible rhetorical analyses. And for my money, saying that Mr. Chavez speech at the UN was worse than his speech in Harlem is simplistic, since you only seem to base that on the reaction of one possible audience (the Colbert-Laura Bush analogy stands unchallenged), and you have no plausible claims about his other purposes and audiences. In think we have two distinct rhetorical occasions, with different audiences and goals, not two styles of leadership, whatever that might mean.

[Keepontruking]

5. Rhetoric vs culture

Less we forget this, yes the world is getting smaller, however
the cultural differences remain intact.  Thank whatever is
holy to you!  Chavez is impassioned and driven, family
oriented, and ready to right the worlds wrongs and what's
wrong with the world ....BUSH!  Public enemy number one.  Yes
we should all do something!!! We are a disgrace to our
country. He has taken away freedom of speech, placed bugs in
our homes, Is torturing like we would expect a third world
country would, has gouged every cent out of the american
people for personal gain and sent boys to war to die and
killed thousands and destroyed a country or three in the
process.  What have we the American people done????  Europeans
call us UGLY and you wonder why?   We made Nixon resign for
much less..........LBJ  paid his dues.....  where are we
going??  Circus girl

[spoony]

11. Spot on

His actions in Harlem were of far more significance than his words at the UN, but the people outside of Harlem will remember the words more than the actions, and that diminishes the overall impact. Like you said, more results, less rhetoric. We have plenty of the latter already.

[lrsmith1]

14. Lt. Coronel Francisco Arias Cardenas UN Ambassador

from Venezuela. It is in Spanish but has subtitles.

See if this is still the person you would like to have as your President or on the UN Security Counsel.

http://venenews.net/sites/UBEVET1W/files/20020411_AriasCardenas_Ingles.wmv

[nini]

15. Please don't make any sense

it only confuses those who only see in black and white.

[NYCGirl]

16. Very, very good point, ZombyWoof. NT