Hugo Chavez article rats out the rats {warning corporate Dems}

[upi402]

I think this article is good, but corporatist Dems might be uncomfortable;

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3009


Extra! November/December 2006

The Repeatedly Re-Elected Autocrat
Painting Chávez as a 'would-be dictator'

By Steve Rendall

Hugo Chávez never had a chance with the U.S. press. Shortly after his first electoral victory in 1998, New York Times Latin America reporter Larry Rohter (12/20/98) summed up his victory thusly:

All across Latin America, presidents and party leaders are looking over their shoulders. With his landslide victory in Venezuela’s presidential election on December 6, Hugo Chávez has revived an all-too-familiar specter that the region’s ruling elite thought they had safely interred: that of the populist demagogue, the authoritarian man on horseback known as the caudillo.


Notwithstanding that interring caudillos has not been a consuming passion of Latin America’s ruling elite (or U.S. policy makers), it is fitting that the Times reporter sided with that elite. A few years later, in April 2002, following Chávez’s re-election by an even greater margin, Times editors cheered a coup against Chávez by Venezuelan elites (Extra! Update, 6/02), declaring in Orwellian fashion that thanks to the overthrow of the elected president, “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator.”

For Pedro Carmona—the man who took power in Chávez’s brief absence, declaring an actual dictatorship by dismissing the Venezuelan legislature, Supreme Court and other democratic institutions—Times editors had much nicer language, calling the former head of Venezuela’s chamber of commerce “a respected business leader.”

Following Chávez’s return to office a few days later, Times editors issued a grudging reappraisal of their coup endorsement (Extra! Update!, 6/02). Still insisting that Chávez was “a divisive and demagogic leader,” the editors averred that the forcible removal of a democratically elected leader “is never something to cheer.”

As if this pro-opposition bias were not enough, in January 2003 the Times was forced to dismiss one of its Venezuela reporters, a Venezuelan national named Francisco Toro, when it was revealed that Toro was an anti-Chávez activist (FAIR Action Alert, 6/6/03).

...

[Joanne98]

1. The coup against Chavez was a US military operation....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,858072,00.html

The warning - revealed by a Newsnight investigation to be shown on BBC2 tonight - explains the swift and safe return of Mr Chavez to power within two days of his April 12 capture by military officers under the direction of the coup leader, Pedro Carmona.

Until now, it was unclear why Mr Carmona - who had declared himself president - and the military chiefs who backed the coup surrendered without firing a shot.

The answer to the mystery, Newsnight was told by a Chavez insider, is that several hundred pro-Chavez troops were hidden in secret corridors under Miraflores, the presidential palace.

Juan Barreto, a leader of Mr Chavez's party in the national assembly, was with Mr Chavez when he was under siege.

Mr Barreto said that Jose Baduel, chief of the paratroop division loyal to Mr Chavez, had waited until Mr Carmona was inside Miraflores.

Mr Baduel then phoned Mr Carmona to tell him that, with troops virtually under his chair, he was as much a hostage as Mr Chavez. He gave Mr Carmona 24 hours to return Mr Chavez alive.

Escape from Miraflores was impossible for Mr Carmona. The building was surrounded by hundreds of thousands of pro-Chavez demonstrators who, alerted by a sympathetic foreign affairs minister, had marched on it from the Ranchos, the poorest barrios.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight that, after receiving the warning from Opec, he had hoped to stave off the coup entirely by issuing a statement to mollify the Bush adminstration. He pledged that Venezuela would neither join nor tolerate a renewed oil embargo.

But Mr Chavez had already incurred America's wrath by slashing Venezuelan oil output and rebuilding Opec, causing oil prices to nearly double to over $20 a barrel.

His opponents had made it clear that they would not abide by Opec production limits and would reverse his plan to double the royalties charged to foreign oil companies in Venezuela, principally the US petroleum giant Exxon-Mobil. The US government's panic over the calls for an oil embargo, made public by Iraq and Libya on April 8 and 9, also explains what Venezuelans see as the state department's ill-concealed and clumsy support for the coup attempt.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight: "I have written proof of the time of the entries and exits of two US military officers into the headquarters of the coup plotters - their names, whom they met with, what they said - proof on video and on still photographs."

Last month the Guardian reported a former US intelligence officer's claims that the US had been considering a coup to overthrow the Venezuelan president for nearly a year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,858072,00.html

And Chavez has PICTURES of two US military officers directing the coup.

[upi402]

5. Jiminy Christmas

Golly gosh that Chavez is an evil, power grabbing, torturer...:eyes:

Where are all the Chavez bashers? This is like crack to them isn't it?

[leftchick]

8. don't worry

they will come.

[TahitiNut]

17. Are you the voice in the sky over Iowa?

:dunce:

Theeeyy're baaack. :silly:

[leftchick]

33. lol!

:P

[TahitiNut]

16. Not 'crack'

Viagra. :silly:

[Igel]

12. When * claimed to have evidence of Iraq's WMD,

the thinking person demanded to see the evidence. Rightly so. Unsubstantiated claims and allegations are merely claims and allegations, and there's no need to take things on faith if the evidence can be safely presented. Withholding evidence that's safe to present would properly be seen as showing bad faith.

The evidence that was provided was quickly refuted or shown to be irrelevant; the intelligent estimates that were made public showed that the ironclad intelligence evidence was far from being of the highest calibre.

Chavez claims to have evidence of US participation.

The thinking person demands to see the evidence. Rightly so. Unsubstantiated claims and allegations are merely claims and allegations, and there's no need to take things on faith if the evidence can be safely presented. Withholding evidence that's safe to present would properly be seen as showing bad faith.

Call me a doubting Thomas. He's claimed to have proof of a number of things, but somehow the proof never gets presented. If he wants me to believe him, he can give proof that what he says is true; otherwise, it looks like he wants me to believe in him.

[malaise]

22. Chavez has that evidence

He will present it when it suits him. Smart man.

[3121guitarist]

2. Down with corporate Dems.

Yea, you got it. lol

[Robbien]

3. Paul Begala and James Carville as usual jump on the anti-populism

bandwagon helping to spred the hatred of anything and anyone who gets between the DLC/capitalists and a buck.

What Carville didn’t say was that he worked in Venezuela as an advisor to Venezuelan opposition groups leading an economically devastating strike by managers of the national oil company in an effort to destabilize the government

And to think, Democratic leaders pay these guys big bucks for their "consulting skills".

[bperci108]

7. James Carville can FOAD....

...that 6'2" penis-with-eyes is one of the worst of the corporate whores and should be run out of the party on a rail.

With "friends" like these...well, you know the rest. :puke:

[1932]

65. I can't remember where I heard Carville say that he needs money for his kids'

college education (that HBO program or the Bolivia documentarty) and that's why his firm works for whoever can pay for the help.

I remember hearing that slug William Krystal say the same thing on Dianne Rehm about being on Enron's payroll.

Expensive college is the root of all evil in this country, eh?

[sandnsea]

10. populism isn't socialism

We make a huge mistake blurring the distinction. Begala and Carville jump on anti-socialism, is accurate. Whether one supports full socialism is a personal decision, but it is not the position of th Democratic Party.

[Robbien]

11. You brought up socialism. Chavez says he is a populist. Some US media says he is a populist

I said nothing about socialism. You are the one bringing it up and blurring the lines.

Chavez is a populist. Carville and Begala are strong anti-Chavez. And like all the other advice they are paid big bucks to give to the Democratic party, Carville's and Begala's anti-populist advice sucks.

[sandnsea]

13. Wow, how stupid are we

We are in the midst of attempting to re-brand the Democratic Party as an economic populist party - and you want to help Carville & Begala equate that to Chavez socialism. Wake UP.

[BeFree]

18. Wake up?

And so you think capitalism is sustainable? Hah. Its reached it's royal end.

Chavez is a socialist. He has said that socialism is the only future that can be sustained and he's correct.

Heck the best parts of American society have a socialist bent to them. What this country needs is more socialism. The democratic party is the more socialist of the two majors, and we should not be ashamed of that fact.

Viva Chavez!

[sandnsea]

19. Chavez is a socialist - exactly

You support that and that's your right. That's not my argument. My argument is that the Democratic Party does not and should not, so when Begala and Carville come along and equate Chavez to populism, that's a direct attack on anybody who wants to move the entire country away from this deadly corporatism. I'm attacking strategy, not arguing ideology.

[BeFree]

25. Should not?

So if you are against the Democratic Party being more supportive of socialism, then you are for more capitalism?

But screw the old guard of the Dem party such as those two dinosaurs you mention. We are the new congress and we are the new party. As we gain more and more power, socialism will be the course upon which we set to bring corporatism to its knees. Like I said, the best parts about our government are those that have a socialist bent, you do agree, right?

[sandnsea]

26. I'm not arguing ideology

I already said that. I'm arguing the wisdom of letting Democrats be labeled "Chavez populists". I can't imagine you would think that is a winning strategy.

[BeFree]

38. I can see the benefits of it

Face it, the current stance of hiding behind this facade of sustainable economic and political wherewithal is not going to produce what this country needs.

What this country needs is a popular socialistic economic and political system which is geared towards the working person and working families. The current policies are non-sustainable and the Democratic Party has lost much of its base by moving away from its popular socialistic grounding.

So yes, it can be part of a winning strategy.

[sandnsea]

39. rotfl - The Chavez Populist Party

winning strategy. O-kaay.

The LAST thing we need to do is mention the words Chavez and socialist in connection with ANYTHING to do with the Democratic Party. I cannot believe people do not understand the difference between advocating for policy and intentionally branding yourself in a manner that 90% of the country hates.

[Selatius]

41. What the Democratic Party needs is a return to the New Deal

Today, unfortunately, those types of Democrats, deserved or undeserved, would be labeled as communists. The idea of, for instance, renationalizing the power grid would be decried as a form of totalitarianism regardless if Chavez was here or gone.

[sandnsea]

45. Strategy, not ideology

Which I've already said. Labeling ourselves The Chavez Populist Party is STUPID. That has nothing to do with what policies we should be advocating.

[Selatius]

50. I don't advocate labeling the party that. I advocate labeling it the New Deal Party.

FDR's policies built the party into what we know of it today. It would be foolish to abandon it and the poor just because the corporate news media equates everything relevant to the New Deal as communism. Economic populism can be an effective strategy towards crossing cultural boundaries. If you're a Dem and want to win votes in a conservative district or a moderate district, you gotta talk about checkbook issues that people see everyday if you want to cut through the culture war and happen to be pro-women's rights and in favor of protecting the rights of homosexuals. If you are rightwing on social issues, then the only thing separating you from the Repub is economic issues, and if you can't differentiate yourself from the Repub in the economic arena, then you will have a hard time winning.

[sandnsea]

53. Fine with me

I was warning about letting Begala and Carville use Chavez socialism to label the populist movement. Pretty simple point, but if you want to go on and on and on about stuff that I'm not even talking about, I guess I can't stop you.

[Selatius]

55. To the issue of Begala and Carville, they will fail.

It is true to say populism, in the US context, is not necessarily socialism. I'm not going to defend anybody here who says it is socialism in terms of the US, since the US isn't Venezuela, although I will understand it if they felt it was another slam against Chavez, whom some here admire. Parts of American populism may take on shades of socialism as it did with things such as Social Security, but the fact is populism in the US has its own unique flavor different to any other country.

We could easily argue against Begala-Carville that it is inappropriate to link the two, just as many argued Carville was simply wrong on ripping into Howard Dean, and the Democratic Party is a big tent party, allowing many voices, including corporatists as well as socialists. As a result, the party platform is broad and perhaps too vague for some, too broad to support socialism but not so broad that it doesn't generally support some kind of leftism. Carville failed with trying to rip down Howard Dean, and he will fail again here.

I would advise a word of caution to those here who necessarily equate socialism to populism. Populism, however, could be influenced by it, as it was in the 1930s.

[Swamp Rat]

56. THEY are everywhere

;)

[nolabels]

60. Chavez is a DUer in the true sense of the descriptor

If he sees a need people have he will try help them with it. I thinks about helping people first and worries about the consequences later. People like this don't use or see words first for what they are doing, they are just doing. They work on vision, they know how it is supposed to be and find contentment on making it that way. The words for what they are doing come after they are done with it. You people can put all the words you want to what ever you want but you will always be in reaction mode to a DUer like Chavez.

[Selatius]

62. Hey, I'm a fairly pragmatic libertarian socialist. I am not in reaction mode, but others are.

I could push the party in the direction I want to, but I am under no illusion that many Americans are socialists. Because the Democratic Party is a mass party instead of a more traditional political party with clearly defined ideology, I know that I'm going to be opposed by more business-friendly elements of the party when I talk about things like a higher minimum wage or single-payer universal health care or some non-profit health insurance scheme designed to serve people instead of the profit margin.

There isn't even agreement in the Democratic Party over the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions. Nevermind single-payer universal health care (the solution socialists push) or something Mitt Romney pushed in Massachusetts (mandatory health insurance while leaving for-profit companies alone) and now Arnold pushing in California (after vetoing California's single-payer universal health care bill passed by the state legislature).

The sad fact of the matter is the only true definition of a Democrat is party registration because people within the party are everywhere on both economic issues and social issues, and that's a consequence not only of the vagueness of the party platform but also of the two-party nature of the federal government as an organizational structure.

[nolabels]

64. The business of US run business's is more like a protection racket.........

than it is about what some would call business in the classical sense. As long as we are living under that yoke than there probably won't be much room for any other ideology or movement (as least as far as i can see). That word pragmatism is kind of interesting though

(snip)
PRAGMATISM

by PHILIP P. WIENER

The Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, edited by Philip P. Wiener (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973-74), vol. 3, pp. 551-570.



I. DIFFICULTIES IN DEFINING PRAGMATISM

When Arthur O. Lovejoy (in 1908) discriminated thirteen meanings of pragmatism and showed that some of them were in contradiction with one another, he raised the problem of whether there was any coherent core of ideas that could define the doctrine or movement that was so widely discussed by American and European thinkers in various disciplines. Certainly Charles S. Peirce and William James (who credited Peirce in 1897 with inventing the doctrine) had divergent ideas in their "pragmatic" theories of truth. There were also divergences among those writers in the United States and abroad who defended their own particular versions of pragmatism, e.g., John Dewey, George H. Mead, F. C. S. Schiller, G. Vailati, G. Papini, Mario Calderoni, Hans Vaihinger, and others on the fringes of philosophy. The latter group, ranging from scientists like Henri Poincaré and Percy Bridgman to legal, political, and even literary minds such as O. W. Holmes, Jr., Georges Sorel, and Luigi Pirandello respectively, make it especially difficult to include their varieties of pragmatism within the same set of ideas that are common to Peirce, James, and Dewey. At one extremity one can find self-styled pragmatists with a Jamesian tendency to regard their personal experience as a sufficient source and test of truth; the extreme group in the undefined fringe can only charitably be included in Peirce's ideal community of minds whose opinions in the long run are destined to converge on the one unalterable Platonic truth.
(snip)
http://www.pragmatism.org/companion/pragmatism_wiener.htm
http://www.pragmatism.org/companion/index.htm
http://www.pragmatism.org/default.htm

[BeFree]

42. Your slip is showing

You have, through this conversation, avoided real responses and now have twisted my words into something I did not say.

Since you set yourself up as representative of the old party structure, it's surely no wonder now to newbies why the party has lost so much of its base.

While Chavez's style may not be suitable for American politics, his populist socialistic and economic policies are gaining favor with the grassroots working class voters.

What is now the current stance of the mainstream politics that you represent is not sustainable in this changing world.

It is dying as we speak, and will be as dust probably in our lifetimes.

[sandnsea]

46. I'm talking about strategy

And you keep trying to turn it into a debate about policy and philosophy. You don't know what I represent because that isn't what this particular discussion is about. I'm talking about the stupidity of aligning ourselves with Chavez, plain and simple.

[BeFree]

48. The old Dem's

Yeah, I guess they strategized at times without linking to policy and philosophy, just as you say you are doing here. I got news for you: they must all be linked.

Chavez is just the latest leader to undertake and espouse socialistic government and economic policies. No one is linking to him except to show how successful such policies can be and how popular such policies are with the common people.

[sandnsea]

49. NO Dem, EVER

Would align themself with Hugo Chavez or a socialist government. That's why there's a socialist party in this country. Which is completely different than advocating for various government policies to help all the people, which is what Dems do, as long as the basis of the economy remains firmly in the hands of the individual people. Government based economies is not what the Democratic Party is about.

You can smear me all you want, but that doesn't change that basic reality. If you don't agree with it, you aren't a Democrat anyway.

[BeFree]

51. Talk about smears!

If I don't agree with it, I'm not a democrat? Gawd, that's a low blow. You really are on a roll tonight, eh?

But I understand. Your interest lies with perpetrating the old guard Dems, and no, I am not an old guard Dem. I am the new Dem party. A proud member of the Underground. Welcome to DU, sandnsea, enjoy your stay.

[sandnsea]

52. The Democratic Party is not a socialist party

That's a fact, not a smear. And this is Democratic Underground, not a place for confused socialists and anarchists to attempt to subvert the purpose of the Democratic Party. And it most certainly isn't a place to smear DU members, although you get away with it on a fairly regular basis.

[1932]

68. That's not a fact. JK Galbraith devoted his life to arguing that models like Sweden's

were the best route for democracy.

[BeFree]

73. Oh really?

DU is the place to make progress in the party by people who have been excluded from the process by the old guard Dems, and members who continue to be conservative in their postings here do indeed incur my rath, and for that I make no apology.

I only smear those who would keep our progress held back.

[sandnsea]

76. As I said

You're the one doing the smearing, not me.

[1932]

67. Put any foreign leader's name there, and you have a problem.

Democrats shouldn't be Michael Manley Populists (and what Democrat in their right mind would be against Michael Manley??) That's not the point.

The point is, we, as individual democrats shouldn't be allowing people like Begala and Carville to give Chavez a bad name simply because college is expensive and they have high-paying clients who want them to say that.

[The Rock2111]

28. Smell the Coffee - Wrong! Chavez no es America.

How can one dismiss that Chavez denies Venezualans the freedoms (shuting down opposing press and now suggesting term extensions for his position to a Chavez dominated cabinet) that are enjoyed here. All wrong.

[Say_What]

30. More regurgitated US propaganda being puked up as fact...

[originalpckelly]

32. Will Chavez have to get warrants before he wiretaps people on the new...

state owned telephone company?

[leftchick]

34. bush doesn't need to

and apparently all of our telephone companies in the US are "state owned" when they comply with the NSA wiretap scheme willingly.

Capitalism is so cool!!!

:eyes:

[originalpckelly]

36. Do you support that?

I certainly don't.

By the way, I took the time to look up the Bolivarian Constitution, and Article 48 does talk about this. This is an excerpt from the unofficial English translation on their Embassies website, which oddly is not being shown right now, but was available last year. So I went to look it up in the Internet Archive. It was there.

"Article 48: The secrecy and inviolability of private communications in all forms are guaranteed. The same may not be interfered with except by order of a competent court, with observance of applicable provisions of law and preserving the secrecy of the private issues unrelated to the pertinent proceedings."

However, I should say that President Hindenburg didn't have any really awful intentions, but his centralization of power allowed Hitler to gain absolute control of Germany.

Venezuela's Bolivarian Constitution has a strong executive, and it's very possible the same thing could happen. He may not be a bad guy, but his successor may be.

[eridani]

44. So, Article 48 says they need a FISA court

What's your problem with that?

[spoony]

57. Well that's a good way to defend Chavez

compare him to *.

[killbotfactory]

35. Right. It's better to have that power be in the hands of a private monopoly

unaccountable to anyone but their stockholders.

[originalpckelly]

37. A private monopoly doesn't usually have the power to throw you in jail...

the government does.

I think that they might be able to get away with stable socialism for a while, but these types of autocratic and centralized systems are very open to abuse.

[rman]

61. We'll have to wait and see won't we.

The Chavez opposition can't do more than complain about what bad things they think Chavez might do at some time in the future. This has been going on for 8 years now it it has yet come to bear.

[originalpckelly]

69. I think he has the right sentiment, but the Bolivarian Constitution...

appears to have some very fatal flaws. A single person should not have that much power. Even if Chavez isn't going to abuse it, I still think it's a bad thing for the future of Venezuela. It's a very flawed system open to the same type of abuse that the Weimar Republic Constitution was.

[rman]

71. Care to point out the very fatal flaws in the Bolivarian Constitution?

[Say_What]

74. Venezuela has had 26 constitutions...

<clips>

...It should be noted that the effort to either completely rewrite or to reform Venezuela’s constitution was nothing new in Venezuelan history. Between 1811 and 1961 Venezuela had 26 constitutions. The 1961 constitution lasted the longest, until 1999. However, it too has been subject to several reform efforts during the 1990’s. President Carlos Andrés Pérez, following the Caracazo, made some changes which allowed for greater participation in Venezuela’s political system, by allowing for the direct vote of state governors and mayors. This was the first step which eventually allowed for more parties besides Acción Democrática and Copei to be represented on state and local level. Further changes to the constitution were planned, but never implemented. Then, following Chávez’ 1992 coup attempt, the calls for a new constitution were renewed. This too faltered within a few months. During his 1994 presidential campaign, Rafael Caldera brought the issue up again, but did not get far.

Following his election in December 1998, the first thing Chávez did as newly elected president, was to schedule a referendum on whether or not Venezuelans want to convoke a constitutional assembly. The 1961 constitution, which had lasted much longer than any previous Venezuelan constitution (37 years), did not provide for any mechanisms for calling a constitutional assembly. Some had argued that it was necessary to reform the 1961 constitution to include such a provision. Instead, a human rights organization, Fundahumanos, filed a case with the Venezuelan Supreme Court, on December 16, 1998, asking it to issue a constitutional interpretation as to the constitutionality of holding a referendum for the approval of a constitutional assembly. About a month later, on January 19, 1999, the court issued a ruling in Favor of Chávez’ preferred path to write a new constitution. This court decision still remains controversial among members of the opposition, who argue that the court thereby opened the path for a dictatorship.

The referendum took place on April 19 and had two questions. The first was whether or not to convoke the assembly and the second was whether or not voters accept the procedures set forth by the president. 92% of those voting voted “yes” in response to the question about convoking a constitutional assembly and 86% approved of the procedures set forth by the president (with an abstention rate of 63%). Two months later, on July 25th, the vote for the members of the constitutional assembly took place. The procedure was such that 24 members to the assembly were elected nationally, three as representatives of the indigenous population, and the rest, 104 were elected as representatives from their respective states. All together there were 131 members of the constitutional assembly, all of which were elected directly, via a simply majority. As a result of Chávez’ overwhelming popularity 95%, or 125 of the representatives, were allied with Chávez’ political project. Only six belonged to the opposition.

The members of the constitutional assembly immediately began with their work. However, it was quickly realized that plenary sessions were too time consuming and so, because Chávez wanted the assembly to complete its work within six months, it met primarily in 22 commissions. Also, a debate broke out between the opposition and the assembly’s majority on whether or not the assembly had the right to take over normal legislative functions. Chávez and his supporters argued that since the assembly was the highest legislative representative of the sovereign, of the people, the assembly should take precedence over the legislature. With help from the judiciary, Chávez’ view won out. By December the document was ready and on the 15th it was submitted to a national vote. <71.8% of the voters approved the new constitution, with an abstention rate of 55.6%.[br />
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1003

[Say_What]

77. The 1999 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela... described

<clips>

...This section examines some of the more important changes that the new constitution brought with it.

Name Change

The new constitution changed the country’s name, from “Republic of Venezuela” to “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” This was a change that Chávez insisted upon, even after his own supporters in the constitutional assembly rejected it, mainly because it would imply too much of an expense to change all of the government’s letterheads, official seals, etc. finally, however, Chávez’ convinced the assembly and the name change was included. The new name is supposed to signal that Venezuela is just one of the countries that its founder, Simon Bolivar, liberated and that it could, in the future, belong to a federation of “Bolivarian Republics.”<2> Given the great importance that Simon Bolivar plays in Chávez’ political belief system, it should come as no surprise that he would insist on this change.

Gender inclusivity

Unlike practically all constitutions ever written, Venezuela’s now incorporates the masculine and the feminine versions of all political actors it mentions. That is, the Spanish language, just as most languages (except English), distinguishes between the masculine and feminine versions of job titles, such as “presidente” and “presidenta.” Now, every time there is a reference to any individual, such as president, citizen, lawyer, representative, minister, etc., the reference is in both the masculine and the feminine forms. This inclusivity makes the Venezuelan constitution what some have called a “non-androcentric” constitution.<3> The implication of using only the masculine versions is that either women are not considered to be serious participants in the political sphere or that if they do participate, they ought to be like men. By including both the masculine and feminine versions of the different roles that political actors have, the constitution makes explicit the invitation that women participate equally in politics, without being like men.

State of Law and Justice

Article 2 of the constitution says that “Venezuela constitutes itself in a democratic and social state of law and justice…” This stands in contrast to many other country’s constitutions, which simply say that its state is a state of law.<4> In other words, the Venezuelan constitution highlights the possible differences between law and justice, implying that justice is just as important as the law, which might not always bring about justice. The constitution’s declaration of motives, which precede the official constitutional text, elaborates on the concept of justice by saying, “the state promotes the well-being of Venezuelans, creating the necessary conditions for their social and spiritual development, and striving for equality of opportunity so that all citizens may freely develop their personality, direct their destiny, enjoy human rights and search for their happiness.”<5> Critics of the constitution have argued that this conception of a state of justice, which contrasts with the state of law, could lead to situations in which a vaguely defined notion of justice prevails of the law, thus opening the possibility of a supposedly benevolent dictatorship. However, given that article 2 is the only time that the contrast between law and justice is drawn, it is unlikely that there would be any further constitutional basis for such an interpretation of the constitution.

Human Rights and International Treaties

Before Chávez came to power Venezuela was formally bound by human rights standards, but in practice often violated them. Torture, censorship, and violations of the right to assembly were quite common, especially during the second presidency of Carlos Andres Perez (1989-1993). Those who suffered from these human rights violations were to a very large extent the same people who swept into power with the election of Chávez as president. Many of these individuals thus participated in the formulation of the new constitution as members of the constitutional assembly. As a result, they gave human rights a central place in the constitution. However, the human rights that the constitution mentions go far beyond what most constitutions incorporate. Not only civil rights, such as the freedom of expression, assembly, and political participation are included, but so are social human rights, such as the right to employment, housing, and health care. For example, with regard to health care, the constitution states, “Health is a fundamental social right, an obligation of the state, which guarantees it as part of the right to life.” In practice, this has opened health care to many Venezuelans who previously did not have access to it.

A further innovation of the new constitution is the inclusion of international treaties as having equal standing with the constitution, meaning that they must be enforced in the same way.

much more.... http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1003

[Clark2008]

72. You know, I've never quite understood why so many

Americans hate socialism. It's not evil. In fact, it's good for more people than it's bad for.

One can have a socialist government and run business through capitalism quite nicely. What happens is that corporations still get the money they need to do R&D, but don't get to keep enormous profits made off of public goods (like natural resources, such as oil, water, etc.).

The right-wing always argues that socialism is bad for R&D, so let them keep the money for that. The one thing they couldn't keep is billion-dollar bonuses for fat-cat CEOs. Those profits get spread out amongst the proletariat.

Simple.

[BeFree]

78. Socialism

...has been smeared by the corporations who see their profits being shrunk when resources are shared by many and not just the few.

Socialism being the polar opposite of private corporations, the term, for years, has been made to appear as if it is bad, when the truth is the best government programs are socialistic: roads, water systems, emergency health care, defense, environmental policies, schools, parks, the space program, etc.

As we see here on this thread the old guard Dems are still deceived by the bad connotations that corporations have placed on socialism. Sad.

[Clark2008]

79. Exactly.

And when the private corporation makes money off public property - such as oil, water, wood and so forth - it seems quite ridiculous to assume that the money should go back to the private corporation rather than for the public good, whether that's in dividend checks or in creating more natural resources (such as water cleaning facilities and more woodland. Oil, of course, isn't renewable in the definitive sense so the money made either would need to go back to the people in cash or in funding alternative fuel sources).

I think most Americans would quite agree with that, if it was put to them that way rather than as "socialism," even though that's precisely what it is.

[eridani]

43. If he's a socialist (in the 19th century sense)--

--how is it that the percentage of the economy that is private increased during his administration?

[1932]

70. That's the lesson from Sweden. Social democracies are a capable of great growth.

[Selatius]

40. The form of populism depends on the population, and Chavez has nothing to do with the Dem Party.

If we were talking about Spanish populism, it may very well truly be socialism, and in other parts of the world, it may end up being a form of left libertarianism or anarchism, and in still other parts of the world, it may be something different altogether.

[sandnsea]

47. But Begala and Carville are trying to frame it that way

Which is what my original post was about. If people don't get it, I guess they can just sit around and wait until they've been marginalized in a year, and scratch their heads and wonder how it happened again.

[1932]

66. Kennedy advisor (and Chavez hero) JK Galbraith once said that the difference

between socialism and democracy isn't that great once socialist countries did what they needed to do to accomodate for the realities of the marketplace and democracies did what they needed to take care of the sick, old, and everyone else on the downside of opportunity.

I think today's democratic party suffers from sentiments like yours that anti-socialism (Venezuela-style) is AOK. Having people like Carville work against peoople like Chavez in place like Venezuela where the sides are so clear (concentrated power vs a democracy that works for the average citizen) is a problem for the Democratic Party. Really, whose side are you on?

I wish more people were inspired by Galbraith rather than making apologies for Democrats working against Chavez.

[Boojatta]

4. The editors are still unhappy that Nixon's term in office was cut short.

Still insisting that Chávez was “a divisive and demagogic leader,” the editors averred that the forcible removal of a democratically elected leader “is never something to cheer.”

[mitchtv]

6. Batten the hatches, Incoming

:nuke: :popcorn:

[paulk]

9. so, anyone who questions Chavez is a "corporatist Dem"?

It seems to me you're engaging in the same behavior that this article finds fault with...

[spoony]

58. Litmus tests are the newest craze

Some people only like a "big tent" before an election. After gaining power they want to purge some comrades who aren't pure enough.

[Recursion]

14. Wait, you mean I have to trust Hugo to be a non-corporatist Dem?

That's a shame, but I guess you have to count me out. The fact that I agree with his publicly-stated goals doesn't mean I trust him.

[rman]

59. Has Chavez ever not followed up on his publicly-stated goals in the past 8 years?

Still after 8 years all the Chavez haters can claim is that he's a "would-be" dictator.

[Peace Patriot]

15. I think we have no right whatever to question the judgment of 63% of the

Venezuelan people, in the most highly monitored elections on earth. Until WE handcount 55% of the vote, as a check on electronic voting fraud, and until WE permit hundreds of independent election monitors to watch and evaluate our elections, we have no right to criticize their system or its results, nor, certainly, to support military coups, crippling oil professionals' strikes, wasteful and stupid recall elections and the tiny rich oil elite political opposition in Venezuela. By "we," I mean our government. Individuals can say what they want--however uninformed, blind or corrupt it may be. And, in that sense, James Carville has the right to side with fascists, and take their money for his useless advice, wherever they will let him into the country. And it is instructive for the rest of us to know who he associates with, and where he stands on global free piracy and justice for the poor--considering his close connections to the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

But where I get my dander up with Carville is that the money he's was paid to support the fascists in Venezuela COMES FROM MY POCKET AND YOURS--through the USAID, NED and other dubious Bush Junta-controlled funds.

What the hell are they doing pouring OUR money into Venezuelan elections, coups and strikes?

[BeHereNow]

23. "National Interests?" For the good of the American people?

"What the hell are they doing pouring OUR money into Venezuelan elections, coups and strikes?"

Same thing they are doing pouring our tax dollars into Iraq.
Same thing they are doing sending our troops into the grand FUBAR war of all history.
Same thing they did in Vietnam.

National intersts?
No, try multi national corporate interests.
The very same that have taken over this country.

BHN

[Catch22Dem]

80. Bush enjoyed 90% support after 9/11

Should we not question those morons? I was a proud ten percenter. I have no dog in this fight, I'm just pointing out faulty logic.

[bluewave]

20. CNBC proclaimed a leftist cabal

taking over South America. I guess we should support Bushco. /sarc

[sandnsea]

24. Which Begala & Carville labeled 'populism'

Which will eventually brand the entire anti-DC Dems as Chavez leftist socialists, and that's the last thing we or this country needs.

[Jcrowley]

21. You see the problem with Chavez and the Venezuelan people

is that they simply don't understand it's up to Washington to give them a leader they get to elect.

They are ungrateful for all we've done to, um I mean FOR, them in the past.

[Selah]

27. ?

[Say_What]

29. Confused About Venezuela?

<clips>

Confused About Venezuela?

Over the past few days, major newspapers in the United States, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, have published editorials aggressively and harshly criticizing recent declarations and decisions made by re-elected President Hugo Chávez and his cabinet. A large percentage of the content of these editorials, which reflect the viewpoints of the newspapers, are based on a distortion and misconception of new policies being implemented in Venezuela and the overall way government is functioning. In the Washington Post’s “Venezuela’s Leap Backward”, published on January 10, the editorial board intentionally and mistakenly portrays the recent presidential elections this past December in Venezuela as illegitimate and unfair. By falsely claiming that Chávez conducted a “one-sided campaign that left a majority of Venezuelans believing they might be punished if they did not cast their ballots for him”, the Post wants its readers to think Venezuelans who voted for Chávez did so under duress and fear. Nothing could be further from the truth. A majority of Venezuelans publicly express their sincere admiration and approval of President Chávez in an open and fearless way on a daily basis in this country. Most Venezuelans believe Chávez is the best president the nation has ever had, and statistics prove that his government has built more bridges, railroads, hospitals, clinics, universities, schools, highways and houses than any administration in the past. The Post editorial also attempts to downplay the “only 7 million votes” Chávez received, not mentioning that those seven million votes represent more than 63% of total votes – a landslide victory to the opposition candidate’s 37% - and that no president in Venezuelan history has ever, ever received such a large number of votes in an election.

The New York Times editorial, also published on January 10, attacks a recent statement made by President Chávez regarding the nationalization of one telephone company, CANTV, and an electric company. However the Times doesn’t explain that the CANTV is the only non-cellular telephone company in the country, giving it a complete monopoly on national land-line telecommunications and control over a majority of Internet service as well. Furthermore, the CANTV was privatized only in 1991, during the second non-consecutive term of Carlos Andrés Pérez a president later impeached for corruption who implemented a series of privatization measures, despite having run for office on a non-privatization platform just three years before. In fact, as soon as Carlos Andrés Pérez won office in 1988 after convincing the Venezuelan people he would not permit “neo-liberalism” on Venezuelan shores, he immediately began to announce the privatization of several national industries, including telecommunications, education and the medical and petroleum sectors. This deception led to massive anti-privatization protests during February 1989 during which the government ordered the armed forces to “open-fire” on the demonstrators and arrest and torture those not killed. The result was the “Caracazo”, a tragic scar on contemporary Venezuelan history that left more than 3,000 dead in mass gravesites and thousands more injured and detained. The re-nationalizing of Venezuela’s one landline phone company is a strategic necessity and an anti-monopoly measure necessary to ensure that Venezuelans have access to telecommunications service. (Take it from someone who lives here. You can’t even get a landline if it isn’t already installed in your residence. The waiting list is over 2 years and you have to bribe someone to actually do the job). And furthermore, the new Minister of Telecommunications, Jesse Chacón, announced that any company “nationalized” will be fully compensated for its shares and property at market value.

The third issue put forth in the editorials is the recent announcement by President Chávez that the license of private television station RCTV to operate on the public airwaves is up for review in May 2007 and most likely will not be renewed. The government has based its denial of the license renewal on RCTV’s lack of cooperation with tax laws, its failure to pay fines issued by the telecommunications commission, CONATEL, over the past twenty years, and its refusal to abide by constitutional laws prohibiting incitation to political violence, indecency, obscenity and the distortion of facts and information. The public airwaves, as in the case of the United States, are regulated by government. Television and radio stations apply for licenses from the telecommunications commission and are granted those licenses based on conditional compliance with articulated regulations. When a station does not abide by the requirements, it generally is fined and warned, repeatedly, until compliance is assured. In the specific case of RCTV, the station and its owner, multi-millionaire Marcel Granier, have refused to comply with the law and have continued to abuse and violate the clear and concise regulations that are supposed to guarantee Venezuelan citizens their constitutional right to “true and accurate information” (Article 58 of the Constitution).

RCTV’s owner, Marcel Granier, played a key role in the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chávez and has used his station to engage in an ongoing campaign of anti-Chávez propaganda and efforts to destabilize the nation through distorting and manipulating information to create panic, apathy, fear and violence in Venezuelan society. The station’s clear violations of the telecommunications regulations and the Constitutional guarantees that protect freedom of speech and access to true and accurate information provide sufficient reason to deny the renewal of its license to use the public airwaves. Unlike the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times (Fidel Chávez?, January 11, 2007) mistakenly claims, Chávez and his government are not “shutting down” the private media station. RCTV can continue to operate on the private airwaves, i.e. cable and satellite television. As would be the case in any country where law and order are respected, RCTV will not receive a renewal on its license to remain on the public airwaves because it repeatedly violated the law during more than a decade.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1933

[Judi Lynn]

54. Very accurate last paragraph in your article by Eva Golinger:

If you only read the US press, you must be very confused about Venezuela. The extreme levels of distortion, lack of fact checking and source verification and outright manipulation of information in the US media on Venezuela is quite troubling and dangerous in a nation that has waged wars based on false data and misleading policies.
(snip)

Thank goodness for this great investigator, writer, lawyer.

[Say_What]

31. The Case of Venezuela's RCTV

<clips>

The Case of Venezuela's RCTV

No single news item emerging from Venezuela has made foreigners, and especially North Americans, more queasy than the recent decision by the Chávez government not to renew the broadcasting concession previously granted to Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Perhaps with some justification, many have a severe allergy to anything that smells of an attack on "free speech." Such hyper-sensitivity, however, obscures a crucial detail of the matter: the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is simply not about free speech.

The claims of the opposition and the foreign press, which assert a veritable "trampling" of human rights and press freedom, rest on a series of faulty claims:

1.) The Venezuelan government is behaving abnormally.

Central to the opposition's framing of the issue is the broad background of a slide toward authoritarianism and fascism. According to many, Venezuela has stepped decidedly outside the democratic norms governing behavior in the post-Cold War world, and the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is proof of this ab-normality.

This, however, could not be further from the case. The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 does boast the most stringent requirements imposed by any constitution on the private media, enforcing above all a broad notion of "responsibility" on the latter. Media magnates have expressed a clear concern over this provision, and with good reason, since they had been operating irresponsibly for quite some time.

Were this constitutional provision fully enforced and legislated, the private media might be able to claim that their existence is somehow more difficult than other media outlets the world over. But as it stands, legal requirements and enforcement are hardly out of the ordinary. The Ley Resorte, or media responsibility law, has as its objective the "social responsibility of radio and television service providers," and has been credited with both protecting the rights of children and increasing the amount of domestically-produced programming.

However, the idea that media concessions entail responsibility is not at all unique. Even the U.S. FCC maintains a similar position, notwithstanding the swift de-regulation during the early years of the Reagan administration. As we all know, the FCC maintains certain content restrictions on broadcasting (more strict, it should be mentioned, than in many European nations), and is not unwilling to silence those who infringe upon these restrictions. Moreover, ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction," the enforcement of such restrictions has been ratcheted up (as in, e.g., FCC efforts to shut down infamous radio host Howard Stern, not to mention the continuous closure of smaller outfits).

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1932

[PATRICK]

63. Venezuela and Israel

the sole point I make here is that it is hard to fault the pristine democratic purity of a nation under siege, both under disapproval be enormous world powers, neighbors, both whose very roots are built from ground soaked in repression and tyranny. It is 100% hypocritical to fault the efforts of either nation to survive and benefit their people when those doing the criticizing lie in order to destroy democracy itself for reasons that would do harm in undeniable fact to the entire nation. And then there is oil and business is business and people are fodder.

Some wonder at the zeal, the love some have for either country when their faults under pressure, predictable and human but nobler than the reactions of many nations under similar assault, are there. As with any fandom, some point and aha! and darkly hint of evil beyond the facts one chooses to denigrate those "troublesome" nations with. Throw away the fandom, the false and lying religion of 'free" market capitalism robber baron style, and the supposed benchmarks of democracy in which America is implied to be the "gold" standard(ironically fitting expression).

Chavez protects and serves his nation in a time of crisis, ably, with democratic restraint. Abe Lincoln oversaw the suspension of Habeas Corpus, relied on the votes of his army, was supported popularly by the tar and feathering and horsewhipping of peace advocates and war opponents in the press- who were every bit as dangerous to the nation as Murdoch clone rich men's SA media have been. A test of his "radicalism" and strongman failings in a time of peace would be a fair test. In these extraordinary times our nation, including Dems such as Kerry, have taken sides with forces that would enslave and harm and ruin that nation. By just implication, citizens here who sympathize with their fellow man over such foulness must enjoin tending to our own house- the chief force that creates, by any argument, the imperfections or evils which want Chavez to compress his duty into being a dead Allende.

Let the democracy without sin, without economic enmity toward the democratic wishes of the hope-filled poor, cast the first stone. But they don't. Or their critiques are mild and concerned that the crisis will cause even by Chavez prevailing a step backward from the ideal.

When sentiment does comes in, the one I find absolutely despicable is a someone adding to the corporate chorus and in effect becoming angry by inescapable implication, at a people, a leader and nation serving the ideals of mankind despite vigorous corrupting assault by our own Mammon ridden house that would turn this entire web of lies into a black hole of ultimate despair for all humanity.

In Chavez' case, for once it is not just the special failing of the creature misnamed the American press, but most large news organizations of corporate sponsorship. He threatens their money, not the ideals of business "tamed" democracy. And for that they would seek his death and the destruction of Venezuela as indirectly as cowardice allows. Israel has chosen in a harder situation to seek large allies like Egypt of old and other nastier corruptions which over a long time have taken a large toll on a otherwise equally brave small nation. So what has pious criticism from the outside done for either? They have to watch for the sticks and stones every second of their precarious existence.

[Peace Patriot]

75. Thank you, Patrick! The US media's criticism of Chavez is hypocritical beyond

belief. As if they support democracy. As if they support justice. They support bloodshed in the cause of profit. They support the slaughter of 100,000 innocent people, then fail to report casualties. They support using US troops as cannon fodder for their corporate oil war. They lie about and slander and revile anything that is good for the majority, and any leaders who truly represent the majority. And they dare to criticize a truly democratic people who see more clearly than we do who the enemies of democracy are.

Well, to hell with them! They've "lost" South America, and they are going to "lose" the entire western hemisphere, because North Americans are not going to tolerate being made into their latest "banana republic." It's over. And the Corporate Rulers can thank Bush for what's going to happen next--the rebirth of the New Deal and then some.

[Larry Ogg]

82. Patrick, what can I say, I like your stile! I think you have seen many truths’s and lies…

hidden and exploited, according to who benefits and or just profits. You know the difference… Thank you for sharing your heart felt knowledge and wisdom.

[Larry Ogg]

81. It’s no wonder the corporate elite puppet masters of America want Chavez gone.

He is obviously setting a bad precedent by raising the quality of life for the poor and downtrodden people of his country, at the chagrin of the ruling elite robber barons who are being forced to share the profits of national resources, and of the working class with the… well, the poor and the working class. It seems he does not understand the primitive, ruthless and unfair system of social hierarchy ware necessary poverty and destitution is the basic tool in which the ruling elite can control the masses, and recruit armies to conquer other countries in order to continue the cycle of elite supremacy. No doubt there will be grave consequences if he succeeds in creating a democracy that really works for all the citizens, (except of course the most greedy) even if it is a socialist democracy ware big business suffers oversight, accountability and monopolistic restrictions there can be no justification for denying those who are the most well off, there right to lay claim to the fruits of another mans property and hard labor. Call it what it is, Corporate theology verses Hugo Chavez, the poor and the working class.