|
And I'm rather appalled at the comparison of Hugo Chavez to Idi Amin (and to Robert Mugabe, which others have made). There is no resemblance whatsoever. And this extremist comparison is a giveaway that your views are driven by emotion and are not reasonable.
Your whole rant is full of exaggerations like this, and it leaves out a whole lot of facts--for instance, the most economic growth during the 2003 to 2008 period occurred in the private sector, not including oil. And, though you are right, that use of the oil revenues spurred growth, how it did so is important--through social programs and policies that put money in the hands of the poor. It didn't spur growth by stuffing Exxon Mobil executives' pockets with money. It spread the money around. In fact, that's what Obama should be doing, and that's what FRD did do, during the "New Deal." The poor and the lower middle class are the most likely to spend. Give them jobs, especially decent paying jobs, direct payments if they need it (pensions for the elderly, subsidies for the extreme poor), put them into education and re-training programs, and so on, and they will buy things. Exxon Mobil, on the other hand, will spend money strictly for its own benefit and the benefit of its fatcat executives and big investors. The answer to a severely damaged economy, such as the Chavez government inherited from previous administrations, is to spend money on the poor, if you are lucky enough to have it--and Venezuela was. How else would you have had the oil money spent, when prices rose?
You also leave out the Chavez government's renegotiation of the oil contracts, changing the giveaway cut of a 10/90 split, favoring the multinational corporations, to a fairer cut, of 60/40, favoring Venezuela and its social programs. Exxon Mobil pulled out, because, as we know, they want ALL the profits. But most others did not. You also leave out that Venezuela's production is determined by OPEC. They are deliberately under-producing to drive oil prices back up. And, finally, you leave out that half of Venezuela's budget comes, not from the oil, but from other business and income, including improved tax collection (going after Venezuela's tax scofflaws--a common problem in Latin America--which the Chavez government has addressed).
Venezuela met all of its Millennium goals--with great reductions in poverty. Venezuela has an election system that is far, FAR more transparent than our own. Chavez has not "grabbed power." He has been genuinely elected, repeatedly, by big majorities. And he has harmed no one, and has in fact fought for the equal rights of women, gays, African-Venezuelans, the indigenous and other excluded groups. He rules by consent of the people, in fair and transparent and internationally certified elections, and he and his government scrupulously follow the Venezuelan constitution. Chavez has no powers that are not granted to him by the constitution or by the elected national assembly as a result of their constitutional right to do so (for instance, granting temporary, time and issue restricted powers of decree--a common practice in Latin America).
I see infinite improvement in the lives and rights of ordinary people--the majority, the workers, the poor, children, the sick, the elderly, excluded groups--over previous administrations. And I will just cite one of many similar statistics: A 40% increase in high school and higher education enrollment. You throw "upper education collapsing" into your list of doom. What do you base this on? Please tell me how that gels with a 40% increase in upper education enrollment?
Idi Amin seized power in a military coup. Chavez was the victim of a military coup, and Venezuelans poured into the streets by the tens of thousands to object and to demand return of their president to his rightful office and return of constitutional order. Chavez represented order. The rightwing were the disorderly group--the Idi Amin's. Idi Amin suspended the constitution. Who did that in Venezuela? Not Chavez. The rightwing coupsters suspended the Venezuelan constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights--just like Idi Amin. Idi Amin went on to massacre people who opposed him, and that would very likely have been the next acts of rightwing coupsters in Venezuela, after they suspended constitutional order and all civil rights--the murder of Chavez, members of Chavez's government and other leftists. That's been the rightwing's habit in Latin America, the moment they gain power, as they are doing now in Honduras, have been doing for quite a while in Colombia, and have done in numerous Latin American countries over the last half century. Who has Chavez killed? He has killed no one. He holds power legitimately. He respects the constitution and everyone's civil rights.
Your comparison to Idi Amin is ridiculous in its extremity. You are trying to raise some kind of dark bogeyman specter that doesn't fit Chavez in the least.
"...a primitivist cult of a nutcase wearing red outfits"???
I won't go into Robert Mugabe, because you don't mention that bogeyman figure--although others with your views have. It's interesting how dark the bogeymen are that you and others with your views utilize to so wrongfully beat up on Chavez. And "primitive cult" is over the top. Ever watch a football game or political convention in the U.S.? All those stupid people yelling like stuck mooses, or all those ugly, "red, white & blue" plastic hats and other yahoo equipment at political conventions? Those could also be called "primitive cults." It's something ALL people do, not just Chavistas. It's typical of sports or political events almost everywhere. Why pick on Chavez for holding campaign rallies, and trying to rev up his political base? I don't like sports events or political rallies myself. It's just a matter of taste and of claustrophobia. But I have no objection to what other people want to do. It's not bad. It's just a form of expression--and a rather important one to many people. You treat it like some kind of weird aberration.
All of your statements are like this--venomous, full of gross exaggeration, untrue. Why should we trust your economic analysis--especially since there are so many actual facts to the contrary, and more reasonable, knowledgeable opinions to consult.
You should be praising Chavez for inspiring so many people, for bringing so many excluded people into the political process, for creating enthusiasm and hope in the barrios where peoples' lives have been so difficult, for pushing democracy instead of sullen rebellion that leads nowhere, for pushing education and literacy, for spurring astonishing economic growth instead of giving Venezuela's wealth away, for running a stable ship except for the rightwing coup and the oil bosses' lockout during the 2002-2003 period--hardly Chavez's fault when people are trying to overthrow the constitutional government--for winning elections honestly instead of how George Bush won them, and for giving Venezuela one of fairest, most human rights oriented, and most prosperous periods in its history.
Sure there are problems. What country doesn't have problems? Venezuelans are gun-happy and have a high murder rate, but if Chavez clamped down on Venezuelan guns and started pouring bigger chunks of the budget into law enforcement, guess what people with your views would be saying about it? I laugh to think of it. "Police state!" you would cry. "Fascism!" "Nazi boots!" Venezuela is too dependent on oil, true--but using the profits for social spending is the best possible use of the oil money especially in a country that the rightwing had looted and impoverished, utterly neglecting education, health care and other social needs of the majority. If Venezuela is to have a good future, it has to continue increasing school enrollment as the Chavez government has been doing with dramatic success; it has to foster the energy and creativity of all Venezuelans, not just the privileged. That is where innovation and prosperity will come from--from investing that wealth in the people. It is not Chavez's fault that the Bushwhacks crashed the world economy. It's hard times for everyone, but Venezuela is doing better than most. In fact, the Chavez government's foresight and good management landed Venezuela on its feet, with good credit, low debt, high cash reserves and five years of previous high growth.
That is the truth of the matter, but I guess you have an emotional block against acknowledging that. I lean towards Chavez because our corpo-fascist press and people like you engage in such absurd exaggeration, stereotyping, bogeyman creation and obliviousness to facts. i admit it. I never post negative stuff about Chavez--because I see this relentless and unreasonable bias against him. I naturally want to counter it in the interest of truth. I also see that the Chavez government is the creation of MANY people--all kinds of cabinet members, agency heads, experts of various kind, professionals, academics, finance ministers, heads of this and that and all their staff people, and all the people who got Chavez elected--the activists and the grass roots groups and the social movements--and all the people who voted for him and his government, and all the people who poured into the streets to save their government from a rightwing coup. When you call Chavez "Idi Amin," you are insulting most of the people in Venezuela. Would they serve "Idi Amin"? Would they vote for "Idi Amin"? Would Chavez's neighbor, Lula da Silva, meet monthly with "idi Amin"--and share many common goals with "Idi Amin"?
It would be funny if it were not such dangerous nonsense.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
