A HugE Victory for Democracy

[Pangloss]

How about that awesome story out of Venezuela over the weekend? Is that not amazing or what?

 

If you haven't heard, the country voted on whether or not to grant near-dictatorial powers in a radical change to the country's constitution. The changes would have allowed Hugo "The Democratator" Chavez to remain "president" for life, declare states of emergency at will, and permanently silence already-muffled criticism from the media.

 

Chavez has overwhelming popular support, mainly due to his sweaping, oil-revenue-driven social programs, and has never lost an election. Most observers gave the "no" side absolutely no chance of success. But in what may be one of the biggest democratic success stories of the young century, they were wrong. Chavez was beaten, 51 to 49. Holy cow.

 

Time has a great story on it here:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690507,00.html

 

I'd love to think that the people of Venezuela woke up and smelled the coffee, but the main reason appears to be that Chavez' voting base stayed home in droves. Still, that may be an indirect no vote, of the kind one casts when one doesn't really think it's a good idea TO cast a vote.

 

I can't wait to hear what all the Hollywood types who've been to visit Chavez think of all this. According to Bill O'Reilly, more Hollywood stars have been to visit Hugo Chavez than have been to visit the troops in Afghanistan. Take that, Sean Penn, you freaking moron.

[Sisyphus]

Hopefully it will also shut up those claiming Venezuelan elections are illegitimate, a la Saddam Hussein's 2002 "reelection." Chavez is a shameless populist who's managed to consolidate far too much power, but it's still a democracy and he's not a dictator. Take that, Bill O'Reilly, you freaking moron.

[CDarwin]

If you haven't heard, the country voted on whether or not to grant near-dictatorial powers in a radical change to the country's constitution. The changes would have allowed Hugo "The Democratator" Chavez to remain "president" for life, declare states of emergency at will, and permanently silence already-muffled criticism from the media.

 

I wouldn't call the powers "near-dictatorial." The reforms would have dropped term limits for the president and given him more power legislatively, as well as some other socialist things (6 hour work days). It would have given Chavez more power, but I think you're dramatizing just a bit. Chavez is more Huey Long than Saddam Hussein.

 

Chavez has overwhelming popular support, mainly due to his sweaping, oil-revenue-driven social programs, and has never lost an election. Most observers gave the "no" side absolutely no chance of success. But in what may be one of the biggest democratic success stories of the young century, they were wrong. Chavez was beaten, 51 to 49. Holy cow.

 

I wouldn't say that there was "no" chance either. In fact the early polls had it pretty close, and some saw the reforms as failing.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7119371.stm

 

Great for democracy, yeah, sure, I guess. Better for Venezuela if it means they can stop Chavez from running their country into the ground sooner, but that's only if there's another good choice which there doesn't really seem to be.

[Pangloss]

Hopefully it will also shut up those claiming Venezuelan elections are illegitimate' date=' a la Saddam Hussein's 2002 "reelection." Chavez is a shameless populist who's managed to consolidate far too much power, but it's still a democracy and he's not a dictator. Take that, Bill O'Reilly, you freaking moron.

[/quote']

 

It's not a democracy but it's not a dictatorship either. It's something in between. You know, the direction the left says we're slowly heading in this country ever since we elected George Bush.

 

It's interesting that vast constitutional overhauls that dramatically increase the power of the executive are perfectly acceptable when it's a social-reforming liberal in charge, but slight adjustments that benefit a market-economy conservative with support from the religious right mean the end of the world as we know it.

 

Take that, George Soros, you freaking moron.

[Sisyphus]

I hope your implication is that it's Sean Penn and not I who find it "perfectly acceptable." I don't like him and I imagine he would probably like to be a de facto dictator, but he's still in power directly because of his continuing popularity, and they do have elections which obviously are not rigged. So I do consider him a legitimate leader, which is why the far right mutterings of assassination or regime change are more disturbing to me than the far left's admiration.

[Pangloss]

Sure, I mean the missing elements here are basically:

 

- No WMDs

- No sponsorship for terrorism

 

Right? The very worst he could do to my country would be to cut off the oil supply. Which would certainly be bad, but wouldn't that be Venezuela's right as a free country, regardless of what government they had in charge?

 

So I understand what you're saying and I don't fault the logic. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a great deal more tolerance for very real, tangible losses of freedoms in Venezuela from the same group of people that are trying to convince us of very intangible, undemonstrated losses of freedoms in the US. The reason for that tolerance is obvious: Chavez is a liberal. Bush is a conservative.

 

Which reveals that far-left angst to be ideological desire for progressivism regardless of the cost, rather than an honest desire to see freedoms protected.

[Sisyphus]

Sure, I mean the missing elements here are basically:

 

- No WMDs

- No sponsorship for terrorism

 

Right?

 

No. The big one is that he's an elected leader. So no WMDs means they're not a threat, no sponsorship for terrorism means they're not a hostile nation, and the fact that they already have elections means there's nobody to "liberate," because the government they have now IS the one they want. Yet Pat Robertson types can't understand why we don't send somebody down there to assassinate Chavez.

 

(BTW, I'm not disputing your basic premise is right about liberals being hypocritical in the stuff they let slide just because he's a "liberal," too.)

[CDarwin]

The reason for that tolerance is obvious: Chavez is a liberal. Bush is a conservative.

 

Or people get just a little more upset about losing their own freedoms than people in another country losing theirs? Just a thought.

 

I'm not saying it's not hypocritical, but it's pretty natural. A person only has so much outrage. It seems logical that he'd use it on causes that effect him directly.

[Pangloss]

Or people get just a little more upset about losing their own freedoms than people in another country losing theirs? Just a thought.

 

I'm not saying it's not hypocritical, but it's pretty natural. A person only has so much outrage. It seems logical that he'd use it on causes that effect him directly.

 

Not when more Hollywood actors have been to visit Hugo Chavez then have been to visit our troops in Afghanistan. They're not ignoring him, they're lining up to bow and scrape before the Benevolent Democratator. If he has to shut down a few radio stations blaring complaints from people who just don't understand advanced progressive theory, well, so be it.

 

 

No. The big one is that he's an elected leader. So no WMDs means they're not a threat' date=' no sponsorship for terrorism means they're not a hostile nation, and the fact that they already have elections means there's nobody to "liberate," because the government they have now IS the one they want. Yet Pat Robertson types can't understand why we don't send somebody down there to assassinate Chavez.

[/quote']

 

Well I have to point out that Saddam Hussein was elected too. But I think we pretty much agree here. It's not like we're getting daily reports of mass graves found deep in the Venezuelan jungle. (Yet.) I certainly agree that calls for assassination (or attack of any kind) aren't premature, they're just wrong.

[PhDP]

Which reveals that far-left angst to be ideological desire for progressivism regardless of the cost, rather than an honest desire to see freedoms protected.

 

The reason for that tolerance is obvious: Chavez is a liberal. Bush is a conservative.

 

Chavez, a liberal ? Pure Nonsense.

 

What I find particulary disturbing is that many conservatives are bashing Chavez because he's not a social liberal and his foreing policy is based on a manichean view of the world. Sounds familiar ? Of course, he's on the left when it comes to the economy (but not as much as some might think), but liberals in the U.S and most of Europe are generally much less inclined to support the kind of populism/authoritarism espoused by Chavez than conservatives.

 

According to Bill O'Reilly, more Hollywood stars have been to visit Hugo Chavez than have been to visit the troops in Afghanistan.

 

... do you have something serious to back this claim ?

[Pangloss]

Oh please, of course he's liberal. His policies are characterized far and wide as social democracy. His entire appeal to the lower classes is based around progressive social policies funded by the outright theft of fully developed oil resources through nationalization -- about as liberal as it gets. And that's just silly suggesting that he doesn't have support from the left. Of course he does. The fact that the left is fractured and contains many perspectives doesn't make his position less liberal. Nonsense yourself.

 

... do you have something serious to back this claim ?

 

It's a subjective opinion, but just off the top of my head I can tell you that Chavez has had visits from Danny Glover, Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn, Harry Belefonte and Naomi Campbell. Afghanistan? Robin Williams comes to mind, but that's about it. A couple country singers, I believe.

[CDarwin]

Not when more Hollywood actors have been to visit Hugo Chavez then have been to visit our troops in Afghanistan. They're not ignoring him, they're lining up to bow and scrape before the Benevolent Democratator. If he has to shut down a few radio stations blaring complaints from people who just don't understand advanced progressive theory, well, so be it.

 

Well then this is just a discussion over an ad hominem. Who cares what Hollywood does with its money? I know I won't be jetting down to Caracas any time soon, and I'm sure most Democratic policy makers don't have framed pictures of Chavez in their offices.

[iNow]

It's a subjective opinion, but just off the top of my head I can tell you that Chavez has had visits from Danny Glover, Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn, Harry Belefonte and Naomi Campbell. Afghanistan? Robin Williams comes to mind, but that's about it. A couple country singers, I believe.

 

In all honesty, mate, considering this is the case (and you could only name 5), you should not be using this as a foundation in your approach. You've shared this now in more than one post, and yet you have zero confirmation that:

 

more Hollywood actors have been to visit Hugo Chavez then have been to visit our troops in Afghanistan. They're not ignoring him, they're lining up to bow and scrape before the Benevolent Democratator.

 

 

All I need to do is search for the USO and Afghanistan to overcome that claim, which itself has already been fully rebutted by others. Bill O'Reilly was basically faced by the USO while he was himself over there. After he ranted that Toby Keith had gone to Afghanistan and the USO had displeased him, the USO pointed out that 12 acts visited Afghanistan last year alone, including the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders, the actor Gary Sinese, Vince Vaughn and Al Franken. By the end of next month, 19 more acts will have toured the country this year. There were also several acts in the years previous, and these acts were all composed of actual Hollywood celebs.

 

Frankly it's sort of sad that he is spinning this so much to suit his purposes, and even sadder that you are here repeating the same garbage despite it's inaccuracy.

[Pangloss]

I guess you're right. But whether more stars have visited Chavez than the troops in Afghanistan is hardly the foundation of my argument! It was a minor side comment at most.

 

My argument, that Chavez enjoys support from the American political left, has not been refuted.

 

What's surprising to me is that it's being objected to at all. I think what I must have forgotten about the rift between progressivism and social libertarianism. Libertarians find Chavez quite objectionable because he's stomped on freedoms; it's mainly the social progressives, the it's-not-your-fault types, who like him. It makes sense that libertarians would find that support embarassing.

 

So Chavez seems to be highlighting a significant rift in the left. Interesting.

[Skye]

Meh, that isn't anything new. It's just another example of middle class people supporting liberalism and lower class people supporting socialism. That's classical liberalism mind you, that tends to straddle the political divide.

[PhDP]

Pangloss,

 

Of course he's from the left in terms of economy, but I can't think of a single classification of political philosophies where Chavez would be close to "liberals" (in the American sense). In the Political Compass, he would be from the Authoritarian Left corner ("liberals" = Libertarian Left, "conservatives" = Authoritarian right), same thing for the Nolan chart, Greenberg & Jonas' model or the Inglehart chart. You're making an argument by selective observation, why don't you take a look at some other aspects of his political philosophies ? oh my, he's against abortions, he must be a conservative, right ?

 

There's no way even a simplistic system of classification would allow you to make such a comparison, it's just as absurd as like saying Stalin is "liberal" and Kasparov "conservative". I think we can best describe his ideology as left populism, but it has very little do to with the liberals of the U.S., it's a strange mixture of outdated socialist economic policies, capitalist opportunism, social conservatism and a manichean foreign policy.

 

My argument, that Chavez enjoys support from the American political left, has not been refuted.

 

It's not supported by anything either. Who cares about what a couple of actors are doing ? How many democrats in the senate support Chavez ?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss,

 

Of course he's from the left in terms of economy, but I can't think of a single classification of political philosophies where Chavez would be close to "liberals" (in the American sense).

 

Ridiculous. Welfare for the poor, public housing, anti-corporatism, these are all positions commonly held/promoted by American liberals.

 

Hey, if you don't support Chavez, I'm glad to hear it. But I think it's pretty ridiculous to try and deny that some American liberals are right out there on the same playing field with the guy. Sure, there are differences, I readily agree (like respect for freedoms, which I've been POINTING OUT), which is why they SHOULDN'T be supporting him.

 

If you want to amend that to "some liberals support him, some don't", then we would have common ground. But just flat out denying that any American liberals support the guy, that's just silly.

[CDarwin]

If you want to amend that to "some liberals support him, some don't", then we would have common ground. But just flat out denying that any American liberals support the guy, that's just silly.

 

Much like the entire thesis of this thread?

 

So what if 'some liberals' support Hugo Chavez? Some conservatives support Alberto Fujimori. Some people who wear glasses support killing Jews.

 

Unless you can proffer some sort of evidence that there is a plot in the works by liberal senators and congressmen to prop up Hugo Chavez, then I really don't see what the point of this is. It's completely an ad hominem, of the original definition.

[PhDP]

Pangloss,

 

I said you were doing an argument from selective observation, and what is your answer;

 

Ridiculous. Welfare for the poor, public housing, anti-corporatism, these are all positions commonly held/promoted by American liberals.

 

I’m repeating; I never said Hugo Chavez wasn't not on the left when it comes to economy. In terms of economy, he does support many policies espoused by American liberals. In terms of civil liberties/traditions, he's much closer to American conservatives. Although, in both cases, I think the comparison is quite weak. I completely reject the notion that there are enough similarities between the political landscapes of North America and South Ameria to justify a comparison with American liberals & conservatives. And anyway, the distinction between "liberals" and "conservatives" is increasingly about so-called "social issues".

 

I would really like to have a direct answer on this; was Stalin "liberal" ? Is Garry Kasparov a "conservative" ? I mean, the guy is clearly conservative, he supports free trade and the free market, he's some sort of revolutionary conservative, in short, he's a living oxymoron, that is, if we try to export the terms "liberals" and "conservatives" to Russia. What about Kim Jong-il ? He's pretty conservative, for a liberal... I'm 100% certain the black & white, "liberals v. conservatives" duality can't be exported to other regions of the world. Chavez's ideologies must be understood within the framework of South American politics. If some American liberals want to support him, that's their problem, but he's not a liberal.

 

Hey, if you don't support Chavez, I'm glad to hear it. But I think it's pretty ridiculous to try and deny that some American liberals are right out there on the same playing field with the guy.

 

I'm not doing this, I'm not denying that some liberals support him; honestly I don't really care about what they are doing. Still, I think the actions of a couple of actors hardly justify your argument about the "support from the political left". It might be true, but I would like to see evidences. What I really find outrageous is your attempt to portrait Chavez as a "liberal".

[iNow]

I'm 100% certain the black & white, "liberals v. conservatives" duality can't be exported to other regions of the world.

To add to the above, I am 100% certain that the black & white "liberals v. conservatives" duality isn't even valid in our own country, let alone other regions of the world. I really fail to understand the self-imposed decision to ignore individual differences and instead type-cast people blindly into buckets formed with broad brush strokes.

 

 

It's not "us and them." It's just us. Really. I swear.

[Reaper]

What is it with you political types and the insistence that there are only 2 sides? Why not three, or four, or better yet none at all?

[Mr Skeptic]

What is it with you political types and the insistence that there are only 2 sides? Why not three, or four, or better yet none at all?

 

Because of how we vote.

[Pangloss]

Gee! I haven't seen such liberal angst since the results of the French presidential election came in! I don't think I could have gotten a hotter reaction from the SFN Left if I'd made the subject of this thread "THE SURGE IS WORKING!!!!111one" But hey, good for you, guys -- nothin' like a hearty exchange of views.

 

Clearly it irks people who are of a left-of-center persuasion to have somebody like Chavez associated with their personal ideologies. My advice: Don't take it personally. Nobody in their right mind blames American liberalism for Chavez's rise to power. Every branch of political ideologies has its share of embarassments. Chavez is what he is. Don't feel bad about it, don't distance yourself from it, STAND UP TO IT. You want to fight the right? Good for you. Let's start by cleaning up the left.

 

I would really like to have a direct answer on this; was Stalin "liberal" ? Is Garry Kasparov a "conservative" ? .... If some American liberals want to support him' date=' that's their problem, but he's not a liberal.

[/quote']

 

My DIRECT answer to your question, Phil, is that "liberal" is a loose definition that includes a number of different possibilities, not one and only one specific set of politically correct, Oprah-approved conditions, overseen by Howard Dean and approved by MoveOn.org. You've already agreed with me that he's liberal in the economic sense. So you define liberalism a little differently than I do. Good for you.

[CDarwin]

Gee! I haven't seen such liberal angst since the results of the French presidential election came in! [/Quote]

 

Yes, I suppose you could respond to all the legitimate questions raised about your thesis by accusing everyone of scrambling to distance themselves from Chavez.

 

I was happy about Sarkozy's election, anyway. So there.

 

My DIRECT answer to your question, Phil, is that "liberal" is a loose definition that includes a number of different possibilities, not one and only one specific set of politically correct, Oprah-approved conditions, overseen by Howard Dean and approved by MoveOn.org. You've already agreed with me that he's liberal in the economic sense. So you define liberalism a little differently than I do. Good for you.

 

I suppose this is a response to Phil as much as it is to you:

 

It doesn't really matter if Chavez is "liberal" or not. The only important thing to Pangloss's point is whether-or-not American liberals view him as liberal. Now what hasn't been established is that A) American liberals think such a way, and B) That we should care.

[PhDP]

CDarwin,

 

I agree with the first part of your message (except the part about Sarko), and I also agree partially with;

 

It doesn't really matter if Chavez is "liberal" or not. The only important thing to Pangloss's point is whether-or-not American liberals view him as liberal. Now what hasn't been established is that A) American liberals think such a way, and B) That we should care.

 

No evidences for A has been presented, and B; why should we ? Some liberals are supporting Chavez, big deal. However, I do care about how some word like "liberal" are exported, I think it's too easy to make associations based on nothing, it's the good old "Hitler was conservative"/"Communists were Atheists" trick, and now, Chavez is a "liberal", and this one is not even remotely true by any serious standard (anyway, I don't know any).

 

My DIRECT answer to your question, Phil, is that "liberal" is a loose definition that includes a number of different possibilities, not one and only one specific set of politically correct, Oprah-approved conditions, overseen by Howard Dean and approved by MoveOn.org. You've already agreed with me that he's liberal in the economic sense. So you define liberalism a little differently than I do. Good for you.

 

You really have a strong tendency to use direct and indirect personal attacks. More than half your answer was just whining against the left and things that have nothing do to with my questions. Discussion would be easier without all those diversions. And do you really think the Nolan chart, and other systems create by political scientists are just "politically correct, Oprah-approved conditions, overseen by Howard Dean and approved by MoveOn.org" ? Did I ever quoted these people/groups ?