New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 9, 2005

Regulating the data pipes, fighting basketball stereotypes, and listening to Hugo Chavez's gripes in this week's Reason Express.

Comments

|8.9.05 @ 2:49PM|#

There's a pretty big difference between Noriega and Chavez. Chavez is wildly popular, and millions of Venezuelans would fight and die in the streets to stop the Yanquis from deposing him. Noriega, not so much.

|8.9.05 @ 2:50PM|#

And Noriega wasn't sitting on a bunch of oil.

|8.9.05 @ 2:54PM|#

All of the oil wars have been sold as efforts to liberate a country from a tyrant. It would be a pretty tough sell to claim that you're liberating people who are shooting at you.

|8.9.05 @ 3:35PM|#

Lessee, on the "to invade" list we have:

Iran
Syria
Venezuela
Cuba
China
Canada

We'll get back to you in time for the 2008 election Hugo.

|8.9.05 @ 3:39PM|#

joe, whaddaya, paranoid? I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding another reason.

|8.9.05 @ 3:45PM|#

Pretty loose definition of "backing" you've got there, paul.

I guess the left really is the reality-based community, if merely mentioning irrefutable truths that conservatives dont' like to hear is a partisan act.

OK, how's this: Some people say the poll ratings over 70% and the willingness of the Venezuelan people to take to the streets to prevent the recend anti-Chavez coup demonstrates popular support for Chavez. Others disagree, and say Chavez doesn't really have any greater backing than Manuel Noriega.

Is that fair and balanced enough for you?

|8.9.05 @ 3:53PM|#

Joe, Joe, Joe. Don't you know it's impossible for citizens of a country to support a leader whom OUR leader says is no good?

|8.9.05 @ 4:28PM|#

Chavez is wildly popular, and millions of Venezuelans would fight and die in the streets to stop the Yanquis from deposing him.

I doubt "millions" would even take a day off work to go to a demonstration. Some small fraction might fight for him

As for his popularity, well, joe has already refuted himself on that one.

|8.9.05 @ 4:32PM|#

I'm not too fond of Chavez, but I have to admire a guy who finally has the balls to stand up to the DEA. Now if we can only get the rest of South America to follow his lead.

|8.9.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Jennifer,

I'm thinking we oughta work on North America first...

Amy Phillips|8.9.05 @ 5:10PM|#

I found it incredibly bizarre that in the original CNN article yesterday, Chavez was described as "The Venezuelan leader, an ally of Communist Cuba...". I mean, not that he isn't, but is that really the most salient fact to introduce him to a reader who might not know anything about him? They mention nothing else in the entire article about Chavez's non-U.S. related policy, about his politics, or about his relations with the rest of the world. If I were a better conspiracy theorist, I might think that CNN is in cahoots with the DEA to discredit people who disagree with U.S. drug policy by linking them in the press with murderous dictators.

|8.9.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Jennifer,

"balls to stand up to the DEA"!?

His whole approach is to act the big man standing up to the yankees. He has the same balls as any other dictator: Castro, Saddam, etc.

|8.9.05 @ 5:35PM|#

Amy,

His relationship with Castro is much more fundamental than his relationship to the DEA.

His opposition to US drug policy is probably wrapped up in his support for Columbian narco-terrorists rather than any libertarian inclinations.

|8.9.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Don,

Has it occured to anyone that if the yankees didn't send armed agents to spy on and intervene in the country there might be less of a market for big men who stand up to the yankees?

|8.9.05 @ 6:24PM|#

JK-

They don't hate us for our foreign policy. They hate us for our freedom.

Didn't you get the memo?

|8.9.05 @ 6:55PM|#

Of all the countries where the DEA has tried to enforce its will, Venezuela through Chavez was the first to tell them to butt out. So good for them. As for being allied with Cuba, I don't see how that's any worse than our being allied with Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan.

Actually, if I had to choose one of those three countries to live in, and suicide were not an option, I'd go with Cuba. Granted it sucks, but at least I wouldn't automatically spend my life under house arrest for the monstrous crime of being female, and I'd be less likely to get boiled alive in oil, too.

|8.9.05 @ 7:16PM|#

Yeah, it's only the "wildly popular", freedom-loving presidents who send in troops to seize industries they want to nationalize, provoke nationwide general strikes, use armed gangs to beat up dissidents, and use voting machines that track fingerprints.

I don't want the United States doing much of anything to Venezuela, but why on earth do we have to pretend he isn't a corrupt thug consolidating power? Did I miss a memo?

|8.9.05 @ 7:17PM|#

Jennifer, Amy, etc.,

I think Chavez's alliance with Cuba is used in TV-news shorthand because it's a good way to describe Chavez's rule and his policies. He's not as bad as Castro, yet, but he is indeed very Castro-like.

|8.9.05 @ 7:19PM|#

JK,

Chavez is appealing to the poor, and attempting to change the subject from his failed leftist policies. The people who he is appealing to don't hate us for our forign policies, they hate us for our wealth and success.

During the first Gulf War, some of my latin American inlaws pointed out that yankees don't need to fear war, since all of our fighting is done by latin Americans we conscript into our military. The fact is, the poor people of the region have little clue of the US, just a realization that we are wealthy and they are not--so we must be stealing from them.

Jennifer,

Suicide is always an option.

|8.9.05 @ 7:27PM|#

I don't know, Jennifer. You seem an outspoken type. My guess is you would fare equally poorly in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Cuba.

|8.9.05 @ 7:41PM|#

Steve--

You're probably right, but in Cuba I'd at least be able to hang on a little longer. The point I was making is that it's damned hypocritical of us to criticize Chavez for being allied with dictatorial scumbags when our own scumbag allies are even worse in many ways.

Come to think of it, Castro's pretty old. I could probably lay low long enough for him to drop dead and see what happens next.

|8.9.05 @ 7:55PM|#

Why does anyone care about Venezuela? Seriously. Are the Venezuelans amassing an army and navy that are expected to attack us? Are they building training centers that will send waves of terrorists into St. Louis or Denver? Are they threatening to dump the oil into the sea or burn it into the air, creating pollution (a.k.a., vandalism) on our shores or in our air? If the answers are "No", then who gives a flying fuck?

Whether Chavez is a populist or a dictator is of little matter; when the Venezuelans tire of his act, they can take care of the matter themselves. If Venezuela nationalizes oil or peanut or cocaine production, what do we care? Oh, sure, some Americans could be financially affected by nationalization, but the Kelo decision points out that "nationalization" occurs right here, too. In fact, Kelo makes it clear that if a local government decided to take over an oil refinery, it's pretty much OK. The town could claim the revenues from the refinery would be used for a public purpose, such as improving infrastructure or mitigating poverty. If the issue is access to oil, well, no one should be forced to sell anything to someone they don't like, and that applies as much to selling oil to pushy Yankees as selling burgers to guys without shoes and shirts.

Absent a direct threat to people and property INSIDE our boundaries, let Venezuela (and every other country, for that matter) go to hell or prosper, as they see fit. Once we've made things better here, then we can devote our energy to making things better there.

|8.9.05 @ 8:21PM|#

I like how the most nationalist American patriots are so concerned that there might be a dictator in Latin America.

"The people who he is appealing to don't hate us for our forign policies, they hate us for our wealth and success."

You think maybe our history of overthrowing their governments and installing obedient tyrants who get off on massacres (a history that has continued into the current Bush administration) might have something to do with it?

Nah. They're just hateful people. Where did they ever get the idea we were stealing their resources?

|8.9.05 @ 8:48PM|#

joe,

Way to assume bad motives on the part of your opponents. I don't know who you're talking about, specifically, but if by "nationalist American patriots" you mean neocons, then I think you're wrong. I think they do care if foreigners are ruled by dictators. Bush, too, seems sincere in his concern for oppressed peoples around the world. Confused about what to do about it, yes, but also sincere.

But I don't know their motives, and neither do you.

|8.9.05 @ 9:16PM|#

Er, what massacre-happy South American dictator has the current Bush administration installed?

|8.10.05 @ 9:25AM|#

Funny you should ask, Eric. They backed an attempted coup against Chavez himself during Bush's first term, a coup that was defeated by massive crowds of Chavez supporters turning out in the streets.

Wow, full circle.

|8.10.05 @ 10:25AM|#

South American marxists get in power on the platform of feeding people through nationalization and freeing them from the grip of a strongman who keeps all the wealth to himself. Che still speaks. Then, they don't feed people because they can't grow. They blame the US. Crime rises.

A strongman enters the scene and gets popular by enforcing order. He keeps what wealth there is to himself and his family by way of a crony capitalism. People get upset. He blames the US.

The rules seem to be:

1) Blame the US for stealing wealth.
2) There is a two party system: Marxists and Crony Capitalists / Tin Pots.

3) Get used to poverty.

No the war on drugs doesn't help. Yes, we should open up to actual free trade in sugar and the like. Yes, we backed the non marxist option as the Kremlin was backing the marxist option during the cold war. No, there is no reason to continue doing so. No, this isn't the root cause of problems in the region.

|8.10.05 @ 11:03AM|#

I doubt if Hugo Chavez has the entrepeneurial business sense of joe, but he could make big bucks in the drug biz. Perhaps he's thought of it. Do you think?
He should invite Archer-Daniels-Midland down to build a giant manufacturing complex.
This would not be much different from the UK listing and thus legitimizing on-line gambling companies that get most of their revenue (illegally?) from the US.
I mean if Tony Blair can stick his thumb in Dubya's eye, why couldn't Hugo big time?

|8.10.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Jennifer,
Here's an old war buddy of mine.
http://www.georgesemler.com/
He's been to Cuba several times, speaks Spanish, has listened to some of Castro's speeches, and loves the place.

keith|8.10.05 @ 11:29AM|#

Come to think of it, Castro's pretty old. I could probably lay low long enough for him to drop dead and see what happens next.

I know people wh have been saying that for decades now.

At least in Cuba the food would be better. And the music. And the cars. And you can wear shorts.

-Keith

|8.10.05 @ 11:31AM|#

I don't think I'd love Cuba, Ruthless, but I'd like it a hell of a lot more than I'd like such freedom-loving US allies as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Uzbekistan. That's all I'm saying.

|8.10.05 @ 11:34AM|#

but why on earth do we have to pretend he isn't a corrupt thug consolidating power?

So we don't notice our own presidents doing the same thing at a slower pace.

The WOD is nothing but a jobs program for police and prison guards. It's sold as a symbolic gesture, which is what the DEA involvement with Venzuela is. As horrible as Chavez could be, we'll look the other way since he's siting on oil, much like we do with Saudia Arabia.

If there was ever a gesture that said "Keep on doing what you're doing and we'll pretend we don't like it," it's DEA intervention.

|8.10.05 @ 11:44AM|#

"but why on earth do we have to pretend he isn't a corrupt thug consolidating power?"

Because as president, he has done nothing to undermine the constitutional system of democratic elections, and quite a bit to defend it against those who would do so because they can't win against him in at the ballot box.

Call me crazy, but being an elected head of state gives who has to face the voters to stay in office makes you legitimate in my book.

|8.10.05 @ 11:47AM|#

I guess that's just where we differ, joe. I'm not enough of a small-d democrat to think that an elected leader can't be a thug. But we'll see what Chavez does when his term is up, or when he does lose. Guys like him have a tendency to outstay their welcome.

|8.10.05 @ 11:48AM|#

joe,
I guess it's a matter of distinguishing between corruption and getting off the track.
Bush may be only a little corrupt, but he's waay off the track.

|8.10.05 @ 11:53AM|#

Oh, he can be a thug all right. But it still changes how we are bound to deal with him.

As for when the public sours on him, I certainly hope we'll have enough credibility as stalwarts of democracy left to be able to bring some pressure to bear in case he violates the constitution - which is one of the main reasons why we have to treat unsavory elected leaders differently than dictators.

|8.10.05 @ 12:00PM|#

joe,
I thought your were talking about Bush, but I can't believe you must think Hugo didn't steal his election.

|8.10.05 @ 12:06PM|#

Ruthless, indpendent polling routinely puts Chavez's support in the 70s and 80s. I have no trouble believing he won his election fair and square. I think I read that it was monitored by the Jimmy Carter people.

keith|8.10.05 @ 12:10PM|#

the Jimmy Carter people

I saw that movie. It was terrifying!

-Keith

|8.10.05 @ 12:19PM|#

The people of Venezuela need to be impeached.
I wonder if they ever tried a poll tax down there?

|8.10.05 @ 12:39PM|#

I haven't examined or followed the situation in Venezuela closely enough to have a strong opinion on whether Chavez's electoral victory and poll numbers are in fact legitimate.

But it wouldn't surprise me that a left-wing populist with unsavory enemies might poll well when he's got lots of oil money to dole out. (And with oil past $60/barrel there's a lot of oil money.)

Should libertarians really be shocked if a candidate promising redistribution achieves popularity?

|8.10.05 @ 2:04PM|#

Remember, people supported Castro at the time because Batista was even worse. Kind of sneaky of Batista to be evil while not calling himself a Communist, for sure.

It was also sneaky of Castro to obtain his support by portraying himself as a populist pro-democracy reformer instead of the Soviet-style communist dictator he intended to be.

Both my high school Spanish teachers (a married couple) were Cuban refugees who fled Castro. The wife, in particular, talked to us at length about how deceptive Castro was before coming to power, portraying himself as a simple country boy and devout Catholic, etc. She said many Cubans were shocked when the guy revealed his actual policies. Support for Castro would probably have been less if people had really known him as well as they knew Batista.

|8.10.05 @ 2:22PM|#

As horrible as Chavez could be, we'll look the other way since he's siting on oil, much like we do with Saudia Arabia.

Explain the invasion of Iraq.

|8.10.05 @ 8:13PM|#

Because as president, he has done nothing to undermine the constitutional system of democratic elections...Call me crazy, but being an elected head of state gives who has to face the voters to stay in office makes you legitimate in my book.

I'm never going to figure out why some epeople in democracies have an urge to boost strongmen in other countries with vaguely similar politics.

Thank goodness.

|8.11.05 @ 9:39AM|#

No many how many I tell you "it's the elections, stupid," you're still going to stare at me with that confused look on your face, aren't you?

|8.11.05 @ 9:40AM|#

All hail the hallowed devotion to democracy of the Bush hawks!