New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 31, 2005

Could Pat Robertson be right about something? Not about political murder, certainly, but I consider whether our own homegrown radical cleric is on to something when it comes to Hugo Chávez.

Comments

|8.31.05 @ 5:53PM|#

"...the failure to enforce the new constitution, the perceived lack of independence of the branches of government, the growing concentration of power in the national executive, the impunity with which armed civilian groups and death squads conduct their activities, the tendency to confrontation and to denigrate the traditional political opposition on the part of the government, the constant attacks on journalists and the news media, the tendency to militarization of public administration through the increasingly prominent role of the armed forces, the growing radicalization of political stances..."

If you take out the part about armed civilian groups and death squads, sounds like you could be talking about Bush.

|8.31.05 @ 5:58PM|#

On second thought, with all of this "extraordinary rendition" going on, you can keep in the death squad part too.

|8.31.05 @ 5:59PM|#

That, and our Constitution isn't new.

Seriously, Julian, did you do that on purpose?

|8.31.05 @ 6:12PM|#

As I read through the essay about the authoritarian policies and tactics of Hugo Chavez, I thought to myself, "how many comments on H&R until someone trots out the obligatory comparisons to Bush and/or the US Government?" I figured about 4 or 5 comments was par for the course.

But lo and behold, it happened right out of the gate. I'm impressed.

|8.31.05 @ 6:26PM|#

Applying the list above to Bush:

the failure to enforce the new constitution,

Yeah, like he started that. True, he blows, but no worse than most others since Roosevelt.

the perceived lack of independence of the branches of government,

Is it Bush's fault the Dems can't beat Repubs in elections?

the growing concentration of power in the national executive,

Ah, for the good old days of Dems devolving executive power to Congress and the courts. Still, Bush blows on this one.

the tendency to confrontation and to denigrate the traditional political opposition on the part of the government,

Not sure how you apply "traditional opposition" in the US context, but if you are saying the Repubs are mean to the Dems, well, it goes both ways.

the constant attacks on journalists and the news media,

Outside of a single reporter that pissed off a federal judge not part of the Administration, I'm not aware of any "attacks" on journalists. Other than a few verbal spitballs.

the tendency to militarization of public administration through the increasingly prominent role of the armed forces,

Don't see this one.

the growing radicalization of political stances

On both ends, yeah.

|8.31.05 @ 6:28PM|#

Authoritarians of any stripe tend to react most strongly against those who they have the most in common with.


/blah

|8.31.05 @ 6:32PM|#

"...the failure to enforce the new constitution,
the perceived lack of independence of the branches of government, the growing concentration of power in the national executive, the impunity with which armed civilian groups and death squads conduct their activities, the tendency to confrontation and to denigrate the traditional political opposition on the part of the government, the constant attacks on journalists and the news media, the tendency to militarization of public administration through the increasingly prominent role of the armed forces, the growing radicalization of political stances..."

Umm . . .we have no new constitution, power was concentrated disproportionately with the Executive long before Bush, confrontation and denigration has been more concentrated in the Bush opposition than with Bush's administration ("Bush=Hitler", etc.), we are at war so it's not surprising that the armed forces are more "prominent" and I don't believe "political stances" are any more radical than than they were in the past, certainly not in any substantive way . . .

|8.31.05 @ 6:43PM|#

R C Dean

Beat me to it . . .

|8.31.05 @ 6:49PM|#

Julian,

Shame, shame, shame, Justin Raimondo knows your name! Using a WeeklyStandard article as evidence of a tyrant's misuse of power, that's craziness! Doesn't that mean you have to give up your honorary Murray N. Rothbard Decoder Ring for even linking to anything neoconish (for as everyone knows it gives strength to Zionists everywhere!)?
How long do you think it'll be before Justin starts asking about Julian's "odd circumstances" of flirting with AIPAC?
Time started...NOW!

|8.31.05 @ 6:51PM|#

armed civilian groups

Are those goofball "Minutemen" along the Mexican border armed?


Yeah, yeah, many of these charges are not unique to Bush. But he ain't makin' things any better. as they say, if you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Bush and the Repuglicans are definitely part of the problem. Worse, they sold many of us on the idea that they would be the solution.

I hope we've all learned our lesson.

|8.31.05 @ 7:04PM|#

I bet if you stacked up (pardon the pun) the number of people tortured, or what we call "interrogated", under Bush and Chavez, the contrast would be stark and revealing.

|8.31.05 @ 7:20PM|#

armed civilian groups

Can we count our Blackwater "consultants"?

|8.31.05 @ 7:48PM|#

Sr. Chavez is left wing, which means he has only the best interests of the people in mind. Everything he does is for the benefit of the poor, oppressed Venezuelan working class. His crackdown on the media is justified because they're just mouthpieces for Grande Negocio and Tio Sam. His support for FARC is also ok, because even though they do things that appear to be mean, they're communists. How could they have anything but the well-being of the people in mind?

|8.31.05 @ 7:56PM|#

Let's call a truce here on the Bush comparison. I'm confident I can refute RC's refutation point by point, but then the thread will be irreversably jacked. C'mon, gang, we can do this.

Somebody post something related to the issue at hand (hopefully, something better than jon, above), and no more with the Bush/Chavez comparison.

This is one of the smartest group of blog regulars on the web. We can do this.

|8.31.05 @ 8:06PM|#

Joe is upset because I have acheived true left-wing Enlightenment (which is rather redundent...). Being a mere mortal he only wishes to aspire to my benevolence. Until he completely submits himself to the Masters Castro and Chavez, he will only be a mere shadow of a true revolutionary, regardless of his Wal-Mart boycotts and support for the Palestinians.

Viva la revolucion!!!!

|8.31.05 @ 8:07PM|#

Goddamnit, I got caught... :P

|8.31.05 @ 8:36PM|#

As for Chavez vs. Bush, so far Cindy Sheehan hasn't gotten a ruthless beating for speaking against the righteous, people's regime of El Presidente Bush, !El Deuce! Oh yeah, and the Minute Men haven't pulled me into the street and kicked me in the teeth for publically calling Bush a turd (which in all seriousness he is, South Park proved that), while the Circulos Bolivarinos seem to do that a bit. So compairsons of Bush to Chavez, IMAO, are a tad bit strained.

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but when protestors in the US are regularly beaten by cops and the "people" during their protests (and I mean peaceful protests, not the crap that indymedia sponsors that made up of those Blackbloc bastards who cause half the trouble) that's when we can readily compare Bush to Chavez.

As for the actual article...does anyone really disagree that Chavez is a crypto-Commie who should burn in hell? Does that mean the post is closed since almost everyone will also agree that the US won't do anything because it's not as stupid as Pat Robertson since Venezuala's retaliation be more of a headache than Chavez is now?

|8.31.05 @ 8:50PM|#

OK, Chavez is a your typical Third World wannabe-despot. He's a Castro-snuggling slimeball who oppresses his people. We've firmly established that.

So what?

His type comes a dime a dozen. What are we going to do about it? Send in the Marines? Dispatch couple of comapanies of armor? Call in the SEALs and "take him out" (errr... for dinner and a movie?) like Mullah Pat suggests?

They point is, the U.S. suffers scum-suckers more devious than this small fry (e.g. Kim Jong Il, Putin, Muggabe, Santorum, etc.) Let the little man bluster. He doesn't worry me in the slightest.

|8.31.05 @ 9:14PM|#

At least Chavez has the balls to beat people in public.

|8.31.05 @ 9:31PM|#

Yeah, it takes a lot of balls to have heavily-armed men beat citizens in public to humiliate them.

Chavush, do the world a favor and shut the fuck up.

Tool.

|8.31.05 @ 9:46PM|#

Chavush,

You got some proof of the beatings from the Gestapo of El Presidente Bush, !El Deuce!
Not to say that the signer of the Patriot Act isn't a dick (it's unconstitutional but I'll sign it into law? Freking douche), but seriously, what secret beatings?
I've been reading Alexander Cockburn, Micheal Moore, fromthewilderness.com, antiwar.com, etc. lately (I like hearing my daily dose of conspiracy theories) and so far I heaven't heard any news from them on Bush's security or his supporters beating anti-war/progressive forces here in the US. I would think that if wind of something like that occured, they would be the first to know, a la canary in the coal mine.
All of us here hate governmental power and we'll be power-fisting with you all the way to Washington if this is true, but dude, if it does exist, you gotta show it and not just have some lame one-liner.

|8.31.05 @ 9:49PM|#

Thanks Ayn, brevity is the soul of wit.

|8.31.05 @ 10:08PM|#

"and I mean peaceful protests, not the crap that indymedia sponsors that made up of those Blackbloc bastards who cause half the trouble"

So you're against beating protestors, except for those bad sorts who bring it on themselves. How honest and principled of you, Frank. I'm sure Chavez's goons don't draw any similar bullshit distinctions at all.

|8.31.05 @ 10:13PM|#

Wouldn't it be great if this country actually was the beacon of democracy, human rights, and liberty than its cheerleaders like to claim? So that denunciations of a thug by our president actually made people turn against that thug, rather than rally around him, and charges that the Yanquis are trying to kill you were considered absurd?

Look at the weight the pronouncements of Jimmy Carter's election monitoring organization carry. How many carrier battle groups, armored infantry divisions, special forces teams and Trident submarines would it be worth if the sitting US president spoke with that kind of credibility?

|8.31.05 @ 10:28PM|#

I came across some mentions of Chavez recently (partly in connection with the stupid assassination kerfuffle), so I went and looked up more information on him. Suffice it to say that he is everything that American leftists (claim to) hate about Bush and worse. He has said, pretty much, that reporters who are against him should be shot, and he has nationalized industries and then put his army buddies in positions of power, just to name two of his unpleasantnesses. And yet apparently a lot of American leftists are cool with him, because he's "doing it for the people".

If I didn't know better, I'd think that Robertson was in Chavez's pay: saying things like "we should assassinate him" plays right into his hands and makes him look credible.

|8.31.05 @ 11:27PM|#

And of course "people" can mean people other than anti-war protesters. It can mean grudge-burdened innocent detainees in Baghdad turned over for a bounty, as well as extraordinarily renditioned torturees, all of whom are beaten (and worse) in secrecy, whose names we may never know, as well as their fates.

And so I ask Ayn Randian and Frank, how is this better than Chavez?

|9.1.05 @ 1:09AM|#

If the pronouncements of Jimmy Carter's election monitoring organization carry a lot of weight, I would opine that it is because of the widespread perception of Jimmy Carter as an honest man and a populist saint (which in many respects is accurate.)
But if this country is not actually the "beacon of democracy, human rights, and liberty that its cheerleaders claim," then why in bloody hell is everyone so damned eager to get here??! More to the point,...after they find out what a rotten country to live in this is, why in bloody hell don't they leave??!
I have to wonder if the people in this country who constantly tear it down or compare it to some of the most horrendous dictatorships in the world have ever even visited another country, let alone lived in one. Most Americans have no idea what a frigging paradise they live in!

|9.1.05 @ 2:34AM|#

Look at the weight the pronouncements of Jimmy Carter's election monitoring organization carry. How many carrier battle groups, armored infantry divisions, special forces teams and Trident submarines would it be worth if the sitting US president spoke with that kind of credibility?

Probably none. He didn't have much success as I recall getting the embassy staff out of Iran, in spite of his 'credibility.'

|9.1.05 @ 2:50AM|#

Look at the weight the pronouncements of Jimmy Carter's election monitoring organization carry.

Wow, I HAVE been out of the country too long. Since when does anyone take anything involved with Jimmy Carter seriously?

|9.1.05 @ 3:53AM|#

Actually, Carter royally screwed things up in Ethiopia.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/jimmy-carter-backtracks.html

Tim Cavanaugh|9.1.05 @ 5:04AM|#

But if this country is not actually the "beacon of democracy, human rights, and liberty that its cheerleaders claim," then why in bloody hell is everyone so damned eager to get here??!

Why did Willie Sutton rob banks?

|9.1.05 @ 7:35AM|#

"Why did Willie Sutton rob banks?"

Willie Sutton robbed banks..."because that's where the money is." And people come here, because that's where the money is. Why isn't there any, or enough, in their own countries? Maybe, it has something to do with democracy, human rights, and liberty. And maybe that's why the money is here.

|9.1.05 @ 9:20AM|#

"But if this country is not actually the "beacon of democracy, human rights, and liberty that its cheerleaders claim," then why in bloody hell is everyone so damned eager to get here??!"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You'll note that the traditional phrase was "streets paved with gold," not "streets paved with ballots and editorials critical of the government."

Nobody's tearing anything down, jw. Defensive much?

Doug, he didn't have the same credibility when he held office that he does now? A few years after the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon, and Henry Kissinger? No kidding. Thanks for making my point.

|9.1.05 @ 9:22AM|#

"Why isn't there any, or enough, in their own countries? Maybe, it has something to do with democracy, human rights, and liberty. And maybe that's why the money is here."

That, and the $6 trillion in slave labor that got invested right at the beginning.

Yeah, rich people are always richer because they're better. You can tell they're better, because they're richer.

|9.1.05 @ 9:32AM|#

The only thing that ties Willie Sutton, George W. Bush, and Hugo Chavez together is their lack of respect for the rule of law.

|9.1.05 @ 10:05AM|#

Joe,

Forgive my ignorance, but where do you get the $6 trillion number from?

|9.1.05 @ 10:14AM|#

alkurta,

I don't recall where, but there was a study done that estimated the manhours devoted to various jobs, and he going wages for those jobs at the time, and then adjusted them for inflation.

Probably a wild assed guess, but within the correct order of magnitude.

|9.1.05 @ 2:30PM|#

"Why isn't there any, or enough, in their own countries? Maybe, it has something to do with democracy, human rights, and liberty. And maybe that's why the money is here."

That, and the $6 trillion in slave labor that got invested right at the beginning.

So is that more or less than the investments in slave labor, serf labor, etc. of various unfree and rather poorer nations around the world?

Yeah, rich people are always richer because they're better. You can tell they're better, because they're richer.

Eh, we'll probably both prefer it if I just leave you to your shirt-stuffing, Joe...

|9.1.05 @ 2:46PM|#

Eric,

I don't claim, and certainly do not believe, that slave labor was the only reason for our material prosperity. I merely pointed it out to deflate jw's claim that our wealth is entirely the consequence of our gosh darn wonderfulness.

And no, I do not believe that pointing out his bullshit wealth/virtue fallacy is a straw man.

|9.1.05 @ 3:12PM|#

joe,

The oppressed people of Cuba and parts of the former Yugoslavia might have a different take on Jimmy Carter's credibility.

|9.1.05 @ 3:17PM|#

joe,

Eric already said it, but it's worth repeating: every society on earth was built on the back of slave labor until a few hundred years ago. Yes, the U.S. was horribly and inexucably behind in ending slavery.

I doubt that the plantation wealth generated by centuries of slave labor is what makes poor Mexicans risk their lives to come here. Usually, (and yes, this is based on actual conversations with actual immigrants), it's because they want better lives, materially speaking, for themselves and their children. Not to bust their asses in susitence farming, but to have the chance to own a business, make real money, send it back to their families. Many of them want their children and grandchildren to grow up "American." And I think that has a lot to do with our country being a beacon of freedom.

|9.1.05 @ 4:26PM|#

Having an economy capable of producing jobs and supporting new businesses doesn't hurt, Steve. Some of said wealth being in circulation for reasons that aren't tied to our gosh durn wonderfulness.

|9.2.05 @ 1:52AM|#

joe, I don't what credibility it is you imagine Jimmy Carter has -- apparently he has a lot with you. He didn't have much when he left office with US foreign policy on it's back and the domestic inflation rate up around 26%. He seems like a nice guy if you like Sunday school teachers, but from what I've seen of him he never met a commie dictator he didn't like. Thanks for proving my point.