Victory for the Venezuelan Revolution: 54 to 46%.

The Venezuelan National Electoral Council just announced that the "Si"vote won. The Constitution has been amended by a substantial majority (54%) of the people to remove term limits. This is a wonderful event for the movement to build socialism in Venezuela. Viva Chavez, Viva el Pueblo!

but I am not hopeful. The transnational corporations set much of our foreign policy...

Venezuela loses.

I don't see the US -- regardless of the fact of having an internationalist at the helm -- feeling "better" about this vote.

If a movement is strong enough, more than one person should be trusted to carry it forth. The absence of another leader, or the absence of trust, is suggestive of a problem.

for him for a third term, why shouldn't they have that opportunity?

sw

(and I have few)

But I feel the absence of term limits, or the promise of infinite rulership, invites the taint of corruption (which can also touch upon election results). Ah, but whatever....

Still, my original point stands...why is there no one else worthy of carrying his torch?

someone else. It's a democratic country, the people chose who they want for their leader. If they re-elect Chavez next election, then that's who they want. I don't see why that's a problem. :shrug:

sw

amendment if it was proposed during the Bush era, eh? Sometime societies need to feel there is a finite point in which some change in the status quo must happen, no matter how small.

Perhaps, that promise can pacify the masses who dissent. Perhaps without it, such masses become more polarized and more desperate. Perhaps they become more intent at destroying a system that they cannot foresee change coming to fruition. Whether they be 40% or a mere 10%, a desperate, hopeless group with no forced cycle of at least symbolic change may turn to their darkest depths to force it. Just a random thought is all.

If the majority of Venezuelans were opposed, the amendment wouldn't have passed. It's called voting. That's what people do in a democracy.

"Whether they be 40% or a mere 10%, a desperate, hopeless group with no forced cycle of at least symbolic change may turn to their darkest depths to force it."

Terms limits serve many purposes, and one of them is to create a constant illusion of change to the dissenting population, no matter how small their numbers be. Such an illusion can create but a small glimmer of hope (which goes a long way towards political stability).

But that probably doesn't make any sense to you either. Whatever. Maybe I just had one too many beers, eh?

I think they ought to be trusted to handle their own affairs as they see fit. They don't need U.S. paternalism.

:beer:
sw

Truth be told. Direct democracy can be a bit of a sham (ask the gays in California).

Yeah, whatever, handle your own affairs. I wasn't talking for the US, by any means. It was more just ramblings about political philosophy from a general standpoint. Honestly, I think "the people" may of made a choice that they may regret, sooner or later.

But I guess that is just my irrational opinion. To each their own.

The American people were stuck with George Bush when Congress refused to impeach him. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, in which impeachment by Congress is the only way to get rid of a bad president, the Venezuelan Constitution has a recall provision for its presidency. Not only do they have one, it was actually used against President Chavez in 2004. A national referendum was held on whether to oust Chavez. A massive majority voted to retain Chavez. Had we had such a provision in the U.S. Constitution, a massive number of Americans would have successfully voted to oust Bush.

Instead of opposing the abolition of term limits in Venezuela, why aren't Americans demanding a Constitution Amendment to allow recall of our president?

30% of a population can be extremist in their dissent, and still fail to produce change with a recall. A recall provision does not help pacify a minority to promote general stability. Its a theory of mine that the governments that are structure to promote the most pacification/satisfaction (through non-violent means) of the masses are the most successful and stable (and less corrupt).

and our government has to be among the most corrupt on the planet and, the people have little chance of holding any of the torturing, spying, thieving warmongers accountable. :shrug:

Bush would of stole the third, fourth, and fifth election. And no, the US is not among the most corrupt in the world, while there is definite corruption. People do research on this all the time and the US ever ranks up there with a lot of 3rd world nations.

all over the world. Who is writing those studies, Scaif?

I think you have it backward. We didn't have a term limit for the executive for most of our history. In any case, these predicitions of the terrible things Chavez will do have yet to be right once.

I can't remember the last I saw. You can look at Transparency International (http://www.transparency.org/). It cites the US as the 18th best out of 180 countries.

And yes, I think the US is corrupt, I'm just saying, not as corrupt as Somalia and all the others in between. And I think this is about domestic corruption (what happens with elections and the leaders). It may not have to do with the private sector interactions across the globe and other forms of corruption.

And hey, what predictions of Chavez? People that object to this are just as worried about his democratically elected predecessor. Its the system itself, not the country or leader, that is suspect.

as corruption.

As far as Chavez and term limits, most of those complaining are not altruists at all but people and orgs invested in putting the oligarchs right back in the driver's seat.

"The CPI focuses on corruption in the public sector and defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain. The surveys used in compiling the CPI ask questions relating to the misuse of public power for private benefit. These include for example: bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds or questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts, thereby encompassing both the administrative and political aspects of corruption."

Its an index from 11 other surveys/reports. Venezuela is ranked 158. Its just the first that came up so I am not supporting the validity of its claims, but just pointing to one. The US normally does decent in these, but it may not measure many other types of corruption (like legal bribes paid in speaking fees to officials after office).

I'm not complaining at all because of Chavez. I normally have a very favorable opinion of him and what he has done. But the office of presidency can change and taint a man; it carries a great burden. With this term limit 'victory' considered, I have no idea what man he may be while ruling in a decade, nor what man his predecessor may be too. And I have no idea how his opposition may react to this great blow to any glimmer of hope they may have, but their reaction may be dangerous. But alas, I don't live there, so perhaps I just shouldn't give a damn.

The oligarchs will never give up. A number of them and their spawn have moved to Miami, which is too bad because before that wave of expats, the hard line anti-Castro older generation had been going to their reward and their children were more and more liberal. That's off. Miami has swung back hard to the right.

I agree with you about Chavez over time and, there is a good deal of corruption in Venezuela. Not Chavez himself. No one's ever been able to get anything on him and you bet, they've tried. The corrective, imho anyway, is that he and his government have worked very hard to involve as many people as possible in the process by promoting literacy so people can read their own constitution. People feel as if they have a stake in their democracy, in their government. That kind of broad empowerment is very hard to put down once it takes root.

but despite term limits, we still get dynasties. Just look at the Bush cabal, nothing but inherited power.

You just need a machine. In a way then, term limits give a bigger appearance of fairness and choice to a populace when they truly have none. Here in the city of Pittsburgh we have the 'Gang of 400' which controls the machine of local politics, and we have term limits. They just choose a new patsy every so often. Heck they even say things like "It's his turn now." Corruption works better this way. Keeps a good solid portion of the population completely unaware that it exists.

The problem with getting rid of term limits is that it is one step in preventing the overall destruction of democracy itself. One of the first steps to moving from an elected leader to a dictator is the removal of term limits. Eventually in the process the elections themselves become rigged (ala Saddam Hussein) or become considered a thing of the past (Adolf Hitler). I'm not saying that Chavez belongs in that same category, but it's not a path I think anyone should choose to walk down. In and of itself it's not a bad thing, but there isn't much in this world that truly is 'in and of itself'.

And I very much agree that it is a step that normally proceeds an overall breakdown. Im not saying this because I dislike Chavez (much the opposite). I dislike seeing governments tread down the dark pathways that have caused so much pain in the past.

BTW, many of the supporters of this may not realize that this could impact the country if Chavez lost to someone who was inclined to control elections with corruption. It could devastate that country.

Even if Chavez were a total angel, it opens up the door for a future dictator as well. It's like turning the safety off on a gun because you trust the guy holding it...but it's dumb even with that guy to do so, and you never know who will hold the gun next.

The idea of term limits is something I waiver back and forth on but support them more then I oppose them.

It may limit the field of available candidates (which is a bad in small populations). This could possibly be an infringement on democracy. The alternative could lead to the destruction of democracy. Its really a general gray area, but Id prefer the disadvantages of having them.

back away from corporate fascism, unemployment with SOCIAL programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc... that are used today by democrats & republican fascist alike!

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14836

that he "scares"?

sw

As you perhaps noticed, the US has done some pretty stupid things in the recent past when US leaders have grown uncomfortable with *other* country's leaders. It'd be nice to think that such stupidities were past us.

Maybe so.

But maybe if you took off your snark-colored glasses, you'd see that Chavez playing the provocateur is not without risk. And while this vote is not of the same character as his usual grandstanding, it plays to the same fears.

By making economic alliances with his neighbors? Aren't Latin Americans to be allowed to make their own decisions on their own governments? Are Latin America voters supposed to ignore their own interests lest they incur the wrath of the U.S. corporatists and imperialists?

To bolster his populist bona fides and to impress the world with the unusually large size of his cojones.

Now, while poking George Bush may have been satisfying, it was neither statesmanlike nor wise. Perhaps Chavez overlooked the fact that Bush was a crazed, nucular-armed (sp) warmonger in a long line of warmongers whose daddy had already manufactured reasons to invade in the Caribbean region.

Latin Americans can manage their affairs however they bloody well please. It's just that, historically, the US periodically comes down and trashes a Latin American state (or colludes with repressive forces within Latin American states), and to pretend that revolutionary virtue somehow protects you from the latest expression of the Monroe Doctrine is just plain rash.

Myself, I think Chavez is about as trustworthy as Bush himself, which is to say not at all. I think he's riding the backs of the people like every tinpot demagogue who preceded him, and anyone who's in the same room with him had better watch their back.

Does this mean I'm opposed to Venezuelan self-determination? No. It means I think Chavez is an asshole.

Lula da Silva is good friends with Chavez, meets with him once a month on various joint projects, has called Chavez "the great peacemaker," and has said, of Chavez, "They can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy!", and also that Chavez is "the best president of Venezuela in a hundred years." He doesn't seem to feel that he needs to "watch his back." Why should we believe you, and not the very popular center-left president of Venezuela's most powerful South American neighbor?

Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Nestor and Christina Kirchner of Argentina (past and current president), Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Tabare Vasquez of Uruguay, and many others, are good friends with Chavez, and in fact they count on him to watch their backs, as he does them. When the Bushwhacks sent their dictate down to the South American leaders that they must "isolate Chavez," Nester Kirchner replied, "But he's my brother!"

Your picture of Chavez as an untrustworthy, treacherous "asshole" is wholly false. Chavez is friendly with, trusted and well-liked by most South American leaders.

When Fernando Lugo was elected president of Paraguay last year--the first leftist president of Paraguay, ever--all these leaders attended his inauguration, and there is a clip on YouTube of Chavez and Lugo at the post-inaugural celebration, on stage doing a rousing rendition of the popular song, "Todo cambio" ("Everything Changes"). You really ought to view this clip, because, perhaps, more than any fact, it conveys the spirit of the new leadership in South America.

There is no question that the Bushwhacks are dangerous to South America, and to all free people, and continue to be dangerous even out of the White House. I myself have often issued warnings about Bushwhack war plans to regain corporate predator control of Venezuela's and Ecuador's oil, which could well have been transmorgified, by now, into a private corporate war plan which they may try to snare President Obama into (like JFK and the "Bay of Pigs"). Just this last September, before they left office--in what may have been a rehearsal for that war--the Bushwhacks tried to grab control of Bolivia's gas/oil reserves by instigating a civil war with the white separatists. It was funded and organized right out of the U.S. embassy. How did the South Americans fend off this assault? By banding together to support Evo Morales' government--in the first important action taken by UNASUR, the new South American 'common market.' Chile, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela all played crucial roles in defeating that coup attempt.

Friendliness, cooperation, mutual trust, having each other's backs. That's how things are working now. Is this sufficient? Lula da Silva has additionally proposed a 'common defense' in the context of UNASUR. He has said that the Bushwhacks' reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean is threat to Brazil's oil reserves on the Atlantic coast. It is an obvious threat to Venezuela's oil reserves on its Caribbean coast.

Rafael Correa has said that there is a fascist plan--similar to the one that the Bushwhacks tried in Bolivia in September--in Ecuador and Venezuela, to instigate fascist secession in the oil rich provinces, and that the plans are coordinated. It is quite possible that billions of dollars stolen from us in Iraq, weapons and other capabilities stolen from us, Colombian rightwing paramilitary death squads (armed by us), Blackwater (developed, funded and armed by us, and active in Colombia), and Bushwhack operatives in the Colombian military ($6 BILLION in U.S./Bushwhack military aid), and amid U.S. "war on drugs" forces in South America, could be coordinated to cause major trouble in Venezuela, Ecuador and other countries. There is reason to believe that Donald Rumsfeld might be involved in such planning.

Your dark warnings are not at all without substance. I think I understand what you're saying. But I think you are greatly underestimating the South Americans' determination to protect the sovereignty of their countries, and to pull together in friendly cooperation, at long last, with their eyes wide open.

Michele Batchelet--a key player in UNASUR's backing of Bolivia--afterward told the following joke to a group of U.S. investors: "Do you know why there has never been a coup in the U.S.?" Her answer: "Because there is no U.S. embassy in the U.S.!"

Har-har! You think these are naive people? I don't. I think they are quite savvy, quite well-coordinated, quite courageous and visionary, and fully aware of the danger that the U.S. poses to them. And I think that Chavez's remark to the UN, that Bush is "the devil" gave them all a good laugh. Rafael Correa said that it was "an insult to the devil"!

Chavez may be a bit of a clown, but he is no fool (or, as you say, "asshole"), and he is well-tuned to sentiment in South America. He says what the others are thinking. And he has emboldened centrist leaders like Batchelet and da Silva to speak and act on their beliefs as well. They have much in common with Chavez and the other Bolivarian leaders, including a ferocious desire not to be dominated and bullied by the U.S. any more. You seem to think that Chavez has put these countries (and his own) in danger. In truth, he has helped pull them together to fend off danger--of various kinds, whether U.S. corpo/fascist coups, or World Bank loan sharkism.

They have no term limits.

That virtually guarantees frequent turnover of leadership posts.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien was leader of his party from 1990 to 2003 (13 years) and served as Prime Minister for 10 years, hardly a frequent turnover.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau served as Prime Minister from 1968 to 1979 (11 years) was voted out of office in 1979 (a conservative minority government was elected, lasted approx 9 months) and then was voted BACK IN in 1980 and served until 1984. Again, hardly a frequent turnover.

The MPs are. As a ruling party, they have to face constant confidence checks and elections to stay in power. Pierre was never voted BACK IN by the people.

Parliamentary systems are very different. Its like comparing apples to oranges. But still, many want to make sure there are term limits regardless for the MPs. Others feel their ability to constantly stab each other in the back is sufficient at controlling turnover.

The Prime Minister IS an MP therefore democratically elected. Parties lose power due to the actions of their government, whether through a Parliamentary System or other democratic systems of government. Confidence checks only occur when the government in power is in a minority, it does not happen with majority governments whereas in Venezuela they have the direct power of recall which is NOT dependent on minority or majority governments.

Your argument is false on it's merits, imo.

And rather than many, I should say some. There is an active healthy debate about it.

And no, the Prime Minister is not democratically elected at all as the Prime Minister. If anything, they are elected in a small regional riding that is not representative of full democracy at all. Its silly to suggest otherwise. They are elected as the leader of their party by a process similar to a US primary, except you take all the people out and only use Superdelegates.

Regardless, its comparing Apples to Oranges. And direct recall power is only as effective as the trustworthiness of those counting the votes.

Without the Prime Minister being democratically elected as an MP, he CANNOT serve as leader of a party and become Prime Minister. Your argument is, in it's totality, semantics.

Apples and oranges are both fruit, from the same family, as it were.

You support democracy with conditions it seems. The conditions must reflect your view of the world or else they are suspect.

The assurance of free and fair elections IS the foundation of democracy regardless of the governing structure that gives that assurance.

From those who have overseen the elections in Venezuela, they have stated the elections are free and fair. The people of Venezuela voted to overturn the term limits, it is their democratic right to do so and they do need neither your country's form of government nor mine to be seen as democratic in their choice, they simply need free and fair elections which they have.

I support systems that promote economic and political stability without deploying violent means of pacification (and for some that may be democracy, and for others, perhaps socialism). As for actual democracy, I could give two shits in the proclaimed inherent value of it. What I care about, is if it "works" at a given time for a given people (judged in a utilitarian sense).

One way to make democracy cease working as a tool of creating stability, is to strip away its promise that the status quo *will* change and to allow even the broad suggestion that corruption can taint it.

How would those in a minority have felt after 2004, when Bush won again, if there was no mandatory end to the US imperialism (in the Bush form), and he could go on forever? Even at a minority, a desperate one at that, there may of been far more people considering starting groups like the SDS and beyond. The promise, actual promise, that at least some new asshole as the helm goes a long ways in terms of making everyone happy. To be in a minority and to know that you will never see another asshole, well, it could inspire one to do their worse to create what they dream to be the best.

The bottom line is that, despite Chavez's character, and despite what the people want (and many people have wanted terrible things), I irrationally feel a government that protects against infinite rulership is a government that protects its people from future political oppression or instability. This could be benign under Chavez, and yet be a step down a treacherous dark road under his predecessor. Perhaps I do not worry for the current majority or leader, but what comes next.

"The people of Venezuela voted to overturn the term limits, it is their democratic right to do so and they do need neither your country's form of government nor mine to be seen as democratic in their choice, they simply need free and fair elections which they have."

Thats how we all feel about the people in California banning gay marriage. Isn't democracy great?

it is good for the people. Government knows better than the people in your mind? Wow!

I found this statement posted by you earlier in this thread to be quite chilling in it's implication:

" And sometimes...you have to have a government that protects against the whims of its people..."

Do you believe bush would have been re-elected in November/08 if there were no term limits? Do you believe the bush government would have been correct if they had applied your standard as per, again, your statement?

And sometimes...you have to have a government that protects against the whims of its people...

it promotes short and long term political and economic stability by doing so (the larger picture has to be looked at, not just at what makes people happy today). If the opinion polls show 70% of people want slavery, want to go to war, want to abolish public education, want to round up all gays and jews, the government needs to know better than the people and protect against this.

John Stuart Mill:

"Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism."

"Do you believe bush would have been re-elected in November/08 if there were no term limits?"

It is hard to say, but it is probable. Firstly, Bush's second term would have been ran to ensure he would of been more viable in a their term (more propaganda and better PR). Secondly, they would of had the motivation to manipulate the vote count, as the ensure another chance. One thing you do not realize, is that when there is a promise of infinite rulership, it is more easy to recruit career politicians in various states that will help your cause with corruption. If the secretary of state knows they will forever be bribed by the same president, and thereby protected by their justice department, it can be said they would be more inclined to help him cheat, being that the risk of doing so is entirely eliminated. The promise of turnover that a term limit bring, also bring with it the threat of prosecution one your protector leaves office.

BTW, the economic meltdown would of thrown a wrench in his gears. But maybe all his buddies wouldn't of been exploiting the system so massively if they knew they could spread it out over time. But again, we have no crystal ball. Reality would of been drastically different.

"Do you believe the bush government would have been correct if they had applied your standard as per, again, your statement?"

They would of been correct, yes, but they are incompetent in doing so due to their corruption and inability to understand. Many of Bush's decisions did not produce long-term stability, and were focused on short term political/economic gains. Many of them were also focused on funneling money into the private sector from the government coffers. The Bush administration had no interest in the overall welfare of the people or the political system, and being so, his action were unlikely to produce stability (and were more likely to produce violent reactionism).

Had bush attempted to apply my standard, he probably would not have been Bush, and sure as hell would not have been a Republican.

I can only boil down what you are saying to:

I support the democratic process when and only when it does what I want otherwise I prefer the autocratic methodology of deciding what is 'truly' good for the people.

Your view of democracy is so far from mine, I can't see further discussion bearing any fruit, be they apples or oranges so will simply say our differences are irreconcilable and bid you adieu.

Exactly. If the democratic process is ran by a mass that wants to exploit others, enslave people, goto war, or oppress minorities, I give two shits about it. Democracy is only as valuable as the people's opinion that participates in it (and often, they can lose sight of the long-term big picture and philosophical origins of political policies). Sad but true.

The Tyranny of the Majority can just as dangerous as any dictator.

I'm sorry your view of democracy doesn't encompass this.

Clearly you believe your belief in what is right is the only viable, legitimate view, all others are to be ignored. My beliefs differ from yours in very fundamental ways, it seems, so, according to your rigid view of the world, I should be accorded no rights, my vote should count less if it happens to be counter to your vote.

Again, wow, just wow.

Edited to correct typo.

As far as I am concerned, yeah, its great if everyone has a right to vote, but if you vote to send me or my friends to work in your fields, you and your democracy can go fuck itself. Deal with it. Sometimes, yes, sometimes, government does know better than their people. And sometimes they know far less. The world is full of shades of gray, just as my views of governments are.

the USA, Canada and Great Britain. South America needs more leaders like Chavez to wrest South America from dependence on these super powers, who feel that the natural resources of these countries are there for them to raid and exploit without giving back much in return.

:eyes:

Bush would still have lost after two terms. :shrug:

In fact, if we actually followed the will of the people like they do in better functioning democracies like Venezuela, Bush would never have been handed the Presidency in the first place.

If he runs for a third term, he will either win in a democratic election or he won't. The voters of Venezuela will decide.

sw

That's the whole point of term limits... to ensure that nobody manages to consolidate power for decades and decades.

Let me ask you this.. would you be so enthusiastic if Putin were able to remove term limits from the Russian constitution?

The Venezuelans are perfectly capable of seeing to their own affairs. What you think about term limits is irrelevant.

As for your Putin example, if the Russian people had a referendum to do away with term limits, it STILL wouldn't be my business.

sw

on a political message board of all places.

that the referendum was only about term limits, not an end to future electoral contests.

There are so many distortions about Chavez bandied about here, that it gets very tiresome.

It's possible that this could be a good thing for Venezuela. It's possible that Chavez won't win next time he runs. There are many possibilities. Declaring that this vote means "lifetime rule" is just a form of prejudice.

We have NO term limits, Prime Ministers have been elected and re-elected, Chretien served for 10 years, Trudeau for a total of 15 and, gasp, we STILL have democratic elections. Who knew that was a BAD thing?

At least they have no free press, free flow of information and free elections.

some political mechanism such as gerrymandering, neither of which is the case with Chavez.

Venezuela's last elections were scrupulously observed and declared completely legitimate (something we cannot say), and there has been no hint of threats coming from his quarter.

Just face it, most Venezuelans love him and want him to continue leading their nation. If their situation continues to deteriorate they may, and most importantly can, change their minds.

Hugo Chavez will EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!

:scared:

:wow:

:crazy:

Sorry :scared:

:pals:

At first I thought "WTF???" too, but then I read the content... :)

written in. I've done it a few times myself.

bad for the oil companies...but hey, we can have a war on Venezuela, just like the war on Iraq. The American people eat that shit up.

I'm not sure what's so great about him....

eom

I think we all know that the corporations are against his terms because they want to use Venezuela and spit it out, but the people of that country don't get how screwed up it is to have only one leader for life. Just because people used to like enlightened despots, it doesn't mean they were all that great. That assumes he's all he's cracked up to be.

It is about him standing for re-election as long as he is able- he still has to face the voters. How is this comparable to any despot? Who has Chavez tortured? Who has he invaded? What has he done that was so awful?

Just because people agree with him, or like him, doesn't mean it's right. I'd also be suspicious of the election, as so much was riding on it.

and abolishes voting, then I will agree to the "consent of kings" theory you put forth.

Every election Chavez has been involved in (since the 1998 election where he defeated incumbent President Rafael Caldera) has been deemed free and fair by international organizations like the Carter Center and others.

Here is the 1998 election special report from the Carter Center
http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/1151.pdf

Do you not recall that America had no term limits until the Republican Congress rammed through the 22nd Amendment, because they didn't want another FDR to rise up and marginalize the GOP for a few decades?

Why is this American talking about him?

If the people want them to serve, they will serve. What is more democratic than that?

The programs that Chavez is putting in place in Venezuela are exactly the same programs we desperately need in the U.S.

At the age of 14, I looked at the world and realized that the existing system was unfairly exploiting and oppressing the majority of citizens. I decided that the only rational way to run the world was to have everyone participate equally in all the decision-making and share equally in all that their work produced. I later discovered this was called socialism. Nothing Nixon, Reagan, or the Bush family of presidents has convinced me that I was wrong. Democratic socialism is the only rational way to organize our economy and our politics.

I don't believe that Russia or China or any of the other so-called socialist countries actually were socialist; they merely substituted the state for the private capitalists; they were state capitalist countries, not socialist.

In my lifetime, Venezuela is the only country which seems to be on the way to a truly human, socialist society. I came here to report back to the U.S. what is going on here; in hopes that we will recognize good programs and throw off the right wing anti-socialist propaganda which has colored our thinking. We, as a people, need to start to think rationally about building a truly human society for our kids and our grandchildren.

Under the best and most egalitarian of intentions, people have been lead to believe that a government will be less corrupt than a corporation, but they are both corrupt for the same reason: power.

Anytime power in so concentrated it will changed someone or attract unsavory people to it. Even if the original leaders who propose plans of socialism are not corrupt, their processes will become so. Whether it is because the power is abused or even just a shortage of an essential good, it doesn't matter.

Even the best of ends cannot succeed with the wrong means, and combining the power of the government and the economy into a single organization, even if for only a single sector or area of a sector is wrong. That doesn't mean capitalism as we know it is right, it is most certainly not fair, but socialism is no better.

Socialism is the conquering of individuality and variation, and variation is an essential thing for a species to survive. If one focuses on the group ahead of the individual, the group will eventually suffer, because individuals comprise the group.

Venezuela has a MIXED socialist/capitalist economy, not unlike many of the economies of Europe and Scandinavia. Over the last five years, under Chavez, Venezuela has experienced a 5% growth rate, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil). What Venezuela is NOT doing is toadying to corporate monopolies which are the true killers of "individuality and variation."

Everybody loves a free, fair, colorful marketplace with lots of choices. I think it's tucked somewhere into the human genome. Wal-mart, MacDonald's and Exxon Mobil are anti-free & open marketplace. They are a genetic dead end.

Socialism re-balances things, after these four decades of predatory, monopolistic, marketplace-killing, boring, dull, socially sickening, power-mongering by giant multinational corporations.

What planet do you live on? You think everybody wearing Gap sweatshirts manufactured by slave labor in Cambodia expresses "individuality and variation"?

Nope, it doesn't. It expresses a corporate brand that has run smaller, individualistic designers and retailers out of business, by the pure bludgeon power of billionaires' control over our government, and its laws and its trade rules.

You are talking about a theoretical model of society that doesn't exist.

Venezuela is socialist when it comes to human rights--to food, housing, education, medical care and retirement pensions for the elderly--and when it comes to essential industries (oil, cement, steel)--but the Chavez government also provides loans and grants to small businesses and worker coops, funds/organizes land reform to get non-productive land back into food production, to help small farmers get their enterprises off the ground to compete with foreign imports, and encourages local arts, local manufacturing, and development of local and regional infrastructure. Why do you think Venezuela has joined with Brazil to build a new highway from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, through Brazil and Bolivia? To create a new trade route! And what sort of goods do you think will be flowing along that trade route, connecting Africa and Asia, through South America? Much of the third world--led by Brazil at WTO meetings--is now united in an anti-WTO policy of encouraging local manufacturing. Small business. Anti-monopolistic trade.

What socialism does is to create the social stability in which a truly free market can thrive. That's what "New Deal" programs like Social Security, WPA road, bridge and public building construction (libraries, hospitals, town halls), rural electrification, and the GI education and home mortgage bills, etc., did here by the 1960s. It created the stability required for business and prosperity.

You think socialism is anti-individualism? Tell that to the English, the Swedes, the Norwegians, the Germans! Tell that to the north American elderly living on Social Security! And ask those who depended upon private pension funds, now looted by predatory capitalists, where they stand, as to their choices? Do they even have the choice to eat?

I was saying precisely the opposite, that it's the epitome of streamlining production so that it looks like there is choice and individuality, when it reality there isn't. It's the same sweatshirt over and over and over again.

That happens because people at the top only care about making it look like we have choice, when they really control things. In socialism, it's often different. The lies are not so cleverly cloaked in language connoting freedom and individuality. Those lies are that people should adopt similar ideas so that they can benefit society, but in reality they are benefiting the parasites. Instead of being bought off with shiny shit, they are bought off with pleas to their egalitarianism, but in the long run, people at the top are doing it to stay in power and suck the productivity of society.

What's done is propaganding in both cases. I mean who doesn't want to help the poor if they aren't total scumbags? On the other hand, who doesn't have a greedy side? Each ideology plays off of different parts of human behavior for the same purpose: control.

Got it.

but concentrating power to arrive at them is always wrong, and invalidates the goals.

Any foreign leader that tried it has had a coup or attempted coup fostered by the CIA, the exception being Russia because Russia is too big and powerful to fuck with.

However, that doesn't really hold up anymore since Barack Obama is president now, so I don't really get it either. Must be left over from his admittedly awesome taunts of Bush.

I would guess that there are many people here on DU who would like to have universal health care. Chavez is making that a reality in Venezuela. There are others who would like to have free school tuition and student stipends to the doctoral level. Chavez's Venezuela has that. There are others here who are concerned about poor people being homeless and having no food or fuel. The Chavez government provides subsidized housing, and mortgages, subsidized fuel, food, even cheap government restaurants, to say nothing about his programs having brought literacy to 90% from 35% in 10 years.

The Chavez government is providing cheap or interest-free loans to start cooperatives and private owned businesses. I bet that there are many unemployed people in the U.S. today who would jump at the chance to be able to start a cooperative or their own small business. The Chavez government also drafted new Constitution, passed in 2000, which provides the most extensive human rights protections in the world, along with the right to join a union. The government also provides strong enforcement of the labor laws, weighted in favor of workers instead of against them. The government is also investing in the establishment of new industries to provide new jobs. Isn't that what our Stimulus Program is supposed to be about?

In terms of democracy, millions of people who, before Chavez, never bothered to vote because the system was so thoroughly rigged against them, now are systematically identified, registered, and educated about the issues. The Chavez government actually printed the Constitution on the paper bags given out in supermarkets.

Communities are now encouraged to form community councils which have the power to make decisions about their community's needs and, more importantly, their priorities for improvements are funded by the government, which also provides technical assistance to develop the proposals and grant applications. Want to install solar panels on all the houses on your block? Here in Venezuela you can propose the idea to your community counsel. If the majority agrees, they can apply for the funds to carry it out.

So, for all the foregoing reasons, the majority of Venezuelans want the option of being able to re-elect President Chavez -- and other good leaders -- to office. Do you really blame them?

It's swell!

with FDR's third and fourth terms in office--before Republicans rammed a term limit through, in the mid-1950s, to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and to begin to dismantle the one that FDR presided over.

Our Founders opposed term limits as anti-democratic. (Why shouldn't the people be able to choose whatever leaders they want and need?, they asked). Many democracies (notably, England and France) have no term limits. And, in Venezuela, they have a progressive leader--well-liked and praised by most of the region's other leaders--with a 70% approval rating in Venezuela, willing to run for a third term in 2012, to complete Venezuela's "New Deal." Venezuelans have suffered much at the hands of the U.S. and their own rightwing oil elite. They deserve a break, and they have certainly earned it, with awesome grass roots organization, scrupulous attention to the honesty and transparency of their election system, and, when called for, great courage in defending their democracy and their elected government, against a U.S. (Bushwhack)-supported, violent rightwing coup.

See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary on the coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002. A real eye-opener about Venezuelans' passion for democracy. We can learn much from them.

I encourage you to seek out the court packing speech and see the sinister nature of it, it is so clearly a revelation of some darker side of the man.

Ah, here it is:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15381

It rings of Bush's speeches compelling us, under the threat of a possible future terrorist attack, to approve of his unconstitutional and inhuman practices.

FDR used the threat of another economic disaster in much the same way.

The narrative of America slowly becoming an Empire moved forward quite a bit under his time in office, but it did not end there. Presidents that succeeded him, of both parties, have slowly been destroying our system of checks and balances. In the last administration, I think it became so severe that this nation simply cannot continue. We have set to many negative precedents that future presidents will use to turn this nation into a dictatorship.

The damage done to America's foundation in the last few decades was so severe that this house of state is about to fall down. I think President Obama is a well-meaning man, but his efforts will end up like Gorbachev's. He will try to change the system, believing that it has merit, while in the process sparking its final collapse. His campaign and the early days of his presidency have told this nation something is wrong, and he will struggle to get things done eventually. The people want change, they are frustrated, and it won't happen soon enough, just like the USSR.

Every day another person is evicted from their house, another job is lost, and another person is added to the pile of those disenchanted with this system.

The house is coming down. Empires go to Afghanistan to die. It takes a nation totally devoid of any understanding of democracy to think it can force people into becoming one at the barrel of a gun. President Obama is all gung-ho about Afghanistan. He may have been against Iraq, but that's a shallow opposition, and not due to a true understanding of why intervention in a foreign country's affairs is wrong. His position on Afghanistan shows that.

with the power to destroy all life on earth.

FDR--considering what he faced, a catastrophic economic depression, and a world war on two fronts--was remarkably un-despotic. He was an inclusive democrat with a small d. Pro-labor, pro-civil rights, champion of the poor. Given the U.S. impulse at that point, NOT to become an empire--as evidenced by our support for the United Nations, and for the Geneva Conventions (our efforts to prevent further military aggression, and to achieve world peace), the Marshall Plan, and many other indicators--I think the country could have reverted to its peaceful, entreprenurial preoccupations, "hammered swords into plowshares" (demobilized), declared peace with the world, and could have gotten rid of its secret government and of the "military-industrial complex," and restored full democratic functioning. The good impulses were there--for peace, for civil rights, for using our wealth (as the last standing industrial power) to help others recover, without interfering with their sovereignty. FDR had a good policy in South America, for instance. We could even have had an early detente with Russia, if JFK had had his way (and had not been assassinated for his refusal of the Atomic Crown). (See James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.")

But The Atom gave the president ungodly power--power that no man can bear. The presidency was NOT designed to bear such a weight. And ever since, and to this day, we treat the president like some kind of OTHER being---a sacred, royal person, whose very glance, whose touch, is magical. We dress this fetish up as "security." But--though the security is certainly needed--it is no less fetishistic. The president has become a god. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are surely turning in their graves. That is EXACTLY what they tried to prevent. But their delicately-balanced power document, the Constitution, is no match for nuclear warheads.

I really don't think it was anything FDR did (except maybe authorizing the Manhattan Project--but he could hardly have been expected to grasp its implications). (I think he authorized it--didn't he?) It was Truman--ironically, given his down-to-earth, 'everyman' character--who changed the presidency into a throne--and one like no other in human history, for its control over life itself, all life on earth. Nothing has been the same since. The Bomb changed everything. I think it could well have been otherwise, sans The Bomb.

Which is why we are both at DU. Nukes destroyed us, and it's so clear that was one of the major steaks in the heart of whatever there was, although really, if you look at our history it's not really that great. Slavery, the Native Americans, women, you name it. It's all there, and it's the underbelly of America.

That was the phrase the fascists used to rally the moneyed class to defeat FDR's proposal.

The moneyed class had destroyed the country--much as they have done today. Given the life terms for Supreme Court justices, they had "packed the Supreme Court" with members of the moneyed class that had destroyed the country, appointed by the Republican presidents who had destroyed the country. The Supreme Court began, one by one, to declare the "New Deal" programs, needed to save the country, "unconstitutional."

Destroying the country was perfectly "constitutional" to this virulent moneyed class. Giving millions of starving, homeless Americans jobs was illegal, in their view.

The Constitution of the United States does NOT specify the number of Supreme Court judges. It is up to Congress, and thereby ultimately up to the people. Nine is an arbitrary number. FDR proposed expanding the number of justices, in order to add new, younger justices, more in sympathy with the American people and their plight during the Great Depression, to balance out the court with more humane--and actually more true-to-the-Constitution--views.

The rightwing moneyed class went nuts. The rightwing newspapers called him a "dictator." And all he was doing was proposing an idea for a vote. Under this assault--which was joined by white southern Democrats in Congress (who no doubt were worried about a left-leaning court empowering black voters)--FDR withdrew the proposal. But the pressure of this proposal caused one Supreme Court justice to change his mind about one "New Deal" program. Thus, Social Security was saved!

We face a very similar situation today. The Supreme Court is packed with Bushwhacks who don't believe in democracy. They are the tools of multinational corporations. It is our right, as a people, to propose expanding the court to include justices who DO believe in democracy and have our interests at heart. We do NOT need a Constitutional amendment to do this. Congress sets the number of justices. We can also take other measures, that DO require an amendment, to curtail the Bushwhack court (such as imposing term limits, or subjecting them to election)--but they are harder to achieve. In any case, expanding the number of justices would NOT be "packing the Supreme Court." It would be balancing the court, which is packed with the dinosauric and destructive views of the past, with the more current needs and thinking of the country. We desperately need to curtail corporate control of our government and our lives. Corporations now even control our voting machines with 'TRADE SECRET' code. The very survival of our planet may depend on the American people re-gaining control over corporate evil-doers. The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, is a bastion for defending wrongful corporate power.

It is not in the least unreasonable that we do this--expand the court to meet current needs. It was not unreasonable when FDR did it (--just politically difficult; the country wasn't ready for it). It would probably require an FDR-like presidential champion, and specific issues on which they were trying to stop "New Deal"-like measures (nationalizing the banks? capping CEO salaries?), or on which the president was trying to undo some Bushwhack horror or another (prosecuting torturers who try to hide behind Yoo's memos?) . We don't have that situation yet, and whether or not President Obama would be up for such a battle is unknown. I am just saying that, if the issue was important enough, expanding the Supreme Court is a legitimate action of Congress, completely Constitutional, and that possibility was deliberately left open by our Founders, when they wrote their meticulously power-balanced Constitution.

:cry:

:bounce:

Seriously, if this "revolution" of his was really of the people, there would be plenty that could take his place. He makes the opposite argument.

Nonetheless, his lackeys and apologists in the US will follow him into deeper and deeper totalitarianism.

him to run again. It doesn't guarantee he'll be elected again, that's up to the Venezuelan voters.

How is running for re-election "totalitarianism"? :eyes:

sw

That includes the most brutal dictatorships, or less brutal ones like Chavez's.

This just gets too fucking absurd after awhile.

institutions, they have freedom of speech and movement, they have a free press, they have commerce, they have opposition parties who also run for election. Did I leave anything out?

The will of the people can be bad, if it is for something bad.

There was a coup attempt (quietly led by the CIA, many believe) in 2002 that saw some REAL dictators replace Chavez. They abolished the General Assembly, dismissed the Justice department, and said they would make a new Constitution. Carmona was only in power for one day, and he did all that!

Chavez was returned to power BY THE PEOPLE, amid cheering crowds, a few days later. He is such a "brutal dictator" that he didn't seek vengeance against those that led the coup (other than house arrest for Carmona). Manuel Rosales, Pedro Carmona's co-conspirator and his #2 man, to this day runs as Chavez's opponent in national elections.

If he was such a dictator, why wouldn't these two be rotting in prison- after even trying to depose of Chavez and shredding their state constitution?

I'm aware of the coup, and yes, that was just as undemocratic. You have obviously very little understanding of democracy. Democracy is not about leaders, it's about the people.

just like the people returned him to power after the coup.

So what is the problem? Why do you not like Chavez? He has done great things for Venezuela, at the expense of transnational corporations! That is why the US hates him. Why do you?

I propose that in life, as there is in just government, there should a be separation of powers. In government, the separation of powers is roughly between the legislature, executive, and judicial branches (interestingly enough Venezuela's constitution has other branches of power.)

In life it's roughly government, the economy, popular culture, and in nations where religion is not a part of popular culture, religion. Dictators must not only control the three general branches of power in a government through hard or soft means, but also other branches of power in life. The President of Venezuela has inserted himself into popular culture with his hour long program "El Presidente". He is the focus of the political debate. His party, colluding agents, control all of government. And inherent in the ideology of socialism is some type of interference in the economy.

So that's control in some manner over three branches of their society, with only one remaining, though Venezuela may be western enough that religion is more a part of popular culture.

You can use this little idea to analyze widely agreed upon dictatorships, such as in North Korea and your choice of right wing dictatorship. It will almost certainly hold true for those situations as well.

Kim Jong Il has control of government, the economy, he is the subject of popular culture and he's even got spirituality down with that little story of his birth.

Questions from his own citizens, hears their concerns, and tries to find ways to help them?! Shit I wish Obama had a show where I can call him and ask him things!

Here is something you apparently don't know: 7/8 of the TV stations in Venezuela are run by the elite who hate and demonize Chavez because of his Socialist government (and he took their puppet out of power in 1998). Most of the newspapers in Venezuela are run by the same elites.

How does he "control the political debate" more so than Obama does? He is the President, of course he gets some air-time. Instead of having one FOX Noise, Chavez has 7 he has to deal with, and only 1 state-owned station to combat the smears from.

Freedom of speech is absent in North Korea, as it is so with all dictators. There is no such absence in Venezuela.

Another fun fact: Every election that Chavez has ran in has been deemed free and fair by international observers like the UN and the Carter Center. Can you say that about Hosni Mubarak? Kim Jon Il? The Baathist Assad regime that has ruled Syria since the 1960s? King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Chavez requires additional powers because of a nefarious, poorly-defined "oligarchy"/"elite" possessing great power despite their political toothlessness do not serve to reassure me of his benign nature, nor do his claims that either the "oligarchy" or America is responsible any time he is faced with a domestic problem. Indeed, such claims of insidious, omnipresent internal/external enemies (and the need to bestow extraordinary powers upon the brave champion of the people) are part and parcel of all dictatorships.

Mr. Chavez is quite a talented politician. I believe his greatest talent is in adapting many of the most effective techniques of dictators to a democracy. Regardless of his intentions, I do not like what that portends.

Ever wonder why the CIA has supported coup attempts time and time again against him? Why do corporations hate him?

It is because he has refused to play by their capitalist rules, and I applaud him for it. Look at what our bullshit free market system has wrought: our income inequality and stratification rival Brazil, thanks to 30 years of Reaganomics and fundamentalist market ideology. Our middle class, nay our country, stand in ruins thanks to these supposed geniuses. This is the same neo-liberalism that Chavez virulently opposes, because it is not good for the people. Much of Venezuela's problems can be laid at the Bush administrations feet, honestly. They did nothing to promote peace in the region, by supporting Colombian death squads and military take-overs, or propping up a true dictator Uribe. Why was there no concern when Uribe did away with term limits? He didn't even have a vote on it!

I do, however, note with some dismay that you have mimicked--as Chavez so often does--dictators' favored trick of abandoning an uncomfortable argument in favor of discussing the threat posed by an enemy.

The one about the people of Venezuela voting for this referendum? If you recall, in the United States we didn't have term limits until the GOP rammed through Congress the 22nd Amendment, to make sure there wasn't a new FDR that would come in and marginalize them. Was America undemocratic for 175 years prior to that? If anything, we have become less democratic since the 1950s... (outside of the Civil Rights Act)

Because it isn't a dictatorship at all. In any way.

It really bothers me the way some people will misuse language intentionally in order to make their point more forceful somehow. It's just dishonest. You may think this vote result is a good thing, or a bad thing, but at least respect others enough to make your argument without falsehood and hyperbole.

Chavez most certainly has extraordinary powers, and to dispute that is to dispute plain fact.

throughout Latin America, or with precedents in other democratic countries.

One that anti-Chavistas often mention is "rule by decree." This power is often granted to presidents by legislatures in South America. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, just used "rule by decree" to protect a wide swath of the Amazon as living habitat for several uncontacted indigenous tribes. Chavez's "rule by decree" powers were granted by the legislature, and were limited in time and subject matter. They were mostly economic measures. One thing he did was to nationalize the steel industry; it had been shut down for a long period, due to a labor dispute, and this was holding up every construction project in the country. He also decided to buy the Bank of Venezuela, which had been previously nationalized (before Chavez), then privatized, then came on the open market. Those "rule by decree" powers have expired.

Another often mentioned is Chavez denying a license renewal for use of the public airwaves to one station, RCTV, which had actively participated in the violent rightwing coup attempt in 2002. Peru and other governments similarly denied license renewals for various reasons during the same period--yet the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies failed to report this, let alone criticize the other governments who did it. In most democratic countries, including this one, the TV/radio broadcast airwaves belong to the people. Private businesses apply for a license to use them, and there are always conditions. We used to have quite stringent ones here, until Reagan--including a requirement to provide equal time on matters of public controversy when the broadcasting business had supported one side of the issue; public service/community programming; and no monopolies on news/opinion. In Venezuela, you can't hold meetings to violently overthrow the government at your broadcast studios, or use the public airwaves to foment a coup. That's why they lost their license. It was a perfectly just decision. No country would put up with that! Broadcast licenses are often denied in other countries for far less reason. I would say that Venezuela's process for granting/denying licenses needs improvement, but what Chavez did was perfectly legal and well-deserved.

He used government resources for the referendum. Well, so has Arnold Schwarzenegger. If the government proposes something for a vote of the people, it is quite normal for the government to promote it. That is not an "extraordinary power." That is a commonly accepted privilege of incumbency. Presumably, there are plenty of virulent anti-Chavistas in Venezuela to sue him, or squawk to the independent Election Commission, if he broke any rules or laws. We would certainly be hearing about it if he had. Venezuelan elections are overseen by dozens of international observers. They, too, provide a check and balance on fairness, propriety and the rule of law.

What else? What are these "extraordinary powers" that you say that Chavez "most certainly has"?

Mass demonstrations against the head of state? And they were allowed to do that? And nobody got arrested or harassed?

And the media ran a fierce campaign against the referendum? Against the head of state? They voiced their own, oppositional opinions? And this is all allowed?

Er... I don't want to be picky, but either that is the strangest 'dictatorship' I've ever seen, or you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And as I said, he can now use his power to get re-elected over and over again. Every time there's an election, he can talk about how Venezuela is threatened by the US and talk terra terra terra terra to scare the people into clinging to him. There's a reason for term limits.

Nonetheless, corporate America's lackeys and apologists will try every smear in the book against Chavez --the same way Republicans always smear Democrats/liberals/progressives.

"Voet for me and I'll protect yous!"

You have to help me out here, since I don't know how to reply to baseless, meaningless stupidity...

THAT IS WHY THERE ARE TERM LIMITS. Chavez has an enormous amount of power compared to anyone who would run against him. There needs to be a situation where there is not so much an asymmetrical situation every now and then.

For instance, he has a TV program he gets to air every week. And he has been continually saying that the US has plans to invade him. He is demagoguing. He has shut down media outlets. (Don't give me the bullshit about "they were planning a coup"; if they were, they should be put on trial, not have their license yanked through unjust means.) He has ruled by decree for some time. No one can practically oppose him in that situation.

If Bush* had eliminated his term limits in 2002 and called an orange alert every election you would be saying the same thing.

1.)Chavez has an enormous amount of power compared to anyone who would run against him.

So did FDR.

2.)For instance, he has a TV program he gets to air every week.

FDR had a weekly radio program.

3.)He has ruled by decree for some time.

So did FDR on certain areas.

So by your logic, FDR was a dictator. Maybe you pity the fact that the right-wing planned coup against him (financed in part by Prescott Bush) failed?

Some other points that are easily countered, had you done some research:

And he has been continually saying that the US has plans to invade him.

The US did finance the coup against him in 2002, and immediately announced support for the new dictator-in-charge. Besides, the US has a long history of invading South-American countries whenever there's a leftist government they don't agree with.

He has shut down media outlets. (Don't give me the bullshit about "they were planning a coup";

Bullshit? They did. Check it. Use the Google. While doing that, you will also find the opposition controls about 90% of all media outlets.

This poster is the quintessential "Chicago democrat", you know, those lovable guys that brought the party such progressive characters as Ryan, Kerner, Ryan, Walker, and the rest of the 79 Illinois elected officials convicted on federal corruption charges between 1972 and 2006, not to mention the infamous Democratic national convention of 1972, and the innumerable un-convicted criminals that run the city and the state.

You really have to live there to understand how thoroughly pervasive, and blatant, corruption is there, and this poster is an excellent example of why.

There are honest and sincere politicians there, but they are a minority and fight a constant, uphill battle. This is also the system that President Obama came up in, what lessons he learned along the way has yet to be seen.

I try to follow American politics as closely as possible, but that is one instance where it gets too detailed for me to really know anything about it.

But I trust a fellow Kucinich supporter's opinion anytime! :)

Bonus factiod; Illinois leads the nation in jailed Governors even without Blaggo.

Peace in our time.

It tends to feed the bad elements of human nature. Power is intoxicating as we have clearly seen from the last 8 years.

Oh, wait, he was rotten to the core long before he held elected office.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the President has to earn his continued employment in regular elections, he should be able to serve as many terms as he wants.

It was their choice to make and they made it democratically. This is by no means an assurance that Chavez will be re-elected in 2012, but I hope he is.

It will only be a matter of time until someone with the wrong intentions comes into power. The steps that Chevez has taken will make it very easy for a future leader to abuse power once obtained.

And I completely agree with your very logical reasoning. Even if we assume his intentions are all good, what is this doing to Venezuela in the long term? Won't someone come along to use this their benefit, without helping the people?

It's sort of like the Romans and Julius Caesar. Even Sulla. They could not have known that Nero and Caligula were coming their way.

I worry we are doing the same thing in our own nation.

Education; it truly is the key.

at least in principle. The head of state, the Queen of England, may have the ability to remove the Prime Minister as well.

the people, through it's representatives can and it only happens if the government is in a minority position. Our recall is through a Parliamentary System and is much more limited than Venezuela's is as they now have a direct recall ability.

With that being said arrogance is problematic. It is much easier to find the best solution if you are willing to question yourself and listen to others.

In general I have negative feelings towards him. His arrogance is one thing. He also is a leader who creates popularity for himself by creating an enemy. In this case the rich and American Politicians (Bush). He also does things such as providing aid to the American poor. By worldwide standards, there are places with a far greater need for aid.

I remember the scene that changed my whole impression of him, the tea scene. Man oh man, did that do it for me. Just watch that, it's at the beginning. It's a very interesting documentary, because it shows the absolutist nature of their political system. Certainly, the people who overthrew Chavez were dictators, but even though the documentary tries it's best to make him look good, it gives off this creepy too perfect vibe.

Never mind what would have happened here if George Bush had successfully engineered a repeal of our term limits...

You need more sources of information if you think this vote means unending power for Chavez.

it is a vote for unending power, and regardless of "the will of the people" I do not believe any man is so indispensable that the restrictions on power ought be loosened for his sake. Do you seriously think that there is no man in Venezuela who could work for the benefit of the poor besides Mr. Chavez? If there is such a man, would it not be better to allow him to run for office, rather than allowing Mr. Chavez to continue to accumulate power?

I do not trust men in power demanding more authority. Even if they are benign--and I find it hard to accept the pure intentions of any man who maintains power more through fear and loathing of internal and external enemies than through concrete successes of his programs--there is no guarantee their successors will be. Every power granted to an Augustus is granted as well to the Nero that follows.

This referendum wasn't about unending presidential terms, it was about abolishing term limits. Chavez has to stand for re-election every 6 years. He has to answer to the electorate each race. Chavez doesn't have the support of the entire country either, the old guard left over from when Venezuela was an oil oligarchy still remain in the opposition party. The oligarchy still controls 90% of the media in the country, too, which is helps the popularity of the opposition.

There are many countries without term limits; are they too undemocratic? Canada, for one- are they enemies of democracy? The people in Canada didn't even get to vote on that law, either!

I do not see Mr. Chavez losing an election any time soon. He has firmly entrenched his persona in the popular culture, the general society, and the political apparatus of Venezuela. So long as he has foreign and domestic enemies to blame for the sluggish-to-nonexistent advances in the Venezuelan standard of living, he will remain in power, and will do so wholly legally and 'democratically.' I am not claiming otherwise. What I am saying is that continued consolidation of power in the hands of a single man is never a good idea for democracies, especially ones in a state of political change as Venezuela is. Everything Chavez does is precedent-setting, and I cannot cheer any precedent of unending power, be the man Bloomberg or be he Chavez.

Again: Why do you believe that it is a good thing to abolish yet another safeguard against tyranny? Even if you assume against human nature that Chavez is wholly without selfish ambition, do you believe his successors will be equally selfless? Is any man so indispensable that it is wiser to scrap restrictions on the powers of his office rather than risk having a lesser man occupy that office?

Canada is an entirely different type of government, in which people vote for parties, and those parties are free to form and demolish governments as they see fit. I'm not sure what argument you serve by mentioning their parliamentary system; it bears little resemblance to Chavez's Venezuela, and little resemblance to America. Moreover, it is quite politically stable, whereas (as the OP declares) Venezuela is undergoing something of a revolution, and each step in that revolution will profoundly shape what type of government Venezuela has and will have.

unlike in Egypt, etc.

Let's break down "democracy" : Greek origins

dimocratia

dimo/demo = "people"

cratia = "rule,strength,will"

This was as open and democratic of a procedure that you will find. Not all things done with good intentions lead to good outcomes, of course, but we should not condemn Venezuelan's for making their voices heard.

In 10 years of Chavez's rule, there are three times as many students enrolled in state-paid for education. They have dismantled the old Ministry of Oil and turned it into the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela, that provides a free health care clinic for students, open enrollment to all citizens- regardless of prior education, wealth, or qualifications, and open dialogue. Before Chavez, you could only go to college in Venezuela if you were rich- not so anymore. Since Chavez, unemployment has come from 20% to now down to US levels (currently estimated at 8.5%). Venezuela has less of income inequality than the United States now, largely thanks to Chavez Socialist programs.

That does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea, nor a praiseworthy one. Southern Americans by and large voted for secessionists in the antebellum years. Germans voted for National Socialists; Hitler's rise was legal (no further comparison is implied). Romans happily accepted the Caesars Julius and Augustus. The French Revolution, and subsequent Reign of Terror, was comprised entirely of people making their voices heard (and felt). The mere fact that something is done democratically does not mean that it is good for democracy.

I don't deny that Mr. Chavez is far more benevolent in his actions than most unchecked executives are; nearly everyone who has been in a similar situation has grabbed for themselves full dictatorial control of their country and looted it for all it was worth. He deserves credit for redirecting his "loot," such as it is, towards the downtrodden. However, given that long list of 'nearly everyones' that have succumbed to temptation, I worry about how long Mr. Chavez can drink from the well of power without growing drunk--and how expanded his office will be when a 'nearly everyone' eventually replaces him.

and instead be happy for democracy, which has won a victory, along with the people of Venezuela, here.

Of course, there are temptations of the ills which you speak of, but as long as each election is deemed free and fair, peaceful, and remarkably transparent, I do not see a problem with this in the least.

If Chavez were to change the constitution and take out the "Recall provision," or abolish Presidential elections, then I will agree with you that this is a bad thing. Until that, I think this is a positive outcome for their country and wish we had the Recall provision in the US constitution.

in a way that further erodes yet another safeguard against undemocratic tyranny. Term limits exist for a very good reason; strict limits on governmental power are not enemies of democracy, but rather are necessary to its health. I cannot fathom a mindset in which the expansion of executive power is to be considered a victory for democracy.

It is true that if Chavez eventually ends up crossing the Rubicon, it will be a bad thing. It is also true that a large number of necessary, apparently justifiable small steps such as this can lead in the exact same direction as one shocking leap. It is also true that corruption can often be very difficult to detect. It is also true that whenever Chavez leaves power, he will be succeeded by someone untested by temptation, and whom history suggests will not be nearly so benign.

That is why I believe that the destruction of safeguards against tyranny is not to be applauded, no matter how enormously one approves of the man who finds those safeguards inconvenient.

When it does, I will be among the first to condemn the results of this referendum. The Venezuelan Constitution in some ways is better safeguarded against tyranny than the US version. The worry you have of when Chavez leaves power is justified, of course, but there are problematic governments the world over that have brutalized their populations and violated civilian rights time and time again. Venezuela is on the right path, whereas many country's are not.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst is something that I can definitely understand. That being said, we are wrong to condemn Chavez at this time for some future possible crime. There are much bigger violators of rights- Mubarak for instance. Now that guy is a dictator! Hell, we even largess upon him the second most amount of USAID to that tyrant! Bush cut down funding to Venezuela to almost nothing (save for the coup attempts).

One must be vigilant before it happens.

There are grave injustices being committed at this moment, some with implicit US taxpayer dollars, most perpetrated by dictatorships. The people didn't get to vote on those crimes against humanity, nor did they get to vote for their dictators by and large.

It makes no more sense to complain about Mugabe in a thread about Chavez than it does in a thread about Bush.

When was the last time you saw a negative news article on Egypt or Saudi Arabia in the MSM?

Chavez isn't full of shit and corrupt.

Not the opposition, even though they make up falsehoods constantly about him, not the past US administration- who for 8 years attempted to undermine him at every turn and isolate him from the rest of South America, not the international community- he is much loved by the leaders of South America if you look into that matter.

The US media is a product of corporatist interests, indeed. The same interests who dominate our foreign policy. The same interests that keep Mubarak in power in Egypt because they like selling him missile defense shields and armaments paid for by US dollars. The same interests that are upset when Chavez decided to nationalize Venezuelan oil production or gold mines, because they are shut out of the profits they used to pillage from the land under the previous truly corrupt regimes.

There are two sides to every coin, and Chavez is in no way angelic, but he has done much good for the majority of Venezuelans, and I cannot argue against his methods of sharing the wealth of their beautiful country with the citizens who have had their plights overlooked in the past.

I don't know if you have read too much pro-business fan fare or if you are just highly cynical when it comes to human nature, but the GOP have accused FDR of "not wanting to help people for the right reasons," too. Not company I think you would like to share...

I'm glad you finally figured it out. Human history seems to suggest that cynicism is better than ignorance of human history itself.

Or do you get to pick and choose who you label as nefarious due to their ideology, no matter how similar one might be to the other?

I do know, however, that his means were improper and he began or drastically moved forward a process of subverting the checks and balances in the US Constitution.

Furthermore, would you like to point out your sources for such an assumption?

That is a new one, though: FDR "subverted" our Constitution. Surprised I haven't heard it repeated on FOX yet... Truly shocked.

is an example of subverting checks and balances. And to do it under the claim that it's not really being done to change the court's opinions, but because they're all a bunch of old geezers who can't handle the workload was incredibly dishonest. We can't know what people are thinking, but we can judge their actions.

Having a majority so large in the legislature that colludes with the executive branch, as we have seen repeated under Bush's first years in office, effectively nullifies the existence of the legislature's check on the executive. FDR had that.

You fail to see how unchecked power is always bad, even when it is used for good purposes.

Just governments do not hold the ends in higher regard than the means used to achieve them.

Capitalism and its corruption is for the benefit of the top 10%, where as Socialism and its corruption seems to be the bottom 90% (and possibly the top .0001%). If you needed to pick one, which would you want? You won't rid yourself of corruption, you just trade it in for a more accepted version by someone else's standards.

governed, but in reality it's all governments. Even the most brutal dictator does not have magical powers, the people of their country by inaction give their consent to the government. We the people always have control, unless we let someone else tell us what to think or do. Elections are just one way of measuring consent, allowing the status quo to continue is another.

Oppression is an illusion.

Now that said, I condemn all crimes against humanity, I condemn the sending of arms to foreign countries to interfere in their affairs, as I know that's an imperial act.

Even the most brutal dictator does not have magical powers, the people of their country by inaction give their consent to the government.

The lack of action is more deplorable than the wrong action, ultimately, yes?

Who is to say for sure where this referendum will lead, BUT, the people of Venezuela's action showed they wanted this. Just like their previous elections for the past decade each set new voter turnout records. There is no discernible inaction that you warn against going on in Venezuela. Just last week, the opposition had a massive peaceful rally in Caracas to campaign against the referendum. Nobody was arrested, killed, or renditioned anywhere and life went on. This would never have been allowed in a dictator-ran state. I hate to keep using Egypt for reference, but Mubarak is a true dictator in every sense of the word. The man declared martial law the day he seized power, with US backing, and has been crushing dissent for 30 years now. If you speak out against his government or the corrupt military oligarchy, you are tortured, renditioned off to a foreign land, and often never heard from again. Entire neighborhoods were leveled to crush dissent because of a few extremist groups operating within a certain proximity of said neighborhood. A very bloody internal campaign against the opposition took place, and it is still happening (albeit not as bloody) today.

If they were to hold an election to declare him President for life with no elections or any air of due process, it would be as wrong as not acting to keep him from declaring himself President for life. Both actions are examples of people giving their consent to tyranny.

What tyrants do with their powers vary, Mubarak is not as a bad as Hitler, but that doesn't make him any less of a tyrant. In history we have examples of so called "enlightened despots" they are no less tyrants that Hitler, even if they committed no crimes against humanity. Tyranny is a door to abuse of absolute power, and as I have tried to explain, the seedy flies that make tyrants are drawn to power. They usually have character flaws that cause them to do very horrible things to people, because it's not a normal thing to want absolute control over a country.

but you can't be a true tyrant when the people who you rule over overwhelmingly want you to govern them, and regularly show this to you and the world. Hard to prove that Venezuelan's are the victims in this when they actively participate in their democracy.

I don't believe a "President for life" ballot will be conducted by Chavez, nor will it pass, unless he does much more good than he is capable of given the current economic situation.

That doesn't preclude popular uses of authority that people agree with.

Tyranny is not just the unchecked use of power for ill purposes, but also good ones. Even when used for good purposes, it opens the door for those to come along to use them for bad purposes. The power to give is the power to take. Do you see the lesson grasshopper?

That's giving you a lot there, even if we assume that he's only helping people, and he's not a bad guy, what he's doing is wrong because he's exercising power in an absolutist and unchecked manner.

How will this referendum put him into absolutist power if he loses the next election?

Hitler's party NSDAP never received a majority of the seats in parliament through elections during the Weimar years. Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler by president Hindenburg and after he died, Hitler simply took over power by what was in fact a coup d'etat, banning all other political parties.

You know, the same media they curse for their obvious right-wing, corporatist bias.

Or even come close enough to try to maybe steal it, somehow? :rofl:

...and show Venezuela what a REAL democracy looks like.

Those assholes down there actually voted for a guy who diverted corporate profits to:

*Heal the Sick

*Feed the Hungry

*Shelter the Homeless

*Educate the Ignorant

No wonder so many here in the USA, and a surprising # at DU HATE and FEAR him.

I worked in Venezuela in the 90s.
It is a beautiful country...
AND it belongs to the Venezuelans.
I applaud their new democracy.

The reforms sweeping across South/Central America give me hope for the World.
Mexico is next.

VIVA Democracy!
We could use some here.

Our militant ignorance of international affairs. Thanks to the Bush Administration giving out talking points on everything from "oil prices are based on supply-and-demand" to "Chavez is a murderous dictator who will eat your babies," there are a lot of Americans who think of the man negatively without any good reason why.

If there was a coup against Bush, and he returned to power a few days later, do American's think he would let those who led to coup go free? Besides Carmona being on house arrests (until he later escaped to Colombia, I believe), there was no repercussions against those who wished to shred the Venezuelan Constitution and depose Chavez. Hell, Manuel Rosales even runs in Presidential elections against Chavez to this day, and he was Carmona's number two man!

international observers on hand to make sure that the election was handled fairly and evenly?

After all, cults of personality are capable of doing lots of things, including getting people to poison themselves with cyanide laced flavor-aide.

maybe it's the water?

Lemme guess....Chavez is Jim Jones, right?

like Chavez has done. I could go for one of those!

Jesus, can't you hear what you're saying? This is getting bloody ridiculous.
How long have you clowns been saying that Chavez will turn and become a dictator? He's been in power ten years and it has yet to happen.
What HAS happened is that he had improved the live of Venozolanos by margins never seen before in the country.

He was elected through the democratic process (which I am not a fan of myself by the way. Too bureaucratic and weak against the evilness and stupidity of the masses) which according to most Americans is the best any society can hope for.

He asked his people if they wanted to get rid of term restrictions, they voted in favour and will most likely re-elect him.
Could it maybe, just maybe be because they like what he has done with the country?

You're basically being an elitist (like me) by saying that the Venezuelan people are not fit to govern themselves, this makes you a hypocrite. Do you or do you not believe in democracy?
Term limits are not an intrinsic part of the democratic process.

If it is the traditional Roman definition of setting aside checks and balances and formality for the alleged benefit of speediness, then he is most certainly a dictator. He's been given all sorts of powers outside of the original framework of the Venezuelan Constitution. I would suggest to you that a man involved in prior coup attempt is probably bound to become a dictator, coups show a lack of respect for the process of government.

The problem is not only one of ends, but also means. How one does something is as important as what something one does. One party having absolute control of a government never ends well. The legislature of Venezuela is completely under the control of his political party, they appoint the judges. If Chavez is in control of the executive branch, his party is in control of the legislature, and they appoint the judges doesn't he or his agents have total control of the three main branches of power? In Venezuela there are more than three branches, but those were in the original constitution, and one has to wonder if they weren't specifically placed there to give the air of checks and balances, while in reality the actual cores of power are under his control.

You are reaching and it's just ridiculous now.

What bothers you so much about this? Is it the fact that a country of poor brown people have finally had enough and had the gall to *gasp* elect one of their own instead of the same white minority that controls of all South America?

For the first fucking time they've got a leader that actually cares about them and the rich and powerful are going insane.

NOTHING that you can say will change the fact that Chavez has done NOTHING but help the people of Venezuela.
Callate ya por favor.

Do you really think absolute control of government by one party is going to help Venezuela? I think in the long run it will cause another revolution and a right wing dictator will be installed because by that time people will be fed up with Chavez.

Absolutism is always wrong, and my concern with this matter is only to talk to Americans about the issue. It has an impact on our political system, because as so many others have stated in this thread, they want what Chavez has here. I view the events of Venezuela as a learning experience of what not to do. No government should suspend checks and balances, and no government without them can be considered just.

Caracas, for example, has an opposition mayor.

And even within the party in power, there are all kinds of struggles. Do you seriously think Chavez wanted ALL SIXTY NINE issues included on the referendum prior to this one? No. But the legislature insisted on it. They lost but they got the measures on the referendum that they wanted.

And then there are all the orgs in Latin America that the progressives have put together. There is constant negotiation among them. They are creating a big challenge to American hegemony in the region. That's why our government keeps trying to knock Chavez, Morales and Correa out of power.

You have a very narrow understanding of the government and of politics in Venezuela. Venezuela isn't a smaller United States. It's an entirely different place in a different context with a different role among nations. Just because our media portrays it as a one man operation doesn't make it so.

This is the 14 election in which Chavez or his party has participated since 1998. He has won 13 out of 14. All have been monitored by international observers and all have been declared to be honest. Would that the same could be said for the last 14 U.S. elections.

and use audits. I wish we had those election systems and monitors.

and they are well-known. Every Chavez thread brings them out, but most don't stay to play anymore, just boring hit and run.

I'm smart enough to realize that it's all the same thing, just with a different name.

work for the parasites.
:rofl:

Maybe you're just talking about the various governments that called themselves communist, but are simply totalitarian police states.:shrug:

As for those evil Social Democracies, I'm glad we don't have to live in some hell-hole like the Scandinavian nations.

What you fail to understand is that how it really works out is that people end up working for government parasites, rather than executive investor parasites. It takes more work to accomplish the same goal with a non-market system than it does with a market system, planning out a reaction to demand and collecting statistics saps productive capacity. My proposition is that the American "free market capitalist" system is actually quite like a planned economy, the only difference being that there are multiple planned economies in each corporation. Managers are planners. And interestingly enough, we all are pretty damn certain the representatives are on the take, which means that the government and the economy have been co-opted by the same people, which is what happens in the reverse system of socialism.

I've always loved the fact that people in our country cannot look at world history and learn lessons, we will bend over backwards to separate the end result of placing society above the individuals in it.

The problem with alleged capitalism in our country, is that people are cloaking their real intentions in the language of just political discourse. Democracy is what we should have, but democracy is not a system in which the people are told what to do by their government, with little real input. We have freedom of speech, but we lock people away in free speech cages surrounded by people carrying machine guns.

The reason that placing society above the individuals in society happens in tyranny, is that from the perspective of the people making decisions, individuals matter very little. All they care about is that society as a whole is productive so that they (the parasites) can sap the productivity. There is the problem that they cannot exercise control without sapping productivity, but because they don't care how much the people they're using work, it's not that big of a deal to them.

Individuality is only an unnecessary cost to oligarchs/tyrants, streamlining life so that there is less individuality means there is less cost. Less free thinking people with differences, means that you have to please fewer types of differences.

Clothing is an excellent an example of this. The controllers of our system have knowingly or unknowingly managed to strike a balance between clothes lacking individuality that are manufactured, and mix and match outfits that add individuality. Why are one piece outfits so uncommon in America? Even if you have a one piece outfit, you can still show lots of skin. It's because with two or more pieces, you can mix and match pre-made non-individual clothing in a manner that makes it appear individual.

Of course, in harsher regimes of control, very plain outfits are worn, often uniforms. Just think about it.

We may be a little bit better off because at least someone is doing a little to try and please us, but we are no more our own people than a straight up totalitarian country.

That may be what we're really talking about here, what a government brands itself is irrelevant. Governments that practice a blend of socialism controlled with democratic input to maintain a societal baseline, are the best places on earth to live, that is unless you are one of those obsessed with having power over others and endlessly more. Further, these states are hardly tyrannies and their governments, far from demanding subservience, act as catalysts for individual expression and innovation.

One of my favorite examples comes from, IIRC, Denmark. This guy was very upset with his government and wrote up pamphlets calling for it's overthrow. He was printing these pamphlets in his basement on an old mimeograph and distributing them on the street. When this came to the attention of the government, rather than arresting him, confiscating his equipment, and throwing him in jail as we would, they gave him a subsidy to so that he could get a word processor and a modern printer to help him be a better rabble-rouser. Now that's a government for the people. Do you suppose his "movement" has much chance of growing into a problem?

The United States started with the right idea and was quickly defeated, but we did serve to inspire and to teach those that followed, at least some of them.

Is Chavez perfect? Far from it, but you should keep in mind that he and Venezuela are coming from centuries of imperialism. That they are still afflicted with a rapacious parasite class bent on reasserting their absolute rule over all through violence, deprivation, and terrorism.

Your assertion that the only alternative to our system is some Soviet or Chinese style of state rule is simply not so. And I'm no authority, but I'm fairly certain that there is plenty of individual fashion in Scandinavia.

Including Human Rights Watch!!

http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela

:eyes:

So hard not to go into NSDAP (Nazi) history here... but suffice to say that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea.

nt

I like how you will in one post talk about the corruption of the US government, then use the practices of this corrupt government to justify the practices of Venezuela's.

This country is so totally fucked up, using its government to justify another is a mark of dishonor. It's like advertising that your restaurant only uses peanut butter from Peanut Corporation of America.

You can point out that there were 100 international election observers crawling all over Venezuela before, during and after this referendum--as they have in all Venezuelan elections during Chavez's presidency, and that all of them--the Carter Center, OAS monitoring groups, EU monitoring groups and groups from the U.S., have unanimously declared Venezuelan elections to be transparent, honest and aboveboard....

You can point out that Venezuelan elections are transparent on their face: They used electronic voting but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which votes are tabulated--owned by the public and controlled by all parties, and they handcount a whopping 55% of the votes as a check on machine fraud (--in contrast to U.S. elections, run on 'TRADE SECRET,'PROPRIETARY CODE, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushwhack corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--ZERO audit in half the systems and only 1% in the rest). Venezuela also has a strong, independent elections commission, and uses fingerprint ID.

You can point out that the Chavez government has dramatically increased citizen participation, and that nearly 70% of Venezuelans voted in this referendum and in the last by-elections--a great democratic accomplishment.

You can point out that virulently anti-Chavez corpo/fascist news monopolies control 75% of the TV/radio airwaves and more than half of newsprint, and that the rightwing opposition in addition routinely mounts street protests to further promulgate their views--all without government interference (except for Chavez not renewing the broadcast license of ONE station that had actively participated in the 2002 violent rightwing coup attempt). "Free speech" in Venezuela is unrestricted.

You can point out that Chavez enjoys a 60% to 70% approval rating, and has won presidential elections with increasing percentages of the vote (the last time, 2006, with 63% of the vote).

You can point out that Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, has said, of Chavez, "They can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy!," and that Chavez is "the best president of Venezuela in a hundred years."

You can point out all the evidence that Venezuela is a thriving democracy with the best government that Venezuela has ever had....

...and Freepers will say: Transparent elections, democracy--so what? Venezuelan voters are a bunch of stupid nazi sheeple who keep voting for a "dictator." (One even said that Hitler was elected by popular vote--which isn't true; Hitler was 'elected' by brownshirts beating up voters and stuffing ballot boxes.)

------------------------

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CHAVEZ IS A "DICTATOR." NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. ALL THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMINGLY POINTS THE OTHER WAY.

But Freepers are stuck on this Bushwhack meme, that Chavez is a "dictator," and if you lay out the facts to them, which are undeniable, they simply ignore it all and say that the Venezuelan VOTERS must be love "dictators."

The only "dictators" in Venezuela are the rightwing opposition who--when they staged their coup in 2002--suspended the Constitution, the court system, the national assembly and all civil rights, and kidnapped the elected president, Chavez, and threatened to kill him if he did not resign.

The rightwing opposition in Venezuela, and their cheerleaders here, are just like Bush, who slaughtered 100,000 innocent people in Iraq, with "shock and awe" bombing, claiming that he did it for "freedom and democracy." They are LIARS!

Zero?

http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela

Human Rights Watch is SUCH a partisan, political group of hacks.

:eyes:

:eyes:

What are they California? Constitutional changes should never be by rule of mob (50%+1) IMO.

They fail to understand how vital checks and balances and respect for the process of government is.

A young democracy needs term limits.

Until your avatar came along, and the GOP were scared shitless of a new FDR coming down the pipe that they rammed through the 22nd Amendment...

A tradition that had been observed by all the 31 presidents before him.