Reply #27: Thanks, bitchkitty! social_critic often gives herself/himself away to the perceptive reader. [View All]

[Peace Patriot]

Wilpert actually reams Chavez in this article--so much so that I wondered about Wilpert having an "agenda"--but he saves his blistering criticism for the latter half of the article (which the RW posters here didn't read) after he fairly and objectively lays out Chavez's impressive accomplishments. This is what social-critic, other RW posters at DU and the corpo-fascist press NEVER do--acknowledge WHY Chavez has had a 60% approval rating and 60% electoral victories for ten years. Venezuelan voters have had numerous chances to throw him out--one of them provided by the USAID (the recall)--and have resoundingly endorsed him. Does a dip in his numbers--in the recent by-elections--down to the 50% range--mean anything? Many popular U.S. presidents have also had by-election dips. It seems to be a hazard of being in office for a while. So it's tricky to evaluate it. But you simply can't do a useful assessment, or do an educated guess at trends, or understand ANYTHING happening in Venezuela or in the leftist democracy movement in the Latin America, if you DON'T start from a position of REALITY: how bad things were when Chavez was first elected and how much better things are now, which is why he has had such high numbers all along.

A vote for legislators is NOT a predictor of a presidential vote. In fact, now that there is a rightwing faction in the national assembly (because the rightwing coupsters, tutored by the USAID, decided to participate in the by-election, after boycotting them before) the voters could well re-elect Chavez in 2012 by his biggest margin ever, to balance out the RW influence.

I doubt that Venezuelans will give up their "New Deal" (vote Chavez out in 2012). There is no good alternative. Any given RW leader will start dismantling Venezuela's "New Deal" the moment they take office. And I think THAT reality will give Chavez a third term. But something depends upon how much the Bush Junta-induced worldwide Depression squeezes Venezuela (especially on oil prices) and how much Venezuelans blame that on Chavez. The corpo-fascist press, and its echo chamber here at DU, have been relentless in their propaganda campaign which "black holes" all of Chavez's accomplishments and then blames him for the economic downturn in Venezuela, which had less to do with Chavez government policy than it did with the economic meltdown here and in Europe. But it's just one of a number of hammers they use to beat on him. Chavez is blamed for Venezuela not being perfect (for still having a street crimes problem, etc.). But will the great advances in Venezuela's society and democracy outweigh the imperfections, when it comes to re-electing Chavez?

Wilpert's main criticism of Chavez is something that Chavez can hardly help--that he's Chavez. He is a strong leader--and although it may be too early to make an historical judgement, he is probably a great one. He has certainly been the key to the transformation of the political landscape in Latin America and a dramatic turn for the better in many countries, as to both social and economic conditions and democracy. What would have happened, early on, if Venezuela hadn't helped bail Argentina out of ruinous World Bank/IMF debt? Possibly another fascist junta, retarding Argentina's democracy for decades. Numerous Venezuelan actions like that, in support of democracy and of economic revolution, rallied the continent and inspired Lula da Silva, for instance, to join in the "raise all boats" effort--South America exercising its collective strength in preventing RW coups, fighting poverty and repelling U.S./multinational corporate/war profiteer bullying and interference. Although the Venezuelan people are due much credit for these and other accomplishments, it's difficult to imagine it all happening without Chavez's leadership.

Wilpert's criticism seems to me aimed at an ideal democracy--the participatory democracy that the Chavistas talk about (and that some programs have been aimed at implementing)--but it's bit unrealistic, and may be a big misread of human nature, to expect millions of people to run a rather large country, or to accomplish the things that have been accomplished through local grass roots community groups. Wilpert's criticism isn't very realistic, in the end--in my opinion. He seems to want Chavez to stop leading or to step down. Will that not result in destructive in-fighting in the notoriously fractious left and yet more difficulty in governing? Chavez, in my opinion, is no more of a "dictator" than FDR was and, if FDR had stepped back from a third term, the "New Deal" would not have lasted long. That's just the nature of the beast--representative democracy. That is Venezuela's system and until the people write a new constitution, changing that system, it requires strong leadership to fight off "organized money" (as FDR put it) on behalf of the poor majority.

Anyway, social_critic's absurd opinions and projections are no help at all, as to analysis, except to alert us to how "Alice in Wonderlandish" the corporate press propaganda is, and how "Mad Tea Party-ish" the rightwing Venezuelan "opposition" is. "Structured propaganda," indeed! LOL! (I'll bet that phrase is floating around at USAID seminars these days.)