|
I've often compared them, especially on the issue of the need for a STRONG president to address the economically ruinous behavior of the rich and the corporate, and to fend off threats to democracy and national sovereignty (which often follows upon ruination by the rich and the corporate); also, on the matter of the right of the people to re-elect strong leaders for as many terms as they want and need him. No strong president, no "New Deal." Simple as that. You can't fight an oligarchy and foster social justice with weak government and political leadership.
FDR was also called a "dictator" by the rich and the powerful--for being strong on securing a "new deal" for the poor. Chavez is called a "dictator" for the same reason, and with as little evidence to back it up. Indeed, both of these leaders did more for spreading power around in their societies--empowering the poor and middle class, and excluded groups--than any other presidents either country ever had.
One of FDR's most criticized assertions of powers--"packing the Supreme Court" (a rightwing phrase--the Constitution does not fix the number justices at 9, so it is perfectly lawful for Congress to increase the number; FDR sought to add liberal justices)--ultimately resulted in saving Social Security from being declared unconstitutional. (FDR didn't succeed in the plan, but the pressure changed one justice's mind about the "New Deal.")
In both FDR's and Chavez's cases, left-wing assertions of power are aimed at helping ordinary people--and that is ALWAYS the case in democracies; whereas rightwing assertions of power are NEVER intended to benefit ordinary people, neither in democracies, where their power is always based on money, elitism, class warfare by the rich, and news manipulation and propaganda--nor in juntas, where the rich use bludgeon power, murder, torture and fearmongering. Rightwing assertions of power always benefit the rich, and rob and oppress the poor (Reagan and Bush being prime examples in our era; also, the rightwing coupsters in Venezuela, who attempted to violently overturn the democratic Chavez government in 2002). Leftwing assertions of power (in a democracy) always help spread wealth and power to more people. The Chavez government has been particularly pro-active on spreading power around--ironic, since the rich and the corporate claim the opposite about Chavez (that he is, or wants to be, a "dictator"). The evidence is that the Chavez government has greatly expanded the base of power in Venezuelan society, in particular empowering the vast poor majority, in specific structural ways, and by spreading the oil wealth around as a bootstrapping mechanism for the poor.
The recent setback that Venezuelan voters inflicted on Chavez--despite his 72% approval rating, and huge victories in all prior elections--with a 50.7% "No" vote on proposed amendments to the constitution, 49.3% voting "Yes" and 3 million voters abstaining--is more likely due to voter confusion, haste of the process (not enough time to understand 69 changes), and items like an equal rights amendment (gay rights, women's rights)--a tough issue in a country with a particularly fascist Catholic hierarchy--than it is to Venezuelans objecting to Chavez running for reelection again, or having power over the central bank. Also, there has rarely been a more intense, worldwide corporate news monopoly campaign of fearmongering, disinformation, and demonization, than the one leading up to this vote, with the Bush Junta pouring millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into the rightwing opposition in Venezuela, and major global corporate predators, such as Exxon Mobile and the World Bank, as interested parties. The Venezuelans have previously resisted such propaganda--when the issue was simply Chavez as a socialist leader--but this set of 69 changes was just complex enough to give the rich and the corporate a wedge.
No polling has yet been reported on Venezuelans' reasons for voting the way they day (although a 40% abstention rate says a lot about voter confusion), but I think my guess is right. This was not a popular referendum on socialism, nor on Chavez's power. This very narrow loss was more due to political mistakes by the organizers of the referendum, in a context of heavy threats of destabilization of the country, and even invasion (Rumsfeld's op-ed in the WaPo over the weekend). One of the more virulent rightwing ads, for instance, claimed that, if "Yes" won, the government would "take children away from their mothers." Rumors of rightwing coup plans with U.S. black ops and military support were rampant leading up to the vote. (The U.S. Embassy may have actually leaked a U.S. memo, revealing its destabilization plans, for this purpose--fearmongering.)
The reason I'm discussing events in Venezuela, in an OP about FDR, is because of the potential of the Bolivarian Revolution--which is widespread in South America, with many election successes--to spread notions of social justice and independence from global corporate predator rule northward. I think this is one reason for the virulence of the attacks against Chavez and the brainwashing technique of focusing narrowly on one political personality. Our rulers are afraid that WE might get some such ideas.
This is similar to the world political situation during the Great Depression and the "New Deal" era. That context--the context in which FDR proposed the "New Deal"--was the massive communist revolution in Russia--its early successes, and the high hopes for an international labor and social justice movement, among leftists, communists and progressives in many countries, including this one. Communism presented an entirely new thought--a new paradigm, opposed to capitalism (control of wealth and the means of production by the few). Workers and ordinary folks--farmers, shopkeepers, etc.--would own and control the wealth and the productive capacity of the country. This huge movement sent waves of fear through the oligarchies of the world, including our own capitalistic oligarchy--and a compromise HAD TO BE MADE in order to fend off a violent (or even non-violent) communist revolution HERE. The rich class had totally mismanaged the economy, with disastrous results--very similar to what the Bushites have done, and similar to what the elite class in Latin America has done, over the last several decades, in cahoots with U.S. and other global corporate predators. There were many outright communists in the U.S. labor movement, in the 1920s and 1930s, for instance. It was a reasonable and worthy alternative--considering what the capitalists had done (crashed the U.S. and world economy)--until the rise of Stalin in Russia (a country with absolutely no democratic traditions, easy prey to a dictator).
This is the model (Stalinism) that anti-Chavez fascists are trying to call up, with their "Big Lie" about Chavez being (or "wanting to become") a "dictator." It is so far from the truth as to be laughable, but nevertheless has had a lot of brainwashing success as a "meme." It is the Bushites and their global corporate predator pals who are the "Stalinists" and "dictators" (want centralized power in THEIR hands, and freely use murder, torture and other brutality to achieve it). Chavez has harmed no one, tortured no one, invaded no one, suppressed no one, arrested no one unfairly, and has shown NO tendency to do so--and furthermore his government runs clean elections (that put our own to shame).
It is the threat of the success of Bolivarian ideas that Bush & co. are fighting, when they demonize Chavez. It is very similar to the threat of communist ideas during the "New Deal" era--NOT the threat of "Stalinist" ideas, but the threat of the early communist ideals of an equitable society, using the power of the majority--the workers, the poor, small peasant farmers--organized on an international scale, to defeat the capitalist predators. Communism may have had only 5% to 10% support in the U.S. during the Great Depression, but its advocates represented a powerful worldwide force for change, that had manifested itself in a full scale revolution in Russia, and was about to manifest itself in other countries as well. It was active against Hitler in Germany. By the end of WW II, all of China would be communist. Vietnam would seek UN-sponsored elections in order to CHOOSE communism democratically. (Request denied--guess by whom?) And, in the next decades, communism or democratic socialism would become the preferred systems in many countries, including many third world countries in Africa and South America. It was against this tide of change that the "New Deal" compromise was made with America's workers and its poor, devastated by the Great Depression. Capitalism with socialist elements.
That pressure--of a worldwide communist/socialist revolution--is gone from the world, except in one place: South America, led by the Bolivarians, in the most surprising social revolution that has ever occurred in Latin America, or perhaps anywhere--surprising that it has occurred at all, and surprising that it is entirely peaceful and democratic in a society that has been so brutalized by the oligarchs. That is WHY the oligarchs are so out of control here--they have had a free hand to design the perfect fascist/corporate state--with no pressure from other, more equitable models. And it is why they are so alarmed by the Bolivarian revolution. It's not just the resources that the Bolivarian governments control (oil, gas, minerals, forests, water). It's the EXAMPLE they are giving of how those resources should be used--to help the poor!
If this movement succeeds in South America--and it currently is highly successful--and if it spreads to central America (many signs of that happening over the next decade)--THEN we will possibly see a "New Deal" here. And if Rumsfeld's plans for destroying it succeed, we will likely become a failed fascist state--the biggest ever "Banana Republic." (It never was the plan here to create Hitler's Germany. Look around you. See any efficiency? See "the trains running on time"? See full employment? See anyone creating a mighty industrial machine? They've even broken the army! Nope, it's been a looting expedition, probably aimed at funding and creating a stateless global corporate predator power, with loyalty to no one, and with its own mercenary army.)
There are differences with the FDR era (global warming being one of the biggies), but there are haunting similarities, and we would do well to understand both. The oligarchs have fucked up once again. What will be the outcome, for us and the for the rest of the world, from this, the biggest fuckup of all--fascist "globalization"--that threatens the very planet we live on, and imperils the future of the human race itself.
Hint #1: The Bush Junta cutting aid to emergency services--first responders--in the U.S. by ONE HALF. (See that? Wow. All those fatcat oiligarchs, and they can't fund our emergency services.)
|