The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

U.S. reaction to Chavez just

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Robert Phansalkar:

'Think, Respect' does neither, preempts rational action (November 14, 2007)
'Taser this' editorial tame compared to past (October 2, 2007)
Lawmakers' plan bigger problem than baggy pants (September 18, 2007)
Right-wing judicial activism fault of liberal tactics (August 31, 2007)

by Robert Phansalkar

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

In normal times, the phrase “Go to hell, gringos” would rarely appear on CNN.com’s homepage, but in a world with Hugo Chavez, apparently anything is possible.

As of late, the Venezuelan president has been assuming power at an alarming rate and when Washington leaders expressed their concerns, Chavez, in his typical immature demeanor, aimed those unequivocal words at the United States.

Normally leftists could write off Washington’s opposition to Chavez as ideologically bankrupt banter coming from the powerful but divisive Washington Consensus, but in this case few, if any, Americans can disagree with our government’s contentions.

Years of Washington’s fears of an authoritarian Venezuela became a reality Jan. 19, as Chavez’s cohorts in the Venezuelan National Assembly granted the president rule by decree, or near universal authority, in a move that could precipitate major changes throughout Latin America for years to come.

According to the BBC, despite the rule of decree powers Chavez assumed, he claimed that the National Assembly’s move still made Venezuela “democratic.” But the only thing democratic about this plan is that the Assembly voted for authoritarianism.

Chavez’s plans with these newly acquired powers may sound inspiring to the left, as he aims to tackle poverty by redistributing the wealth garnered by oil revenues and challenge American hegemony in the region, but his implementation of this plan will be nothing short of abhorrent.

By pushing for radical reformation through this medium, Chavez will indeed be violating fundamental principles of democracy, all in the name of his paternalistic defense of the poor and his infantile opposition to the United States.

If Chavez’s plans for reform are so noble that everyone will be pleased with the outcomes, then why does he need to rule by decree to do so?

The answer is simple: He does not enjoy universal support for these reforms and is quite content branding his opposition as “gringos” and “Satan” in order to accomplish his deluded goals.

However, unfortunately for Chavez, “Satan” and the “gringos” are justified, for once, in their opposition, even if their motivation behind it is less than stellar.

Washington may be opposed to Chavez’s plans based upon capitalistic interests, but Chavez is still instituting an undemocratic system to which everyone in this country can be opposed.

For the left, we have to understand that though our leaders in charge might have dirty hands, it does not necessarily mean that their opposition is completely without validation.

Rule by decree is just as bad as any authoritarianism, and simply because Chavez has chosen to pursue a plan that is populist does not mean that he does not deserve criticism for pursuing these undemocratic means.

Chavez’s plan might ring a few bells for historians who may recall similar episodes abroad of power assumption by leftist groups seeking to further their moral mission in a vacuum.

These regimes, most notably the Soviet Union, operated without dissent. By doing so, policies were not built around the people who needed them the most but instead around vague ambitions of their own global hegemony.

Chavez is taking the same path by using his position for the building of defense systems, seeking to unify Latin America against the United States’ fundamental principles, and silencing dissent to his policies by operating in a rule by decree system.

It appears Venezuela might have taken the unfortunate road to authoritarianism without realizing and, consequently, the future of the country is now at stake.

The United States realized this reality and voiced concerns, and Chavez defiantly responded in a way that is universally understood as immature.

However, before we simply write off the U.S. response as rhetoric, it is worth understanding that the United States, though rife with its own corrupt leaders, is not wrong about this one.

Robert Phansalkar (rphansalkar@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (January 23, 2007 @ 7:13am):

Chavez is just another reason that the USA should be building pebble bed nuclear power plants and running everything on electricity.

The universe generally runs on nuclear energy, burning carbon is a losing strategy on many levels.

Anonymous (January 23, 2007 @ 7:58am):

Robert Phansalkar, why do I care if Venezuela is democratic or not? In reality, the United State benefits marginally from a country becoming democratic. However, the United States benefits greatly when a country opens up to capitalism. The best example is COMMUNIST China; do we hear any complaints about their non-democratic system of government? Chavez angers us because he doesn't want to play anymore. He took his oil and went home.

Anonymous (January 23, 2007 @ 8:56am):

And I mean, it's not like the Venezuelan people overwhelmingly support him. Or that Washington actively supported opposition parties.

Anonymous (January 23, 2007 @ 9:06am):

"The best example is COMMUNIST China; do we hear any complaints about their non-democratic system of government?"

My big fear is that someday the Chinese will stop sending us neat manufatured goods for possiblely worthless pieces of paper. Won't it be a hoot when the USA defaults? Or even better we could let the Chinese buy everything and then nationalize it all (a la Chavez). ROFLMAO

Anonymous (January 23, 2007 @ 4:24pm):

Yet another abuse of the meaningless concept "democracy". Personally I am worried about the USA is "violating fundamental principles of democracy" and maybe there should be a column about it.* Also, isn't it a little bit of a generalization to say that "everyone in this country can be opposed" it. Yes, most people are brainwashed into thinking democracy=good, every thing else = bad, and indeed it is the US and the West that decide who gets which stamp. But some people, even some Americans(!!!), do not see the world simply in black and white. I don't like most of what Chavez is doing any more than I like what Bush is doing but arguing against just on the basis of "he's undemocratic, so therefore we know we should be against him" is just another futile propaganda of the American mass media - The Newspeak of the USA, the World's Greatest Democracy. Long Live King George!!!

*There are various theories of what constitutes a democracy. Mainly it refers to having democratic elections, which must be conducted in a certain way, some people add onto this that at least 70% of people must participate in the election (USA does not pass). Other intellectuals orginizations etc. consider that a democratic state should not be able to take the life of one of its citizens (USA fails). Conviction of children, imprisonment without trial etc. etc. etc.

Anonymous (January 23, 2007 @ 7:00pm):

Oh please, Robert. Your objections about Chavez, who is a virtual saint compared to Bush and Cheney, are way off base. Here's a guy with far more support from his own people than 33% approval-rating George W. Bush. Here's a guy who has tried to do quite a bit FOR the Venezuelan people, rather than continuing to exploit them merely for the benefit of multinational (often American) corporations. Is that why you're so upset, Robert; is it because Chavez nationalized our, oops, I mean Venezuela's oil? Anyway, contrast what Chavez has done for his people to the criminal negligence the Bush regime has been responsible for in say, New Orleans.

And you find time to accuse Chavez of accumulating too much power? Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black." Are you still unaware of Bush's October signing of the "Military Commissions Act?" That new law enables the cretin from Crawford to indefinitely detain, and even torture anyone he personally deems a threat to national security!

To say the US has behaved justly toward Chavez and Venezuela is as absurd as if you had rationalized all the interventions so destructively carried out by Washington for so long against the sovereign nations of Latin America. Robert, aren't you just revealing your colonialist inclinations by claiming the US is right to meddle in the affairs of other states? Because it's a well-documented fact the Bushies tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez in a military Coup D'etat. Not the other way around, I might add.

President Chavez no doubt has his reasons for saying what he said. I think his remarks were really directed at the power elite, not the American people as a whole. I am not offended in the least.

Anonymous (January 23, 2007 @ 10:17pm):

Hey Robert, Dubya told the American people to go to hell in November 2005, when he announced that the "US Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper." I for one, will not stand for a president who runs this country right into the ground and expects the American people to blindly follow.

Bash Chavez all you want, but 65% of Americans would rather bash Bush. What are YOU doing for democracy, Robert?

Anonymous (March 9, 2007 @ 1:56pm):

I think it is hilarious that everyone who posted a comment said something about Bush being worse than chavez and how chavez has so much support from venezuelans, even if he is not a democratic ruler. Americans think Chavez hates them bc they are so pro democracy and capitalism and they go to war every chance they get. But you fail to realize that you are also hated for how ignorant you are. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance gets you the type of hatred and criticism that Americans have from the rest of the world.

If you knew anything about venezuela, it's history, culture or current situations you would know why chavez is still around. You would know that the majority of the people DO NOT support him. You would know that the reason he has "absolute power" is bc when he was first elected president, he fired everyone in the national assembly and placed MILITARY officers instead. You would know that he gave the military the right to vote. That he pays them ridiculous amounts of money just to be guinea pigs. You would know that the majority of venezuelans live in poverty bc of corrupt politicians and that the only hope of getting out of poverty is to join up. You would also know the the middle and upper class is being replaced by these military guinea pigs. That everyone who worked at PDVSA (petroleum) was fired and substituted by chavez, which gave him complete control of the oil. That millions of EDUCATED venezuelans have fled the country bc of threats from the government, that millions are not allowed to flee or even return. That passports are no longer being renewed or issued. That visas are impossible to get. That voting against chavez means signing a death sentence, bc he has access to voting records and has in fact passed laws to get everyone who opposes him arrested, fired, or left in poverty. You would also know that private property is no longer private, but part of the government and that people are losing their homes and business bc chavez has given them to the poor to occupy. That private education is slowly diminishing, and arts and music schools are hard to find. That he has changed the education system so only select pro bolivarian subjects are taught. That there is no freedom of speech and the press has been forced to report chavez approved news. That radio stations that criticized him have closed. And that getting "rid" of him is only going to cause more problems and mass killings and bankrupt the entire country. You may also be praising him for his health care system, but you apparently aren't aware that he is giving jobs to cuban doctors, rather than venezuelan doctors. He is spending money helping all of these other countries out to gain support, but has in fact increased the unemployment and poverty rate in his own country. These are subjects everyone has failed to mention, mostly bc you were unaware of it. I do not think the Badger Herald should have published this article. Robert, you are a poli sci major.. have you even been to venezuela? Have you ever lived in a socialist or communist country? You can't learn everything about politics just from watching the news and reading a bunch of books and articles.. you have to live it. And i don't mean going on a 2 week journey to tourist spots in a country.

As far as the comments about Russia, i suggest everyone goes and spends a couple of months living there, with an average russian family. Ask them about what they went thru, what they are going thru, you'd be surprised to find out their current political views.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.