Workers of the World, Unite Against Chavez

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
I wish the American media would cover this situation more. I really would like to know about this stuff because it's affecting a lot. I don't know whether Chavez is a good guy or bad guy. Fez hated Chavez, which might be good, but then again, I don't know.

Fez was like a broken watch. He might be right twice a day, but that in and of itself doesn't mean much.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Ooooh, you're so cute when you're annoyed.

So when are leftists not whiny? I've never heard one say "well, we failed because our basic economic policies are unsound, and we have a bloated, inefficient bureacracy" - instead, it's more like "we would have suceeded if it wasn't for the reactionaries sabotaging our reform efforts for the people, and the CIA supported and financed those reactionaries..."

Since leftists are usually on the short end of the stick they do get a little whiny, especially when being tortured in a Chilean prison. This is because the righties have the money and therefore the power. On the other hand, I don't think the point I was making was whiny in the least.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

There's a lot more news coverage on Latinamerican issues down here, and the basic deal appears from all indications that Chavez is just the sort of tired hack that Latinamerica has seen too much of. Paratrooper turned failed coup leader turned instant Presidente - obviously he's well qualified by a career of distinguished public service and vast experience.

Chavez was "democratically elected" the way most politicians are "democratically elected" in these parts - at best with fun and games that would embarass old man Daley if he was still alive, or at worst, with fraud and thuggery. Chavez promised a lot of pork to get votes - pork he can't deliver, and he has bungled and mismanaged the economy.

The US has more at stake (in it's own interests) than can be gained by a coup - down here, popular resentment of US hegemony is fairly high, when people bother to think about it, and that's pretty true of most of the hemisphere. Everybody has to import a lot of products, most from the US and Canada, so economic instability here really hurts, because there are no self-sufficient economies anywhere south of the US. A coup, regardless of how much short term improvement, would send the wrong signals to a lot of factions in a lot of countries struggling with political reform, and having very mixed results with it.

I wasn't arguing that Chavez was a good leader, but the Venezuelan people seem to want him in office. It is the business leaders who want him out. That is fine too. I just don't think the U.S. should continue meddling in South American affairs. If the resentment continues, I think we may start to see a South American brand of terrorism in addition to the hard drugs that they like to export to the U.S.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

There's no doubt the US has communicated it's interests to Chavez' opponents, just like we have official diplomatic and commercial ties to the Chavez government. What the US would most likely like to see (and what is most likely communicated to the opposition, given the results so far) is a change of government IF it can be done through legitimate political processes, OR, IF it happens extralegally, but with extraordinarily high and clear popular support.

"Informal, subtle signs" is more like diplobabble for "if you guys really have your **** together, we won't be displeased, but if you don't, you're on your own, tiger."

Relative stability of the electoral process is more in the US interest than a short term favorable government change - a lot of governments here are looking at each other for a sort of moral support as they struggle with fragile, disfunctional political systems and disfunctional economies.

If the US really supported a coup, Chavez wouldn't have been back, but screaming "our enemies are run by the evil gringo CIA" is a very popular tool for working up Latinamerican nationalism and motivating otherwise unmotivated masses.

You make a good point, but I think our government likes South America and Latin America to be off balance, since it makes them easier to manipulate and exploit. The problem, as I see it, is the usual blowback that these kind of machinations produce.

I still feel the administration has its hands in on the mess down there. It would be out of character for them not to be, but I don't know to what end yet. A lot of people in this administration are Nixon, Ford, and Reagan retreads, some of who were kneedeep in the numerous Machiavellian maneuverings that have taken place in the lower Americas.

******

That said:

Thanks for the response and sharing your opinion. I knew that you knew more about the situation than you were letting on, as you are obviously a political junkie. Where do you get your information? Is it from the TV news, local papers, or do you subscribe to political periodicals?