Chavez Sets Groundwork for Crackdown
December 1, 2007 by Jason Steck
Having previously declared that all who oppose him are “traitors”, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that if there are any accusations of fraud after the upcoming referendum on granting Chavez an unlimited grip on power, he will retaliate by cutting of oil supplies to the United States.
Such preemptive threats rarely come from anyone other than someone already planning to ensure that the “vote” is rigged to produce the “correct” results. Why be concerned about deterring accusations of fraud if any such accusations could easily be shown to be baseless by transparent, verifiable election procedures? The only likely explanation is that the fix is in and Chavez is trying to ensure that no one will dare to expose it.
Meanwhile, Chavez’ admirers in the United States who complained loudly at at length when some in the Bush administration used “for us or against us” language have remained curiously silent as Chavez invokes similar language. In point of fact, while some have grudgingly acknowledged a debased moral parity between Chavez and the hated Bush and gone out of their way to concoct ways to accuse the American government of “totalitarianism”, they apparently remain free to speak their criticisms of the “dictator” Bush while Chavez’ critics are beaten and shot.
Given his escalating rhetoric, it appears clear that Chavez intends to accelerate his crackdown in the aftermath of his rigged referendum. He believes that the U.S. government can be deterred from responding by threat of an oil embargo during the onset of winter and he has begun a concerted program of equating all dissent as being driven by traitorous loyalty to the United States. We’ve seen this kind of ramp-up towards real totalitarianism before from notorious figures like Idi Amin.
And we have, unfortunately, also seen before the parade of what Stalin called “useful idiots” — Americans who are so obsessed with their domestic political vendettas that they seek to blind themselves and others to the real demons that arise. The movie Last King of Scotland tells the story of one idealistic young man who learned the truth about Amin too late because he allowed himself to be blinded by his sharing of Amin’s dislike for the British. The evidence about Chavez now stares us all in the face. Who will not accept it until it is too late for Venezuela because they share Chavez’ hatred of the United States?
I only have disagreement with the last line - when it comes to “demonic”, the difference between Bush and Chavez is quantitative, not qualitative. Yes, even when you apply the standards that Chavez completely fail to uphold Bush is on the wrong side of par, though not nearly to the same degree. Both can be said to be “real demons”, but as you are right to point out it is frankly embarassing that some on the left can’t prioritize.
It is great that you have not joined the parade of “useful idiots”, Xel. But that doesn’t mean that the parade does not exist. As the links I posted show, there are people who either cannot distinguish between Bush’s “tyranny” with no real consequences for dissent and Chavez’ real thing or who at least are willing to exaggerate Bush’s sins and downplay Chavez’ so as to feed their political vendettas. And as long as that kind of obfuscation remains, Chavez will always have rhetorical cover.
The first step to countering REAL tyranny is being able to identify when it REALLY exists and differentiate those instances from merely an objectionable partisan opposition.
“As the links I posted show, there are people who either cannot distinguish between Bush’s “tyranny” with no real consequences for dissent and Chavez’ real thing or who at least are willing to exaggerate Bush’s sins and downplay Chavez’ so as to feed their political vendettas. And as long as that kind of obfuscation remains, Chavez will always have rhetorical cover.”
I prefer hating both to the degree that they deserve. No need to spend more time or attention than warranted on one or the other :D.
This is one of the few blogs where both get called out as well.
Such preemptive threats rarely come from anyone other than someone already planning to ensure that the “vote” is rigged to produce the “correct” results.
While it’s not well-known, there actually are some transparency and check mechanisms in the Venezeulan balloting system, ones that really cannot be easily circumvented–IF they’re allowed to work, and not taken over by the Chavistas.
Chavez’s actions and rhetoric tell me that he has every intention of proceeding with his complete takeover of the nation regardless of the vote results. If it goes against him (fairly likely at this point) he will call it a fraud and go right ahead with his plans. Or he’ll co-op the check mechanisms and simply declare it a win.
The current polling indicates a win for NO, by 8 to 15 points. Some in Venezeula believe that Chavez would respect a NO win, and carry on. I am not so sanguine.
A look at the late polls can be found here and here. If turnout is high and the result comes back YES, it’s a safe bet the result is false.
“The current polling indicates a win for NO, by 8 to 15 points. Some in Venezeula believe that Chavez would respect a NO win, and carry on. I am not so sanguine.”
We can only hope that Chavez has some decency left in him. Unpleasant position to be in.
“Why be concerned about deterring accusations of fraud if any such accusations could easily be shown to be baseless by transparent, verifiable election procedures?”
Well Jason, if you had been following Venezuelan politics more closely, the answer would be obvious.
There are some very powerful people in the world who do not like what Chavez is doing. While they pretend to be concerned about human rights, and free speech - the fact of the matter is that their only concern is over the redistribution of wealth that Chavez has engaged in.
Every single election held in Venezuela has been contested as fraudulent - not by someone credible such as the OAS, the EU or the Carter Center - but rather by some random economists with PHD’s. Now, one would certainly think that these people would have no credibility when clearly in contrast to globally recognized democracy observers. But, such is not the case.
These rogue democracy experts are used to villanize Chavez and delegitimize his government thus creating justification for a myriad of abuses - such as coups, media blankets, kidnappings, and nationwide economic sabotage.
So you see, Chavez is not doing this because he plans to cheat - he is doing this because he knows that there are those out there that will always question the results, regardless of how dominant Chavez fares in the elections.
However, Hugo has been getting more and more vociferous and extreme lately. Perhaps an election setback is exactly what is needed to see his real character. Will he abide by the wishes of the people, or will he ignore it and plunge ahead with his own plan?
There’s one for you, Jason.
A Chavez setback is certainly what’s needed, for any number of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with oil.
Chavez is an obese bully who has been rigging elections, killing and jailing oposition and crushing free speech.
This is an historic time to watch the fall of a once great nation.
I predict Hugo Chavez will count the votes and win.
I’m unclear as to why you’re citing that particular post of mine as evidence of my thinking on Bush or the American government’s totalitarianism, since it only mentions the California Republican Party. It is also highly critical of Chavez and of Russia’s Putin, something I would have thought you would approve of since you keep saying we lefties ignore their sins to blast Bush. Indeed, by citing it you seem to reduce your argument to “don’t criticize America’s national and state governments or political parties, ever”, which would be a self-inflicted “my country, right or wrong” reductio ad absurdum of your assertion that there is no totalitarian leaning in American politics from any party or person. I want to find it hard to believe anyone could be so intellectually short-sighted however, and thus must needs look for another motive.
I can only conclude you cited my post in pursuit of one of your many ideological vendettas.
Regards, C
admin: personal attacks are not welcome
admin: keep your personal fights on your own blog
admin: personal attacks are not welcome
Cernig,
I cited yours and Libby’s posts as examples of posts that draw moral parity between the Bush administration (which does nothing to actually suppress dissent, as proven by the legions of commentators, bloggers, and academics that bash Bush day in and day out with zero negative consequences) and Chavez (who backs up his repressive words with actual repression).
I thought that was clear from the post, as it was clear when I re-read it just to check. I also checked the links. The post of yours that is cited, for example, does not mention the California Republican Party at all, but it does mention the Bush administration twice including this:
Conflating grossly non-similar regimes on a “spectrum of soft totalitarianism” is exactly what I was criticizing because I think your argument serves only to conceal crucial distinctions between regimes that do not, in fact, suppress dissent and regimes that do. You are not being misread or misrepresented here. You are being criticized for what you actually said. If you can’t deal with that without making it personal (AGAIN), you should get out of the business of public commentary. Same goes for if you can’t defend what you said without trying to change the subject.
Anyway, I have, for the record, said nothing about you or Libby even vaguely comparable to the kind of direct, by-name personal attacks you two have made against me in posts (not just comments) on your site. So don’t try to draw another false parity like you did in your last line. And if you insist on trying to change the subject to your personal vendettas every time I or someone else criticizes your posts, perhaps you shouldn’t be commenting at all.
I mistook which post you linked to. I apologise and withdraw my above comment.
Regards, C
Well put Jason,
The progressives Democrats, or socialists are upset that you have used details and facts. What are their combacks? I don’t see any but attacks on you. I think because you nailed them.
I think when many speak of Bush’s tyranny, it is in relative comparison to past American presidents, not to totalitarians like Chavez. There has been a tendency to overuse inflammatory rhetoric to make a smaller point (both sides do this). What many are upset about is his tendency to interpret the Constitution in ways that expand the power of the executive and ignore Congress as much as possible as well as cherry pick which international laws he feels the US should adhere to.
Of course Chavez is much worse than Bush, as are other dictatorships like Burma, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc etc. It doesn’t mean that we should condone what is happening in this country.
When this point is conceded, it becomes much easier to discuss the many deficiencies and even outrages that have come from the Bush administration and some of its supporters. I will not, for example, defend the practice of calling everyone who criticizes the civil liberties implications of anti-terrorism policies to be “traitors” or “appeasers” nor do I condone calling those who disagree with Iraq war policy “surrender monkeys”. I only ask that we draw a distinction between bad rhetoric that is NOT followed up by repressive actions (Bush) and bad rhetoric that IS followed up by actual repression (Chavez).
Unfortunately, the extreme step of saying that the U.S. government is as bad or worse than various dictatorial regimes is NOT uncommon. It has, in fact, become a staple in some areas.
Unfortunately, the extreme step of saying that the U.S. government is as bad or worse than various dictatorial regimes is NOT uncommon. It has, in fact, become a staple in some areas.
This has become a cottage-industry staple for so many bloggers and crazed TV types like KO or even entire networks like MSNBC, which KO pollutes with his nightly diatribes.
I’m reading some books about REAL dictators and the repression that they inflicted on populations and can only conclude that this generation has been sadly undereducated on REAL historical events.
Instead, ridiculous social, gender and racial dilettantes have hijacked the school curriculum and attempted to suborn any professional integrity real historians demonstrate.
When an authentic historian does emerge, his work is often denigrated as neglected “important social, gender, racial issues.”
What cant!
I can wholeheartedly agree with what kritter wrote. Does that help, Jason?
Regards, C
It confuses me, Cernig, given the posts that appear so frequently from you and Libby on your site arguing that the Bush administration and the Chavez regime are fundamentally the same.
That, Jason, says a lot about that individual and his “site,” which should not be mentioned in a centrist context nowhere, nohow.
Shorter version: Definitional CPD™ hardly tells us anything about Chavez, making it a diversionary practice.
“This has become a cottage-industry staple for so many bloggers and crazed TV types like KO or even entire networks like MSNBC, which KO pollutes with his nightly diatribes.”
I think the distinction between some dictatorships and the US is more quantitative than qualitative as of late. Actual equalizing is something that I refrain from. I know it’s not good enough for some people but I call what I see.
“I’m reading some books about REAL dictators and the repression that they inflicted on populations and can only conclude that this generation has been sadly undereducated on REAL historical events.”
A few of which were actively installed, aided, protected or otherwise positively reacted to by US governments with the silent assent of contemporary US citizens.
“It confuses me, Cernig, given the posts that appear so frequently from you and Libby on your site arguing that the Bush administration and the Chavez regime are fundamentally the same.”
Fundamentally the same != equally immoral or equally deserving of urgent antagonism. Said statement could instead imply a qualitative difference.
Neither Cernig nor I have said that Jason. To my recollection, Cernig has never addressed the issue and I have been clear that I think Bush is worse than Chavez, not the same.
Furthermore, I dispute your characterization of my posts that have mentioned you in any way directly or even indirectly. I challenge you to come up with one specific personal attack I’ve made on you. I continue to think it is you who owes me an apology for making insulting remarks about my intellect and my mental stability. Apparently we’ll never agree on that either.
And by the way, I hope you haven’t forgotten about our bet. :-}
Libby:
1) The only comment I ever made about you was in response to a specific invitation in your original post. You had stated something to the effect of “call me paranoid, but I think Bush is going to cancel the 2008 elections and rule as a dictator”. In regards to the first “call me paranoid, but” part, my recollection is very clear. I simply took you up on your offer, contending that any such prediction IS paranoid. If you can’t hack the response, don’t openly request one in your post.
I never said anything about your intellect. But that didn’t stop you from posting follow-ups to your original post that attacked me personally, lied about what I had and had not said, and attempted to start a blogwar. You have also repeatedly attempted to extend your vendetta into comment threads on this site. Your determination to pursue your vendetta was so persistent, in fact, that it was necessary for a time to ban you from the site to stop the harassment.
2) Cernig has made at least two by-name attacks on me on your site, completely without any provocation on my part. One of them was completely gratuitous, put into a front-page post about an article by Michael that I had neither written nor commented upon. This displays extreme bad faith on his part and, by implication, that entire site.
3) In light of this behavior on both of your parts, I have requested before and I request again that you both stay out of commenting to or about me UNLESS you are willing to commit to a more intellectual and less personally abusive discussion over our differing views on various subjects. I have no aversion to debating differing views, but I cannot accept the abrasive, abusive, ad hominum methods you both seem to frequently choose. Whether you want to change that tone is entirely up to you.
4) As it relates to this specific issue, I think to assess the Bush administration (which has taken no apparent action to silence its many many vociferous critics including yourself) as worse than the Chavez administration (which has taken repressive actions against its critics, including beating protesters, seizing property, and shutting down media outlets) is illogical at best.
You know what Jason, I have never been banned at this blog. But those sort of absurd generalizations are why I stoped coming here to comment or linking here anymore.
Start a blog war? I should care so much. Not to worry, I’m about to ban myself. I really don’t have time for this sort of foolishness.
Libby,
It will be interesting to see if your supposed high-mindedness finds expression on your own blogs or whether we will yet again find you or Cernig using them to make personal attacks in spite of your proclaimed lack of interest.
It is also revealing that you choose to flee rather than address the refutations to your accusations. I take it as meaning that once again you make accusations in the heat of passion that you cannot, in the end, stand behind.
Anyway, I for one, hope that you will stick to your commitment and that this can be the end of the issue. Let the transfer to PoliGazette be a new day. Even though I disagree strongly with your and Cernig’s ideologies, I actually find Newshoggers an interesting site much of the time as you often find stories that others miss. It would be unfortunate if one or both of you remained so dedicated to your vendetta as to make it impossible to ever link to your site without inviting dredging up of the vendetta as you have done on this thread (and others).
Reports from my Venezeula correspondents and from other sources are that the NO faction has won by 8%. The official vote agency is refusing to announe results at this point.
I am getting new confirmations that NO won.
No official results has been published. What you are getting is U.S. propaganda. There are various reports one with the “No” winning and one with the “yes” winning — from Reuters.
The constitutional reforms calls for the repeal of term limits. If this was a “crackdown” then there would be NO referendum for constitutional reforms. Therefore what’s being written here comparing Chavez to Bush is not only ludricous but essentially advocates authoritarianism over democratic reforms.
You can only WISH they had this level of democracy in the United States.
TV stations that criticize the president are allowed to operate, even flourish, in the United States.
Not so in Chavez’ Venezuela.
Academics in the United States build entire careers out of criticizing presidents and even the United States as a country.
In Venezuela, that is a good way to get beaten up or shot.
So I think we can all easily tell who is spreading propaganda here, “Deadbeat”. I’ll keep the democracy we have here even with all its failures and flaws over the fake democracy in Chavez’ Venezuela.
It’s official, DeadBeat. Chavez lost.
Now the real test–how will he react to that loss?
Now Chavez will just use his dictatorial powers he already has and avoid any other public votes. That was a mistake. He thought he could rig the election and the whole world was watching.