The Enemy of My Enemy…
Lemme just start by saying I respect Cindy Sheehan. I think her activism has given voice to hundreds of grieving military families who are enraged at the Bush Administration. My mom even went to visit Camp Casey over the summer and i printed the photos on the site. So it’s with a heavy heart that I’ve got to ask this question :
What the hell are you thinking?!
Getting cuddly with Hugo Chavez and thanking him for “supporting life and peace”? Do you know anything about Hugo Chavez other than the fact that he hates George Bush? Here’s an eye-opener from Human Rights Watch :
Amendments to Venezuela’s Criminal Code that entered into force last week may stifle press criticism of government authorities and restrict the public’s ability to monitor government actions, Human Rights Watch said today.“By broadening laws that punish disrespect for government authorities, the Venezuelan government has flouted international human rights principles that protect free expression,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “While countries across Latin America are moving to repeal such laws, Venezuela has enacted further restrictions on the press that will shield officials from public scrutiny.”
The amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities. Venezuela’s measures run counter to a continent-wide trend to repeal such “disrespect” (or “desacato”) laws. In recent years, Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Peru have already repealed such laws, and other countries like Chile and Panama are currently considering legislation that would do so.
. . .
Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison.
In other words, if you went to Caracas and tried to do the exact same thing you did in Crawford, you’d be in jail right now.
And though I wouldn’t use the word “dictator” to describe Chavez, I can see why people would jump to that conclusion after power grabs like this :
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.
. . .
The law passed in May expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. In addition to the justices named to the 12 new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and 32 more were named as reserve justices for the court. Members and allies of President Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement (Movimiento V República, or MVR) form a majority in Congress.
. . .
The court-packing law signed in May also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the Court without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution. In June, two justices retired after facing possible suspension from the Supreme Court as a result of these new provisions.The political takeover of the Supreme Court will compound the damage already done to judicial independence by policies pursued by the court itself. The Supreme Court, which has administrative control over the judiciary, has failed to provide security of tenure to 80 percent of the country’s judges. In March, the court summarily fired three judges after they had decided politically controversial cases.
For those of you who have the knee-jerk reaction of defending anyone described as “leftist”, just because Chavez helps the poor by providing cheap petroleum, sending doctors into the barrios, and setting up a market to provide partially-subsidized food, doesn’t change the fact that he’s acting like a despot. Harassment of political opponents and the slow crawl toward a one-party state are things I hate about George W. Bush and the Republican party, so I don’t see why Chavez should get a free pass.
52 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I saw this on the Daily Show last night, and I was disappointed.
I thought about it, and it occured to me that Sheehan is a typical American in that she really does not inform herself much about other countries’ politics or history. She suffered a tragic loss, and her lack of savvy was kind of charming at first (the “regular person” factor), but, damn, ignorance does eventually undermine your position eventually.
She should have stuck to the subject - the impact of this war on the families of people fighting it.
OTOH - you’ve got to give Chavez some props as a politician for pulling this off. He’s not one to let an opportunity pass him up.
Hey, at least she didn’t pose with Castro.
Comment by dAVE — February 3, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
great post, by the way.
Comment by dAVE — February 3, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
I can’t bring myself to totally agree with your position on this matter.
I guess Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte find common ground to embrace Chavez the same way our US government representatives do when they embrace the Saudis and Chinese.
Comment by metricpenny — February 3, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
The fact is, nobody is clean. My wife refuses to listen to political news on the way home anymore, because, as she puts it, “it’s all bad news because they’re all scum.”
While I think that’s a little harsh, I have to say that for anybody to get that much power, they have to make a lot of compromises or put a lot of skeletons in the closet.
Comment by Dr. Pants — February 3, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Yeah, but our US Government does it for $$$$$. International relations between states are a dirty business.
Cindy Sheehan has compromised all of us on our side with this foolish action. And one cannot ignore, as Greg said, the fact that she would be in jail right now for up to 40 months for doing in Venezuela exactly what she did here in the USA.
I am alarmed at the way civil liberties have been curtailed here in this country. I can’t for the life of me see any good that can come out of embracing someone who throws people in jail for exercising free speech.
The message that will be taken from this is that Cindy Sheehan doesn’t care about freedom. Which plays right into the right wingers’ hands.
Hmmm, maybe she’s been a Karl Rove plant this whole time….
Comment by dAVE — February 3, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
The only disagreement I have, dAVE, is that Cindy Sheehan has not and does not represent the entire scope of Liberaldom; the Rightists like to make that sweeping generalization every time some “Loopy Lib’rul” says/does something stupid. (See Belafonte, Sheehan, et. al.)
Other than that, I’m on board with your comments, as well as Greg’s.
Comment by Ben — February 3, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Ben - Yes, I agree that she does not represent all liberaldom and is unfairly presented as representative of all of us. But, she’s gotta know that that’s what’s gonna happen.
It’s just that being known as a protester and literally embracing a guy who squashes protesters is really just self-discrediting.
Comment by dAVE — February 3, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
just because Chavez helps the poor by providing cheap petroleum, sending doctors into the barrios, and setting up a market to provide partially-subsidized food, doesn’t change the fact that he’s acting like a despot
As opposed to all the despots in Latin America (and here) who don’t do these things?
Sheehan’s entitled to meet with whom she likes. Personally, I don’t think I would be so chummy with Chavez if I were her, but I’m not her, and neither are you.
But as far as worrying about how her actions may reflect on other liberals/leftists/progressives, I couldn’t care less. The corporate goons are going to try to depict any uppity liberal as a loon, so we might as well all stop playing outraged armchair PR critic everytime some leftie tries to wriggle out of the mainstream straightjacket, and instead seek to embrace a greater diversity of opinions than those deemed acceptable by our media betters.
BTW: Great blog.
Comment by Night Owl — February 3, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Well, so much for her senate run…
Comment by mona — February 3, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
With respect, what some of you are saying sounds like a press conference with the three little pigs right after the wolf finally died:
“My house of straw would have worked really well if that wolf hadn’t come along. Why should I change my building materials just because another wolf might blow it down in the future? They’re the ones with the problem!”
Or perhaps better yet, it sounds like Michael Bolton from office space:
The fact is, we don’t live in magical fantasy land where the douchebags in charge of the government and the media will realize that liberals are unfailry painted with the same brush, and then decide to stop associating us all with the weird events here and there. Maybe it’s about time we realize that and try to do less to make us all look bad.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — February 3, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
I checked back in and, whoa, Mr. Tomorrow had turned off the lights.
Anyway, I just wanted to repeat a book and a movie that various other posters mentioned:
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
http://www.chavezthefilm.com
And Richard Gott’s political bio of Chavez
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1844675335
There is a _lot_ of disinformation out there about Chavez. No, he’s not perfect but there’s a well-funded disinformation campaign to make him seem like an enemy of all that is good. (Note, for example, the astro-turf “review” on Amazon. It looks semi-legit until you google some of the phrases and note that they also appear on several clearly US funded anti-Chavez sites. It’s bunk but with a grain of truth. And I’m will to bet that it, like so much of the anti-Chavez stuff that’s targeted at US liberals is written in a propaganda sweat shop.)
I think you are framing the Sheehan/Chavez issue wrong because you’ve soaked up too much anti-Chavez crap. I think the guy, for all his flaws, is more on our side than, say, Lieberman. Yeah, Sheehan has questionable judgement but hanging with Chavez is not so bad.
Comment by Ramson's eyepatch — February 3, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
As another example of the complexities of criticizing Chavez based on usually trustworthy testimony from, say, AI, take a look at the filmmaker’s discussion on their website of how Amnesty was used to help suppress the film. It’s basically backwards from the way we usually think of AI and not really their fault. Worth reading.
Comment by Ramson's eyepatch — February 3, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
So let’s see–in the United States and Canada, the President or the Prime Minister personally get to appoint supreme court judges. In Venezuela, it takes a supermajority in the legislature. So, Chavez is dictatorial because his party has a supermajority in the legislature? It’s called winning an election hands down.
As to press freedoms–show me one person jailed or even sued in Venezuela, whether reporter, press owner, or private citizen, for expressing views in or out of print/broadcast, up to and including statements that would have them in court for libel in ten seconds in North America, or calls for revolution or the assassination of the president (all of which speech acts have happened frequently in major media outlets). One. Uno. Any takers?
Funny, that kind of thing used to happen a lot in Venezuela. You know, before the “dictatorial” Chavez got in. None since, as far as I know.
Think just maybe those who want us to think Chavez is a thug are reaching just a tiny bit?
Comment by Purple Library Guy — February 3, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
I agree with Ramson and PLG. Here’s comments I posted at Tom Tomorrow, which are now relevant here:
This piece is ridiculous. If Sheehan can’t hug Chavez because of some bad law or other, she can’t hug any leader almost anywhere in the world.
Look at almost any country in the yearly reports from HRW and you’ll find abuses or questionable laws, usually far worse than those listed for Venezuela. They happen everywhere. And notice it says the same kinds of laws are on the books in many other Latin American countries, and nobody claims their president is a “dictator” or a “despot” for it, or can’t be hugged or admired for other reasons.
I don’t agree with the vague wording of the media law, which could allow abuses, but the report does (as other’s have pointed out) just say “may…this”, “may…that”. There are no journalists in prison in Venezuela and most of the media there is virulently hostile to Chavez.
This all means the claim that “if you went to Caracas and tried to do the exact same thing you did in Crawford, you’d be in jail right now”….is just flat out nonsense, absurd. People in Caracas do far more than that all the time.
And there is nothing inherently wrong with expanding the Supreme Court. It needs to be done sometimes, and there are arguments for why it needs to be done in Venezuela. There’s another side to the story which you ignore. FDR was accused of being a “despot” on very similar grounds. Does someone who hugged FDR therefore lose “credibility”? Come on.
Now on to why someone might hug Chavez. He’s been elected by wide majorities. He’s started trying to use the oil wealth of his country to help the poor there (which make up the large majority). He’s expanded education and literacy programs to areas that have never seen them. Same with health care, for people who have never seen doctors.
He’s also providing an example for the people of other nations that they can reject the neoliberal economics imposed by Washington, and elect their own leaders to try a different path. And he’s helped to spark a democratic movement from below in Latin America which is helping indigenous leaders like Evo Morales in Bolivia become the first non-white President in the majority non-white country.
But no, you she can’t hug him because there’s this bad media law, so he’s a “despot”..etc.
Come on! Leave the dubious smears of Chavez to the right wing websites.
Comment by joshd — February 3, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
Hugo Chavez is a hero, and so is Cindy Sheehan.
The Bush war has killed 10 of thousands of people and the cabal that rules him is in the process of turning America into a fascist state.
Priorities.
Comment by waldo — February 3, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
>In other words, if you went to Caracas and tried to do the exact same thing you did in Crawford, you’d be in jail right now.
Yup, that’s ridiculous and it plays into the screwy disinformation being spun about Chavez.
Again, there _are_ issues with Chavez and yes Sheehan isn’t her best publicist.
Comment by Ramson's eyepatch — February 3, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
I support Chavez’s social ideals , but the guy is anti-semitic. He will receive the iranian president in the future and declared that there was a nation who stole us the goods . Aka , “The Jews got the power and the money”. I do think it’s a mistake to appear in front of him, in any case you should make it clear that you don’t agree with this.
I didn’t see Sheehan do this, anywhere.
Comment by littlehorn — February 3, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
In my defense, for those of you who were following along at thismodernworld, I am not taking a side either way on Chavez, I like some and I despise some and either way don’t have much info.
I was objecting to Mr. Swartz’s attempt to brush aside Greg’s (and HRW and others) concerns merely on the basis of a hostile Venezualean media.
It’s a bit ironic that the “Enemy of My Enemy” post has in some ways devolved into a “Rummy called him Hitler so he must be ok.” discussion.
I know that last bit is a tiny bit unfair, even for snark, but it needed saying, I apologize in advance of any outrage :-)
Comment by Dilapidus — February 3, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
“I support Chavez’s social ideals , but the guy is anti-semitic. He will receive the iranian president in the future and declared that there was a nation who stole us the goods . Aka , “The Jews got the power and the money”.”
I don’t know where you got the anti-semitic thing from, but I’m assuming it’s from the recent claims made about a speech he gave around Christmas, based on taking statements out of context. The claim that he was talking about Jews or being anti-semitic has been pretty thoroughly debunked as discussed here:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2805
Be careful about taking defamatory claims about Chavez at face value. There are a lot of falsehoods being spread around.
Comment by josh-d — February 3, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Are they engaged? This is the happiest I’ve ever seen her. I just hope they are using each other equally but I suspect her stock just dropped.
Comment by Becky — February 3, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
Cindy, you are utterly lame. I feel for your loss. Stop prostituting it.
Comment by Geggy — February 3, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
Ahhhh, it’s so predictable that, after de-smearing Chavez, he’s smeared again as an anti-semite. Oh, he’s friends with Ahmadinejad–the head of a state that has somewhat similar business/oil/political interests–and he made some comments that _might_ as a long stretch be considered ominous. Sure, there’s a grain of truth. He and various of his supporters (and detractors) play up his contact with Ahmadinejad. And, sure, uses some questionable rhetorical language–though, come on, less than, say, Dick Cheney or Jesse Jackson or even Cindy Sheehan. He’s shown over and over again–by his actions–that he’s not anti-semtic and not a flaming theocratic tool like Ahmadinejad.
Read through the _source materials_ and discussion here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/4/18461/81161
for a rather skeptical but fairly complete dismissal of the anti-semtic smear on Chavez.
And, after all of that, I’ll say again, Chavez is a problematic figure and perhaps not the best ruler for Venuzuela. Better than some, certainly better than a number of recent semi-dictators and corrupt juntas, but the people of Venuzeula deserve better. If he continues to learn from his mistakes and the outside pressure isn’t too intense, perhaps Chavez can help make Venuzeula a better place. Smears don’t help, real criticism does.
Comment by Ramson's eyepatch — February 3, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
Before you are too quick to say “And though I wouldn’t use the word “dictator” to describe Chavez, I can see why people would jump to that conclusion” consider this.
Chavez in the face of much greater provocation, and with a much greater danger than any faced by the U.S. after 911 has implemented much milder responses. That does not mean that all the responses are justfied. But they do not make him a despot or on net an evil ruler.
Faced with a brutal enemy trying to destroy the U.S. Franklin Roosevelt implemented:
1) censorship that was probably justified (their were real military secrets to keep).
2) a suppression of the right to strike and a wage price freeze that may not have been. (Arguments can be made both ways.
3)Arrest and placing in concentration camps of the Japanese Americans and Japanese immigrants living in the U.S. that was without a shadow of justification. Further the U.S. under Roosevelt retained a Jim Crow law whose repeal Roosevelt never made a high priority. And FDR was complicit in turning back Jewish refugees from Hitler who would have survived if he had accepted them. And I could name other things.
Still in retrospect does that mean that on balance Roosevelt was not a great president? Not the president of a democratic country? He did both terrible and wonderful things. And I don’t think a country that lacked the U.S.’ stains would have been justified in dismissing Roosevelt as terrible would be dictator during WWII, not even if that nation said “of course no where near as bad as Hitler and Mussolini and Franco say”, but a really horrible despotic nation that no right thinking person should associate themselves with.
I don’t think Chavez’s sins come anywhere near Roosevelts. And that does not mean he should not be criticized for what he does not wrong. But he also should not be dismissed as a future despot either. He is not just buying off the poor with a little social spending. He also is forcing his nations private industry invest it’s capital domestically instead of exporting it all abroad. Venezuela could go two direction: it could end up in social democracy of sorts. Or it could go the path that Mexico ended up with the PRI, selling out its revolution to become a one party crony state. It is too damn soon to assume the second. And to the extent that ordinary U.S. citizens have a chance to influence it, it is by keeping our criticism at a sane level.
Again remember the worst that has happened has happened in response to one hell of an emergency. it doesn’t make them all justified; but it means that in the face of very real reasons for terror we should not be too quick to assume the worst motives or to assume them to the start of a slippery slope.
Try two comparisons. Compare what President Bush has actually done (inside the U.S.) to what President Chavez has actually done inside Venezuela. Then if you are going to compare potential, compare what would happen if Chavez used the full legal authority he claimed against his political opponents, to what would happen if Bush used the full legal authority he claimed against his political opponents.
Lets look at the actual three things you mention:
1) The press law - OK - this I think is the worst of his sins. And so far, unlike Bush with his power of indefinite detention, he does not seem to using it. Yes even have the right prosecute the press for “disrespect of the President” and other such things is fairly awful. But whether a society stays free in the face of such a law depends on whether it is enforced. And do remember this is against a press that was complicit with a coup - as in presented every lie the coupster put forth, supressed every countervailing path. Not justified, but not unprovoked either.
2) Court packing - Roosevelt tried it, and we would have been a lot better off if he had suceeded. One of the things the courts rule unconsitutional was his NRA which would have established sort of government subsidized network of cooperatives that would served as a sort third economic sector, neither truly private nor truly governmental. If he had succeeded we might not face the uncheck corporate power that is ruining this nation today.
3)The changing of the constitution to allow removal of judges by a simple majority. Again this is not against an independent judiciary, but against a judiciary that is as one sided and biase as our own Supreme court will be after Bush makes one more appointment.
I simply disagree with Human Rights Watch that strengthening the legislative branch against the judicial is neccesarily a bad thing. HRW in spite of being an international organization is too U.S. centric. Lots of democratic nations do not have as powerful a judicial branch as we do. And too many liberal mistake the exception of the Warren years for the historical rule. For most of history the judicial branch has been the conservative branch, upholding slavery, suppressing unions, suppressing, not defending free speech. For the judiciary to be a defender of individual rights is much more the exception than the rule.
Read Nathan Newman on this.
http://www.nathannewman.org/other/ImpeachSC.html
Ignore the title and the first paragraph. It is a brilliant deconstruction (from a left perspective) of the excessive respect liberals often have for the judiciary. While I think he goes a bit far in undervaluing the accomplishments of the Warren court, his large point on the judiciary as a reactionary anti-civil libertarian anti-civil rights branch of government is very well taken.
Comment by Gar Lipow — February 3, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
If this is liberalism, then count me out. Our tax dollars have been paying for the extermination of life and democracy since long before I was born. Some of those dollars were spent trying to overthrow a democratically elected gov’t in Venezuela in the past few years.
Can we really be so arrogant and hypocritical as to throw stones at Venezuela, and at Cindy Sheehan for meeting with Chávez? Ask yourself: how many killings did your tax dollars pay for this week in Iraq? How about in Colombia? Afghanistan? Did you protest it in a Free Speech Zone?
Learn your history, as Gar Lipow has done. When Chávez’s oil money has killed as many of our citizens as our tax revenue has killed his, I’ll start criticizing him. Until then, I’ll do and say what I think is right and refrain from worrying about the well-established Right Wing Lie Machine will say about me.
Comment by Church Secretary — February 4, 2006 @ 3:45 am
I know our money looks cool and all, pictures of presidents and neat signatures and everything, but I’ve never seen it kill anyone. In fact, I tried to give myself a paper cut with a Hamilton and couldn’t do it. I doubt any tax revenues have actually ever killed anyone. It’s usually a person with a rifle or some kind of explosive device that does it. How has our tax revenue killed any Venezuelans?
Comment by the_big_pill — February 4, 2006 @ 6:11 am
>Compare what President Bush has actually done (inside the U.S.) to what President Chavez has actually done inside Venezuela.
Nice post, although perhaps a little scary to people who haven’t been following Chavez closely–Bush is not exactly a role model. You are right, however, no one bothers to, compare Chavez directly to Bush, while accepting somehow Bush’s criticism of Chavez. He’s been far, far, more benevolent than Bush.
One of things that’s so sad about The Talent show bashing Chavez is it’s symptomatic of general press/journalist/blogger appathy about Chavez. It would help if journalists asked questions like “Pres. Bush, when your security details removed Ms. Sheehan from the SOTU speech some where remined of various SA dicators. However, one of the SA leaders you most criticise, Chavez, has allowed more direct dissent than you do. How can you justify painting Chavez as an ememy of democracy when he is more open to dissent than you are?” Or whatever. It’s far more likely that even liberal bloggers will ask “Why does Sheehah hate America so much that she will meet with an evil dicatator?”
Argh.
Comment by Ramson's eyepatch — February 4, 2006 @ 9:05 am
Ramson,
It would be a good question. I’d ask it. But I doubt anyone will.
I think Greg’s criticism of Cindy Sheehan was made because her embrace will be seen through the prism of domestic politics. Does it suck? Sure. Should he have done it? No. And the thing is, she’s got a staff to make sure that she doesn’t do things like that. Like it or not, she’s a political figure, and this is a bit indulgent.
Comment by Rafe — February 4, 2006 @ 10:49 am
It’s interesting how we climb on the back of someone like Cindy Sheehan, who happens to have garnered media attention, and then all try to steer her.
She is not our savior, a political player, or a PR wiz. She is in the media at the moment, but not a media insider. What I liked about what she did are the very things that would be ruined if she were a politician, or if she hired a PR consultant. In fact, it is troubling that we would expect her to become so cynical as to hire people to figure out how best to manipulate us.
Nor is she a donkey we get to ride into power. If we want to take Washington back, we’re all going to have to walk there, and stop trying to hitch rides on the few whom the media blesses with attention.
Remember, she doesn’t owe us anything. George Bush owes her an explanation.
Comment by Barry — February 4, 2006 @ 11:45 am
The kind of ignorance displayed by Greg in this anti-Chavez post can’t be corrected in a comment thread. However, the kind of ignorance displayed by Rumsfeld can, and I will just point out that, unlike Hitler, Chavez received an actual majority of the vote (twice), and, unlike Bush, the recent Venezuelan elections were conducted with verifiable voting and international observers present who, in response to the lunatic clams of the opposition, did verify that the vote was fair, honest, and accurate.
Now, if Greg is so gullible that all Bush has to do is shout “Hey! Look over there! A Commewnist Dictator!”, then Greg should spare himself the outrage and concern and start enjoying the wine women and song (such as it is) of a flag-waving BigMac-eating American life. There is no point in worrying about what the Democrats should have said if you endorse the proposition that Faux News, in conjunction with the Republican Congress, should be able to form an oligarchy to bring down elected governments.
After all, as long as the WaPo is free to slander Chavez, it’s a free country, right? No need to get all worked up about a few little transgressions by Bush when the evil “over there” is so great.
Comment by serial catowner — February 4, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Incidentally, if anyone actually wants to learn something about Roosevelt’s ‘court-packing’ scheme, a good place to start is Go East Young Man by William O. Douglas, who was actually present during the events described. It’s a small part of the book, but the rest of the book is also a good read.
Comment by serial catowner — February 4, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
>I think Greg’s criticism of Cindy Sheehan was made because her embrace will be seen through the prism of domestic politics. Does it suck? Sure. Should he have done it? No. And the thing is, she’s got a staff to make sure that she doesn’t do things like that. Like it or not, she’s a political figure, and this is a bit indulgent.
1) I don’t think this argument you ascribe to Greg is as self-evident as you think. If Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution is in fact on balance a good thing (which I think it is) then distancing yourself from it’s president feeds into the demonization of Chavez. In point of fact Sheehan may have made a considered judgement not to be a single issue activists, but to lend her credibility to defending Chavez.
2) In all fairness to Greg, I don’t think that was his argument. That is I think he questions my premise rather than my logic - that he thinks that even if not a despot Chavez is a power grabber who could end up very like Bush. I think he is making that judgement on superficial information that Chavez is more like Roosevelt than Bush. Like Roosevelt in the face of a serious existential threat he has taken some steps that are genuinely bad for civil liberties that are not neccesary for survival (though so far they have not approached the seriousnes of Roosevelts actions against Japanese-Americans and immmigrants). As with Roosevelt allying himself with Stalin, Chavez has accepted support from nasty people who can provide resources or who are fellow oil exporting states and thus whose alliance increases his oil leverage. I suspect disagreement this rather than simple PR considerations are behind Gregs objections.
Put it this way; if the Fox News, the NY Times and the rest of the corporate media had demonized Sweden the way they demonize Venezuela, would Greg have said that serious political figures should not associate themselves publicly with Sweden? I suspect he would see fighting that demonization and the false accusations against Sweden would be part of what he expected serious political activists to do. Which is why I think it is a serious mistake for him to accept the accusations against Venezuela without really looking at the bigger picture of is being done there. The United Kingdoms combination of libel laws, official secrets act, blasphemy law, and (I believe) existing “hate speech” laws constitute a pretty serious threat to civil liberties. Free speech is pretty drastically weakened there. So until those laws are repealed, is every UK Prime Minister just one step short of despotism?
Comment by Gar Lipow — February 4, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
i love cindy - but this was definately her jane fonda moment - the swift-boaters are going to love this - i’m very disappointed
Comment by peter — February 5, 2006 @ 1:40 am
I agree. I was shocked that Cindy Sheehan would sit down with Hugo Chavez, who’s just a Communist, totalitarian thug.
Those pictures will come back to haunt her and will just add more ammunition for the right-wingers to use in their smear campaigns.
Was she having a Jane Fonda moment???
And I like Jane Fonda. She did a very courageous thing going to North Vietnam. And yet, pictures of her in North Vietnam have been used to smear her and all other Democrats since then.
No, Cindy. The one person you should not have gotten anywhere close to was Hugo Chavez while in Venezuela…unless you were dragged before him kicking and screaming.
But, the damage is done. We’ll just have to live with it.
Unless we can pull a Bush White House and collect all the pictures of her meeting Chavez, like the Bush White House is trying to do in getting their hands on and suppress any pictures of our dear president with Jack Abramoff.
Comment by The Oracle — February 5, 2006 @ 4:37 am
I wonder how many posters realize that, at the time of the coup attempt against Chavez, the mayor of Caracas was using the municipal police to murder Chavez supporters in the streets, and the municipal police were defying the federal government of Venezuela. The same circumstances that led Dwight Eisenhower to send Federal troops into Mississippi.
Or, another fun fact, Chavez’s ’spending spree’ is funded by the money that showed up after the graft and corruption was ended in the oil industry- billions of dollars that magically appeared with the first honest audits. IOW, the ’spending spree’ was always going on, but before Chavez the money all went to gangsters.
Here’s a simple rule I adopted as a child- when someone uses a word like ‘thug’, I ask myself if any evidence or context has been provided to justify the term. If not, I fall back on my father’s rule- what Jack tells me about Harry tells me more about Jack than it does about Harry.
Oh, and that ‘one-party’ government- you do realize that that was the ‘original intent’ of the men who wrote our Constitution, right?
Comment by serial catowner — February 5, 2006 @ 9:02 am
Whoa, my bad- Ike sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas.
Comment by serial catowner — February 5, 2006 @ 9:04 am
Also, as far as “one party rule” goes, that was the decison of the opposition that chose not to run in an election which (by overwhelming evidence) was free and fair. Knowing they could not win, their hope was to delegitimize the Chavez government, so that if the U.S. is able to pull off a coup or an invasion via Columbia, world public opinion won’t be too strongly opposed. Anyone who decides to condemn Chavez as thug or a near despot, or just an all around bad guy, needs to look closely at the evidence, and make sure they are not being a “sensible liberal”. And thanks to Tom Tomorrow for inventing the phrase.
Comment by Gar Lipow — February 5, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Check here for indepth coverage on Venezuala.
http://www.zmag.org/venezuela_watch.cfm
I think the Human Rights Watch may take the decision out of context considering most of the media in Venezuala is fanatically anti-Chavez and backed by oil interest and the corporate lobby. As for a “one” party system, we must understand that the opposition parties chose on their own accord to not participate in free and fair elections in an attempt to delegitamize them after realizing they had no chance. Venezuala is not a dictatorship like Cuba. As for the judges, I suspect many of them were appointed during the previous neoliberal administration. Take from it what you will.
Comment by charlie — February 5, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
I rather support Cindy, Hugo, and Harry.
Comment by 14justice — February 5, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
I rather support Cindy, Hugo, and Harry.
Comment by 14justice — February 5, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
The definitive argument against your proposition is here: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24713&mode=nested&order=0
Derrick O’Keefe nails it.
Comment by waldo — February 6, 2006 @ 5:01 am
Yes, Waldo, that was very enlightening; thank you. It is clear to me that the vast majority of the negativity directed toward Chávez is related to our stubborn refusal to let go of the Monroe Doctrine. Sadly, this seems to be as true with many self-described progressives and liberals as it is with backward conservatives.
I don’t think most people of any political stripe in this country are aware of the extent of the savagery the U.S. has wreaked upon Latin America in the past century-plus. And yes, our tax dollars have paid for just about all of it, so we are all guilty. When people who claim to oppose the deadly imperialism of the Bushies on one hand are quick to point moralizing, hypocritical fingers at lawfully elected populists with the other, it kind of sucks.
Comment by Church Secretary — February 6, 2006 @ 6:37 am
Y’all do realize that there is more here than just a PR faux pas? I would argue (and I think Greg & others are arguing) that it’s not just that it makes Cindy look bad, but mainly that it’s a bad decision to appear with him. Some of you have raised questions on that front, and while I disagree, that’s not my point here. Don’t accuse us of being “too slick” or trying to “frame” the debate or some nonsense like that; we have legitimate concerns over this guy. We can argue about that, obviously, but we’ve gotta arrive at an understanding of each other.
Comment by Ben — February 6, 2006 @ 7:38 am
Yeah, if you noticed I specifically pointed out that I thought that Greg was objecting to Chavez, and not merely the PR aspect. My point is that you are mainly buying propaganda - a lot of the accusations are outright false, that where they are true they remain exaggerations - that any liberal who would have been proud to stand with FDR should be proud to stand with Chavez, since he has overcome (so far) a lot worse threat (not to humanity but to his nation) while respecting civil liberties a great deal more than FDR ever did.
He is not perfect, but it is in the nature of government to be imperfect, and the nature of people with a great deal of power to take advantage of emergencies to abuse that power to some extent. So you don’t judge the head of a government on the basis,are they saints. You judge the head of government on basis of whether their actions on net are good, while continuting to criticize what they do wrong.
Let’s look at the score:
1) Winning elections - right not wrong.
2) getting a supermajority because the oppostion chose not to participate - not Chavez’s fault. In point of fact, given that the excuse they made was absurd (and internationally recognized as such) it is obvious that the boycott was done by the opposition in hopes that at some point they will be able - with US backing - to overthrow Chavez by force.
3)Revamping the courts so that they no longer overwhelmingly consist of right wing (and often dictator era appointed) judges - not only justified but laudable. Roosevelt failed to something similar, and the U.S. would be a lot betters shape today if he had succeeded.
4)A law restricting freedom of the press - a truly wrong thing, mitigated by the fact that it has not been enforced. Not justified, but certainly provoked and much less than Western nations do in similar circumstances. I would say that in terms of formal freedom of the press, Venezuela has more than the U.K., thanks to the U.K. libel laws, blasphemy laws, official secrets act and various “anti-hate” laws. In terms of actual freedom of the press Venezuela has more than the U.S., since the majority of the press is still controlled by the opposition, and criticizes Chavez freely, and presents facts in opposition to him; Chavez does not get anything like the free ride Bush gets in the U.S. Of course there is also now a pro-Chavez press - so that the left in Venezuela does not have to rely on liberal blogs with a tiny percentage of the population as readership to get it’s point of view across. But neither does any part of the political spectrum. The right and left both have access to the free broadcast spectrum, the right more than the left, but the left substantially. The right overwhelmingly dominates the cable spectrum. All parts of the political spectrum (including left critics of Chavez) have their own newspapers, and thanks to the licensing of low power radio this is true of radio as well (As one example of democracy in Venezuela a number of people who critize Chavez from the left (anarchists mainly) have started such radio stations.
This does not make that law right, but it does mean that in practice Freedom of the Press is in better shape than the U.S. and most places - at least for the moment.
Overall, if you look at what Chavez has done, errors at all, I think an informed democrat (small d) and civil libertarian should be proud to stand with Chavez. By doing so Cindy has I think shown her judgement to be better (on this issue anyway) than much of the liberal blogsphere.
Comment by Gar Lipow — February 6, 2006 @ 11:25 am
I’m sorry, Gar, but while I respect your opinion and trust your sincerity and knowledge, I still disagree. I know that you weren’t mentioning the PR aspect, but others have.
Regardless, restricting civil liberties is bad no matter who does it, right or left, American or Venezuelan (or Cuban). FDR and Lincoln were each guilty of trying to pack the courts and lifting the writ of habeus corpus, respectively. They deserve condemnation for that, but they also weathered severe crises during their presidencies that led them to think that it was necessary. We can (and should) look back and disagree, but I would argue that their respective greatness, while severely tarnished, remains intact. Dubya & Chavez have done nothing to earn my respect, which is not to say that they are alike at all, much less in the area of restricting freedom.
Nevertheless, I can’t agree that Chavez is blameless in his country’s problems. It doesn’t matter if it’s not his fault that the laws are there, or that we in America have a messed up media situation, because that’s not the point. We don’t have a state-run media, no matter how bad Fox & the rest of the media have gotten; we don’t have Sedition Acts (any more); we have freedoms of religion, assembly, press, petition, & speech. (And I realize that Republicans have infringed on all of these, but there is no comparison to other countries, including Venezuela. This is NOT Nazi Germany.)
All this just sounds like excuse-making & political hypocrisy, and I don’t like to criticize my fellow Leftists here.
Comment by Ben — February 6, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
Very interesting back and forth. The naivete and latent jingoism of writers who plainly consider themselves “on the Left” is amusing.
Folks, a firestorm is sweeping the consciousness of Latin America. While we sit fat and secure in wealth that is obscene in comparison with the economic situation of the vast majority of humanity, our southern neighbors are embarking on a quest for economic and social justice based on new models. They understand what Bushies and many “on the [American] left” do not; injustice inherently pervades strict advanced capitalist endeavors (see Wal-Mart for but one example), and class is a critical issue.
Come on, folks. The charade of our “freedom” is the tool of those who cater to our need for excessive consumption. We need a new paradigm of what it means to be free.
Comment by Fred Loch — February 6, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
Good golly Miss Molly! Chavez returned after an actual coup, because the democracies of the Americas (which unfortunately did not include the U.S.) made it plain they would not stand for the coup. Roosevelt, for all his challenges, was never actually removed from office by rogue military men.
Nor did Roosevelt, in actual fact, do much for the non-white members of our society. Roosevelt saved the capitalist system, and that, combined with our post-war affluence, seemed pretty good- for a while.
I dont know what someone has to do to earn Ben’s respect, but I know Chavez has earned some of mine. Of course, that’s Chavez and the Venezuelan people, who are mature enough to elect someone who isn’t white.
As for that “state-run media”, what’s that all about? Last time I looked we had public broadcasting- does Ben maybe think that most of the media in Venezuela is state-run? If so, he should log on to this thing called the internet and actually learn something about Venezuela.
Comment by serial catowner — February 6, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Just to reinforce catowner - Venezuela does NOT have a state run media in the sense that all the media is state run. It has both private and public media. The venezuela state run media is like the BBC - providing a point of view the private media refuses to provide.
You have to compare apples to apples. It would be fair to compare Venezuelan formal civil liberties (if all the worst laws were enforced) to U.S. formal civil liberties (if all worst U.S. formal laws were enforced). It would be fair to compare actual U.S. civil liberties to actual Venezuelan civil liberties.
In terms of formal laws: if all the worst Venezuelan laws were enforced you could arrest people for certain things. (Not anything Cindy Sheenan did by the way. Wearing a shirts say “x number dead? how many more?” or some equivalent is general enough not to fit into the slot of “disprecting the President” or “stirring up fear”.
In the U.S. right now under U.S. law, the President could under the law as the Supreme court has upheld it arrest you as an enemy combantant, hold you in solitary for at least six months and probably for several year without access to a lawyer. Legally you could not be tortured, but you would have no access to anyway to enforce that right, so in practice you would have no recourse if they decided to torture you. Bush of course claims greter rights that - to hold you forever under those circumstances, but that issue has not been settled in the courts.
So if you look at what could be done, not what is actually being done, but what the government has the formal right to do, we have less formal civil liberty than Venezuela.
What about in practice? Well you are right that this is not Nazi Germany. Bush has not used all the formal legal powers he has, let alone all the ones he claims. But if you are comparing Venezuela to the U.S. that is true there too. The only members of the opposition Chavez has arrested or sought to arrest have been people who too part in armed rebellion against him, and even most those who supported this are free. Not one peaceful opponent of Chavez is in jail. Not one journalist of any sort is in jail. Every bit of media that existed before Chavez came to power still exists. Not one TV station or Newspaper or whatever that opposed Chavez has been forced to support him. Unless you have evidence that I have not heard of there has not been one case of censorship there. So Venezuela is freer than the U.S. both in terms of formal civil liberties and in terms of civil liberty in practice.
In terms of the “court packing” again I would say that both Roosevelt and Chavez were justified. It is not as self-evident as you seem to think that existing extremely biased judiciary should always be left in place.
Seriously if you are going to argue that Venezuela is less free than the U.S., you need to support your point, and not take for granted.
>FDR and Lincoln were each guilty of trying to pack the courts and lifting the writ of habeus corpus, respectively. They deserve condemnation for that, but they also weathered severe crises during their presidencies that led them to think that it was necessary.
Without agreeing with you on the “court packing” bit, my point exactly - severe crisis.
>We can (and should) look back and disagree, but I would argue that their respective greatness, while severely tarnished, remains intact. Dubya & Chavez have done nothing to earn my respect.
What tarnished Roosevelts reputation (justly) was failing to strongly enough oppose Jim Crow, putting Japanese Americans and Japanese immigrants in concentration camps and a number of other thing. Look at the actual history of the time before you conclude the “court packing” was wrong. Again I think you could argue that the U.S. would be a better place today if he had succeeded.
>Nor did Roosevelt, in actual fact, do much for the non-white members of our society. Roosevelt saved the capitalist system, and that, combined with our post-war affluence, seemed pretty good- for a while.
Actually I think Roosevelt deserves a bit more credit than you give him here. When Roosevelt died, people of color showed up for his funeral in large numbers. Though he never did much against Jim Crow, his economic policies made the difference for enough people of color that he was well respected. As for saving the capitalist system - true, but given how weak labor and the left were before Roosevelt came to power it is likely that what he saved it from was an unsuccesful socialist revolution followed by a succesful facist coup. That has always been my theory about why the right hated him so much.
(Rembember, before Roosevelt, labor and the left were militant, but they were not winning much. I don’t remember what percent of the population was unionized the day Roosevelt took office, but it was not high.)
I think it is totally unfair to compare Chavez with Bush. He has been a net good for Venezuela. Civil liberties in Venezuela are strong not weaker than before he took office.
Comment by Gar Lipow — February 6, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Dubya & Chavez have done nothing to earn my respect, which is not to say that they are alike at all, much less in the area of restricting freedom.
Really? You haven’t been paying attention to the south then…
Chavez responded faster than FEMA after Katrina hit, offering cheap fuel, humanitarian aid and relief workers to the disaster area. He made a deal of discounted oil to the US through Citgo that resulted in 9 million gallons being provided to institutions that serve the poor. He has rolled back the neoliberal policies that have impoverished his nation, and has spearheaded the cooperative movement. Under Chavez, Venezuela’s oil wealth has been redistributed to finance health care, free education, coops, state run discount food centers, i.e. real programs that benefit the poorest in the community.
Comment by Anton — February 6, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
Look, I don’t need a lecture on how I should read up more on Central/South American politics, or how I should be grateful that I grew up in the Land of Plenty. Unlike many right wingers, I appreciate & acknowledge the fact that I have been priviledged. In addition, I can’t go in-depth into every argument about Chavez, Venezuela, FDR, Roosevelt, etc. - I’m just going to take it as read. Many of the arguments I would make have already been covered here, and this is only a comments thread, not a dissertation, for goodness sakes.
Comment by Ben — February 7, 2006 @ 9:18 am
There is one thing about the original post that is amazing- Cindy is criticized for hugging Chavez, because Chavez has a law that might be used to arrest someone who criticized him.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Cindy actually was arrested for wearing a t-shirt with a message. Or maybe for unzipping her jacket. It’s a fine legal point. Or maybe she was arrested for being a Democrat, considering that a Republican who did the same thing at the same time in the same place was not arrested.
Y’know, every once in a while you have to pinch yourself and try to remember which are the facts, and which are the allegations.
Comment by serial catowner — February 7, 2006 @ 9:22 am
Then as closing comment, let’s be reality based in considering accusations against Chavez. Just like we did not take the word of the NY Times when it came to the case for invading Iraq, or for the probably upcoming bombing of Iran, let’s not be too quick to take their word for the justness of the demonization of Chavez.
Comment by Gar W. Lipow — February 7, 2006 @ 10:14 am
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected. Not even George W Bush pulled that one off the first time around, although he did try to get Chavez thrown out of office by staging a coup. Didn’t work though.
Comment by Don — February 9, 2006 @ 7:43 am