Along with these unsettling comments, there are disturbing allegations about McCain's POW years and reported special treatment he got after his father, Admiral JS McCain, became CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command over all Vietnam theater forces. An organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" is actively addressing his record on things people have a right to know about public officials, if they're true, and McCain has an obligation to explain them.
Democrats aren't much better, and consider their views about Chavez. They're hardly friendly with Hillary Clinton saying "we have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America" with no confusion about who she means. Barack Obama is also suspect despite saying if elected he'll meet with Iranian, Cuban, Syrian and Venezuelan leaders. It sounds good until he qualifies it and spoils everything. He labels these countries "rogue states," reveals his real feelings, and signals his hostility and unwillingness to establish good relations with them.
Forget Obama's friendly smile, comforting demeanor and reassuring rhetoric. Bottom line - he's no different from the rest. There's not a dime's worth of difference among them that matters. Next January, they'll be a new face in charge with the same agenda: wars without end; subservience to the monied interests; disdain for the common good; and deference to the dominant media view that Chavez is: an authoritarian, a strongman, a dictator and what Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady calls him: anti-democratic, dictatorial, vengeful, bullying, crude, unpopular, and having "an insatiable thirst for power that should give Venezuelans reason to be fearful."
Forget that under Chavez Venezuelan business is booming or how gracious he was in defeat last December after voters rejected his constitutional reforms. Petras assessed what followed. Centrist and other influential Chavez advisors jumped on the setback and "pressed their advantage to secure programmatic, tactical-strategic and organizational changes." They got him to replace over a dozen cabinet ministers and others in government with new faces sharing their views. They also, to a degree, shifted Chavez to the center, influenced him to "slow down....the move to socialisma, (establish) economic ties with the big bourgeoisie, (halt) immediate moves to nationalize strategic economic enterprises, and (move slowly) in reforming land tenure."
In addition, they got him to ally "with the middle class center-right parties, and (won) them over (by eliminating) price controls to let "basic food prices.... soar, while salaries remain stagnant." The result: a fundamental contradiction in trying to advance socialism by "liberalizing economic policy." Petras is worried that Chavez's base (the urban poor) "will lose interest, abstain or resist the centrists and withdraw their loyalties." Indignation is surfacing, loyal Chavez support may be jeopardized, and it "raises fundamental questions about the long-term future of state-class movement relations under" his leadership.
In addition, rightest forces see an opening, are pressing their advantage, Exxon's move is a warning shot, and so are reports about Colombian paramilitaries entering the country in greater numbers. More destabilization will follow, and continued efforts will be made to weaken Chavez, then try to oust him. More than ever, he needs strong support at a time it's jeopardized, and that's a worrisome situation to consider. Venezuela's Bolivarianism is glorious provided it flourishes, grows and achieves its long-term goals. It's been extraordinary so far, still has miles to go, and it's unthinkable to waiver now and pull back.
Petras alarmingly notes that when "social movements (adopt common) electoral strategies, (work) within the framework of institutional politics, and (ally) with center-left regimes....few positive reforms and numerous regressive" ones result. Will this be Venezuelans' fate? The prospect is frightening because if not Chavez, who'll lead their struggle for social equity and justice - for the nation, the region and beyond. Bolivarianism is glorious and vibrant. But to flourish, grow and prosper, it needs care and nurturing from a resolute leader backed by mass popular support.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour Mondays on RepublicBroadcasting.org from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions of world and national issues with distinguished guests.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
As one retired, progressive, US geezer to another, I tip my hat to you, Stephen. You've done a superb job of righting the balance in US coverage of Venezuelan affairs. Most of our compatriots, even those who consider themselves well-informed, know NOTHING, thanks to the corporate media, about what is really going on around them. Which suits the corporations just fine. Well done! Power to your pen! Scott Griffith.
by
Scott Griffith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 2:50:01 PM
Let's start with what I'm sure we agree on, Bush & the neocons are bad, & the US gov should stay out of venezuela's affairs. The things you cite, such as NED & covert involvement, are wrong & should end immedeately.
Where I disagree with you is on your positive asesment of Chavez. To give you some background I lived in venezuela form '93 to the begining of '00, in other words, through the forst year of Chavez administration. It was terrible. The economy contracted 19% during the first six months of '99 & hasn't recovered to '98's level of GDP even after 10 years of the red paratrooper's reign.
Corruption is still rampant in the gov there despite the fact that ending it was one of the major issues Chavez ran on in '98.
Crime is out of control in Venezuela. Murder rates have increased greatly & kidnappings are way up.
You mentioned the shorages of food, enough said about that.
Chavez has made himself a dictator ruling by decree with a rubberstamp congress giving him such power. Simón Bolívar had this to say about such a concentration of power in the executive:
"Huid del país donde uno solo ejerce todos los poderes: es un país de esclavos."
When you ad it all up, it's just another example of how socialism doesn't work, the "Bolivarian" revolution has failed.
by
Darren Wolfe (3 articles, 107 quicklinks, 73 diaries, 528 comments)
on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 6:34:16 PM
