Nice article

and factual regarding the lust for oil. But,your prose is light on history and macro economics. Roosevelt did not leave office due to term limits, he left because he was dead. There were no term limits at that time and the same was enacted due to Roosevelt remaining in office for 13 years.

Your praise continues for Bill Clinton as potential dictator, who left office only slightly before the U.S. took a $2 Trillion haircut from the collapse of the maligned dot-com bust.

Your promotion of a dictatorship is certainly your prerogative, as you have free speech and the freedom of the press...unless of course you were living under a dictator who unilaterally chose to end those practices, which is normally the case.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 560 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 10:16:13 AM
 

ever here of tongue in cheek?

I d not pretend to speak for the author but it seems more than obvious that Mr. Palast was not suggesting Clinton should be a dictator, nor was he supporting Chavezs' seeming attempt to acquire dictatorial power.

I have read quite a lot from Greg Palast and apparently you havent or you would not make such assumptions. Or were they tongue in cheek as well?

During Clinton's Presidency we saw a balanced budget and a paydown of the national debt, two things I will praise him for though he was far too much like Ronnie Reagan for my taste. I guess the GOP will never get over Clintonophobia.......blame him for sunspots, solar flares and global warming too, oh wait that last is a myth is it not?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 4:00:26 PM
 

Chavez Tactics Can't Work Here

It is unfortunate that the USA won't be able to adapt many of Venezuela's social solutions to conditions here.  Owing to the flight of our productive industry to other countries,  the debasment of our currency, the looting of our treasury by corrupt government officials and their patrons, and the debilitating cost of our largely unsuccessful military adventures around the world, we are simply too poor to accomplish much for our citizens. 

by Steve Fournier (31 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 41 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 2:21:38 PM
 

Steve

The biggest impedement to Chevaz's tactics in the US the nation abject terror of all things that  remotely sound/look/ smell like socialism or more specifically anything that isn't 100% Capitalism.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:33:46 PM
 

Greg, interesting article

Unlike the above commenter I understand your point that if a US president had continued had continued to run after changing the law would he have been labeled a tyrant. You’re right to suggest he wouldn’t have received that criticism.

My concern is two fold.  Firstly, after reading web sites of both persuasions over a lengthy period I am confronted by one seeming overwhelming factor that neither side of the political divide is happy with the US system of democracy. Both sides seem to hate those in the Congress with such ferocity and in one case on this site an author is all but advocating violence. With such universal internal condemnation one is entitled ask why then does successive US governments see themselves as the cultivator of US style governments around the world? Especially in some cases using force….also a universal accepted failure.

“It’s the oil stupid!”  I hear many cry. And that may well be true but it seems to me to be more.

Secondly the problem seems to be more fundamental. Internationally it’s viewed as American Arrogance. There is in the US an apparent attitude that runs that “we’ are the leaders of the free world” therefore we are entitled to enforce our wishes no matter how badly implemented and no matter how much harm it does to the world….. we are America. When criticized the hackles go up and aggressive irrational and often fact free defense mode comes in. There is a perceivable element of this in the preceding comment.  In that the author deliberately miss interpreted a reasonable comment and ignored the height of alleged indictment ie Chavez offers no plausible threat to the US power land or sovereignty. The allegation is that powerful elements in the US hierarchy plot/ed to assassinate/overthrow a leader of another sovereign country, oil or no oil.  Unfortunately previous US adventures add an air of plausability for the rest of whe world.

 It shouldn’t be up to America to defend Exxon’s profit margins certainly to the degree of regime interference. Regardless of if Chavez is a dictator/tyrant it is not up to the USA to interfere.

It is clearly time that America took stock of its foreign policy limiting it to real and demonstrable threats on its National and not Business interests. That does not include corporate control of world oil….Global warming alone dictates that the US work toward alternative energy sources and dare I say it…… Moderation  of its disproportional/excessive consumption of the world resources. Given the fact that the US Economy is not now or will not be in the near future the largest economy in the world perhaps end your days as the world’s only super power might be in sight.

And then what? Will the Chickens come home to roost?

Author’s note: I will respond to argument but not abuse of emotional attack…

P.S. Neither am I anti USA just a n observer of the obvious.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:29:43 PM
 

Chavez

It may be worth a mention that almost 100 countries world-wide have no term limits. It is called Parliamentary Democracy. It is also worthy to mention that there were 69 measures being voted on and only one (1) was declined by the voters. At no point in history in any Parliamentary System of Democracy was the Leader appointed by a panel of Judges, leaving the voting public in the cold. What fearless "democracy" had their leader appointed in 2000?

by IwasJulius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:30:19 PM
 

True well said

I have often wondered how effective (in touch) a parliamentary Govt. is after 3 terms. Take the Australian case and the  stagnation that occured in the Menzies era after three terms in office the Playford, Bolte and Joh eras, Hawk Keating and finally Howard eras.In the latter case Howard whether it was that he gained power in both houses or he lost the plot  I'm not sure but 3 terms seems to be the limit. they all seemed to become arrogant and overtly ideological. What do you think?

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:59:21 PM
 

Referendum tactic

What I'd like to know and haven't been able to find out is why all the questions appeared on one ballot. Advocates of referendum measures usually put them up one at a time on the theory that they have a better chance of passage. With multiple questions on the ballot, an objection to one measure becomes a vote against all.  Seems as if some might have passed if they'd been voted on alone. 

by Steve Fournier (31 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 41 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:43:30 PM
 

A sign of overconfidence perhaps?

I, too, had that same thought but perhaps Chavez will do exactly that next time. He has, sadly, noted that he will not change a thing and put the referendum forward intact next year again. Maybe cooler heads will prevail.

I wish he'd delete the extension of the term of office for himself though.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments) on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 12:56:16 PM
 

Not so Much!!!!

I am politically naive about a lot of things, so bear with me. Mr Palast loved your article and Chavez may be showing true courage with such a bold move. He gambled and he lost  and bowed to the will of the people. Novel Idea! So far he has issued no signing statements to alter laws as our president has does regularly. Now I really do not understand Capitalism? It seems like survivalism under this administration and republican rule. Survival of the meanist and greediest. The weak must perish as the rich walk over the bodies. The laws of supply and demand often are too rigged to be just. But what do I know?  Capitalism and the Law of the Jungle must appeal to a lot of people. I thought humans had progressed a bit more, but I guess not so much.

by cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 11:03:04 PM
 

That spin is not going to work

Chavez doesn't get his precious referendum, and that's a defeat for the Bush administration? Eh??? Nice try.

Just last week, Chavez was calling people who don't support him "traitors". Well, that tactic didn't get him a "si" vote, did it? Congrats to the people of Venezuela.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 406 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 11:27:29 PM
 

Another fine piece of work, Mr. Palast

I'm familiar with some of your other work from previous times when I have visited Truthout.org. (Mostly, I like Truthout.org because it's an excellent site for gathering stories from major newspapers around the world, albeit that their slant is almost invariably American Liberal, particularly in regard to guest editorial writers.)

I was struck by one short paragraph - mainly, I confess, because it gave me the opportunity to comment:

"Why is the Bush crew so bonkers about Hugo? Is it because Venezuela sits on the world’s largest reserve of coconuts?"

I think you know very well the answer to your own question, as it would essentially be the same answer as to why America has intervened in the affairs of South and Central American countries (and Haiti) 55 times since 1890, both militarily and, subsequent to the National Security Act in 1947, covertly.

To be fair to Bush (in this rare circumstance where such considerations would even enter my head), this is hardly a policy or attitude unique to the Bush administration. Nor even to republicans. This has been the universal response of the United States to democratic movements of any kind in Central or South America over the time span I mention.

One might as well ask why the United States would want to intervene covertly for the purpose of organizing a coup against a democratically elected government of Guatamala in 1954. After all, that government was not communist and the leader actually admired the American political system, especially FDR, and wished to emulate many American political processes because they had been so successful for the country. It seems that the main provocation at the time was that the fellow wanted specifically to emulate the United States' Homestead Act of 1862 (a law that continued in practice until 1976) in redistributing unusued Guatamalan land.

Or one might as well ask why the USA would have any desire to interfere in the only democratically elected government that Iran ever had, at least before the late 20th century. Of course, this was actually a British prompted action on behalf of BP, which was then known as the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company), which was upset that its embargo on Iranian exports and the forbidding of British oil technicians to work on Iranian oil wells (the Iranians themselves were disastrously unskilled) still permitted the Iranian government to profit more from oil than they ever had under the 16 or 17% oil profits permitted them from the original 1901 60-year contract made with British oil. Of course, when the US became involved, BP had to share with five American oil companies, plus a few others such as the French. (Incidentally, to his credit, Truman turned down the Brits on the same request. When they later approached Eisenhower, they included the oh-so-alarming possibility of Iranian-Soviet ties [Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!] in their successful appeal.)

Actually, if I may digress, it distresses me that for all the bottomless column inches devoted to the war in Iraq by its detractors, I rarely see anything about one of the primary US goals for success in Iraq, which is the passage of an oil bill which has similar provisions. Do we think these people will stay stupid forever? Are we truly to be so surprised that the Iraqi government comes to a standstill because they refuse to pass this bill?

Anyway, we do not do all that interference for oil, albeit that one of my examples is related to oil. We have very solid reasons, as a country, for not wanting to see our neighbors attain democracy, self-actualization and independence. America can't stand what's happening in Venezuela primarily because it terrifies them. Oil is second to that.

One really interesting thing about Venezuela is that aside from nationalizing Oil, Chavez has by and large not interfered with the mercantile class, who dispise him en masse. Even more interesting, he has not interfered with the Venezuelan mass media, who are owned and run very much like our own - by corporations. The television stations in Venezuela are regularly filled with the most vituperative and vicious campaigns against Chavez. Yet still he remains hugely popular among the vast majority poor. And it's not because he is redistributing wealth - he's not - but because he gives them hope and dignity; he gives them the opportunity for education and he gives them healthcare.

Now, he's not perfect, obviously. Who is. I'm sure any astute and informed observer could find no end of legitimate complaints about that man. But really, doesn't that sort of miss the point? Our concern should be with our policies and national assumptions, should it not?

I would love to see more discussion about these matters in general. We all get so tied up in the current issues that we forget, I think, to tie our questions and observations into the broader context. (Except, of course, when it comes to books, but personally I'd like to see more of such discussion on the internet as well.) And those who do usually have pronounced philosophical biases in their viewpoints.

Well, I don't want to talk forever (all appearances to the contrary), so again, that was a fine article. I enjoy your writing, not only for informative content, but also for style. Thank you.

by Terry (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 12:56:08 PM