Geopolitics and Democracy
True, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was democratically elected. But you can discern his authoritarian tendencies in the fact that he had the constitution changed to allow him to run for a second term, and currently he’s working on changing the constitution again to allow for a third term.
Oh, no, wait . . . that’s not Chavez, that’s staunch American ally and brilliant democratic leader Alvaro Uribe in Colombia. The horror.
Which just goes to illustrate a longstanding and bothersome point. In the world you’ve got your countries that are clearly democracies—South Korea, Canada, Portugal. And you’ve also got your countries that are clearly despotic—Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Burma. But you’ve also got an extremely broad class of countries, typically “middle income” countries, where they have elections and competition between political parties but also have a lot of corruption, weak state institutions, and not much in the way of an entrenched tradition of liberalism.
But lacking a good umbrella term for states that fall into this middle ground, the tendency is for the American media and political establishment to arbitrarily assign such states to either the “promising new democracy” box or “threatening incipient authoritarianism” box based primarily on geopolitical considerations. So-called “pro-American” leaders are also “democrats” whereas those alleged to be “anti-American” are “authoritarian.”
82 Responses to “Geopolitics and Democracy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 21st, 2009 at 11:30 am
where they have elections and competition between political parties but also have a lot of corruption, weak state institutions, and not much in the way of an entrenched tradition of liberalism
oh, like America, you mean?
May 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am
My understanding from my Colombian friend is that the country does actually have a long history of contested, open elections, along with frequent civil wars.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:41 am
So-called “pro-American” leaders are also “democrats” whereas those alleged to be “anti-American” are “authoritarian.”
Or rather so-called anti-American leaders are cut a TON of slack, where as pro-American leaders of democracies aren’t. This is what I see on the left.
The way to go is have everyone judged by objective standards.
My understanding from my Colombian friend is that the country does actually have a long history of contested, open elections, along with frequent civil wars.
Doesn’t matter, since Columbia is pro-American it’s judged by a different standard than Cuba or Venezuela or Burma, who are all “singled out and picked on” by the bullying Empire.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
I don’t think Uribe will do it. His defense minister wouldn’t have quit last week to start a presidential campaign if he thought Uribe wanted a third term.
There is, you know, a substantial population of people both in the two countries and in the rest of the world who believed from the start that while changing the constitution to permit an incumbent to stand for re-election was a lousy idea, it wasn’t undemocratic or a threat to institutions. In general Chavez has de-institutionalized Venezuela far more than Uribe has in Colombia, but that’s a separate issue.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am
If it’s “authoritarian” for an executive to eliminate his own term-limits then we could call New York City an authoritarian state. With Chavez, I thought the issue was more the bullying of the opposition media and so forth. (For all I know, though, the same charge could be leveled at Uribe.)
Daniel: That is true. The same can be said about Venezuela, I’ll note, at least since world war II.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:52 am
The thing to watch here is not necessarily democracy, but rule of law and the support for Western civilisation.
Chavez supporters have started resorting to thuggery (I remember a report about people on a internet petition against Chavez being chased out of their jobs), and he clearly has no appreciation for private property or private contracts. He has even less regard for Western civilisation. He doesn’t even take to wearing a suit for his office.
And there is something to be said for his bloated stature, and possible Napoleon complex. Reminds me of Goering, really.
Uribe, on the other hand, is personally clean, respects Western civilisation, and is well done up. He doesn’t look like he’s attempting to pour Western civilisation down the drain, like Chavez. And one gets the feeling that with Chavez having a grudge against our civilisation, in more than one way, he is attempting to do exactly that.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:53 am
The horror.
Waah! Colombia is different from Congo.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
South Korea was in that ‘middle class’ until about 5 minutes ago. So I wouldn’t say it has much in the way of ‘entrenched’ liberalism – but it is a little further along in that respect than ‘green shoots’
May 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Yep South Korea stopped being a Military dictatorship in 1988. A real dictatorship too, not one of these halfway states either.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
We could go back to the Kirkpatrick doctrine, as expressed during the Reagan administration. There were totalitarian regimes, and authoritarian regimes. Both of them controlled their citizens’ lives and suppressed dissent, but the authoritarians were OK because they would change someday, and the totalitarians were bad because they wouldn’t.
I was never quite sure how this worked in theory, since it required knowing the future (and had several spectacular failures in that regard, where totalitarians stepped aside after elections, and authoritarians didn’t). In practice it worked exactly as described above, where governments friendly to the U.S. getting the good label and those opposed getting the bad label.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
couldn’t, you know, America be considered one of these countries?
We certainly fit in more with the Venezuela’s of the world than we do it’s Germany’s.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
because a guy in a tropical country doesn’t wear a suit that means that he’s against Western Civilization? that’s the best you can come up with?? Please….
May 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
True, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was democratically elected. But you can discern his authoritarian tendencies in the fact that he had the constitution changed to allow him to run for a second term, and currently he’s working on changing the constitution again to allow for a third term.
Oh, no, wait . . . that’s not Chavez
Actually, yes, it is Chavez. He had the Venezualan Constitution changed in 1999 to permit a second term. And he is currently working to end term limits altogether.
But, of course, that is not the primary reason one thinks of Chavez as an authoritarian. He actually led a coup, remember. And his economic policies are certainly authoritarian. As are his policies toward the media and the opposition.
But these are all things that the left-wing, like Matthew, ignore. Primarily because the left-wing, like Matthew, are authoritarians.
Anybody who has watched Obama operate over the past few months realizes that the authoritarian tendencies of the left-wing are very much in operation right now.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
This may have been accurate six months ago, but the problem with your post Matt is you ignore the change in administrations and policy.
We now have a president who has stalled/slow-rolled the Colombia FTA over human rights concerns while he shook hands and began a dialogue with Chavez. Unlike Bush, the Obama administration is treating these two leaders on a more level playing field. Not completely equally, because there are differences between the two countries and eight years of policy inertia to overcome. But with this administration it’s certainly no longer the “with us you’re a democrat against us you’re an autocrat” dichotomy that you describe.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Not to mention Mike Bloomberg…
May 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
If it’s “authoritarian” for an executive to eliminate his own term-limits then we could call New York City an authoritarian state.
Sounds about right.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
“He has even less regard for Western civilisation. He doesn’t even take to wearing a suit for his office.
And there is something to be said for his bloated stature, and possible Napoleon complex. Reminds me of Goering, really.
Uribe, on the other hand, is personally clean, respects Western civilisation, and is well done up.”
Myles, I just wanted to say thank you. Your post gave me a good laugh. I appreciate it.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Al’s post at 13 had me worried about mine at 10, so I checked; and I’m glad to say that I’m correct. According to the Kirkpatrick doctrine, authoritarians are OK, and in fact deserve the support of the US to help them along (see: Marcos, Ferdinand). It’s the totalitarians, who stand in opposition to the authoritarians, that must be opposed.
Reagan said it, I believe it, that settles it.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Dang, you beat me to it! As an NYC resident/voter, I have already received at least two mailing regarding Mr. Bloomberg’s re-election. I will never, ever, ever vote for that man again. He changed the rules in the middle of the game, for his own benefit, and used the rubber-stamp NYC Council to ram through changes to the City Charter which had twice been voted in by the public. I have never seen a more disgusting power-grab in this city…why is there no publicity? How about it, NY Times?? You’re worried about being relevant in the 21st century, why not start running front page articles about this travesty every day from now until November!
May 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Myles,
Actually, the reason you don;t like Chavez is because he wants to put the wealth of the country of the hands of the people who actually do the work. Instead of in the hands of the oligarchic social parasites like yourself.
Those who, like yourself, seek to monopolize the wealth of the country in their own hands, and to profit from the labor of others, are despicable. They are the moral equivalent of five year olds, and should be given the same political rights as five year olds. Stripping them of their political power and political rights may be so called ‘authoritarianism’, but more importantly it is justice. As it is said, ‘error has no rights’, and neither do decadent Edwardian playboys.
Let there be two, three, many Chavezes!
May 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I get it now! “Entrenched Catholic property rights” is identical to “Western civilization” for Myles!
This goes back much further than Reagan. It’s always been the case that “pro-America”=democratic. During the French Revolution, John Adams sided with the British counterrevolutionaries because they were “more democratic”.
Democracy in America has always been 100% bullshit. It doesn’t describe a society or a system of government; it means “willing to accept American private investment”.
I’m kind of surprised that you’re just catching on to this, Matt.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
soullite said:
couldn’t, you know, America be considered one of these countries?
We certainly fit in more with the Venezuela’s of the world than we do it’s Germany’s.
Oh, please. This is the sort of reflexive anti-Americanism practised by a few goofballs that gives the left a bad name. No, the US is nothing like Venezuala in it’s government or its institutions.
Al said:
But, of course, that is not the primary reason one thinks of Chavez as an authoritarian. He actually led a coup, remember. And his economic policies are certainly authoritarian. As are his policies toward the media and the opposition.
Call him what you want, authoritarian, totalitarian, or whatever. Chavez is a thug dictator who has subverted freedom and democracy in Venezuala. There really is no disputing that. However, I don’t think you can classify any economic policies as authoritarian.
Then Al just gets silly:
But these are all things that the left-wing, like Matthew, ignore. Primarily because the left-wing, like Matthew, are authoritarians.
Anybody who has watched Obama operate over the past few months realizes that the authoritarian tendencies of the left-wing are very much in operation right now.
I know I should probably just ignore outright fantasies like this, but I fear if this kind of thing goes unrefuted someone out there might think there is some small bit of merit to what Al says.
Um, Al, do you even recall at all that the biggest beef liberals had with Bush was his authoritarian tendencies–his putting more power into the presidency, his curtailing of freedoms through domestic spying and torture and the Patriot act? And that people were excited about Obama because they thought he was going to roll all of this back?
What has Obama done that is even remotely equivalent to any of Bush’s authoritarian overreaches?
May 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
For what it’s worth, I think that the authoritarian/totalitarian distinction is a valid one, even if it can be and has been abused. (Do you think the USSR would have let Tolstoy get away with writing what he wrote under the Czars?) Of course, neither Colombia nor Venezuala is close to totalitarian; they’re probably not even authoritarian.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
What a simplistic comparison between two very different countries. I mean, hell, even Clinton considered doing that. Runnig for more terms is the least bothersome of Chavez’s shenanigans. But the left is OK with that, because BushHitler is worse.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
i remember when penny lernoux made this observation. in 1983.
did you go to college? i guess such things are shocking and worth observing if you live inside a bubble where you start from the a priori “the U.S. is always right!” and go from there. but…maybe you should read some chomsky, dude. something.
i don’t know, it just seems ineffably sad to me that a person considered an important thinker like yglesias writes this post like it’s some sort of revelation. high school. if you didn’t figure this out in high school you were not that bright.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
As far as I’m aware, the re-election of a sitting President in Latin America has never once led to a positive outcome for the country.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Luke,
Precisely. American support for so-called “freedom” and “democracy” has always been so much nonsense. Nothing more than support for those leaders who will be whores for American capitalism. The reason we don’t like Castro and Chavez is because they have been unwilling to turn their countries into whores for our benefit. Myles, of course, believes in whoredom, so it’s no surprise he doesn’t like Castro, Chavez, and Morales.
Latin America doesn’t need ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, it needs leaders who are willing to fight against oligarchic capitalism with manly vigor, and not dither around like a couple of ENglish governesses at a tea party about ‘human rights’, ‘civil society’ and I don’t know what. Only authoritarian governments of the Left can bring about a just and virtuous society in the region. It is the right and the duty of the state to try to direct its subjects towards righteousness and virtue, for it is said, “Go out in the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in”.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Oh, no, wait . . . that’s not Chavez
Actually, yes, it is Chavez. He had the Venezualan Constitution changed in 1999 to permit a second term. And he is currently working to end term limits altogether.
As usual, the point flies right over your head Al. Let me restate it for you: Matt was saying that Americans tend to gloss over or just totally ignore abuses of democracy made by leaders we’ve decided we like (Uribe) while vilifying abuses of democracy made by leaders we’ve decided we don’t like (Chavez). The actions are roughly equivalent in both cases.
Though it is amusing that you share a name with the more famous blogger (Giordano), who does in fact praise Chavez and hates Uribe for their respective economic policies. Maybe you’re his doppelganger!
May 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Myles SG writes in respect of Chavez:
“He doesn’t even take to wearing a suit for his office.”
Oh my God! He works naked? Is the little latin American strongman prone to prancing in his birthday suit!!! Good lord. Something must be done! Call out the bombers!
“And there is something to be said for his bloated stature,”
And he’s fat too!!!!!!!! Holy crap, we have to nuke him.
I love Myles SG, he can always be counted on to think in terms of inane trivialities.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Matt:
In the world you’ve got your countries that are clearly democracies—South Korea
Matt, you’re really showing your age here. South Korea and Taiwan are prime examples of countries that transitioned from military dictatorships to democracies in the late 80s, hand in hand with decades of economic growth. South Korea being democratic is a new thing.
Myles:
He has even less regard for Western civilisation. He doesn’t even take to wearing a suit for his office.
Myles, didn’t you say you considered moving to Dubai for the low taxes? So much for your regard for Western civilization.
Al:
But these are all things that the left-wing, like Matthew, ignore. Primarily because the left-wing, like Matthew, are authoritarians.
No Al, Matthew ignored them because he saw one minor point he could make and is oversimiplifying matters in a weak post. Your notion that the left-wing is authoritarian while Bush & Cheney were defenders of liberty beggars belief.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Hector,
Out of curiosity, what’s your favorite South American government? I know you’re a fan of the whole Christian benevolent authoritarian state, but I’m not up enough on the various governments there to know if any of them are close enough to your liking.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
i don’t think you can call something an insight if it’s been thought of before, ad nauseum, by a lot of other ppl. this post is a case in point, though i freely give that matt didn’t say it was an insight. that seems to be implied though.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
For what it’s worth, I think that the authoritarian/totalitarian distinction is a valid one, even if it can be and has been abused. (Do you think the USSR would have let Tolstoy get away with writing what he wrote under the Czars?) Of course, neither Colombia nor Venezuala is close to totalitarian; they’re probably not even authoritarian.
Julian, in practical terms, Ambassador Fitzpatric argued that Authoritian Regimes were superior to totalitarian regimes, or perhaps that right wing dictatorships were superior to left wing dictatorships – not because of the level of personal freedom or effective service delivery – but because authoritarian/right wing regimes were more likely to transition to Democracy.
At that time, Fitzpatrick’s cases were Spain, in which the departure of Franco lead to a transition to Democracy, versus Yugoslavia, where a departure of Tito left communism in place.
In practical terms, I think that history has shown that to be bunk. The USSR and almost all European communist countries have transitioned to Democracy. There doesn’t seem to be a basis for making meaningful distinctions.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
FreddyBak sez:
I mean, hell, even Clinton considered doing that.
Running for a third term?
Cites, please.
.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
[...] his blog, Matthew Yglesias makes a point in a post, “Geopolitics and Democracy,” that, while not explicitly about Africa, has quite clear ramifications for the way that we think [...]
May 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Korea is fairly young democracy, the early ’80s I think. And, culturally they seem rather prone to authoritarianism. By the way how about “illiberal” as a label; I always liked that one, it has a wonderful air of enlightened condescension.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
And, culturally they seem rather prone to authoritarianism.
Paging John Yoo…
May 21st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I’m not sure what the issue is with term limits. A lot of perfectly democratic countries don’t have them — the UK for example. (Margaret Thatcher was elected to three terms as prime minister.) If it’s OK to have them, and it’s OK not to have them, then it’s OK to change whether you have them, since they’re both OK. I’m not a huge fan of them in the first place (aren’t elections term limits?), but if the Colombian constitution is as hard to change as the American one, it would show by a broad consensus that the people of Colombia want to increase their participation in democracy they have by being able to reelect a president.
I suspect that, to an extent, Americans assume that our political system is the default case, and any deviations are inherently suspect. And yet, I don’t see many countries rushing to adopt an Electoral College with winner-take-all allocation of states’ votes, which leads to such undemocratic results as the winner of the popular vote losing the election.
Many countries don’t even have direct elections for the head of state or government. In the UK, the head of state is hereditary, and the head of government is traditionally appointed PM by the monarch from the largest party in the lower house of their legislature, but there is no legal requirement for that. There is no requirement that candidates live in their districts. The lower house can remove a PM at any time on a simple vote. Their upper house is mostly hereditary, and still has considerable power to block legislation. Talk about undemocratic!
May 21st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
You have some points there. But South Korea is “clearly democratic”? Excuse me while I go laugh hysterically. We can look closer to home, by the way: when Bloomberg set about to abolish – without a popular vote – term limits in NYC that had been reaffirmed by popular vote twice, this was supported by the New York Times. Weird, huh?
May 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
On the substantial point: “democratic” is not just the kind of Wittgenstein language field where you have lots of criteria, none of which are crucial but some of which are more important than others. It’s also one that’s also highly subjective in how those criteria are ranked.
On the less substantive points: Miley doesn’t like uppity brown folks like Chavez, which would be ironic if he hadn’t completely suppressed his own identity behind a living self-parody of the gentry.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Term limits are anti-democratic, no matter what the people say. They disenfranchise the incumbent’s supporters, and they are based on the (very anti-democratic) assumption that people are too stupid to vote out bad representatives.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Uribe enjoys immunity from discussion of his affiliation with drug cartels, death squads and civil rights suppressions ever since he received the “Light Unto The Nations” award from the American Jewish Committee.
No media outlet in the US dares to delve into the subject.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
My wife is Colombian and I’ve been there a couple of times over the last ten years.
Though I’m not generally a fan of right-leaning, authoritarian governments, Uribe has really delivered in Colombia. The place today is very different from Colombia in the year 2000 and he’s wildly popular with most of the people that I met. It’s far from perfect, but it has improved a lot.
It’s just a shame how he had to suck up to Bush, but without American help they’re really up sh** creek. (my favorite grafitti:”Uribe se le chupa a Bush”).
As a practical matter I believe one term only is too restrictive; two or three make more sense to me if you actually want to get something done. The challenges in Colombia are way different from the US (well, pre-Bush anyway)or other settled democracies.
Chavez in Venezuela is trying to give himself powers that have no place in a democracy by having referenda on it. So far, he’s been turned down. Trouble is, he only needs to be successful once and that’s it. In my own country, we’ve had a certain Führer who got his show on the road pretty much the same way (not that these two are in any way the same, but using democratic means to get rid of democracy isn’t exactly a new trick).
On the larger point: yes, Americans often seem to be prone to judge the rest of the world by American standards only.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Matt-
There is a term for it, look into Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way’s Work on “Competitive Authoritarian” regimes.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
To be very fair to Uribe, he is certainly less advanced and less terminal on the undemocratic, totalitarian spectrum than Chavez. Sure both of them are in the grey area, but Chavez is a lot greyer than Uribe, and that is a fact.
Liberals who deny this can only be deemed left-totalitarian sympathizers. Getting your thugs to fire people who signed a petition against you, from their jobs, is a lot more frightening than what Uribe could ever endeavor to do himself.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Wow. Ignorant amorality sure is the thing these days.
Uribe, who is indeed a very well dressed man, is personally associated with and dependent on individuals with links to right wing death squads who have killed hundreds of union activists and many journalists over the years and is chiefly committed to protecting the interests of the wealthy and preserving the horribly unequal social order. He is a genuine, unapologetic class warrior.
He is popular with Colombia’s middle and upper classes as he has, with enormous military aid and political cover from the US, once again put the poor and anyone who would dare challenge Colombia’s elite in their places.
Chavez’s chief fault in the eyes of the right wing is that he will not allow the shockingly unjust balance of power between the poor and the rich in Venezuela to continue. His political struggle against the corrupting influence of the extremely wealthy and social inequality makes him worse in your eyes than Uribe’s military struggle against the poor.
You had better hope there is not an afterlife.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Uribe, who is indeed a very well dressed man, is personally associated with and dependent on individuals with links to right wing death squads who have killed hundreds of union activists and many journalists over the years
I just have a tremendous degree of difficulty imagining such a debonair, elegant, and well-spoken man being a murdering bastard as you have described. I am not convinced that yours is an accurate representation of the facts.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:58 pm
47 is fake Myles, right?
May 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
What a relief! I was afraid you were going to call us names that actually had denotative meaning! “Objective totalitarians” would have at least had some sting, but you quickly run back across the line and stick “sympathizers” on there to drain the libel of any political significance.
Is this not completely unlike asking someone who they voted for before hiring them to fill a CPA civilian job in Iraq? Or getting your (very well dressed) “thugs” at the Justice Department to fire US Attorneys because they wouldn’t engage in partisan witchhunts?
May 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Though it pains me to send references here is the NYT on the last death squad link scandal that Uribe finessed.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E5D81331F935A25756C0A9619C8B63
Or from Uribe’s wikipedia page:
On April 22, 2008, former senator Mario Uribe Escobar, one of the Colombian President’s cousins and a close political ally, was arrested after being denied asylum at the Costa Rican embassy in Bogotá, as part of a judicial inquiry into the links between politicians and paramilitary groups. Mario Uribe has been accused of meeting with paramilitary commander Salvatore Mancuso in order to plan land seizures.[62]
And so on and so forth.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
For what it’s worth, the other big politics news items in Colombia involves stories about
(1) How 1/3 of their Congress has never been elected, but are people stepping up to fill the seats of those arrested or under investigation for being part of the conservative coalition consistently collaborating with the right wing narco-paramilitary death squads…
(2) How regional and local politicians may have basically been put into office via collaboration with those same narco-paramilitaries to extort or suborn their way into office…
and
(3) How the state secret intelligence agency through the last several Uribe-nominated chiefs (including Uribe’s former campaign manager who has been arrested and accused of ordering the murders of an academic and two labor union leaders via narco-paramilitary collaboration) have been using U.S.-provided electronic surveillance equipment to spy on the Supreme Court, prosecutors, politicians, businessmen, journalists, and rights activists.
The latter is so bad that Colombia’s Supreme Court justices have requested additional protection from the United Nations office regarding independent judiciaries.
Maybe someone out there can accuse Hugo Chavez of these sorts of systematic crimes against democracy, but no one has yet.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The latter is so bad that Colombia’s Supreme Court justices have requested additional protection from the United Nations office regarding independent judiciaries.
Maybe someone out there can accuse Hugo Chavez of these sorts of systematic crimes against democracy, but no one has yet.
Precisely the reverse. The situation is so bad in Venezuela, and the personal liberty and safety of members of the judiciary so under the thumb of Chavez’s force, that they daren’t even ask for United Nations protection, unlike the Columbian justices who at least dare to do so publicly, without fear of retribution.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Totalitarianism assumes control over every single aspect of your life, as Chavez is fast attempting to do.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
And I need not point out the incredible stupidity of older generation of liberals who idolized Stalin and the Soviet Union, and in fact libeled those who dared to expose the Communist menace.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Myles SG: Precisely the reverse. The situation is so bad in Venezuela, and the personal liberty and safety of members of the judiciary so under the thumb of Chavez’s force, that they daren’t even ask for United Nations protection, unlike the Columbian justices who at least dare to do so publicly, without fear of retribution.
Bravo Myles, your attempt to fight the narrative supported by the available facts with the sheer force of your imagination is heroically deluded.
You have to be a prank by a collection of philosophy students. Admit it. I’ve got you.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Bravo Myles, your attempt to fight the narrative supported by the available facts with the sheer force of your imagination is heroically deluded.
Was this not the same line of reasoning liberals and socialists used to justify their disbelief that Stalin was a thuggish murderer? That there are no “facts” to prove that Moscow Show Trials were indeed, show trials? That there are no “facts” to justify the assertion that the NKVD was a murderous organization? That there are no “facts” to justify the observation that the Spanish Republicans had been taken over by Soviet-satellite Communists?
Plus ca change.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
And if indeed as Chavez’s supporters (aka thugs) have terrorised people out of their jobs (a proven fact, please refer to BBC), what makes one think they should not be doing the same to people in higher positions, aka members of the judiciary?
May 21st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Even in the US, when Roosevelt tried to throw Andrew Carnegie in prison with (what are now universally acknowledged to be ) sham and politically motivated tax charges, was the same thuggish instinct evident?
May 21st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Look, Myles, if you have any evidence of Hugo Chavez doing similar things as has Colombia’s government, out with it.
It’s not a response to invent invisible evidence you insist must be there, and then whine STALIN!
Stalin, for one (and whatever Chavez may do in the future), did not allow the bourgeois, rightist, anti-Chavez, pro-overthrow publishers (and broadcasters) to continue to clamor for the government’s replacement or overthrow for this amount of time.
You’re a complete, asphalt-filled head idiot.
Certainly, there is serious credit to be given to the strength of many Colombians so dedicated to democracy that they resist the continual rise of a mafia state justified by warfare against narco-guerillas.
But, again, your word and your opinion and your intuition count for squat.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Here is the English-language version of one of the largest Venezuelan daily newspapers, El Universal, which publishes every day and is filled with vehemently anti-government and anti-Chavez articles and opinion pieces every single day.
Chavez may very well be trending toward an authoritarian mean. Still, in Colombia, the narco-paramilitaries simply kill or threaten to kill via public notices dissident journalists and human rights activists.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Myles, I am forced to once again point out that your theories do not have a significant number of facts or references to support them which makes them compare unfavorably with theories that do incorporate the body accepted facts known as the real world.
I know, I know – people denied that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and supported Al Quaeda and looks who’s laughing now. They claimed green house gases were contributing to global warming, they said cigarettes caused cancer. Fools.
You stood firm against these liberals and full square for personal freedom from the totalitarian chains of reason.
God bless America.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I’m fairly astonished that a thread about Chavez’s authoritarian tendencies has gone on this long without anyone mentioning the 2002 attempt to overthrow him. Considering the US’s history of toppling Latin American governments it doesn’t like, you can understand why he might be a bit paranoid. It’s well-established that the Castro regime was so repressive because he didn’t want to end up like Arbenz.
And Myles, your account of history is comically inaccurate. Postwar liberals like Humphrey and McCarthy made names for themselves by expelling Communist sympathizers from the Democratic Party.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Enough fun. If anyone is still reading please accept that Uribe and Chavez are not comparable.
Chavez is an idealist trying to effect real social reform and improve life for the worst off in society at the expense of the well off and Uribe is trying to do the reverse. Now as Americans you can decide that at least Uribe is your bastard but do not embarrass yourselves by arguing that the two men are morally equivalent because Chavez wants another term as president and Uribe might be happy for someone exactly like him to take his place.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Chavez is an idealist trying to effect real social reform and improve life for the worst off in society at the expense of the well off and Uribe is trying to do the reverse.
Suffice to say, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao were idealists also. That’s not a justification. That’s not even close to being a justification.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Heck, Che Guevera was an idealist too. He also happened to be a murderer.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Heck, Che Guevera was an idealist too. He also happened to be a murderer.
Even worse, he often appeared in public wearing combat fatigues rather than a finely tailored suit.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Even worse, he often appeared in public wearing combat fatigues rather than a finely tailored suit.
Look, I have nothing against military dress. I am in fact, a very devout believer in a strong Army (in line with the Army, Church, State philosophy); I am a vehement supporter of military glory and military display. However, it’s one thing to wear combat fatigues in official occasions, and another to wear dress parade uniforms. Leaders have an option of wear either a tailored suit, or a tailored army dress uniform. Pick one and stick with it.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
By the way, Armani suits were designed precisely for men with physical statures like that of Fidel Castro. He should try one on sometime.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
This is why people often come to the conclusion that you’re just a made-up parody.
You whine about things like that rich Western parents don’t give their children enough money and with the verve of Dubai; and you think it’s somehow a bold statement to say that while, no, you have no intentions of actually serving in the military, you do like a nice marching band, so there, lefties.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 am
Let me be clear: I view Dubai as the continuation, the passing of the flame, so on, of Western civilization. The Western civilization, in the actual West, has become flabby, apologetic, and guilt-ridden; i.e. utter bosh. Western civilization in our part of the world has become a parody, a sort of constant object of abuse by feminist studies professors, sociology professors (with Marxist sympathies), guilt-ridden liberals, “empathy”, and so forth.
Let us remember that this is the civilization that, even as early as the early to mid XVII century, produced art as great as the the Baroque Counter-Reformation, the Don Quixote of Cervantes, and the ballets and operas of Jean-Baptiste Lully. In no other civilization has remotely comparable achievements been accomplished; no Kabuki theater is the equivalent of a Lully opera or ballet. Why we are creating this great era for “colonialism” and other utter bosh instead of celebrating its incredible cultural uplift, is quite beyond me.
The Bedouin Arabs have no such cowardly inhibition. They have no such laughable guilt about such nebulous concepts as “colonialism” or “imperialism”. They are proud of achievement, and might. I salute them. Dubai, men, is the new Constantinople.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 am
In fact, Dubai’s sheikh attends the Epsom Derby, another of the achievements of our civilization, regularly. What’s the last time an American president has showed up at the Kentucky Derby? Or even a British PM at the Ascot? Or a President de la Republique Francaise, at the Prix de l’Arc?
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
Bloomberg’s done more than just undemocratically repeal term limits, he had his 40,000 strong band of thugs (otherwise known as the NYPD) look up 2000 American citzens without charge and keep them in a cage for a week.
As for Chavez, I see a lot of assertions that he’s authoritarian, but never any citations of examples of things he’s done. As far as I can see it’s that he tried to lead a coup a decade ago, he tried to repeal term limits, and he didn’t renew the broadcast license of a TV station actively collaborating with a foreign power against his government.
Hell, the USA just locked up some poor sap on Staten Island for 10 years just for selling the rights to Hezbollah TV. Chavez has done nothing remotely comparable to this. There’s no Gitmo in Venezuala. Chavez doesn’t waterboard his political opponents. Venezuala doesn’t murder foreign journalists the way the USA did in Iraq to Al Jazeera. It doesn’t lock foreign journalists up for years in concentration camps the way they did to Sami El Haj.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 am
In no other civilization has remotely comparable achievements been accomplished
This reminds me of the Native American activist who responded to being pummeled with the “achievements of western civilization” with the observation that “western civilization” also managed to create a city (Cleveland) which had rivers that burst into flames. He vowed to try to be more civilized but despaired over the idea that nowhere in native American history had any tribe managed to create an inflammable river.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 am
I’m fairly astonished that a thread about Chavez’s authoritarian tendencies has gone on this long without anyone mentioning the 2002 attempt to overthrow him.
Ya think?
You know, sometimes I think the way Chavez could really, really, really stick it to the USA would be to encourage the Castro brothers to hold elections in Cuba.
The argument Castro’s always made is that a free press and elections in Cuba would just mean the USA could flood the country with money and propaganda and buy the election. But now with the US fairly week, you could have a coalition of Latin American countries (and leftist presidents) who could move to counter it. If the USA floods Cuba with money, Chavez could counter it with some of that oil money.
Probably won’t happen though.
But what I can hope for is maybe over the next few years to here the right start screaming about Obama as a “dictator” and an “authoritarian.”
You know what would do it? If Obama tried to bring back the Eisenhower levels of progressive taxation. Oh that would really lead to a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth.
Probably won’t happen either.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 am
As others have said, South Korea is not in the same group as Canada. Matt has made a few remarks about Korea (e.g. praising its education system) that indicate his ignorance of the country. Which isn’t a bad thing, exactly, but it’s worrisome if he’s unaware of his ignorance.
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
As others have said, South Korea is not in the same group as Canada.
Actually South Korea probably has a more sophisticated, well developed civil society than Canada does. That’s what allowed them to break the American supported dictatorship. Of course, unlike Canada, South Korea is under occupation by American troops.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
OK.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
Myles,
Che Guevara executed people, for real crimes, who had been agents of a foul oligarchic tyranny. People have tried and failed to find a single example of a man who was known to be innocent who Guevara executed. He was no more a ‘murderer’ than the French Resistance, who executed 10,000 Vichy collaborators. Indeed, like De Gaulle he served as an avenging angel for the cause of justice. Oh but I forgot, you’re a fan of the Vichy under its leader “Pussy” Petain, the biggest coward France has seen in a century. So you probably thing De Gaulle was a murderer, too. You Edwardian fascist pricks are all the same.
Let’s see, in Myles book Chavez, Castro and Guevara are bad, while Petain, the Bangkok whoremongers, and effete Dubai sheiks are good. What a tool.
Adam,
My ideal would be General Velasco, the military dictator of Peru between 1968 and 1975. If South America was ruled by a dozen Velascos today, things would be good. Chavez is great though. My only complaints about him have to do with there being too much luxury consumption, not enough investment in factories and domestic industry (although there is a decent emount) and too soft a stance on domestic law and order.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I don’t think, Hector, that you understand much about Western civilization. Let me express myself clearly: it is the Renaissance and the Age of Empires, which are the basis of all that is great in our society, not some obscure shepherd from the Levant, that I am talking about. Christianity has been successful insofar as it has been able to fuse the wisdom of the Romans and the Greeks with the mutterings of Jesus. The really nice, and probably the most seminal doctrinal innovation of Christianity, that which was essential to making progress possible, was the concept of original sin and human imperfectibility; that is the real kicker, more than any ludicrous Commmandment from some hill. I do observe that the Stoics are almost getting there in terms of that doctrine, although not quite there and not quite explicit enough.
I am not sure you at all understand the human imperfectibility part. Jesus, I can’t believe I am talking to a leftist Jesus-freak. This is worse than a Liberation theologician. At least you can line up the Liberation fools and throw them out of airplanes.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] Martin has an important corollary to what I was saying yesterday about deciding which countries are democracies based on their view of US geopolitical power. As he says, in the Persian Gulf region there’s really no regime you could plausibly try to [...]
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
What’s funny is that Sir Miles of the Grand Baroque Offspring Beneficiary League SG (R-Dubai) and Saint Hector Beausant of the Revolutionary Government really have a great deal in common in their outlook, particularly their need to lead the disciplined peasants, far more than they both imagine.
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
Myles,
Yes, its typical that you would take inspiration from th Argentine butchers who threw liberation theologicans out of airplanes. Or from the Salvadorans who sent death squads to get rid of them. You prick, Christianity is not meant to be ‘useful’ according to your late-Edwardian tastes, it is meant to be true, and it is. When Jesus said, “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon”, he was speaking the truth, and you would do well to remember it. Otherwise, this what awaits you: “And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse.”