|
Over the past decade, few world leaders have been as internationally controversial as Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez. A constant thorn in the side of George W. Bush, and seen by some on the left as a hero and trendsetter, who is the real Chavez? Is he the "wacko" dictator with a monopoly on oil, or the brilliant strategist of social reforms and savior to the poor?
After speaking with Brian Nelson, author of The Silence and the Scorpion, available now, only one conclusion can be made: neither side is completely right or wrong; Chavez is both the miracle and the demon they proclaim him to be.
During the Bush years, Chavez was known for calling our president "the devil" and was in turn referred to as a "wacko" and a dictator. Certainly, Chavez is not crazy, and he is no dictator. His attempts to extend his term limits and influence may be a clear power grab, but they are not strictly speaking the definition of a dictator. In contrast, Bush pushed executive power to limits never before seen in America – with Obama following right behind – and until relatively recently, our leaders could be elected indefinitely. Had he not died, Franklin Roosevelt would easily have served a staggering 16 years. Neither friend nor foe of the New Deal would call Roosevelt totalitarian.
The corruption in Venezuela is pointed out by critics as an ominous sign, and they are right. But when put in context, it comes across as much less severe than first thought. Nelson says that "Venezuela was obscenely corrupt before Chávez came to power; yet, somewhat incredibly, it is even more corrupt now." Estimates have shifted Venezuela from the fourth to the first most corrupt Latin American country over the past decade. Some of this is clearly due to Chavez. Some must be blamed on the huge influx of oil into an already corrupt system. Had anyone else taken his place, they could predictably have been just as corrupt. Of course, this is no real defense and corruption should not be tolerated even if the reasons are understandable.
Chavez's verbal attacks on Bush and American foreign policy were globally popular and factually correct. Bush symbolized "unilateralism, interventionism, and, well, imperialism." Of course, Obama is the same in many ways, just as Clinton was much the same before Bush. If Chavez is to be accused of being unfair, that is a true observation: not because his criticisms were wrong, but because he has refused to apply them to the current administration. Why has he not? Obama is too popular of a target, and the hope remains that he will reverse the worst of Bush's policies. Attacking Bush gained Chavez recognition, but haranguing Obama for the same mistakes would be political suicide.
While there is a gut reaction from many to criticize "socialist" programs, there is a difference between socialism and fascism that should be made clear: the fascists are happy to let the underclasses die from easily treatable problems, whereas the socialists accept that all people should be given a fair chance. Some of Chavez's programs include providing school children with free lunches and getting accessible health care into the poorest neighborhoods. Giving children their daily nutritional needs – not to mention education – is not only far from extremist, it's financially sensible. A low-cost meal now will prevent expensive medical bills down the road. Yes, people are given money they have not "earned," but end up giving back so much more in the long run.
Anyone who saw Chavez as a threat to America was propping up a straw man. Venezuela needs America as much as we need them – oil is worthless if there are no buyers. We could singlehandedly crush Venezuela by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, although I think with the reaction to the BP crisis we all know the reality of that. His push for the spread of socialism will not succeed if the other countries don't want it, and even his ties to rebel groups like the anti-Colombian FARC pose little threat outside the region, and we could just as easily criticize Colombia for their own use of guerilla fighters. Ultimately, that is not America's problem.
But those on the left (Democrats, socialists, Greens, etc.) may not want to sing Chavez's praises. As Nelson points out, there are actually two "lefts": the liberal left and the extremist left. Chavez "is part of a more radical tradition that believes in bringing about revolution using any and all means necessary – regardless of the oppression and human rights violations that occur along the way." While those on the left, myself included, are focused on opposing war and promoting better health care, we would never dream of throwing rights under the bus or mounting an armed revolution.
Chavez has repeatedly shown his disdain for freedom of speech and expression. While some legitimate arguments may exist for attacking the media, his crackdowns have generally been with one purpose in mind: to protect his image. The pro-Chavez outlets are little more than propaganda and the anti-Chavez ones, which he has called "fascist" are generally moderate, maybe even fair. Chavez has even criticized Michael Moore for relatively benign comments. Nelson sums this up succinctly: "When you are so far on the left that you’re attacking Michael Moore, something is seriously wrong."
In April 2002, when a coup seemed imminent, Chavez called for "Plan Avila," essentially a backup plan that turns the national guard on the citizens of Venezuela. While Chavez survived the coup and went on to be fairly re-elected, suggesting the people forgave him, is there really a time to open fire on non-violent political protest? America recently "celebrated" the 40th anniversary of the Kent State shootings in Ohio and we learned firsthand that the use of force only justifies the protests. The exact death toll and casualty list in 2002 remains speculative, but even the lowest estimates are unforgivable.
And Venezuela's economy has had the side effect of unbelievable inflation with up to 30 percent increases annually and now relies on oil for 93% of its export income. Should oil sales disappear, the whole country stands to collapse right behind it. Again though, as mentioned above, the sales seem inevitable.
The ins and odds of the Chavez presidency are multilayered and complex; to fully analyze them in a single column would be impossible. But even on the surface, the evidence is clear: the man is no saint. For every good project he has brought to Venezuela, another scandal has followed. Nepotism and corruption are commonplace. Could we argue that another person in his position would be as bad or worse? That is a possibility, but is no excuse for bad behavior. The few on the American left who cling tenaciously to Chavez must let go, just as the right – aside from crackpots like Glenn Beck – seem to have forgotten him. Chavez was a great brown hope that became a greater brown stain.
For an extensive interview between Gavin Schmitt (
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
) and Brian Nelson, see framingbusiness.net
Let’s prove Stack wrong
When analyzing a terrorist attack, it is useful, though unpopular, to separate the criminal’s actions from his motives. Most people who perform violent actions are not crazy or have irrational beliefs like “hating our freedom.”
Osama bin Laden’s actions were horrendous and unforgivable, but his stated reasons for hating America were rational enough: our support of the Israeli attacks against Palestinians, our basing American troops in Saudi Arabia and other so-called offenses. Had we not been doing these things, the attacks very likely would never have come about. Incidentally, we are still following the same path, making future attacks likely.
On Feb. 18 of this year, we had a domestic terrorist attack in Texas, where a small plane was crashed into an IRS office. And like many before him, Andrew Joseph “Joe” Stack left a “manifesto” outlining his grievances. Again, while there is no justification for his violent actions, this does not detract from the fact that Stack had legitimate concerns that went unheeded. For the course of this article, I will go through his concerns. Many are not easily verifiable, and I urge readers to be aware that while there is no reason to doubt his account, there’s no guarantee his view is completely accurate.
Stack’s final words sum up his entire position: “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” But don’t be fooled; he was not some left-wing, anti-corporate nutcase. Joe Stack tried as hard as anyone to achieve the American Dream, but found that for some of us, the system overrules the best of attempts.
He first learned about the struggles of the poor in college, where his “neighbor was an elderly retired woman ... who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union .. raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.”
The old woman was “eating cat food” for nutrition, making his peanut butter and ramen look more luxurious.
After college, with the help of some of the best tax lawyers, Stack pursued tax exemptions in the same manner that big business and the churches do. It backfired. “That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0.”
Thanks to “the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen ... and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.” In short, this amendment made it so engineers, designers, drafters, computer programmers and systems analysts could not bill clients for various services, making them “non-citizen slaves,” to use Stack’s term.
The IRS told Stack “they weren’t going to enforce that provision”, but they did. And when the economy of early ’90s Los Angeles took a dive, not even his 100-hour workweeks could save him. Not being able to pass the costs on to his clients, or getting audited if he did, left him in a career that could not prosper.
For the third decade in a row, financial hardship hit. When 9/11 struck, Stack could not affordably get access to his customers because airports were closed and San Francisco was deemed a “special” facility. After this was over, “the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars” but did nothing to aid or compensate those who suffered from loss of air travel.
Moving to Austin to avoid the problems of California, Stack found a new problem keeping him from independently earning a living: “pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages,” and he was forced to cash out the last of his retirement and IRA.
The sad truth is that the “free market” does not favor the self-employed or the small business, but only the corporations who get ahead with help from government subsidies.
Stack turned to a CPA, thinking that professional assistance would cover his backside. However, the accountant neglected to inventory almost $13,000 of Stack’s wife’s income, and when an audit came, this was a serious issue. Of course, the CPA was not found to be at fault, and his “assistance” proved not only worthless but counterproductive. This may have been the last straw.
Turning to finance and politics in general, Stack believed the government’s answer to financial crisis is to rely on the middle class to bail out the wealthy. Once upon a time, “wealthy bankers and businessmen (were) jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything” but “now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.” He is referring, of course, to the “too big too fail” bank bailouts.
“Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities ... and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies.”
Stack found the solution to be more violence, not government. “I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.”
He felt that “by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change.” Why? Because nothing “changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough).” In conclusion, “Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.”
I want very much for Joe Stack to be wrong on this point; I believe the government can make a difference if we give them the pressure they need to find the political will. He is, of course, not entirely wrong: it is the shock of tragedy that compels people – both politicians and not – to make big decisions. But we cannot justify violence against innocent people if the ends can be reached peacefully.
Together, we must all prove Stack wrong; we must correct our mistakes and move America forward without tragedy to guide us. |
