Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 51 Comments
This post is in: Site Maintenance
Frank Rich will have some people talking.
Bonus points to the reader who can find someone arguing Rich is wrong because “we are at a time of war and thus, special circumstances dictate what happens,” and thus completely miss Rich’s point. My money is on Red State. But then again, that is usually a safe bet.
Comments are closed.
Can we put the inmates back in the asylum?
There is some nuance necessary, I think, but this Frank Rich editorial is pitch perfect on the situation in Pakistan and how it too closely mirrors the United States. There’s too much goodness to excerpt any particular part as the…
Walker
Daaaaaamn. That’s got to hurt.
ding7777
Bush may not jail lawyers en masse but he does jail them.
Lynne Stewart and Brandon Mayfield come to mind
Wilfred
Mukasey successfully had William Kunstler removed as defense attorney in the first WTC case, after Kunstler questioned the appropriateness of having an Orthodox Jew and avowed Zionist sitting in judgment of Muslims accused of terrorism. Now he’s the Attorney General and who, pray tell, are going to be the victims of water-boarding.
Anybody who gives a shit about church-state separation, the Patriot Act, and civil liberties, should take a look at this article and ask themselves why none of it was mentioned:
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/2007/09/what_exactly_ma.php
RSA
Goddamned Democratic enablers. I’m getting tired of supporting a party because “They’re better than the Republicans,” as much as I believe that’s true.
On the Musharraf situation: I was listening to one of his spokesmen on NPR a few nights ago, and he was getting a lot of mileage out of comparisons to the U.S. tightening security after 9/11. Jesus.
Elvis Elvisberg
“Suspect Device,” an old Stiff Little Fingers song, has the line, “they take away our freedom in the name of liberty.”
It’s different in the US today. They take away our liberty in the name of freedom.
It’s not just Pakistan citing the US, of course. Zimbabwe did it too.
City on a hill.
ImJohnGalt
Wow, that’s some seriously good editorial. Is Frank Rich the Luther of our time? Where’s the nearest church door? This thing needs to be nailed up somewhere.
ThymeZone
While I generally don’t buy the “Dems caved” theme, on this one, I have to agree. Pathetic performance.
jake
Since this is an OT
Hey kids, Happy Veterans Day! Today’s the day we remember all of the men and women who’ve fought to protect your freedoms…
OK, that’s enough. ‘Cos now, it’s time to play Tweak The Constitution!
I bet you can’t guess which long-established right we’re going to stick in the blender today!
Well, I’ll give you a hint. It’s something the world had never seen BeFORE
Cinderella Ferret
Orwell comes to mind every time someone mentions or writes about the former Cheerleader, his gang of war criminals, and the appeasers in the Democratic Leadership. On this Veteran’s Day we dishonor all veteran’s and their service if we allow the “leadership” of this country to continue down this Road to Perdition. Disgrace and disaster in a time of Fear blend a cocktail that aids the rise of a Fascist State.
Honor all Vets by voting for candidates who want to restore the 4th Amendment, habeas corpus and end the Imperial Presidency forever. The next President must promise to restore these important principles.
ThymeZone
Well Jakester, IANAL, and thank Dog for that, but isn’t privacy one of the murkier areas of the law?
Is anonymity an essential part of privacy, and if it isn’t, then what properties of privacy are in fact essential?
And more to the point, how does the law operate in this murky brew?
Isn’t it true that technology and transportable information have exposed real weaknesses in the area of privacy law, and at the same time, created the need for more clarity in the law in a context where there never has been much clarity to begin with?
And finally, doesn’t the WarrenTerra force us to confront and clear up this murky mess? Sort of?
Chris Johnson
Too right, Mr. Rich.
ATS
Here, by far, is most compelling story this AM:
“SANTIAGO, Chile: King Juan Carlos of Spain told the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, to “just shut up”, bringing an Ibero-American summit to end in spectacular fashion.
“Spain’s monarch stormed out just before the scheduled end of the forum on Saturday, furious at Mr Chavez’s description of his former prime minister as a “fascist” and for launching a wide-ranging tirade that could not be stopped.
The dispute was a dramatic finale for the 17th meeting of the heads of state and government of Spain, Portugal and Andorra, and the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries of Latin America.
“The notoriously hotheaded Mr Chavez earnt the ire of the Spanish delegation when he arrived on Friday. His description of Spain’s former conservative prime minister Jose Maria Aznar as a “fascist” prompted the current Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to ask Mr Chavez to show more “respect”.
“But Mr Chavez forged on, and on Saturday repeated the contentious f-word in relation to Mr Aznar, adding: “A fascist isn’t human, a snake is more human than a fascist.” An irate King Juan Carlos then stepped in, telling Mr Chavez: “Why don’t you just shut up?”
—Agence France Press
KC
I was extrememly happy to read that Rich column this morning. By comparing the Pakistani situation to ours, he said what needed to be said. It seems like plenty of “democracies” are using the language of national security to slowly eat away at what they are supposedly trying to preserve–freedom and democracy. To that end, I’m really getting tired of listening to Dems give excuses for why they cave all the time. It’s as if nothing else is on the line except campaign contributions, their majorities, and frankly, a phony-ass “bi-partisan” reputation.
capelza
Of all the kings in the world…Juan Carlos has my respect. Hand picked by Franco, he then turned the tables…I remember that speech on television when the coup attempt happened 1981.
Chavez really stepped in it, showing a real lack of understanding of recent Spanish history (Franco forward.)
Jay C
@ ATS:
Hugo Chavez is lucky – really lucky – that Venezuela doesn’t still belong to Spain: a couple of centuries ago Hugo’s outburst would have earned him a short trip to a deep dungeon: and a few -err, “enhanced” interrogation sessions with the Inquisition.
RSA
Actually, we have, but in a different guise. Remember back in the ’80s, when Reagan instituted a policy by which federal employees would be subject to drug testing? If I remember correctly, this was challenged in court by a bunch of senior Justice Department employees and it was eventually determined that the policy was unconstitutional.
This total information awareness snooping makes me realize that former Cold Warriors are not nostalgic for the good old days just to have a big enemy to face; they like the idea of an American-style Stasi.
Elvis Elvisberg
Wow, that’s awesome, ATS. Right-wingers love to say that the American left loves Castro and Chavez, but I’ve never seen it. As far as I know, everyone thinks they’re autocratic blowhards.
And what capelza said.
I wish I knew more about what happened in Spain in the 1970s, but it sure seems to me that King Juan Carlos acted selflessly for Spain by pushing it towards democracy.
The Other Steve
So last night a buddy and I went to see “No country for old men”, the new Coen brothers flick. It’s in limited release until the 21st, so only playing at one theatre. It was packed for the 7pm show.
I’m not sure what to think about it. I don’t want to give any spoilers, but the ending was a tremendous letdown.
It appears to be a movie about how life just happens, and you don’t have as much control as you think you have. This is evidenced by the very first scene where a deputy talks to his boss on the phone and says something like “I’m in control here.” only to be dead 30 seconds later. And the killer Javier Bardem at several points flips a coin to decide whether or not to kill bystanders. Even Tommy Lee Jones character gives a anecdote at one point while having coffee about a man trying to kill a steer and not having control.
The story was good, the acting was outstanding. I did like it. But I felt the ending was sudden, abrupt and left me looking for answers.
And perhaps that was the point.
jcricket
I don’t get it either. Dems can stand up, with impunity, to the Lame Duck Deciderer-in-Chief these days. They’ve just so internalized (my guess) the whole “don’t want to appear soft” thing that they buy the Republican framing of it.
You know what makes you appear soft? Waffling and being soft.
You know what makes you appear strong? Being strong. Standing up for what you believe in. Argue that the Republicans want to legalize torture. Argue it forcefully, even if you go down in defeat people will respect it.
C’mon, the Republicans are willing to fight tooth and nail so hedge fund managers can keep their ridiculous tax loophole – and that makes them seem to have the “courage of their convictions”. So surely if the Dems forcefully laid out the case that the whole Republican administration is ruining America’s moral standing the American public would have an even better reaction.
Shorter me: Dems need to stop buying into the Republican “concern troll” framing of events.
jake
You could say that about any area of the law and saying “That’s an interesting and complicated legal question, we’ll study it and let you know what we find out,” is certainly in vogue these days, but privacy rights are straight forward. Does a person have a reasonable expectation that X won’t be available for public (that includes the government) scrutiny? The telecomms and the government aren’t arguing that in regards to your phone records, the answer is No. They’re arguing that the TCs shouldn’t get in trouble for giving that information to the government because they know any jury would say the answer is Yes.
But let’s forget about your telecom provider giving your comm records to the FBI for a minute and talk about your medical records. The CDC does collect information about people in the form of mortality, disease/injury rates. What it does not collect (or it shouldn’t collect) is the information that would tell it who. Therefore, if I go to the doctor with a case of the clap, the CDC will know that someone had a case of the clap but it will not know who, and the connection of who with what or the ability to connect who with what is, as with your TC records, the important part.
Is it reasonable for me to expect that information about my little problem won’t be handled in a way that allows anyone to know I had a little problem? Sure, and the government agrees so far as my medical records go. For now at least. I’m sure there’s an argument out there that if I come into an ER with serious burns, the FBI should get to know about it because I might have been playing with my Build Your Own HEX kit.
But if you can agree that medical records should be handled in a way that it is impossible for anyone but the providers treating the patient to tell who has what (I’m going to assume you do), then you can’t say that other information that we reasonably expect to be private is somehow different. There was no murkiness until this Administration started blowing smoke. We have a system that allows the government to get private information: Subpoenas, that is a challenge that it has to meet to show that it is absolutely vital that they violate a person’s 4th Am rights. What the Admin wants to do is remove the challenge and replace it with “Trust me.” Why? The WarrenTerra. Why does the WarrenTerra weaken a citizens’ Right to Privacy? Because they say so.
No thanks.
jcricket
Speeaking of Open threads, our wonderful free market healthcare system beats Latvia in infant deaths! Woot. U-S-A! U-S-A!
Redhand
As a former conservative Republican, somewhat like John, there was a time when I despised Frank Rich, Teddy Kennedy and all their ilk. Now I find myself cheering these guys from the bleachers and active considering formally changing my party affiliation to Democrat.
The above quote from Frank Rich is what I worry about more than anything. A-holes like Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani really are “falling over each other to expand Gitmo, see who can promise the most torture and abridge the largest number of constitutional rights.” It’s not an exaggeration or figment of “left wing moonbat hysteria.” It’s the real deal if you ask me.
The one thing that I think is essential to undo some of the damage done by this evil Administration is something akin to the kind of openness we’ve seen in South Africa and Argentina to the illegal excesses and human rights violations of past regimes there. Only after we’ve turned over all the rocks, and implemented strong reforms against what we find there, can we have hope that no presidency like this one will exist again. I would like to see our next President institute some kind of Constitutional Rights Commission, like the 9/11 Commission, that will ruthlessly expose the many illegalities perpetrated by Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo, . . . . the list goes on and on. Then we need real corrective legisation to cut the Imperial Presidency down to size again.
I expect some mockery for naivety in suggesting this, but really what other way is there?
Libby Spencer
Getting back to the original question, I think Cretinden beat RS to the punchline.
Rudi
The Critter beats out Redstate, we can all be proud of NRO,the Critter and waterboarding.
Let’s go out and shoot some long haired smelly hippies on choppers. Maybe even attack carpet munchers pimping Coors for there blasphemous Leviicus ways.
ThymeZone
Hmm, can’t agree with that. Don’t you think that the modern privacy murkiness really reached murky murksomeness with Roe V Wade?
When I was in high school, I remember our government teachers talking a lot about things like “unreasonable search and seizure.” Being young and impressionable, it didn’t occur to me then that if they passed a law saying that the authorities could search and seize, then my supposed “privacy” was out the window. That’s because the Constitution doesn’t mention privacy, it’s something we have imagined is protected, even though we haven’t really defined what it is. If privacy rests on interpretation of what “reasonable” means, then ….. well, I invite you watch any of GWB’s press conferences and try to figure out how a government run by such people is going to protect reasonableness. Especially in the face of WarrenTerra and exploding technology.
I don’t see how we get anything like privacy without amending the Constitution to define what it is.
I’ll post this same material over to John’s new privacy thread, we should probably pick it up there.
VidaLoca
It’s worse than that. They “buy the Republican framing” all right but it doesn’t have to do with internalizing anything. What it comes down to is they ideologically don’t give a rip about deconstructing the Constitution and erecting the new norms of relationship between the state and the people that Cheney, Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo and the Decider have brought us.
In other words the Democrats don’t object because they fundamentally don’t object. As party, as a group, in general they are essentially on board with this stuff and there is no reason to expect that that will change once we elect them. Sure there are exceptions to this rule: Feingold will stand against it pretty often, and Dodd went out on a limb on the Mukasey nomination. All but two of the other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted against Mukasey, even! All but two! But two was enough: now the official policy of the Justice Dept. is we can’t figure out if controlled drowning of a person constitutes torture. And so it goes: the Constitution, chewed to bits, piecemeal.
And please, let’s not have any talk about “not having enough votes”, not this time. They had the votes and they squandered them. They are pissing away the Republic, piecemeal.
So frikking true. So frikking obvious: stand and fight; even if you lose people see your party as a party that fights; next time you build your support and one day you’ll win. That’s how you build a movement — but if these Democratic barons were to build a movement that then went on to topple them from their sinecures, where would they be?
Compromise is always an acceptable course if you have no real desire to pursue the alternative.
The only reason — and it’s an absolutely decisive reason, it’s such a huge reason that you don’t need any other reasons — to vote for these clowns is that while they can’t be expected to do much to fix the damage which they have colluded in creating, at least they don’t show much active desire to make it worse. We may, if we’re very smart and very lucky, have enough time under their administration to build organizations less riven with traitors (such as Lieberman, Feinstein, Schumer and the rest) and less acquiescent to compromise, that will force them to do the right thing. Or we may not, in which care we are well and truly screwed. The alternative is that the Republicans will quickly move their beta-test of fascism on to the next phase.
crayz
I really wonder some days why people aren’t rioting in the streets. Get a few million people marching on DC, and shut the city down for a week
Dave_Violence
Eh, it’s Frank Rich. I no like him.
Um, no. At least not in New York City, where lawyers are all over the place, free from police harassment. I guess that hotbeds of Federal crackdowns on American freedoms, places like, er…, where? Suburban Washington, D.C.? Ahh, that would explain those “Impeach” placards on the lawns of Potomac, Maryland I saw a few weeks ago…
I suppose I generally see Rich’s points, since I read the NYT and his columns (once again, since it’s for free), but it’s still really difficult for me to take him seriously as the alternative universe U.S.A. he believes currently exists wouldn’t allow him to publish, let alone walk the streets freely, or even breath.
Frank Rich is and always has been a rabid anti-gunner, which means he and his ilk are far more likely to support a fascist USA than Bush and Co.
jcricket
Note the near lock-step Republican unity in objecting to the AMT patch bill because (horrors) it closes the loophole that allows 50,000 (or less) hedge fund manager types to pay about 1/2 the taxes the rest of us do.
On an issue they could have easily caved on (and no one would care), not a single Republican did. That’s party unity. We need to learn how it works and start using it to our advantage.
We might lose to a filibuster or veto now and then but it sure would highlight the party divisions.
It’s sad that you can go as far back as Will Rogers to see that Democractic party disunity is, apparently, the 1st commandment of the party.
Tsulagi
I just wasted a few minutes reading that. Is that guy blonde? There was absolutely nothing in his response to Rich’s op-ed other than a few random wisps of smoke likely from synapses struggling yet failing to fire.
Rich’s op-ed was dead-on throughout. Yep, 9/11 changed everything. Now we have our reverse Patrick Henrys. Instead of “Give me liberty or give death”, we now have “Take all our liberties to protect me from death” from our self-certified patriot warriors. They’re Republican manly men like that.
Yep, easy matter for Musharraf to play Tard and Tarder in Bush/Cheney for the fools they are. Osama and Zawahiri have done well at it. Just about anyone like Putin too if they care to as it takes no effort. All those guys will remember the Bush admin fondly and miss our horse-hating cowboy.
dslak
Has it occurred to anyone that the reason Democrats don’t curb the Bush administration’s power grabs is that they essentially move in the same circles, and are beholden to the same moneyed interests, as the Republicans?
Notorious P.A.T.
A-holes like Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani really are “falling over each other to expand Gitmo, see who can promise the most torture and abridge the largest number of constitutional rights.” It’s not an exaggeration or figment of “left wing moonbat hysteria.”
Mitt Romney: “I want to double Gitmo”
Rudy Giuliani: “I want to be a president like George W Bush”
heywood jablomy
Crittenden is to Frank Rich as mosquito is to windshield.
incontrolados
dslak, I could be one to join you there, but for the local Dems here in Texas — and that goes for the House types on the Dem side from Texas. Currently the meme on the state level here is that DeLay brought DC to Texas and we don’t like that. Things are turning.
On another topic, Althouse is doing her instapundit thing on the term ‘wetback.’ She doesn’t come down on one side or the other, but her commenters do.
In the game of Risk that is the blogosphere — is there truly a way to knock both insty and althouse off their block?
Bruce Moomaw
Redhand: “I would like to see our next President institute some kind of Constitutional Rights Commission, like the 9/11 Commission, that will ruthlessly expose the many illegalities perpetrated by Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo, . . . . the list goes on and on. Then we need real corrective legisation to cut the Imperial Presidency down to size again.
“I expect some mockery for naivety in suggesting this, but really what other way is there?”
Naive, my ass. It’s the best proposed solution to the problem I’ve ever heard.
incontrolados
forget the althouse thing for a bit — looks like a bot has taken over comments.
ATS
Why in the world is the left REQUIRED to defend Chavez? His nuttiness does harm to every cause he claims to embrace.
I remember hearing that the Israelis let Arafat live because he was seen as hurting his cause in the balance. I’d bet the radical Palestinians wanted Begin around for similar reasons. Both leaders looked like cartoons. and often acted like it.
By contrast King Juan Carlos is charismatic and much admired. Even an idiot like Chavez must have felt the sting of that rebuke,
AnonE.Mouse
While it’s true that Chavez could benefit by dialing it down a bit,let’s not forget that Aznar is a crony of Bush and Blair whose participation in the invasion of Iraq helped those two sell the idea that an inherently illegal aggressive war was somehow internationally legitimate,that he honored an accused torturer(who also happened to be a former head of Franco’s secret police)with a state medal of merit,and that he attempted to win the election of 1933-I mean 2004-by blaming the Madrid train bombings on the domestic ETA despite considerable evidence that the guilty were actually Islamists motivated by Spanish participation in Bush’s war.
If it walks like a duck…
Redhand
“While it’s true that Chavez could benefit by dialing it down a bit,”
Is this supposed to be ironic understatement, or are you secretly an admirer of left wing fascists? In case you hadn’t noticed, Hugo is an obnoxious blowhard in the braggadocio style of Mussolini. He’s turning Venezuela into another Cuba, which is not a “good thing” in my book.
Xenos
The problem is not whether people can carry guns, it is which people carry guns. Many libertarians seem to not give a damn about liberties except for the freedom to exercise their firearms fetish. All I can read from your silly rationalizations is that you don’t mind fascism so long as you get to be one of the brownshirts.
And freedom to bear sidearms and rifles may have meant something in the eighteenth century – lots of good it did for Branch Davidians.
AnonE.Mouse
Chavez is prone to rhetorical overkill,particularly when it comes to the US,whose shadow lies behind an attempted overthrow of his government in 2002(the same type of US activity that contributed to an authoritarian response in Cuba,which by the way boasts the healthiest and best educated population in Latin America).He’s been re-elected as president by increasingly larger majorities in internationally monitored elections that have been free of the taint of scandal of Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004.
Chavez’ popularity is primarily with the native underclass,who have benefitted the most from the changes he’s instituted,the same changes that have alienated the (mostly) white corporate class(as well as neoliberals at the World Bank,IMF,and in the US),much of whose dislike of Chavez can also be attributed to naked rascism.
If you knew anything about which you spew,you’d be aware that Mussolini referred to his form of government as ‘corporatism’ because of the seamless merging of government and business elements(which more accurately describes Chavez’ North American neighbor).Your somewhat ignorant rant could have been lifted verbatim from one of O’Reilly’s poorly researched and frequently fantasy based ‘Talking Points’.
Redhand
Well, AnonE.Mouse, I see that you’re an unabashed Hugo cheerleader. What’s the party line on his suppression of the independent media, BTW, or is it politically incorrect to mention that?
I note without further comment your glowing references to the Socialist Paradise that is present-day Cuba. I’m sure it would be the wealthiest nation in the Western Hemisphere too, were it not for the evil U.S. trade boycott.
AnonE.Mouse
I believe your “suppression” comment refers to the failure to renew the license of one of the TV stations that aided and abetted the attempted coup in 2002,and which continued broadcasting afterwards(and to this day by cable).Of course,as we all know,any broadcasting outlet that participated in the attempted violent overthrow of our own government would remain in the good graces of whatever administration was in power at the time.
We’ll never know exactly what Cuba was capable of,largely due to American intervention.What we do know is that all of the people of Cuba have their material needs met better than the other(US allied)countries of Latin America,countries we are increasingly attempting to emulate here.
Please proceed with your O’Reilly like ignorance and myth-spreading.
ATS
AnonEMouse said: “While it’s true that Chavez could benefit by dialing it down a bit,”
The understatement of the decade. And then everything AnonEMouse says thereafter argues the opposite.
Hitler didn’t excuse Stalin’s behavior, or the other way around. At best, the context makes the stupidity and brutality more understandible, not forgivable.
As for there being rascialists among Chavez critics, no argument here, but Chavez’s boorishness stands or falls on its own lack of merit.
Re Aznar et al: the fact that David Duke liked Walt & Miersheimer does not negate their arguments. Aznar’s wrongs do not make Chavez right.
The age-old conservative argument is that we shall always have the poor with us because they are by nature undisciplined, lazy and uncivilized. Qualities made manifest by their boorishness.
In just this way, Chavez HURTS his own cause. He is comes across as the Latino equivalent of Krushehev pounding his shoe on the UN lecturn. Instead of the voice of just grievance he is ressentiment incarnate. A Nietzschean paradym.
Rosaynn Carter, of all people, said Reagan made the well-to-do “comfortable
with their prejudices.” Chavez does the same, albeit in a negative way. Who can imagine this guy deserving the finer things in life? He would only pee in the sink.
Chavez is not the mouth for these ears. The King had it right.
AnonE.Mouse
ATS,the “dialing down” comment referred specifically to Chavez’rhetoric,nothing else.Otherwise,he was on solid ground regarding Aznar’s politics.How exactly did I argue the opposite?It was a little hard to understand given the shotgun scatter of your comment.
Part of the reason Chavez comes across (to you) as “the Latino equivalent of Krushenev” is what I concede is his colorful rhetoric,but you also seem to fall for the media villainization (echoing the government) of him in this country,e.g.”pee in the sink” (that’s some over the top rhetoric of your own-I hope you use the toilet while visiting friends and relatives over the holidays,since vulgar turns of words are predictors of bathroom habits).It can’t be long until he’s the latest incarnation of Hitler in public discourse in this country.He’s already Mussolini in Redhand’s fantasies.
ATS
Look, I live in DC and have seen the White House turn onetime friends into Hitler-of-the-month overnight. Noriega for example. What I object to in Chavez is that his oafish buffonery makes it easier for them.
Tidbit: It is instructive to watch the process working in reverse with Abbas and Fatah in Palestine.
Redhand
AnonE.Mouse: your defense of Hugo is laughable. Check out some of these doings in Venezuela, reported by that notorious right-wing propaganda mill, Human Rights Watch. I particularly like his proposal to eliminate the constitutional prohibition against suspension of due process rights “in states of emergency.” If he enjoys such huge popular support, why is this necessary, pray tell?
AnonE.Mouse
Redhand,his huge popular support is easily confirmed by election results.The referendum to reform the constitution of 1999 that will be voted on by the Venezuelan electorate is a mix of progressive and reactionary proposals,including the one you cite,which would have the effect of allowing concentration of power in the executive branch.I’m troubled by any government that allows that concentration,most particularly my own,where it’s achieved with unilateral presidential signing statements.I would certainly hope it’s not a power Chavez would feel it necessary to invoke,for instance in the unlikely event that a small group of corporate,media and military elites,supported by the US,attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government.
It’s an unfortunate fact of life that governments that feel threatened frequently react with authoritarian overreach,using such tactics as Patriot Acts,warrantless wiretapping,torture,wars of aggression,rendition and detention without charges,and designated ‘free speech’ areas at political conventions and presidential appearances,with mass arrest for those who fail to comply.Fortunately,Chavez and the Venezuelan government have avoided such vile behavior.
Redhand
AnonE.Mouse, if you read my posts here with any frequency you’ll see that I agree with you nearly 100% on the Bush Administration and the damage it has done to our democratic institutions. Worst U.S. President in the nearly 60 years I’ve been on the planet.
But, I also think that Chavez is a left-wing totalitarian in the Castro mold and that it’s only a matter of time before he turns Venezuela into a one-party State where “popular support” dictates that he become President for Life. There is no way a man like that will give up power, any more than Fidel has.
AnonE.Mouse
Although I don’t agree,”left-wing totalitarian” is at least a phrase that makes sense,unlike “left-wing fascists”,which,given the corporatist nature of fascism,makes no sense and leaves one to think you get your ‘talking points’ from right wing radio blowhards.
Like I wrote,I’m troubled by some of the over 60 proposals in the December referendum that the Venezuelan people will decide upon.I also agree that Chavez needs to learn some diplomatic style,even though I agree in substance with most of what he says.
I disagree that there’s anything intrinsically totalitarian in Chavez’ nature.One thing that contradicts your description of him is that there wasn’t a more severe backlash after the failed coup attempt in 2002,in which much of the elite Venezuelan media was complicit.Try for a minute to imagine what would happen in this country were rogue elements to take over the White House-wait,let me rephrase that-if an unelected resident were to take over the White House-damn,this is hard-if armed dissidents were to attempt to violently overthrow the government,with Fox News using their franchise to cheer on the coup.We couldn’t build enough Guantanamos fast enough.It’s also worth considering the seige like mentality it effects in a Latin American leader who rightly percieves himself as targeted by the US given our sordid history of interference in that part of the world.
It’s also indisputable that Cuba,despite almost 50 years of American attempts to subvert it’s economy and government,is able to provide a higher standard of living to it’s citizens than American allies in the region.It’s worth asking whether it’s better to be poor in Cuba or in such stalwarts of democracy as Honduras or El Salvador,where the US backed leadership murdered tens of thousands.I’m not a particular cheerleader for either Cuba or Venezuela,as long as criticism of both those states is kept in the proper context. Is Cuba an authoritarian state?Of course.I have no evidence it would have been a Scandanavian style socialist state without American interference.On the other hand,we don’t know that Castro would have exercised the dictatorial power he has without his rational assessment that without it the Cuban revolution would have falled victim to the constant assault of the US.