Triumps of a Democratic Socialist System - Chavez for Life?

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
The side of the story that you're not going to hear from American MSM, or from the right or mushy center.

Chavez for Life?

February 15 marked a major step in the consolidation of Venezuela's so-called "twenty-first-century socialism." President Chávez's decisive 54-45 victory in a national referendum to abolish term limits opens the door to his possible life tenure. The win marks the twelfth electoral triumph for the controversial leader since he was first elected in 1998. Chávez not only remains widely popular after a decade in office but he regularly translates his support into electoral success in contests accepted as free and fair both by Venezuelans and teams of international observers. Now media outlets around the world are sounding the alarm about the prospect of Chávez as president for life.

Regardless of what one thinks of the outcome of the week's referendum, there is cause for hope. Hard-core Chávistas, as the president's base is called, have carried their leader to what may be his most significant victory yet. Moderates like me who are critically supportive of the Chávez administration wish he would have spent less time, resources and political capital campaigning to extend his mandate. Some of that energy should have been directed toward training new leadership and addressing Venezuela's pressing problems, including a deteriorating relationship with the United States, the country's largest trade partner, and widespread poverty.This is the second time in fifteen months Chávez has sought to extend his power; meanwhile, inflation has soared above 30 percent and the United States has no official diplomatic representation in Caracas. Yet we can still celebrate Venezuela's commitment to the democratic process and popular participation in elections and referendums on the major decisions the country has made in the past decade.

There are at least three reasons why we should congratulate Chávez on his victory.

First, it would be hypocritical to suggest there is something fundamentally wrong or undemocratic about not having term limits. Throughout most of US history there were no presidential term limits: not until the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Many of our key democratic allies, including England, have no term limits, deeming it more democratic to allow the people to decide when to oust a leader. More recently, when Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe successfully changed his country's Constitution in 2005 to extend term limits and then won re-election, the US State Department was supportive. Likewise, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently extended his term limits. Neither of them did so with a referendum from voters as Chávez did.

Second, no term limits does not mean monarchy; it does not even mean Chávez for life, unless he keeps winning elections. He will still have to be re-elected every six years, and under Articles 72 and 233 of Venezuela's Constitution the opposition can revoke his mandate in the middle of the term if it mobilizes enough votes. There is no indication that Chávez will steal an election or refuse to recognize an unfavorable outcome: in 2007, when his first attempt to do away with term limits as part of a comprehensive constitutional reform was narrowly defeated, he graciously accepted the results.

Finally, Chávez's sustained popularity is based on concrete changes he has delivered to Venezuela's poor majority. According to a report published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington-based think tank, since 2003 the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen by even more, down 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income and do not take into account increased access to healthcare or education--areas where the government has substantially expanded free service provision. In the past five years, fueled by an oil boom, Venezuela's real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually, making it one of the strongest economies in the hemisphere. Over the entire decade of Chávez's presidency, infant mortality fell by more than one-third and the number of primary-care physicians in the public sector increased twelvefold.

Few countries can boast such remarkable gains in just a decade.

To be sure, the Chávez administration may be fairly criticized on a range of fronts--from widespread corruption to undiplomatic rhetoric, from high crime rates to food shortages. And the campaign rhetoric and tactics Chávez employed were disappointingly, if predictably, inflammatory. However, even those who cannot celebrate the outcome of the referendum should at least be satisfied with the realization of a democratic process.

Now that Chávez can stop worrying about whether he will be able to run for re-election again, he can hopefully focus on making sure his people want to re-elect him. Venezuela's social problems and political tension require urgent, expert attention; and with falling oil prices, Chávez has an immense challenge ahead of him. But on February 15, looking back on his ten years in office, 54 percent of Venezuelans felt that Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution were change they can believe in.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/boudin
 
The side of the story that you're not going to hear from American MSM, or from the right or mushy center.

Chavez for Life?

February 15 marked a major step in the consolidation of Venezuela's so-called "twenty-first-century socialism." President Chávez's decisive 54-45 victory in a national referendum to abolish term limits opens the door to his possible life tenure. The win marks the twelfth electoral triumph for the controversial leader since he was first elected in 1998. Chávez not only remains widely popular after a decade in office but he regularly translates his support into electoral success in contests accepted as free and fair both by Venezuelans and teams of international observers. (the ones that dont criticize him) Now media outlets around the world are sounding the alarm about the prospect of Chávez as president for life.

Regardless of what one thinks of the outcome of the week's referendum, there is cause for hope. Hard-core Chávistas, as the president's base is called, have carried their leader to what may be his most significant victory yet. Moderates like me who are critically supportive of the Chávez administration wish he would have spent less time, resources and political capital campaigning to extend his mandate. Some of that energy should have been directed toward training new leadership and addressing Venezuela's pressing problems, including a deteriorating relationship with the United States, the country's largest trade partner, and widespread poverty.This is the second time in fifteen months Chávez has sought to extend his power; meanwhile, inflation has soared above 30 percent and the United States has no official diplomatic representation in Caracas. Yet we can still celebrate Venezuela's commitment to the democratic process and popular participation in elections and referendums on the major decisions the country has made in the past decade.

There are at least three reasons why we should congratulate Chávez on his victory.

First, it would be hypocritical to suggest there is something fundamentally wrong or undemocratic about not having term limits. Throughout most of US history there were no presidential term limits: not until the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Many of our key democratic allies, including England, have no term limits, (of course in England and many of our democratic allies, one person doesnt control the media, the military and the primary revenue of the country) deeming it more democratic to allow the people to decide when to oust a leader. More recently, when Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe successfully changed his country's Constitution in 2005 to extend term limits and then won re-election, the US State Department was supportive. Likewise, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently extended his term limits. Neither of them did so with a referendum from voters as Chávez did.

Second, no term limits does not mean monarchy; it does not even mean Chávez for life, unless he keeps winning elections. He will still have to be re-elected every six years, and under Articles 72 and 233 of Venezuela's Constitution the opposition can revoke his mandate in the middle of the term if it mobilizes enough votes. There is no indication that Chávez will steal an election or refuse to recognize an unfavorable outcome: in 2007, when his first attempt to do away with term limits as part of a comprehensive constitutional reform was narrowly defeated, he graciously accepted the results.

Finally, Chávez's sustained popularity is based on concrete changes he has delivered to Venezuela's poor. According to a report published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington-based think tank, since 2003 the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen by even more, down 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income and do not take into account increased access to healthcare or education--areas where the government has substantially expanded free service provision. In the past five years, fueled by an oil boom, Venezuela's real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually, making it one of the strongest economies in the hemisphere. Over the entire decade of Chávez's presidency, infant mortality fell by more than one-third and the number of primary-care physicians in the public sector increased twelvefold.[/b]

Few countries can boast such remarkable gains in just a decade.

To be sure, the Chávez administration may be fairly criticized on a range of fronts--from widespread corruption to undiplomatic rhetoric, from high crime rates to food shortages. And the campaign rhetoric and tactics Chávez employed were disappointingly, if predictably, inflammatory. However, even those who cannot celebrate the outcome of the referendum should at least be satisfied with the realization of a democratic process.

Now that Chávez can stop worrying about whether he will be able to run for re-election again, he can hopefully focus on making sure his people want to re-elect him. Venezuela's social problems and political tension require urgent, expert attention; and with falling oil prices, Chávez has an immense challenge ahead of him. But on February 15, looking back on his ten years in office, 54 percent of Venezuelans felt that Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution were change they can believe in.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/boudin

Your bolding was in the wrong sections... I helped correct that.
 
Your bolding was in the wrong sections... I helped correct that.

:)

Feel free to bolden any part you choose .. while skipping over all the triumps.

While skipping over the fact that no term limits is not new to America.

While skipping over the fact that there are no term limits in England .. yet I don't here you whining about England.

While skipping over the fact that high crime rates is not news to America.

:)

Thanks for "helping me out"

:)
 
I just don't believe the american people are smart enough to be vigilant enough with no term limits. Part of the problem we have in congress is that incumbants always ALWAYS win basically, and because of that they get lazy and too comfy in their positions. I don't want to live in an america where people are born into a presidential dynasty. Americans are too fucking stupid for that not to happen.
 
:)

Feel free to bolden any part you choose .. while skipping over all the triumps.

While skipping over the fact that no term limits is not new to America.

While skipping over the fact that there are no term limits in England .. yet I don't here you whining about England.

While skipping over the fact that high crime rates is not news to America.

:)

Thanks for "helping me out"

:)

It is not the 'no term limits' that I have a problem with... it is HOW he went about getting them.

In England there are checks and balances as there are here. There are NONE in Venezuela. This is the point you keep skipping over.
 
I just don't believe the american people are smart enough to be vigilant enough with no term limits. Part of the problem we have in congress is that incumbants always ALWAYS win basically, and because of that they get lazy and too comfy in their positions. I don't want to live in an america where people are born into a presidential dynasty. Americans are too fucking stupid for that not to happen.

I don't disagree.

I do not support no term limits .. however, I do support the right of Venezuelans to do what they think in their best interests .. and I do support REAL information, not simply the propaganda that passes in this country as information.
 
It is not the 'no term limits' that I have a problem with... it is HOW he went about getting them.

In England there are checks and balances as there are here. There are NONE in Venezuela. This is the point you keep skipping over.

He went about getting them with smart politics. He included every politician, thus every politician campaigned for his proposal.

There are checks and balances in Venezuela, just as there are here and just as there is in England and just as there is in New York City.

Bloomberg, Gordon Brown, and Chavez all have to win their next elections to stay in office.

Your problem is that you've swallowed too much bullshit propaganda and you're having a hard time finding an argument.
 
I don't disagree.

I do not support no term limits .. however, I do support the right of Venezuelans to do what they think in their best interests .. and I do support REAL information, not simply the propaganda that passes in this country as information.
Who here has said that we should "do something" about Chavez? We point out that we think they are going the wrong way, just as they do with us.

I've never understood this. Criticizing anybody you like is somehow us "telling them what to do" and we should "just let them be Venezuela".

Well, we are letting them "be Venezuela" nobody has said we should invade because they voted to end term limits. Nobody here has suggested making them do anything.
 
Who here has said that we should "do something" about Chavez? We point out that we think they are going the wrong way, just as they do with us.

I've never understood this. Criticizing anybody you like is somehow us "telling them what to do" and we should "just let them be Venezuela".

Well, we are letting them "be Venezuela" nobody has said we should invade because they voted to end term limits. Nobody here has suggested making them do anything.

Please point out where I even remotely suggested we are telling Venezuelans what to do.

They figured out long ago to ignore the crap that comes out of America .. all by themselves.

My point isn't about telling Venezuelans what to do but rather the continued dumbing down of Americans with distortions and half-truths.

Leave it to MSM and the right and everything imaginable is wrong with Venezuela .. and Cuba.

Just pointing out some happy truths that don't get told to dumbed-down Americans.

:)
 
Please point out where I even remotely suggested we are telling Venezuelans what to do.

They figured out long ago to ignore the crap that comes out of America .. all by themselves.

My point isn't about telling Venezuelans what to do but rather the continued dumbing down of Americans with distortions and half-truths.

Leave it to MSM and the right and everything imaginable is wrong with Venezuela .. and Cuba.

Just pointing out some happy truths that don't get told to dumbed-down Americans.

:)
How have you "remotely" said it? Each time somebody criticizes you come back with "I support letting them choose what they want". So do they, they just point out why they think it was the wrong choice.

There is plenty about Chavez that should worry even you. But you tend to ignore it and repeat the same phrase about how much you support them to choose what they think is their best interest.

You ignore the reasons that many think they don't have much of a "choice" including violence against people who are of the opposition and other disturbing and problematic actions taken by the government. You even ignore starving people to push all the "great triumps (sic)".

Even with all of the things we see that might be problematic, nobody has suggested taking from Venezuelans their right to continue to vote for Chavez if they think it is in their best interest.
 
He went about getting them with smart politics. He included every politician, thus every politician campaigned for his proposal.

There are checks and balances in Venezuela, just as there are here and just as there is in England and just as there is in New York City.

Bloomberg, Gordon Brown, and Chavez all have to win their next elections to stay in office.

Your problem is that you've swallowed too much bullshit propaganda and you're having a hard time finding an argument.

AGAIN you ignore the fact that Chavez controls the MEDIA, THE MILITARY, The Oil Industry, the COURTS...

Your problem is that you are so bent on defending Chavez because of his socialism that you are willing to ignore what is actually happening there. You equate Chavez's situation to that of Bloomberg and Brown... yet Chavez has more in common with elections for Saddam and Castro.
 
How have you "remotely" said it? Each time somebody criticizes you come back with "I support letting them choose what they want". So do they, they just point out why they think it was the wrong choice.

Like with Superfreak, your programming is kicking in that says you must be against everything socialism .. but you're having difficulty finding a real agrument in the face of facts.

I've only said what you claim once in this thread and it was an appropriate response to a comment that did not criticize me sir. I agreed with the comment and said I also do not support ending term limits but support the legitimate right of Venezuelans to do what they believe best. How in the hell is that a problem?

There is plenty about Chavez that should worry even you. But you tend to ignore it and repeat the same phrase about how much you support them to choose what they think is their best interest.

Yet ANOTHER misrepresentation. I've clearly and repeatedly said where I have problems with Chavez. Your problem is that you believe I should only be talking about what you see as problems. FACTS about Chavez and WHY he won and is still popular in Vernezuela after 10 years gets in the wy of your programming.

Chavez doesn't worry me .. American politicians worry me. Would would I be worried about Chavez?

You ignore the reasons that many think they don't have much of a "choice" including violence against people who are of the opposition and other disturbing and problematic actions taken by the government. You even ignore starving people to push all the "great triumps (sic)".

Even with all of the things we see that might be problematic, nobody has suggested taking from Venezuelans their right to continue to vote for Chavez if they think it is in their best interest.

What "starving people?"

Dude, there are less .. FAR LESS starving people in venezuela because of Chavez .. "Chávez's sustained popularity is based on concrete changes he has delivered to Venezuela's poor. According to a report published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington-based think tank, since 2003 the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen by even more, down 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income and do not take into account increased access to healthcare or education--areas where the government has substantially expanded free service provision."

You're really struggling .. and, with all due respect my brother, I have never read a single thread of yours talking about "starving people", poor people, or even poverty. Your conveinent use of them now is transparent.

The "triumps" I'm talking about are those mentioned above .. the ones you've ignored.
 
Like with Superfreak, your programming is kicking in that says you must be against everything socialism .. but you're having difficulty finding a real agrument in the face of facts.

I've only said what you claim once in this thread and it was an appropriate response to a comment that did not criticize me sir. I agreed with the comment and said I also so not support ending term limits but support the legitimate right of Venezuelans to do what they believe best. How in the hell is that a problem?



Yet ANOTHER misrepresentation. I've clearly and repeatedly said where I have problems with Chavez. Your problem is that you believe I should only be talking about what you see as problems. FACTS about Chavez and WHY he won and is still popular in Vernezuela after 10 years gets in the wy of your programming.

Chavez doesn't worry me .. American politicians worry me. Would would I be worried about Chavez?



What "starving people?"

Dude, there are less .. FAR LESS starving people in venezuela because of Chavez .. "Chávez's sustained popularity is based on concrete changes he has delivered to Venezuela's poor. According to a report published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington-based think tank, since 2003 the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen by even more, down 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income and do not take into account increased access to healthcare or education--areas where the government has substantially expanded free service provision."

You're really struggling .. and, with all due respect my brother, I have never read a single thread of yours talking about "starving people", poor people, or even poverty. Your conveinent use of them now is transparent.

The "triumps" I'm talking about are those mentioned above .. the ones you've ignored.
I am against one guy directing the media, the courts, the executive and apparently through referendum the legislature anywhere regardless of socialism. I read reports of violence against the college students who opposed him "condemned" with no action taken against the attackers and find it repulsive.

You can support whatever you want. This I won't support even if there are triumphs of "Democracy" there, let alone socialism. I will point out what I think is wrong even if you "support their right" to keep choosing it.

And what part of "food shortages" do you find means people are well fed?

From your own story:

To be sure, the Chávez administration may be fairly criticized on a range of fronts--from widespread corruption to undiplomatic rhetoric, from high crime rates to food shortages.
 
AGAIN you ignore the fact that Chavez controls the MEDIA, THE MILITARY, The Oil Industry, the COURTS...

Your problem is that you are so bent on defending Chavez because of his socialism that you are willing to ignore what is actually happening there. You equate Chavez's situation to that of Bloomberg and Brown... yet Chavez has more in common with elections for Saddam and Castro.

:)

He controlled the Media, the Military, the Oil Industry, and the COURTS the last time this came up for a vote .. and he lost.

And you've ignored the fact the NO ONE was intimidated and NO ONE was afraid to vote no.

And you've ignored that if he loses and election, he's out of office.

There is a plethora of facts you've ignored .. but I wouldn't expect anything more.
 
:)

He controlled the Media, the Military, the Oil Industry, and the COURTS the last time this came up for a vote .. and he lost.

And you've ignored the fact the NO ONE was intimidated and NO ONE was afraid to vote no.

And you've ignored that if he loses and election, he's out of office.

There is a plethora of facts you've ignored .. but I wouldn't expect anything more.


Come on, BAC. Get real.

While Venezuelan elections may not be like those of Castro or Saddam, they are not squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination. Claiming that NO ONE (in caps mind you) was intimidated and NO ONE(there's those caps again) was afraid to vote no is some extreme denial.
 
I am against one guy directing the media, the courts, the executive and apparently through referendum the legislature anywhere regardless of socialism. I read reports of violence against the college students who opposed him "condemned" with no action taken against the attackers and find it repulsive.

You can support whatever you want. This I won't support even if there are triumphs of "Democracy" there, let alone socialism. I will point out what I think is wrong even if you "support their right" to keep choosing it.

And what part of "food shortages" do you find means people are well fed?

From your own story:

A 72% reduction in poverty and a 50% reduction in overall poverty ain't good enough for you eh?

There are still problems in Venezuela and Chavez certainly should have ended ALL problems there in 10 years.

Is that your story?

Especially given how poverty is not a problem here in the richest country in the world.

The Rising Prevalence of Severe Poverty in America: A Growing Threat to Public Health

Poverty in America has risen since 2000.
http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(06)00233-9/fulltext

37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty

A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit's streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/19/usa.paulharris

In other words, at about the same time Chavez was making drastic reductions in poverty in Venezuela, it was rising here in America .. but suddenly "poverty" is a problem for you.

:)
 
A 72% reduction in poverty and a 50% reduction in overall poverty ain't good enough for you eh?

There are still problems in Venezuela and Chavez certainly should have ended ALL problems there in 10 years.

Is that your story?

Especially given how poverty is not a problem here in the richest country in the world.

The Rising Prevalence of Severe Poverty in America: A Growing Threat to Public Health

Poverty in America has risen since 2000.
http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(06)00233-9/fulltext

37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty

A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit's streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/19/usa.paulharris

In other words, at about the same time Chavez was making drastic reductions in poverty in Venezuela, it was rising here in America .. but suddenly "poverty" is a problem for you.

:)
It isn't about poverty. They have the money to buy the food, IT JUST ISN'T ON THE SHELVES. Food shortages aren't about poverty, they are about using the most inefficient means of control over the economy.

And those in "poverty" in the US are not quite at the same level of actual poverty in other parts of the world. The comparison is almost laughable. We strangle in our own fat, even among the "poverty" stricken.
 
Come on, BAC. Get real.

While Venezuelan elections may not be like those of Castro or Saddam, they are not squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination. Claiming that NO ONE (in caps mind you) was intimidated and NO ONE(there's those caps again) was afraid to vote no is some extreme denial.

Extreme denial is ignoring that even the opposition said the elections were fair.

Extreme denial is ignoring that international obxervers say the election was fair.

Extreme denial is ignoring that Venezuelan elections have more integrity than American elections.

Extreme denial is ignoring that this measure once failed .. and that 45% of voters voted against it .. thus, how many people were intimidated?

Are you NOW suggesting the (s)election of George Bush was "squeaky clean?" :)

You get real brother.
 
Back
Top