Skip to main content

View Diary: The U.S., selflessly concerned about democracy in Venezuela, questions integrity of election result (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, I misread endorse for support (0+ / 0-)

    but my larger point still holds.  The reason we "endorsed" the coup is that Chavez was ending individual rights.  This of course conflicts with our other national values of self-determination, but we frequently side with rights of individuals over rights of nations, such as in Libya, Serbia, etc.  as well.  

    If the coup had succeeded, I think a lot of bad things could have happened to some people, but I think they would have a liberal democratic government that constitutionally upholds individual liberties in place, and people would be complaining about things other than loss of freedom of expression and property.

    •  "ending individual rights" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, CharlesII

      what individual rights had Chavez ended in 2002? You're just making this shit up.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 04:36:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even by 2002 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Riff

        Chavez had started to expropriate private property and threaten news organizations with closure in his infamous, day-long harangues on television.  This did not begin after the coup.  It began almost immediately after his first election.

        He had already taken up much of the prime-time broadcasting spaces for government programming, and journalists has already been complaining of harassment by government officials and censoring.  He used the incident of the failed coup to full advantage (which is why it was so dumb) to advance the process which had begun already with his first election. (It is a lesson learned by Correa in Ecuador, who is now accused by his critics (and I don't know who to really believe on this one anymore) of staging a self coup in order to obtain the needed mass opinion support against independent journalists to pass a constitutional amendment eliminating free press in that country too as of last year, while at the same time putting his biggest critics in jail or exile.)  

        Individual freedoms in the liberal tradition have been under attack in Venezuela since he was first elected.  That's why he lost the support of most of the middle class and immediately turned attention to the slums after his first election.  It was good politics, and it was part of the strategy, according to Chavez himself on his TV shows. It also supports the Gramsci model of socialism in which a new hegemony of mass rule replaces institutions of individual liberties without having to kill a bunch of people like Lenin did, a model which Chavez, like Correa and Morales, also frequently cited as "Bolivarian dream" goal for all of Latin America.  

        None of this should be news, but it is to many Americans who haven't been following the Spanish media.  He'd been saying all this himself since his first election.  he's never hidden his intentions since his first election to create a new model of socialism and replace the liberal democratic model that the US enjoys and has promoted.  

        That's why I cited elsewhere this piece which is very supportive of Chavez but supports the same points.  Chavez, and his allies Correa and Morales have a new am ambitious vision for governance that is based on ending the institutions of capitalism such as individual rights to speech and property in favor a Gramscian model of socialism without the guns and prison camps, but also without the wide protections of free speech and private property rights that liberal democracies enjoy.  That's why they're called radical democracies.  

    •  and, on a slightly related note, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW

      when is the last time the United States has been on the right side of any latin american dispute?  maybe the early 90s, but for the wrong reason even then?

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 04:44:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Columbia against the FARC? (0+ / 0-)

        Peru against the Sendero Lumino?

        The general promotion of elections and democracy, which all countries now value when almost none did  before?  

        There have been some really serious wrongs, mostly perpetrated by America right-wing administrations.  But in general the US has not been bad for Latin America, and that is how most Latin Americans really feel about it if you ask them.

    •  utter crap, BS, and apologetics for more meddling. (0+ / 0-)

      you are a treasure trove and a bubbling fountain of imperialist swill.  You, Putin, the Chinese have very similar justifications. Just change the language, the target, the enemy list and you sound like you sing from the same jingoistic hymnal.  

      "If the coup had succeeded, I think a lot of bad things could have happened to some people, but I think they would have a liberal democratic government "

      You actually believe your own claptrap?  When has that scenario ever happened?   Too many poli sci classes , not enough ethics and history classes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (157)
  • Community (65)
  • Baltimore (41)
  • Civil Rights (39)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (32)
  • Elections (30)
  • Economy (30)
  • Law (26)
  • Texas (24)
  • Labor (21)
  • Environment (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Freddie Gray (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Racism (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site