Like many Americans distressed by the abomination that is George W. Bush, it's easy for me to glom on to the statements of leaders actively opposed to this administration. The question is what to do with those who go overboard and wind up making themselves look foolish in the process. Equally important is what to do with those who not only consistently go overboard in their rhetoric, but also have dark pasts worthy of condemnation and perhaps disassociation.
Such is the issue with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and London Mayor Ken Livingstone. Both recognize what a scourge the Bush administration is. Unfortunately, both men are unsavory characters in their own right. What to do with them? Can we embrace their campaign for a respectable American president who we don't have to apologize for without getting their stench on us?
Hugo Chavez is no dictator, but he's no one to be admired, either. He only rose to power electorally after his 1992 military coup attempt failed. He deals as an autocrat with little checks on his power by the judiciary or parliament. And there is a brutal irony in reveling in Chavez's taking Bush to task, when Chavez himself has recently been slammed by Human Rights Watch for laws that "punish disrespect for government authorities".
"'By broadening laws that punish disrespect for government authorities, the Venezuelan government has flouted international human rights principles that protect free expression,' said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. 'While countries across Latin America are moving to repeal such laws, Venezuela has enacted further restrictions on the press that will shield officials from public scrutiny.'" (Cite)
The HRC goes on to note that "the amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities". How can we really latch on to a leader who not only disgustingly curtails the very freedoms we rely on to make the case against our own President, but then hypocritically criticizes the President when he won't stand for domestic criticism?
Livingstone himself is one of the world's most odious "progressives" and would be a fabulous punching bag if he was a Tory. While he too takes a stand against the vile Bush administration, he's no more worthy of support than Chavez. Most recently, Livingstone was suspended for four weeks as mayor after being found guilty of bringing his office into disrepute. He decided to compare an aggressive Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard. His recent water conservation attempts include a public campaign against toilet flushing. And while touring Beijing last month, he had the audacity to compare Tiannamen Square with poll tax riots in Trafalgar Square.
"'In the same way that Trafalgar Square has had an interesting history, not always a peaceful one, there's a very clear parallel,' he said". (Ibid.)
Livingstone and Chavez are right that we need a serious change in Washington. But we simply cannot latch on to figures as disgusting as them. They not only pervert the cause, they can also serve to turn off swing voters who might otherwise be inclined to replace this Congress with a Democratic one.