They can't call Chavez a dictator any more

Note the fact that he just conceded defeat, on a referendum on which he had pinned immense personal hopes -- with less than a 1% vote difference.

A dictator -- or our current administration in Washington for that matter -- would just have tweaked the results a bit to get a win.

The results tonight tell us the election was honest. Venezuela has a democracy. Maybe we can't be sure we have one any more in the US, but Venezuela definitely does. Tonight's results prove it, regardless of who you hoped would prevail.

Let's remember that going forward. All of the wailing about how Chavez was setting himself up to be "dictator for life" was obviously noise. Reasonable people can disagree about whether presidential term limits are more or less democratic than no term limits -- personally, I kind of wish the Republicans hadn't passed that never-again-an-FDR amendment, just in case we're ever lucky enough to find another FDR. To ask people to remove term limits is not a dictatorial action. To accept it when they most narrowly decline to do so shows every intention not to be a dictator.

Chavez is a leader who has let democracy prevail, who has instituted it in fact. His opponents should not be quick to pronounce his downfall in this tactical defeat. Perhaps, by demonstrating as nothing else could, that he has not and will not subvert democracy in Venezuela, it will empower him in new ways.

•  Now they will call him a wannabe

  They will not stop.

  by Number5 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:22:24 PM PDT

  •  Well, yeah, but...

    That's only because Chavez won't stop trying to be a dictator.

    by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 01:31:21 AM PDT

    •  have you been there? have you seen

      the abject poverty on the hillside south of downtown caracas? have you seen the shanty towns, without powers, sewers and water?

      I was there before and after Chavez.  Before, there were two classes, the super rich, and the utterly poor. destitute is a better word.
      Since his election, he brought in education, health care, food, water, sewers, jobs, and safety. All of those were rare in the pre-Chavez venezuela.

      Today's Caracas has been transformed. There is a growing middle class, there is employment, much lower crime, safety on the streets, widespread education, health care and the necessities of life.

      Before you spew stuff you have no idea about, you might try traveling there and seeing that country with your own eyes.

      by agnostic on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:44:41 AM PDT

      •  Ok

        I'm talking about the dissolution of democracy, not policies. Venezuela can be moving the right direction in many ways, but if Chavez sets up a strongman government where power is devolved from elected office to populist "councils" controlled by the government then whatever gains you see likely won't last after Chavez. That's the way it works with socialist, populist, authoritarian states. I don't see why one has to accept movements toward authoritarianism as a reasonable trade-off for a middle class. In fact, historically, that has not been a stable sort of bargain.

        by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:09:28 AM PDT

        •  Um...

          ... it was Venezuela's own people who refused to accept movements toward authoritarianism as a reasonable trade-off for a middle class, so I'm not sure what you're talking about... at least not after the results of the referendum announced last night.

          by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:12:26 AM PDT

          •  I think it's clear.

            I'm saying I don't understand why agnostic, or any American, has to accept it. In Venezuela, Russia, or anywhere else. As you note, Venezuelan voters agreed with me, but near as I can tell the person I was responding to is not a Venezuelan voter. So that's why the comment was phrased as it was.

            by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:28:12 PM PDT

•  Chavez yes...

  You make a valid point on Chavez, kudos.  But no term limits?  Holy crap, if there were no term limits, Ronald Reagan would still be President, and yes, I know he's dead.

  by scionkirk on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:24:04 PM PDT

  •  Actually, Bill Clinton would still be President

    I think we the people win when we get to keep the ones that are keepers as long as we like.

    FDR got four terms so they made sure they took that right away from us. The Canadians had Pierre Elliot Trudreau for most of an entire generation, and it did them good. Look how much better off they are than we have been lately.

    We would have kicked Republican butt if they had dared to run Reagan's sorry demented ass for a third term. He  barely escaped being impeached for Iran Contra.

    I'm with the wisdom of the people -- though they do take a while to catch on.

    by samizdat on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:35:52 PM PDT

    •  Term limits for president...

      ...was the brain child of Republicans who feared another popular, populist, progressive Democrat serving many terms the way FDR did.

      Republicans know that they are unlikely ever to have a Republican president who serves more than two terms and they want to make sure that a popular Democrat never has that chance.

      by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:50:08 PM PDT

      •  Are you sure that...

        ... Ronald Reagan might not have squeaked in for a third term?  I can't say I'm totally confident.  I am confident Clinton might have made it for four terms, despite Lewinsky-gate (and I'm making that a Republican scandal, not a Dem one).

        by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:14:20 AM PDT

    •  yes

      You have much more faith in humanity than I do I guess.

      by scionkirk on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:57:24 PM PDT

    •  Counterexample: Helmut Kohl

      Germany does not have term limits for its chancellor.

      Helmut Kohl was almost as bad as Bush. And just as unpopular in his third term.

      Yet he managed to eke out five terms. How? He simply bought himself a voting block of 17 million people - and called it reunification (which the German people did not want, at least at the time, on either side of the border).

      Bush might well try a similar ploy (I imagine statehood for Cuba as a candidate).

      We can always find another good President; there are actually many excellent people available. We have a couple running right now, and I suspect that several of our current crop of candidates will be better even than Clinton was.

      But we need a way to get rid of the really bad ones who will play tricks with the elections.

      Term limits are a very good idea.

      by sdgeek on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:57:20 PM PDT

  •  The US Republic...

    ...survived without term limits until the early 1950's.

    Would you have preferred that FDR have served only two terms instead of four?

    by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:46:20 PM PDT

    •  err...

      didn't term limits pass after FDR?

      There is such a thing as perfect timing you know.

      by scionkirk on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:02:06 PM PDT

      •  Exactly!

        The 22nd amendment was ratified in 1951.

        Interesting that even though Republicans feared another FDR, Eisenhower was opposed to the amendment as was Reagan, yet Clinton was for keeping it:

        Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

        Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed his strong opposition to term limits, saying, "The United States ought to be able to choose for its President anybody it wants, regardless of the number of terms he has served."

        Ronald Reagan publicly supported repealing the amendment.

        Bill Clinton stated his opposition to repealing the amendment, but supported modifying it to prohibit former presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms, but permitting them to seek election after an intervening term.

        by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:07:52 PM PDT

        •  Interesting concept

          Serve two terms, but be eligible to come back after an intervening term. If someone could be so popular that they could win renomination from a current candidate, perhaps that's not a bad idea. Clinton himself could have given it another try in 2004 after a term of Shrub. Anybody doubt that we would have been better off if he had been available for another term?

          In any event, with lengthening and more healthy lifespans, the whole question needs to be visited again, especially if we get Presidents in their 40's and 50's who are able to serve when they retire.

          by CarolDuhart on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:07:08 AM PDT

          •  Clinton would have been better, of course.

            But sometimes we vote with familiarity.  It is very healthy, in my humble opinion, to bring new great people and ideas to the table.  They are out there.

            by Dopusopus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:03:03 AM PDT

            •  Clinton could have ousted "the Shrub"...

              ... and in that case, I would have been perfectly willing to wait four years for "very healthy" and "new great people and ideas to the table".  Basically we would have the same presidential race we're having now, but with Clinton as president instead of Bush as president, which would have meant no Alito and no John Roberts, and possibly a signed hate crimes bill and federal funding for stem cells having gone forward since '05.  Which would you have preferred?

              by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:17:54 AM PDT

    •  FDR is dead.

      FDR isn't the president in Venezuela. He's dead. And he was American. We're talking about today's Venezuela and Mr Hugo Chavez. Whether or not someone would prefer a completely hypothetical, unanalogous situation in American history doesn't have much to do with the anti-democratic, anti-accountability, authoritarian-populist constitutional measures that were being discussed.

      Anyway, the reforms being voted on included term limits but were not limited to them. There were, I believe, 69 articles changed in the referendum. Many of the changes are "goodies" that I agree with, but many of them represent a power grab -- one that seeks to co-opt and then hollow out civil society -- thinly veiled as a devolution of power to the "people," through unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable councils beholden to Chavez's party.

      And, if you insist on using hypotheticals from history, would you have preferred that FDR hollowed out democratic structures, made them full of his straw men? Would you have preferred FDR shut down (sorry, "failed to renew the licenses of") NBC, CBS, and ABC so that state media would be a louder voice for his propaganda? And most of all, would you have preferred FDR running around conference with Churchill and Stalin acting like an adolescent goober, jumping about in a red shirt?

      What if it was Bush that was attempting to push these power-structure related reforms through? What if Bush acted like Chavez is acting? You'd have a different comment to make. You'd suddenly find conspiracy and evil in the fact that a single party held all the reins of power. Maybe you even DID when the Republicans had all 3 branches. But Chavez? A different story. And that's called hypocrisy, among other things.

      Venezuela has problems and potential, and Hugo Chavez is neither a good solution nor a good future, respectively.

      by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:05:25 AM PDT

      •  you sound like a bush supporter. you have

        no clue about the realities on the ground there. Heck, today's CIA or State could have written your script at the same time as they were trying to create the 3d or 4th takeover of that country with corporate support.

        shame on you.

        by agnostic on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:47:13 AM PDT

        •  Well,

          Look, I bet the CIA was plenty busy during the last month. That doesn't help me see past the long-term consequences of some of Chavez's structural "reforms." I don't believe his version of government is a stable one, or one that will lead to continued growth, especially when the oil dries up.

          by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:12:39 AM PDT

          •  Addison...I am with you. I am not sure what is

            up with this diary, but many people seem angry at the idea that term limits (democracy over dictatoriship) is a bad thing.  This is not about FDR or Hugo Chavez.  It is about protecting the people from a King, Dictator, Tyrant, absolute power.  Some seem to equate believing term limits are good with being a Bush supporter.  That is funny and scary.

            by Dopusopus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:06:36 AM PDT

      •  Next time there's a referendum...

        ... we need to see the "goodies" on the ballot without the power grabs.  I hope Chavez has the loss-induced sense to see this now, at least.

        by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:19:07 AM PDT

        •  Absolutely

          Yes, I agree completely (even though I'm also not in favor of some of the goodies, either). It was bizarre to include national policy and constitutional structure on the same "yes/no" referendum.

          by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:33:33 PM PDT

•  No.

  As I said in a comment in another diary, right wing Democrats and Republicans who fear real democracy will continue to call Chavez a dictator, a demagague, a tyrant a new Hitler and so on.

  Expecting opponents of democracy to be rational is not a good bet.

  I have a small technical quibble with the following:

  Chavez is a leader who has let democracy prevail...

  I would say that he is a democratically elected leader who has observed and obeyed the rule of law and the will of The People.

  by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:44:56 PM PDT

  •  BushCo will frame this as kicking Chavez out.

    A victory for the people, as if rethugs would know what the people actually want, or care.  Count on it.

    by groggy on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:51:14 PM PDT

•  I honestly don't understand this

  Great - so it was defeated. But the point is that there's absolutely no reason to be hailing Chavez on this. He's no hero.

  by PsiFighter37 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:58:26 PM PDT

  •  But rather more of a hero, . . .

    . . . and quite a bit more honest, than our own wannabe permanent regime, which fixes the results of elections it loses by less than ten points or so--a contrast the diarist made explicitly, and correctly.

    by keikekaze on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:21:28 PM PDT

    •  And I'd say that Chavez...

      ...is a hero compared to any US Democrat like Pelosi, Reid or Feinstein.

      by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:35:36 PM PDT

  •  Hero?

    A president of a democratic country who obeys the will of the people and the rules of the constitution may be no hero but he's better than anything we have in the US.

    by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:37:20 PM PDT

    •  How is he better than anything we have in the US?

      by Dopusopus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:08:57 AM PDT

      •  For one thing...

        ... because he has the guts to fight for what would make life better for the underserved people of his country, even if the corporations will do anything to stop him (including participate in a coup)... how many Democrats do you know that would do the same... and I don't even need to bring up Republicans.

        For another, because he actually respects the results arrived through the ballot.  He could easily have rigged the results if he wanted to.  Can you say the same about Bush, that he doesn't rig close votes, like the ones in Ohio in 2004 (and possibly New Mexico, as well, among other states) and Florida in 2000?  And how about the Democrats, who capitulated to all of this?  The only one in the Senate who fought against was Barbara Boxer.

        So I hope you understand now how he's better than anything we have in the US.  Not that it's all the candidate's fault.  We have some good people, like Dennis Kucinich, who are trying to do here, what they've done in Venezuela, but he's considered unelectable.  So Americans themselves are to blame for a huge part of the problem.

        by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:24:32 AM PDT

        •  We elected Kucinich as Mayor and Congressman

          by Dopusopus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:56:59 PM PDT

          •  I know...

            ... and I hope you help to keep beating back these primary challengers they've recently started coming up with.  Sadly, some "progressive" blogs, like the Swing State Project (which I still follow although I disagree with them vehmently on this one thing) are starting to become involved in this idea that Kucinich must be primaried out of the Congress because he is campaigning for president.  Do they have any idea how many sitting congressman, senators, and governors would have to be primaried out if everyone that campaigned for president had to be "ousted"???????????  I think it's just an excuse, personally.

            by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:07:18 PM PDT

•  Chavez showed some class tonight.

  I really thought he was on his way to setting himself up as the next Castro. Castro would have never done what he did tonight.

  This gives him more legitimacy for sure.

  by Pris from LA on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:59:59 PM PDT

  •  Interesting.

    I heard an interview on Pacifica Radio with someone who  studies politics in Latin America and the Caribbean very carefully.

    Can't remember the dude's name but he said that there was a meeting between Castro and Chavez shortly after Chavez became president and Castro told Chavez:

    "Don't do it the way I did it."

    Meaning, according the analyst, don't try to impose socialism from the top down but do it through the democratic process.

    by Rex Manning on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:33:53 PM PDT

    •  As it should be.

      If the people want socialism, so be it.

      by amRadioHed on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:54:45 PM PDT

      •  Yep...

        ... and I bet the Cuban people would have voted for it, if they had gotten the opportunity, minus the crackdown on dissent and human rights abuses they had to endure.  When socialist or communist leaders do things like that, they hand the biggest gift to Republicans and other right-wing scumbags across the world.  Looks like Chavez is learning from Cuba's mistakes.  Which is simply excellent.

        by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:33:47 AM PDT

    •  How incredibly profound...

      ... it's simply incredible that Castro privately has seen the error of his ways while he's still around, even if he would never admit it publicly, which would be endless fodder for the Bush administration, and the other anti-Castro Republicans, many of whom are Cubans, who at times have openly called for his assassination.

      by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:31:40 AM PDT

•  He may have accepted the vote but....

  The referendum that he wanted showed that he is a despot at heart and full of himself.

  by spinaltap on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 12:19:16 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately for you

    the next step is a line item referendum in which all of his reforms except unlimited terms will probably win, so at some point you will have to concede the leftist tilt is just what Venezuelans want.

    by bucadibeppo on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 12:51:59 AM PDT

    •  LET'S HOPE...

      ... he takes out the term limit removal provision, as well as some of the other more creeping authoritarian measures if he tries this referendum thing again.  I'm not sure he won't try for unlimited rule again.  Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it.  I'm going to keep my eye on what happens in Venezuela for some time.

      by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:42:20 AM PDT

  •  A despot doesn't lose an election

    by ~1.5%.

    by rjones2818 on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 04:35:25 AM PDT

  •  Way better than Bush...

    ... who certainly never gave anyone an opportunity to put the despotic things he wants at heart to a democratic vote.

    by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:35:06 AM PDT

•  Not So Fast...

  He's got brown skin. He's head of a country.  "We" don't like him.

  => He's a dictator.  Case closed.

  Facts? Schmacts!

  by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:29:47 AM PDT

•  And more to the point

  He's not trying to overturn the results by force either. He may try again with a different election, or a revised method, or whatever, but he's not throwing people in jail instead.

  by CarolDuhart on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:10:25 AM PDT

  •  Morest to the point.

    Why throw opponents in jail after they vote against you when you can lock them up before they vote?

    About 300 students gathered outside the Catholic University Andres Bello in the capital, occupying a major highway that runs through the west of the capital. The four hour protest, which was adorned with placards attacking the referendum, caused huge traffic jams forcing rush-hour drivers to wait it out.

    "We students will keep coming out on to the street to demand freedom and democracy," said Roberto Diaz, a 21-year old law student at the university.

    Dozens of police and national guard were brought in to monitor the demonstration which ended Tuesday evening without incident.

    Students have been one of the major sources of opposition to Chavez's referendum.

    A man was shot to death Monday after he tried to cross a similar protest, near the city of Valencia. Chavez blamed violent elements within the opposition for the killing. Around 80 people were arrested in the disturbances.  [AP]

    And, of course, shoot them!

    University students in Caracas protested Nov. 8 against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, just one day after masked gunmen attacked students in the Venezuelan capital returning from a demonstration, injuring at least eight people. The Central University of Venezuela (UCV) would not confirm whether anyone had died. Five students were also injured during protests by plainclothes gunmen in the northwestern city of Barquisimeto on Nov. 7. The Nov. 7 shootings were not the first of their kind. At least one female student died and two others were seriously injured at the University of Zulia on Nov. 2 when armed men fired from a moving vehicle upon a group of protesting students. A deadly shooting also occurred Nov. 2 at the University of Lara, according to an unconfirmed report. [Stratfor]

    Don't worry, you have an out, just say that Venezuelan university students are all CIA agents who've studied up on Operation Tenanza. As for "revised methods," yes, when he tries again in a year or so he'll declare a state of emergency before the referendum. None of the 32 judges would rule that illegal: the entire bench of Venezuela's highest court is pro-Chavez.

    by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:05:00 AM PDT

    •  Sorry...

      ... but there have been reports of shootings where Chavez supporters were the ones that were shot.  You might easily have confused reports of who's shooting who with ones that are vague (like yours seem to be) and could easily be interpreted to make it look like it was Chavez' guys that were shooting his opposition.  I'll believe it when it comes from someone other than you, and the news articles are more clear (which they haven't always been).

      by homoaffectional on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 11:44:41 AM PDT

      •  Other source

        Thanks for this comment. You're absolutely right, these are vaguely written reports. And you're right to question me on them. I think I assumed right, though:

        A total of five people were injured on Tuesday at the Libertador Experimental Pedagogic University (UPEL) as the sequel of student protests against the changes to the Constitution prompted by President Hugo Chávez.

        According to early versions, a meeting was being held at the university located in Barquisimeto, the capital city of central-western Lara state. A gang rode their motorbikes to the site and attacked the participants.  The clash resulted in five people wounded, including a member of the university internal security corps, said university sources, DPA quoted.

        Demonstrations stretched out to Andean Táchira state, where some students were injured and 28 were detained on Monday.

        A total of nine people injured were the toll disclosed by General Antonio Rivero, Civil Protection national director, as a result of the turmoil inside Central University of Venezuela (UCV) when a gang of armed subjects stormed in the campus and lambasted the students who were returning from a march staged on Wednesday to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ). [El Universal]

        Yes, I know, "early reports." But I haven't seen a contradictory later report. Also, Chavez was being pretty defensive about it, which I doubt he would've been had his supporters been killed. I actually don't think Chavez is directly responsible, I think it's the same thing as is happening right now with Putin, where some supporters get into a fascist mentality and dress up in brownshirts and assault protestors for fun.

        Anyway, as terrible as it is (no matter which side was assaulted), that's all really a sideshow.

        by Addison on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 07:42:55 PM PDT

•  Hugo would have been dictator for life

  if he had his way.  It was not noise.  Likewise, term limits are a wonderful thing.  It prevents tyrants.  Can you imagine if Bush could have a third and fourth term?  You might say he would not win...but don't be so sure.  New wars have a way of changing some people's minds.

  by Dopusopus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:20:16 AM PDT

  •  Whatever.

    You say a bunch of bullshit and act like you know something.

    Blusting shit you pull out of your ass does not equal any kind of insight.

    'Chavez would be dictator for life'

    Get real.  Doofus.

    by teknofyl on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:35:16 AM PDT

    •  I did not say anything disrespectful to you, nor

      the diary.  And I have just as much right to comment here as anyone else.  You are right, I am no expert on the matter.  I am not sure that you are either.  You show your lack of insight through your name-calling and rudeness to those who differ in thought.  I respect your right to disagree and I forgive your poor manners.  Go in peace.

      by Dopusopus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:58:58 AM PDT

      •  You have a right to comment

        True.

        I just find the unequivocal declaration of knowledge of future hypothetical events to be a taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad much.

        But you are right - that was rathr rude of me.  And no, I'm no expert... Iget most of my info from my in-laws, rebelion.org and aporrea.org - no special sources.

        I'm really annoyed by people who don't even follow what's going on in Venezuela procaiming Chavez a dictator because CNN says it is so and they saw a picture o him in a beret.

        Even TDS and KO get in on the bashing.  Sa deal with Iran, though.

        I still think it's a stupid bandwagon to jump on.  But hey... pile right on, buddy.

        Fuck it... sometime we Americans just INSIST on being dumbasses.  Woo-hoo.  Smell the freedom.

        by teknofyl on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 10:48:27 AM PDT