'Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Venezuelan Electoral Postmortems
Venezuelan Electoral Postmortems
by Stephen Lendman
Chavistas celebrated Sunday's victory. Bolivarianism triumphed over
exploitive neoliberal harshness. In open, free, and fair elections,
Venezuelans got to choose. It's constitutionally mandated. Every vote
counts equally.
Americans don't have that right. On November 6, choice won't be the
ballot. Column A matches Column B. Money power chooses candidates and
winners. Some election! No wonder half the electorate ops out.
On October 7, Venezuelans turned out in record numbers. Over 80% of
registered voters showed up. Turnout was so great, many waited hours to
exercise their franchise.
It's important because what they say matters. They wanted Chavez for
another six years and got him. They want Bolivarianism sustained and
deepened.
Chavez pledged he'll do it. He keeps promises. Vows US leaders make
aren't worth the paper they're written on. Obama broke every major one
he made.
It shouldn't surprise. It's the American way. Bolivarianism chooses
another. Its good example shames Western faux democracies. Today they're
more hypocrisy than ever.
Prioritizing wealth, power and imperial interests means depriving most
people of vital social services. No wonder unemployment, poverty,
homelessness, hunger, and overall human misery keep growing.
Venezuela is mirror opposite. Beneficial social change is prioritized.
It shows. Poor people are helped generously. Child mortality fell from
20 per 1,000 to 13. Unemployment dropped from 14.5% to 7.6%. Income
inequality is Latin America's lowest. Poverty was cut in half. Extreme
poverty fell from 23.4% to 8.5%.
According to Census figures, half of US households are impoverished or
bordering on it. Real unemployment approaches 23%. Most jobs are
temporary or part-time low pay/poor or no benefit ones. They're rotten.
With no other choice, people take them. It's either that or starve and
sleep on city streets.
America's industrial base is a shadow of its former self. It's located
offshore in low wage countries. US workers are left high and dry.
Conditions keep worsening, not improving.
Venezuela's far from perfect. Violent crime, corruption, high inflation,
infrastructure needs, and a menacing northern neighbor are worrisome.
Chavez's health is uncertain. His cancer's in remission. If it returns
and he can't serve, who'll succeed him isn't clear.
Venezuela's poor love him for good reason. They turned Sunday evening
into New Year's eve. Victory was sweet, and they celebrated.
Sour grapes showed up prominently elsewhere. It's standard practice after every Bolivarian triumph. More on that below.
Venezuela is comprised of 23 states, a Capital District (Caracas), and
offshore Federal Dependencies. Chavez carried 21 states and Caracas.
Lead opponent Capriles took Zulia and Carabobo states.
Venezuela's state-of-the-art electoral process shames America's. It's
far less susceptible to fraud and identity theft than elsewhere.
Postal and proxy votes are excluded. Fingerprints identify voters
electronically. Paper receipts verify ballots cast. They're recorded and
available for recounts if needed.
Every candidate was identified by name and full color photo. It helps
assure votes are cast as intended. Observers monitored fairness.
Opposition supporters turned out in force. They agreed. Voting was open,
free and fair.
The Union of South American Nations praised what went on. Mission head Carlos Alvarez said:
"Venezuela has given an exemplary demonstration of what the functioning of democracy is and has taught a lesson to the world."
"Venezuela strengthened democracy in the nation and the region."
Alvarez also praised Venezuela's National Electoral Council (CNE). He
called its work "extraordinary." It's a model to help "achieve the
construction of a South American electoral system."
Throughout Sunday, everything proceeded smoothly. No major disturbances
occurred. Opposition strategists hoped otherwise. They planned to
highlight fraud and other irregularities but couldn't find any.
Capriles had no recourse but to concede defeat. He left unsaid why most
Venezuelans spurned them. They need no explanations. Triumphant Chavismo
is all that matters.
On January 10, Chavez begins his fourth term. He told supporters he's
not waiting. "(F)or me," he said, "the new cycle begins today. We're
obligated to be better every day, more efficient, obligated to respond
with greater efficiency to the needs of people."
He promised "to be the best president that I have been in these years."
Take him at his word. He'll try because he cares. Imagine if US and
other Western leaders felt this way and showed it. Perhaps another time
in a new era, but not now. Other priorities take precedence.
Beating up on Bolivarianism
If you can't beat 'em, beat up on 'em. Sour grapes postmortems made
headlines. Scoundrel media editorials and op-eds featured them.
The Wall Street Journal's
Mary O'Grady is ideologically to the right of many neocons. Her style
reflects character assassination. Her rhetoric drips with vitriol. She
wins awards for genuflecting to power and suppressing vital truths for
power brokers who pay her.
Her electoral postmortem was typical. She headlined "Chavismo Wins, Venezuela Loses," saying:
"Control of the media and the voting polls, plus some old-fashioned fear, have won Hugo Chávez six more years."
False, false and false! Corporations control virtually all Venezuelan
major broadcast and print media. They unanimously endorsed Capriles.
Venezuela's electoral process is called the world's best for good
reason. Voters turned out en masse because it matters. Neoliberal
extremists alone stoke fear.
O'Grady lied saying internal Capriles polling showed he'd "win by three
to four percentage points." Days before October 7, opposition insiders
privately conceded. They knew they had no chance to win and said so.
Chavez "seized control of television and radio stations and used them
during the campaign…" Those same stations opposed him. They promoted
Capriles. They featured him on air.
"Mr. Capriles tried to tap into (Venezuelan) misery by presenting
himself as a social democrat…." He's a wealthy neoliberal hard-liner. He
deplores beneficial social change. If elected he'd return Venezuela to
its bad old days. Voters wanted none of him and his extremism.
O'Grady’s litany of canards infested her piece. Ones included sound like
America, not Venezuela. She never misses a chance to beat up on Chavez.
She was true to form calling him a "dictator," a "world-class
demagogue."
He "mortgaged Venezuela to help him buy another six years in power….(N)o
one believes that the final vote spread reflects the public's opinion
of the winner."
"With China underwriting his populism and Cuba manning his intelligence
and security apparatus, his near-term comfort in Miraflores palace is
practically guaranteed."
O'Grady reflects the worst of US opinion journalism. Yellow can't begin to describe it.
WSJ
writers Jose de Cordoba and Sara Schaefer Munoz had their say. They
were dishonest in less strident form than O'Grady. They headlined
"Victory Tightens Chavez Grip on Power," saying:
"Another decisive electoral victory for Hugo Chávez has convinced many
Venezuelans in the opposition that his only vulnerabilities are a turn
for the worse in the ailing president's health or a sharp drop in oil
prices."
"The win allows Mr. Chávez to press ahead with his Socialist revolution,
deepening government intervention in the economy, including price
controls and nationalizations."
"Observers see him as likely to continue his role as the leading voice
against U.S. interests in the region, enhancing alliances with everyone
from Tehran to Beijing."
What else would a Murdoch publication say. They have marching orders,
salute and obey. So does Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
analyst Moises Naim. The Journal writers quoted him saying:
"You have the head of a petrostate with authoritarian propensities who
controls the legislative branch, the supreme court, the electoral
tribunal and the oil industry which generates 98% of the country's
wealth, without any checks and balances."
The entire article wreaked with misinformation. Corporate media scoundrels offer nothing else.
Bloomberg headlined "Chavez Election Victory Signals Accelerated Socialist Revolution," saying:
Since taking office in 1999, "he nationalized more than 1,000 companies
or their assets…" Nationalizations were far fewer. He paid fair
compensation every time. No one was cheated.
"With voters giving the former paratrooper another six-year term, he’ll
probably push policies, such as currency controls and takeovers, that
have driven away investors…."
Chavez combines populism with business friendly practices. Level playing
field politics perhaps best describes it. Before crisis conditions
erupted in 2008, banker profits were so high they said they were "having
a party."
During today's hard times, Venezuela's growth is impressive. Q II 2012
advanced 5.4%. In contrast, Europe's in recession. America is close.
Economist Jack Rasmus predicts it in 2013. He calls overall conditions
dire.
In a section devoted to Chavez, The New York Times said the "fiery socialist defeated a youthful, more moderate challenger…."
"He is an ailing and politically weakened winner facing an emboldened
opposition that grew stronger and more confident as the voting neared,
and at times seemed to have an upset victory within reach."
The Times spent the last dozen years or longer beating up on him
mercilessly. It can't bear admitting social democracy works. It supports
wealth and power. It spurns ordinary people. It calls fascist America
democratic. It calls the real thing in Venezuela autocratic. Truth was
never The Times' long suit.
The Dallas Morning News was no better. Its editorial headlined "Venezuela's sad electoral statement," saying:
"Score another lamentable election victory for Venezuelan President Hugo
Chávez. The fiery, anti-U.S. revolutionary now has another six-year
term to continue with the plans he launched after his first election in
1998 to dismantle Venezuela’s free-market economy and pursue his
anachronistic socialist agenda."
Washington has "national security" concerns to worry about for another
six years. Chavez "rankled US leaders" by friendly relations with
governments America opposes.
His "so-called Bolivarian revolution has proved hollow. Revolutionary
socialism is almost impossible to sustain….Chavez should increasingly be
dismissed for what he is - a toothless tiger."
Media scoundrels call success failure. Their arguments don't wash.
Rhetoric substitutes for hard truths. Too bad so many people believe
them. Venezuelans aren't fooled. They support what works and showed it.
Pre-election, the London Guardian headlined "Hugo Chavez: a strongman's last stand," saying:
"No one ever accused Hugo Chávez of thinking small. He casts politics as
an existential contest between good and evil, the oppressed and the
oppressor."
The election will decide "the comandante('s)" fate "and his revolution.
(It) hangs by a thread….Chávez surrounded himself mostly with
mediocrities, valuing loyalty over competence."
"His legacy will be debated for decades….Many outsiders made up their
minds long ago. There was Chávez the dictator who jailed opponents,
sponsored terrorists and left his people hungry."
"Chavez….is a hybrid: a democrat and autocrat, a progressive and a
bully." The Guardian also called him "a caudillo (strongman)" running a
"dysfunction(al)" economy.
It's hard imagining any broadsheet letting this trash end up in print.
Inconvenient truths are ignored. Admitting them would discredit
everything else said.
Shameless editorials and op-eds hounded Chavez for years. In its
November/December 2005 Extra edition, Fairness & Accuracy in
Reporting (FAIR) headlined "The Op-Ed Assassination of Hugo Chavez," saying:
Pat Robertson literally wanted him killed. Even so-called "moderate"
columnists beat up on him mercilessly. The usual characterizations call
him a strongman, autocrat, dictator, another Hitler.
"In studying the opinion pages of the top 25 circulation newspapers in
the United States during the first six months of 2005, Extra! found that
95 percent of the nearly 100 press commentaries that examined
Venezuelan politics expressed clear hostility to the country’s
democratically elected president."
It was no different earlier and perhaps worse today. The longer Chavez
survives and gets majority Venezuelan support, the more media scoundrels
beat up on him.
It's nearly impossible finding major media commentaries portraying him
accurately. Doing so would be out of character. Contributors would be
out of work. Party line opinion only is tolerated. Truth and full
disclosure are prohibited. It's the American way.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News
Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time
and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy
listening.'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten