Hugo Chávez never had a chance with the U.S. press.I've been saying, in various places (here's one, "The Man Who Wasn't There"), that we're better off understanding who Hugo Chávez actually is and what the chavista program is about, what it is doing and what it plans to do, rather than leaping to hasty conclusions fostered by the Bush administration, many in the Venezuelan opposition, and the Venezuelan and US media.
I often find in discussions about Chávez with Americans, that most people are more than willing to talk my ear off about what they think of Chávez. When I ask them about actual Chávez policies, they're often stumped. Curious, that. A few days ago, someone told me that Chávez is "anti-American." I responded that I knew a bit about Venezuela and that the "anti-American" trope is as much an American creation as anything else. Chávez is "anti-imperialist," and constantly makes the distinction between the two, as do almost all other Venezuelans. The ties between the US and Venezuela extend far back into history, and underneath the table where the rhetoric flies, there's a healthy, booming trade and exchange of goods, ideas, and people. The response I received in return? "No, I just believe they're anti-American."
Now, I don't know why the US mainstream media has not offered up better analyses of Chávez and chavista policies. There's a rich, detailed analysis waiting to be done (you hear me, NY Times Sunday Magazine?). It wouldn't be merely a study of the economics of oil, nor the typical Chávez-as-caudillo article. It would include the philosophical debates happening in Venezuela right now about what is the best future for the country.
I returned from Venezuela last year exhilarated by the high level of debate on the part of everyone - government officials, opposition leaders, the poor, the middle class, the upper class, students, professors, everyone. It's a debate of both reasoned intelligence and fiery passions where nearly everything is on the table. It makes our own so-called public debates, conducted largely by pundits orbiting around a constricted political center, look quite pale in comparison. Venezuelans are thinking about a new future and what it could and should be, and this will have ramifications for all developing nations. Chávez is, of course, a central figure in the discussion.
As for the US, lord knows we could use a lot more understanding of those we otherwise seem all too willing to portray as enemies.
Take a look at this piece in FAIR for more.
4 comments:
Its the intensity with which they produce banal, mediocre,repetitive analysis that is so exquisitely symbolic of the national discourse. Fahreed Zakaria had some dweeb from the Miami Herald on his Foreign Exchange show last night, talking about the waning of Chavez's influence after "the speech" and security council defeat.Obrador and Humalla were the proof of his overreach. Not a word about his own election results, or Ecuadors or what a criminal Garcia is.Makes you want to club a seal and grab the pipe.
"Now, I don't know why the US mainstream media has not offered up better analyses of Chávez and chavista policies. "
What does the evidence point to? It seems to me that such repetitive, mostly unsubtantiated attacks on Chavez stem from a combination of old-fashioned American nationalism and the fact that Chavez's policies are not in the best interest of American oil corporations.
In the light of the mostly pro-US business agenda of the mainstream media it's doubtful that the NYTimes is ever going to publish a balanced article about Chavez and Venezuela. After all, they are the ones that most consistently use the inflammatory description of "Anti-American" in virtually all their articles related to Hugo Chavez. Their consistent use of this label to describe a foreign leader that refuses to submit to plain old U.S. exceptionalism just goes to shows you the low intellectual caliber of foreign policy discussion in the U.S.
José del Solar
Chavez is essentially harmless at the moment. As an oil state, Venezuela could go right of the rails economically OR politically. But, the threat he poses to the U.S. is minimal. Despite the distaste that some Venezuealans may have for U.S. policies past and present, I think they'd prefer we'd just keep our distance.
It's not really even that Chavez poses a threat, unless one thinks that the US has a right to Venezuelan oil and a right to determine the directions of Latin American politics.
When I spoke with government officials in Venezuela, I would often ask if Norway (as an oil-based economy with a strong social justice tradition and environmental protections, AND a strong economy) might be a good model for Venezuela. The response I usually got was, yes. They would say that the US likes to portray VZ as moving towards a Cuban model, while they're actually thinking more in terms of Norway.
The difference is that VZ has an extremely high - though decreasing - poverty rate. On the chavista view, that has to be resolved first.
Post a Comment