One of the reasons so many leftists respond favorably to people like Chavez is because they speak in the name of the “masses.” As Walker writes, to populists, what really matters is the incorporation of the masses,” but any view of democratization is not be obtained via institutions of representative democracy, since they regard them suspiciously.
And, he notes, the new populist leaders depend for legitimacy on “the personal characteristics of a charismatic leader and his or her identification with the masses that prevail over any form of institutional constraint.” Thus Hugo Chavez is said to be above any institutions, since he embodies the people themselves in his very being.
In contrast to the kind of regime Chavez is trying to build in Venezuela, Walker points to the new type of social-democracies. While they are seeking to create a viable structure that benefits the dispossessed, they are committed to economic growth and essentially to democratic capitalism. Moreover, they do not view the United States as an enemy, although at times, their officials have to give lip service to leaders of the traditional old-line Marxist Left. The new governments Walker praises are “increasingly market friendly, with a favorable attitude toward globalization-aware not only of the threats it represents but of the opportunities that it provides.” He continues to contrast Venezuela with the social democratic governments in Brazil and Chile, which are developing a new style of politics in Latin America.
That means that the United States can work with and help such governments succeed. Most important is to recognize, Walker notes, that the Chavez regime “is not representative of but rather exceptional within the complex and diverse reality of Latin American politics.” The hysterical Right in this country has often ignored this, and responded to Chavez’s posturing as if he represents the entire region. The important point made by Walker: “This left may be less visible than the one represented by Chavez, but it is not less effective, especially when faced with the challenge of consolidating democratic institutions in Latin America.” These parties, although leftist, do not bypass the institutions of representative democracy, and the parties that lead them “work within and strengthen these institutions.”
These governments, and their democratic leaders, do not lend themselves to the hosannas of the likes of Sean Penn. Let me return once more to his endless diatribe on The Huffington Post, to which I referred yesterday. Penn traveled through Venezuela with Hugo Chavez, and proclaimed him a “great man.” But what is most striking is the flim-flam the authoritarian populist tried to play on him, evidently successfully. Chavez explained his relationship to Iran; it is simply that he needs Iran as an ally “as a buffer to American imperialism.” Penn thinks Chavez is a great “student of history.” He is mesmerized and taken in by him thoroughly. He does not realize that Chavez is an authoritarian populist, and he does not challenge the description Chavez gives of his views. An amazing exchange on this question takes place.
Christopher Hitchens, the columnist and ex-Trotskyist, accompanied Penn in his meeting with Chavez. Hitchens responds when Chavez tells him to ask the hardest question he can think of. Hitchens asks: “What’s the difference between you and Fidel?” Chavez answers: “Fidel is a Communist. I am not. I am a social-democrat. (my emphasis) Fidel is a Marxist-Leninist. I am not. Fidel is an atheist. I am not.” Venezuela, he tells them, “must have a democratic socialism.”
Hitchens must have held his breath and stopped himself from laughing as he heard this. Penn gives no indication of what he thought, except to present everything as if Chavez’s explanations are to be taken at face value. For those who believe in the principles of social-democracy and democratic socialism, the last thing they need is Chavez claiming that under his leadership, Venezuela is creating a social-democracy. As Michael Walzer clearly understands, Chavez’s regime makes a mockery out of the values that he, and I hope Christopher Hitchens, believe in. One thing is most clear. Hugo Chavez knows what to say to gullible enthusiasts like Sean Penn.
“Ignacio Walker”
Might he be a descendent of William Walker, the one time dictator of Nicaragua over a hundred and fifty years ago? Alas, moderate lefties fail to realize that socialist policies inevitably lead to the road to serfdom. The so-called Third Way is ultimately a losing proposition. Such political institutions, however well meaning, give too much power to the leaders. Sooner or later, they will abuse it. Do you really wish to help the dispossessed? In that case—do your best to stay out of the way! The masses must be treated as individuals able to handle their own affairs. They need a government that protects their economic rights and then essentially leaves them alone.
I despise left wing policies, but there is rule we can’t be allies with countries that adopt policies we do not like, look at England post- WWII
I have not read the article yet, but with the blatant prejudice displayed by the left media and the left Congress in the U.S., why should I bother; I can’t believe there is any “Left” that can comply with the Constitution and maintain “We the People” in the global community.
addendum;
We the People have the only Constitution that maintains personal freedom and “free enterprise”. Absolutely no other system, to date, has been able to come close to the absolute freedoms granted INDIVIDUALS in any other nation.
So, let me get this straight – when right-wingers note Chavez’ friendship with other leftists in Latin America and say that Chavez represents the liberals from the entire region – the author calls those right-wingers “hysterical”. Yet, when the Latin American liberals spew left-wing marxist speeches – the author claims they are merely paying the lip service to the homicidel ideologies, and don’t really mean it (who among us hasn’t paid a homage to an ideology that killed tens of millions of people should be the first to throw the stone)…
I wonder if this contrast is justifiable…
There are two things all leftists share, no matter what “type”. They are a contempt for real democracy since it might produce an “oppressive” result and a willingness to assist other leftists regardless of style. While every Latin American Leftist is not Castro, Chavez, Morales or Correa, every one is willing to dismiss the excesses of other leftists since they are seen as opposing colonialism and exploitation. In the end, leftists will stab the US in the back because they hate American success more than they dislike Marxist failure. It is good to know and use the differences between leftys to our advantage. But we should never trust one.
Cybergeezer,
Did you actually think before parroting back a bunch of irrelevant non sequiters and slogans, or are you still looking for Reds under your mattress? On the other hand, glad you posted. I get a lot of insight into the conservative movement through posts like that.
I have read through this and about half cited article…
I have a few problems.
1. that being that pretty much any form of socialism is doomed to fail… to quote from your article…
“analyze efforts to deal with income inequality through the use of overly expansive macroeconomic policies, leading almost inevitably to major crises. “The use of macroeconomic policy to achieve distributive goals has historically led to failure, sorrow, and frustration.” In the end, these policies have failed to benefit the poorest segments of society; real wages ended up being lower than they were at the beginning of the populist experiments.”
2. “he new governments Walker praises are “increasingly market friendly, with a favorable attitude toward globalization-aware not only of the threats it represents but of the opportunities that it provides.” He continues to contrast Venezuela with the social democratic governments in Brazil and Chile, which are developing a new style of politics in Latin America.”
The problem I see with this is slight of hand… I can’t speak for chile… but brazil is “increasingly market friendly” can be compared to a bank robber who is friendly to the opening of new banks… or the pick pocket who is friendly to the opening of a new tourist attraction…
Brazil lives off stealing millions of dollars and tech from the US/US tax payers/US companies… all under the fact that we(the US) aren’t willing to punish them for it…
This is very much what Venezuela/chavez is in the cycle of doing… reference the “The Populist Cycle”…
Venezuela encouraged US oil companies in… then sweep chavez into power and take it away…(you know “for the ppl”). Brazil could easily join in the “The Populist Cycle” and sweep a brazilian chavez in and start all over again.
I’ll post anything else should I see something worth posting in the other half of the article…
Leftists, and the people who love them, have been telling us since Woodrow Wilson’s day that “this leftist is different. He’s not a homicidal maniac. We can work with him.”
No leftist is ever different. They all want the same thing; the only thing that varies is individual ability to achieve the desired end.
Leftism in power now has a one hundred year history for us to present as evidence.
Radosh is another in a long, and seemingly endless, line of useful idiots.
Mr. Radosh,
Thanks, I read the whole article by Ignacio Walter and he hits the nail in the head. Unfortunately, by reading the comments so far (there are six at the moment I’m writing this), I can see that some people missed the main point: Hugo Chávez is not Latin America, he does not represent us (I’m from the Dominican Republic) and must countries in Latin America are following a different path, no matter what the mainstream media is reporting in the U.S.
”Brazil lives off stealing millions of dollars and tech from the US/US tax payers/US companies… all under the fact that we(the US) aren’t willing to punish them for it…”
Robotech master: Such as…? Those are strong words… care to provide some evidence..? What exactly are you talking about…?
”Brazil could easily join in the “The Populist Cycle” and sweep a brazilian chavez in and start all over again.”
I rest my case. Why don’t you google around a bit and inform yourself about Chavez and Venezuela before writing such nonsense? The Venezuela that elected Hugo Chavez does not have anything in common with Brazil, so why do you assume that a Chavez clone can rise to power in Brazil?
To 10. Ulises Jorge Bido: “Robotech master: Such as…? Those are strong words… care to provide some evidence..? What exactly are you talking about…?”
Try google… first you can start with the word “patent”….
“I rest my case. Why don’t you google around a bit and inform yourself about Chavez and Venezuela before writing such nonsense? The Venezuela that elected Hugo Chavez does not have anything in common with Brazil, so why do you assume that a Chavez clone can rise to power in Brazil?”
I would suggest you stay off google and read some history books….
Ron, you surely know Socialism is the next thing to Communism,no matter in what country it exists.Socialists love liberal thinking.
‘Try google… first you can start with the word “patent”….’
reobotech master: Why should I..? If you couldn’t find any evidence to support your claims, why should I do that for you?
“I would suggest you stay off google and read some history books….”
Like you did, right? Because it doesn’t look like you actually know what you’re talking about. Hugo Chavez is a uniquely Venezuelan phenomenon and he is not a leftist, just a populist bend on perpetuating himself in power for as long as he can. He is widely disliked in Latin America, polling near the bottom in the region (alongside Fidel Castro and… err…George W. Bush).
To 13. Ulises Jorge Bido
“robotech master: Why should I..? If you couldn’t find any evidence to support your claims, why should I do that for you?”
O I’m sorry forgive me from pushing you outside your bubble of fantasy…
“Like you did, right? Because it doesn’t look like you actually know what you’re talking about. Hugo Chavez is a uniquely Venezuelan phenomenon and he is not a leftist, just a populist bend on perpetuating himself in power for as long as he can. He is widely disliked in Latin America, polling near the bottom in the region (alongside Fidel Castro and… err…George W. Bush).”
O yes polling… surely if that isn’t science fact nothing is…
As for chavez not being a leftist…I do suppose hitler and stalin were right wing as well then…
“just a populist bend on perpetuating himself in power for as long as he can.” thats a prefect description of a leftist…
I think this is an awesome post, but I wish you had discussed some points differntly.