It’s threads like this that prove Godwin’s law is almost as stupid as the people who adhere to it. If people actually showed evidence they had learned the error of trusting in autocratic demagogues, people wouldn’t have to continually point to the single biggest historical lesson mankind has ever been given on what not to let leaders get away with. Until the general public actually shows they’ve learned that the smiling strongman who is full on idealism and promises and dismissive of liberty is a recipe for disaster, I don’t think you can bring up the Nazis enough.
Oh, come on! Chavez might or might not be Castro Lite, but he is definitely not Hitler Redux!
The guy tried to seize control in a military coup. That’s one of those things, one of those acts of treason you like to talk about so much (and even did in this thread) that you don’t get a “pass” on.
Hitler and the Nazis took things to extreme levels, maybe not the worst we’ve ever seen, but they’re definitely in contention. And, it was in a Western country that was traditionally prided for many of its intellectuals and had a relatively high standard of living prior to WWI.
It really shouldn’t take an example as extreme as Hitler to get people’s attention, but unfortunately that appears to be what it takes. “Castro Lite” isn’t acceptable, period. People that rule by fiat and force aren’t acceptable, period. A guy who tries to take over a country via coup d’etat is not a guy you want in charge of the country. The only people who really think that way are the people who:
-
Are drinking the Kool-Aid
-
Aren’t in the country and get the benefit of cherry picking all the good things about a charismatic autocrat without having to personally deal with it if he decides to become a “mean” autocrat.
I don’t, and neither the Venezuelans that still voted for him. what is conveniently forgotten is that he did time in jail for that and was AFAICR pardoned by the then president.
No it is not OK, but not to point. Even in more free places the government would shut down a media outlet that called for the overthrow of the government and based on false information.
Nitpick: Godwin’s Law is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I was referring to its prescriptive corollary that has been in common usage across the internet since at least 1995.
What the original phrasing of the law was is meaningless when it is applied in a prescriptive context all the time on discussion forums everywhere (aka: Welcome to the Interweb.)
Well, surprise! I do not like Chavez, but just like the current opposition in Venezuela, you lost me when you disregard that the majority of the people voted for him and the opposition in Venezuela still thinks a coup, lying about election results and boycotting elections is a winning combination.
So both groups in Venezuela thought a coup was one way to do it, I will take the one that failed, was pardoned, did not lie about election results or boycotted elections now. Not that I like the choice, but it beats the alternative so far.
The benefit of not living in Venezuela is, you don’t really have to choose, I know I haven’t. I have more than enough condemnation for them all, and the inappropriate acts of the opposition don’t justify Chavez slowly consolidating dictatorial power (something that’s bad in any case, regardless of its legality in the country in question.)
In any case, Chavez really can’t fairly be compared to Hitler. He might cling to power like a barnacle to a boat, but he won’t wage wars of aggression on his neighbors to build a “Greater Venezuela,” nor will he set up concentration camps for people he doesn’t like, nor will he conduct Stalinesque purges and show trials. In fact, I very much doubt he will ever be as hard on dissidents as Castro has been. Most of the coup plotters are still free, AFAIK. The figurehead who was to take over as president, Pedro Carmona, fled the country to escape prosecution, and Chavez hasn’t been trying too hard to get him extradited (he’s much more exercised about extraditing Luis Posada Carriles, whose crimes were committed long before Chavez was president).
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me.
Right now, most things are going Chavez’s way. The oil industry is booming, and the influx of dollars is keeping his economy afloat. He enjoys the popular support of the people. His anti-Bush rhetoric is gaining him a following. He has no need for brutal crackdowns right now.
Let’s wait and see what happens when his economy goes in the dumper, the people start protesting in the streets, and the voices of the opposition begin to gain traction. Then we’ll see how benevolent his dictatorship is. Not that it’s been benevolent so far, what with the wholesale confiscation of property and all.
There is absolutely nothing in Chavez’ rhetoric or politics to suggest he envisions any territorial claims on neighboring countries, nor that he demonizes any particular sector of the population other than his active political opponents – and I’m basing my expectations WRT them on his track record so far. He might shut them up, he might even prosecute some of them, but he won’t set up a Gestapo to jail them wholesale.
AFAIK, practically all of those Venezuelans who were rich before Chavez became president are still rich now. You know something different? To what “wholesale confiscations” are you referring?
But, according to Eva Golinger, the U.S. government may have been behind that (and has been spending money to indoctrinate Venezuelan journalists with a pro-U.S. POV since 2001).
If you’re talking about land reform, BTW, most of the land distributed to peasants has been government land, and WRT the privately held land, the previous owners weren’t using it anyway and have been compensated at full market value. See here.
Or did you have something else in mind?
The book on Hitler is divided into two broad sections.
The first would be about his (and his party’s) rise to power and the second would be about his military expansionism. The first half of that book is comparable to all kinds of dictators the world over and it’s very telling that many dictators consolidate and rise to power in very similar ways to how Hitler did.
It’s not so much that I think they’re emulating Hitler, it’s just that Hitler has been studied in way more detail than most other dictators in history (Idi Amin for example, hasn’t been near as analyzed or studied.) Part of that is because Westerners tend to focus more on Western history, and Europeans more on European history, and the West as a whole represents a large portion of the world’s mainstream academia. The fact he has been studied so much gives us a very in-depth view of how he rose to power, and allows us to see that dictatorships the world over are often formed in very similar ways. Dictators know they need to control the media, they need to control the military, they need to keep the people happy, and they need to consolidate their power over time.
The second half of the book on Hitler isn’t applicable to most dictators because most countries today aren’t in a situation to carry out wide-scale invasions of their neighbors. Although it does still happen (Saddam for example invaded two countries.)
I’ll just be interested to see how lefties start responding if we elect a Democrat and Chavez starts railing on the new President just as hard as Bush.
It’ll be a good way to separate out the people who just love anyone who bashes Bush, and the people who are genuine leftist extremists (and thus best disregarded.)
He will, and should, if the Dem’s policy towards the Chavez government is as antagonistic as W’s has been.
Speaking of confiscations, part of the issue with the revoking of RCTV’s license to broadcast is that it has also included a court order that RCTV hand over its broadcast technical assets – transmitters, repeaters, towers, control centers, studio equipment – to the state TV. So it’s not just yanking the license, it’s taking over the station itself by another name.
As to Chavez’s legitimacy, etc.? I say Chavez’s policies are an example of what is sometimes referred to as the danger of democracies turning to the so-called “tyranny of the majority” – As in, a government is lawfully elected and its policies were majoritarily supported (in one case, opposition boycott means unopposed), so when it comes to pushing those policies, who cares about procedural rights, the people voted to establish socialism (or, fight terrorists, or, promote Islamic values) so any legal technicality that an opponent of that goal can use against it, has to go. Because that’s what The People want. For instance, Chavez has been warning the steel industry in Venezuela that its production should go first to satisfy internal demand and only then, if there’s a surplus, compete in the export market. That’s lousy economics. BUT, The People will cheer because if it’s “our” steel we should have first dibs on it, and what kind of greedy bastard will think of corporate profit first :rolleyes:?
In many parts of the developing world, “formal liberal democracy” western-style is having a rough time because* it was oversold * to the people. They were told, or at least *thought * they were being told, that if they dumped the old style military or marxist dictatorships and establish western-friendly politicoeconomic systems, there would be peace, freedom, prosperity and happiness. Small problem – those things are not caused by formal liberal democracy; they’re facilitated by it… if the players play along. If OTOH after a while the masses see NOTHING is trickling down and the fat cats are getting fatter, they’ll start to think they were duped and that what’s really needed is a system where the big players get cut down and put in their place. Part of the tragedy in Venezuela is that by all rights Chavez should have never arisen; that with its oil wealth it should have become the most prosperous society in Latin America at all social levels, the place into which immigrants would be trying to sneak in, where by the 90s the lower working class and rural populations would be on the way to a moderately first-world quality of life and looking forward to opportunities to climb socially. But COPEI and AD just sat on their fat asses taking turns in running the place for the benefit of their patrons and clients and directing the wealth into their pockets, so they were doomed when after 1973 there were no major steps to make the oil money trickle down more visibly, and a whole generation reached voting age seeing that happen.
What Venezuela needed was opposition to Chavez that took a stand for NOT going back to “business as before”. That would promise that even with the reestablishment of competitive policies and markets, reforms to bring the masses real social mobility and economic opportunity will proceed, power will not return to the domain of an elite, and **there will be no more no more “payback” in either direction. ** So far they failed to do so, and you can’t beat something with nothing (nor with the policies that were rejected in the first place).
You didn’t object to his acquisition of power or nationalization of property and you’re confused over what exactly? You’re watching a president with a military coup mentality consolidate power, wealth, and free speech.
What utopian Shangri La were you expecting and why?