With the near-total power they’ve given him, I guess we shouldn’t have to wait long. I’m not expecting anything good.
Good point has anyone with as much power as Chavez ever ruled benevolently and handed power back off before he died or was forced out. If so, has it happened in the last 100 years?
I cannot think of any examples. Does Winston Churchill fit the definition? He was possibly the most powerful Prime Minister and the most powerful non-royal since Oliver Cromwell. He did allow democracy to reassert itself.
Jim
Well, there was always Cincinnatus. 
I don’t think Chavez even knows who he was.
Yes, good one and therefore Washington fits the bill. There must be several hereditary monarchs that stepped down or aside on their own. I just cannot think of any.
As far as not knowing who Cincinnatus goes, I would not be surprised if our current President does not know of him. 
Jim
Churchill did have near-dictatorial power, wielded very sparingly, for a fair chunk of WWII. And, of course, his personal commitment to the British system (the only parallel that comes to mind is Washington) led him to fight the temptation to use his power as strongly as he might.
But the perfect answer to the strongman-takes-near-dictatorial-power-and-relinquishes-it is right there in northern South America: Simon Bolivar. He’s commonly described as a dictator, but it’s slightly more complex: he was the one man who had the moral force to control the complex political issues of post-independence Gran Colombia and held it together by retaining power, but constructing institutions that would allow for democratic freedom when he left office. I’m skeptical of Chavez going that route – I think he’s a power-hungry demagogue – but the precedent has been followed before by some Hispano strongmen: “men on horseback” who ruled by decree to stabilize strife-torn banana republics, then “got off the horse” and either stepped down or ran in a free election and won fairly. It’ll be interesting to see if he follows their lead or “succumbs to the Ring,” as it were.
You make a good point, Polycarp. For all of his faults, and they were legion, Pinochet did step down and cede power to an elected government. This is something Fidel Castro never did, and indeed would never contemplate doing.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick used this dichotomy between autocracies that allowed citizens some rights and dictatorships, primarily left wing ones, that afforded few as a justification for a realist foreign policy. Whether she was right or wrong to do so, I don’t think that there was much question that at that time there was such a dichotomy.
The question now is whether Chavez is heading down the path of autocracy, dictatorship, or something else entirely. Since he idolizes Castro, I’m not terribly encouraged in this regard.
No he hasn’t. All economic indicators point at economy and living standards worsening under his rule. Foreign invertion is all but completely gone. He has a very tight circle of people who have benefitted enormously while the middle class disappears.
He has eliminated all kinds of democratic safeguards and concentrated all power in his person. An unnecessary measure if you consider that congress is all his, the courts have been chosen by him and all agencies are filled with loyal followers.
There was a great article in Foreign Policy (titled Hugo Boss, forgot the author) about a year ago, that explained Chavez’s plan and MO. Great read. I may have scans of it if you can’t find it and want me to email it to you.
What little he has done to unite Latin America is under the banner of antiamericanism. Other than that, he is continuosly undermining economic pacts and latin organizations.
He is a loose cannon. My only hope is that he gets so fat and accustomed to luxury that he won’t go all the way with his castrocommunist agenda. Don’t expect any good to come from him.
To me this all comes under the heading of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Kennedy’s basic obligation is to procure low-cost oil supplies that he can offer to the poor at a subsidized price. And if in the process he has to shame American companies and the American government, so be it. The fact is, if someone else had stepped up to the plate, there’d have been no opportunity for Chavez to get in and make some propaganda hay at our expense.
Kennedy has other obligations as well, ones imposed by citizenship and patriotism. What happens if they collide?
What if the next offer of cheap oil comes from Iran, or Sudan? What would his obligations be in that case?
Recent debate between an economist (anti-Chavez) and a journalist (pro) on Chavez’ new decree powers.
Cite? (I assume “invertion” is a typo for “investment.”) How much of a middle class was there before Chavez, anyway? And what’s causing it to disappear? I don’t believe there have been any massive Castro-style uncompensated property expropriations.
You know what? I’d tell him to take the donation. If a country as prosperous as ours finds itself needing to accept charity from Sudan, of all places, then I think a serious bout of introspection is in order (leaving aside the question of whether Sudan or Iran or even Venezuela has any business offering us charity when they themselves have so many unmet needs).
But that’s the thing. It isn’t charity.
It’s propaganda in the form of cheap heating oil.
I would also like to see a cite or three. It is not that I do not believe you, but rather that I had heard he had stabilized the government and made things better for the poor. Is it possible the poor were not part of the articles you are using for reference? I was aware the middle-class was not fond of him, but can you provide cites that they are actually disappearing.
I am quite sure he in enriching himself and his inner circle, but that seems to be the human way. Sad but mostly true. (Yes, I am looking at Cheney and Halliburton)
Jim
Oil is oil. Kennedy should refuse the cheap oil the second he couldn’t buy it on the open market, and no sooner. If a for-profit can do business with Chavez, why can’t a non-profit?
I suppose this rules out Iran, but even then if he could legally accept the oil, then he should at least consider it. He’s in the business of providing heat to the needy, not advancing the goals of America abroad.
It’s propaganda for the Venezuelans, but it’s cheap heating oil – hence charity – for the recipients. And let’s face it, any charity given by a foreign nation – even us – is meant at least partially as propaganda.
Why is Joe II Joe II? Joe Jr blew up over Germany in WWII so wouldn’t he be Joe III? Or does that genetic sidetrack of grandpa to uncle to grandson negate the numbering?
Kinship was never my strong suit. Neither was staying on topic.
He was named after his grandfather - so there’s your II. That’s how I got my II.
Nothing says there can’t be a II and a Jr. in the same family tree.
Right. “John Doe, Jr.” is traditionally a name reserved for the son of “John Doe”. A relative not in the direct line of descent who also wants to use the name “John Doe” traditionally gets “John Doe II”.
Now I’m wondering whether the sons of “John Doe Jr.” and “John Doe II” could both be called “John Doe III”. AFAIK etiquette traditionally reserves the “III” for the son of “Jr.”, but in that case what would John Doe II do if he also wanted to call his son “John Doe”?
It’s not hard to imagine a bigger scumbag move at all. Just look at the rest of his family for examples. Including the crooked sonuvabitch he’s named after. “Illustrious family name” my fat ass. For a Kennedy, this is downright respectable.