Interestingly even the NYT decided to write a more neutral less biased article about the relection of Chavez, who won reelection again. They had none of the hysterical tone of past columns in which they tried to pretend that the elections were not democratic or fair etc. The opposition did better as they had a better candidate and he was sensible not to come off as a right wing fanatic, though he is in coalition with the folks who have been beaten so badly in the past. Hopefully in the next six years Chavez can consolidate policies for the 99% which continue after he is gone. As we see in the US where the policies that promoted the middle and poor classes in the past have prevailed the few with their enormous money can roll back the progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/world/americas/venezuela-presidential-election.html?pagewanted=2 It is good to remember what Jimmy Carter had to say about past Venezuelan elections. "I think the elections in Venezuela - although some people have criticised the result, which is Hugo Chavez having won - there's no doubt in our mind, having monitored very closely the election process, that he won fairly and squarely. In fact of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world. They have a very wonderful voting system where you go in and you touch the screen and you vote the way you want to, and instantly that touch-screen result is recorded, to be transmitted electronically to the central counting headquarters." http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/10/2012102789291643.html
I don't have much to say aside from "lol Venezuela", but I am curious. Glynch, I guess you like what Kirchener is doing these days as well?
Chavez is a mixed bag for sure. He's really help the poor and working class of Venezuela. But his authoritarian restrictions on freedoms and curtailing opposition is troubling to say the least.
Not up on the details, but it seems Kirchner is good in terms of sharing the wealth, much better than the typical governments the US has supported in SA. I tend to make that a major issue and not the freedom of the wealthy to become even wealthier. I think trickle down and other libertarian fantasies have failed. I think that we often seen major increases in GDP in SA without very little benefits to the great majority in terms of income for them. In fact it was past study of Latin America that convinced me of that, though we have seen the same phenomena in recent US history.
80% turnout. Nice. Serious question: how come you guys haven't been able to hit near 80% for over a century?
Definitely dissapointing. Maybe this narrower margin of victory and his health issues will be a good kick in the a$$ for him to change a bit.
It was 80% back then because the party machines were far stronger and literally strong armed everyone in their neighborhoods into voting for them - if you wanted a job or the garbagemen to stop by your street, you voted Democrat or Republican or whatever, and needless to say we no longer do that.
Fat, lazy, wealthy and content. After awhile, many people just decide it does not matter who is elected, that the outcome will be good and the checks and balance system in the US system blunts what an individual politician can actually do.
Damn straight! Those libertarians ruling over Argentina really screwed up. But, uh, what were their names again?
The problem with class politics is the side of wealth can pay members on the egalitarian side to work for their cause regardless of their political sentiment. The poorer side can't pay to promote their cause. I don't think anybody is against people working hard and innovating to gain wealth, the problem is when those who are wealthy use the money to control political policy to their ever growing advantage and to the disadvantage of the poor. The result is, when the forces of egalitarianism do get a toehold, they can't just allow Democracy free reign because the oligarchs will buy back the power; hence leftest tend toward tyranny as the only way to maintain political influence. It's a dance being played out for all to see in Venezuela.
I agree, that at times it has been troubling. It is however, unfair to judge in terms of American standards. In Venezuela you had a few oligarchs, in control of most of the media, actively conspiring with foreign governments to use democratic openings to overthrow the democratically elected government, including violently. It appears perhaps that the opposition may be behaving more democratically, accepting that Chavez has majority support. It is still feared that as usual they might denounce the election results and seek destabilization as they have continually done.
Too bad the US doesn't have some extreme overabundance of some natural resource that the rest of the world just HAS TO HAVE and is willing to pay vast sums of money for and make our country rich beyond our wildest dreams. Maybe then, socialism could kinda-sorta work here too.
HaHa. Talk about moral compasses. I suppose I should have said "at the expense of the rest", though it was pretty obvious. History has shown over and over that employers and the rich do not easily share their wealth with the 99%. In fact they will engage in extreme violence and very undemocratic behavior to prevent this. History also shows that "free" markets do not accomplish this either, without tremendous regulation and mechanisms to insure organization of the 99% such as unions and labor parties.
I did a lot of study on Chavez between my Spanish classes, and Latin American Politics classes. Chavez is a terrible person. He seems like a guy I would like to have a drink with, but he is a crappy leader. If his country didn't have oil, they would be ruined. His supporters get richer, and the opposition gets poorer (look up Venezuelan boligarchy). If something goes right in his country, he takes all the credit. If something goes wrong, he will call out a cabinet member on national television. I think he had good intentions when he went into office, after becoming famous for a failed coupe, but he is an uneducated man that is a joke of a leader.
It's not obvious because that's not how wealth works. The potential amount of money in the world is not finite.
For many people it is true that it makes little difference. I would say it is roughly the roughly $100k to $ 200k family income. Your kids are not as dependent on loans to go to even state universities; you don't get food stamps, welfare; your jobs tend to be more secure without as much need to depend on unemployment insurance; often you might be office workers, so you don't injured as much and get jacked as much by conservative worker's comp laws; your kids aren't forced to fight in elective wars because of lack of opportunity; GOP tax policies don't benefit you much like those in the higher brackets so you don't have the tremendous financial incentive to vote GOP.
Perhaps. Not up on the details enough. Definitely like they have done in Scandinavia. We certainly need a party representing the average worker in the US.
