Today it seems hard to find an American who enthusiastically supports Hugo Chavez and for those that do, it certainly seems that there isn’t much airtime given to your views. Personally, I’m not entirely sure what I think of Hugo Chavez and here is a quick reason why: the reasons given are so fundamentally hypocritical that they make me laugh. First off, he is a dictator…..and? For regardless of all the garbage foundations we’ve created like the National Endowment for Democracy along with the banter of terrorist hating out ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty,’ coupled with our insistence that we are ‘for freedom and democracy, America’s record of ‘democracy promotion’ in any sense is practically laughable. From the initial stipulations and goals of the Monroe Doctrine through the wonderful years of Wilsonian Idealism, we have gladly installed military-fascist dictators in countries in South America and the Middle East and other parts of the world. From overthrowing democratic sovereign countries (Chile) to pretending that we actually liberated a country which in fact was just about to fully liberate itself (Cuba, not 1959 of course) only to install a dictator upon the supposed US-backed liberation, to overthrowing a democratic government to ensure a Middle East oil monopoly (Iran 1953), America has been more than accommodating to ruthless dictators. I could list them but I rather encourage you to. I mean, just to throw out one example which is selected with the preemptive goal of riling up the one of the two political ideologies that seems to endorse such hypocrisy, Ronald Reagan during his administration actually said that Chilean dictator Pinochet was a man of ‘strong personal integrity.’ Although, you Kennedy loving liberals, Kennedy was no slouch when it came to upholding America’s Hegemony through any means.
Now, I only introduce this piece with Chavez because he is quite popular in the US News for being a ‘dictator’ who is against ‘freedom’ by practicing such things as ‘censorship’ and other oppressive measures. Well, possibly, I do not necessarily doubt this. However, this information is coming from the same news sources (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) that stated that it was Hugo Chavez supporters that started the gunfights (blasted all over the news) leading to the coup that removed him and installed a US backed military dictator who within just a short amount of time after his ‘through the dark’ inauguration cancelled elections, cancelled the constitution, and returned things to the fascistic standard well known in the history of Latin America. It was only later revealed that it was not the Hugo Chavez supporters but the anti-Chavez activists that had actually started the shooting and the Chavez supporters were defending themselves. Not to mention the continual assurance that the US had nothing to do with the coup that took out the Democratically Elected President Hugo Chavez, later finding out that as opposed to the standard practices of the 50’s and 60’s where we just sent the CIA down to take care of it (Guatemala in the early 50’s and Chile under Nixon/Kissinger), we ‘indirectly’ funded the coup by sending money through that wonderfully aforementioned organization hypocritically named The National Endowment for Democracy, fully knowing what that money was going to be used for.
Dear readers, I don’t like dictators, nor do I like any form of political oppression, but America’s history is as concerned with democracy in foreign countries as it is becoming more and more clear in this country- contingent on certain variables. I can appreciate the argument that sometimes you have to ‘deal with the devil’- hell, we did it with Stalin in helping us defeat the Nazi’s we so lovingly embraced until the numbers of Auschwitz came out. However, there is a difference between dealing with a devil that already exists and installing devils in countries that seemed to be attempting to achieve what this country celebrates with a growing doubt- democracy, freedom, and sovereignty. I only ask for consistency, if that is not possible to do due to the more or less idealistic realism that is continually flaunted, than proudly celebrate the hypocrisy.