The Cowboy in Caracas tightens his lasso on Venezuelan freedoms as Hollywood Cheers him on

By Joseph Tate

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made international headlines last year for his speech at the United Nations General Assembly largely because he described President Bush as the “devil.” Never mind that the rest of the speech was a meandering tirade that started with a glowing endorsement of Noam Chomsky, continued with a strange suggestion that Bush star in an Alfred Hitchcock film, and included an awkward gesture of solidarity from Chavez to his “Arab brothers.” All that mattered to the global media and to some here at home was that Chavez called Bush a bad name in front of the world. And now just a day away from Venezuela’s crucial referendums on Chavez’s controversial proposals that would turn the country into a socialist dictatorship, some Americans, including many from Hollywood, inexplicably continue to support him.

Chavez had been spouting his rather ineloquent brand of anti-American rhetoric long before this infamous speech, often including hyperbolic accusations of imperialism and exploitation on the part of the American government. While he has won points with some for his frank style, politicians from both sides of the aisle mostly see him as a blowhard whose democratic record is shaky at best. Several senators criticized Chavez’s UN speech, including Democrat Christopher Dodd, who called it “destructive” and “inappropriate.” Our UN ambassador at the time, John Bolton, called the speech “comic strip” diplomacy. The general sentiment among average Americans was that the speech was tactless and insulting, regardless of their opinion of Bush.

However, Chavez’s wild charges against the American government managed to resonate strongly in our most impressionable and reactionary of towns: Hollywood, especially among its most vehemently anti-Bush inhabitants.  And like socialist moths drawn to an anti-American flame, actors such as Danny Glover and Sean Penn flocked to Hugo Chavez’s side for photo-ops and to show their support, never ones to miss a chance to publicly chastise the Bush administration.

Before the UN debacle, Penn, Glover, and many others in the American Left were already applauding Chavez’s public takeover of Venezuela’s private industries, including the all-important oil exports. All of which was done — ostensibly, of course — for the good of the Venezuelan people. They lauded Chavez’s self-described socialist “revolution” as a move to ease the suffering of Venezuela’s poor. And on top of all that massive wealth redistribution and hamstringing of Venezuela’s previously free market, Chavez was calling Bush “the devil.” Many in Hollywood had found their hero.

Not long after his publicity stunt at the United Nations, Chavez made his way back into world headlines, this time for domestic abuses of power. Many in his own country, particularly young pro-democracy students, were already wary of Chavez’s questionable political maneuverings. He cemented their mistrust by revoking the broadcasting license of the nation’s second-largest television station — a station that had been highly critical of him. This prompted mass demonstrations inside the country, evidenced by YouTube videos showing tens of thousands of student protesting Chavez’s draconian measure. It also prompted a rather lame response from Penn, who defended the move by saying the radio station had supported the  killing of Chavez, so, all things considered, this was a subdued response by the aspiring dictator.

Hollywood spin aside, it’s now apparent that Chavez supporters in the United States find themselves in the uncomfortable position of defending a regime that’s increasingly hostile to basic democratic institutions, while continuing to excoriate Bush for exercising comparatively mundane executive powers here at home. To complicate matters for Chavez supporters, those opposing him are no longer “elitists” or “fascists” as he is prone to claim, but middle-class college kids who have a newfound sense of urgency, as Chavez’s control on the country begins to feel more like a vice-grip. And El Presidente is just getting started.

Last January, the incumbent Chavez won Venezuela’s national election, the legitimacy of which, many there and abroad, continue to question. If there were any doubts about his intentions, during his acceptance speech, he pledged “we’re heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it.” More like steamrolling toward socialism.

This year alone, in addition to taking over the oil industry, Chavez has made plans to nationalize the country’s electric and telecommunications companies. Chavez’s government is also set to take control of the nation’s central bank. All these changes suggest that he is moving quickly and efficiently to assert tighter control over the country’s purse strings. These largely economic “reforms” are threatening enough to a democracy, but it is his most recent proposals that should have everyone who cares at all about civil liberties (including Kevin Spacey, who recently visited Chavez to discuss film financing) worried.

To ensure that Venezuela’s slide into socialism goes unchallenged, Chavez has proposed, through referendums scheduled for Dec. 2, changing the country’s pesky constitution. As it stands, that document requires him to step down in 2012 due to term limits. In characteristically vague fashion, Chavez recently stated that the change was necessary to “bring new horizons to a new era.” More unsettling still, Chavez is seeking ambiguous “emergency powers” that will make it easier for him to detain and control his opposition. Additionally, the parliament and judiciary, both stocked with Chavez’s allies, support his idea of expanding the use of controversial Soviet-style “local councils” that many argue usurp the authority of elected officials and that are ripe for abuse by an all-powerful president. And still many in the American Left continue to defend him, while lambasting Bush for alleged abuses of power here at home.

Those that are skeptical of Bush’s expansion of executive power should be terrified of Chavez, not suporting him.   Bush will be leaving office in the not-too-distant future, with no possibility whatever of remaining in power or of having Dick Cheney succeed him. So who will inherit the newly expanded powers of the oval office? Hillary Clinton, perhaps, but not Bush nor anyone from his administration. Chavez, on the other hand, is doing what all dictators before him have done: threatened, plotted, cajoled, lied, and whatever else it takes to stay in power indefinitely. In 2009, George Bush will be retired. Where will Hugo Chavez be? What about in 2019?

What about the presidents themselves? A comparison underscores the hypocritical nature of the anti-Bush, pro-Chavez camp. Bush is constantly derided by the Left for his simplistic views of good and evil, right and wrong. How dare he be so naive as to say “You’re either with us or against us”? They scoff at the jejune phrases he uses to describe terrorists, such as “evil-doers” and “the killers.” Well, if you find Bush pedestrian, Chavez is downright imbecilic. Anyone who opposes the Chavez regime is a “traitor” or a “fascist.” In his well-publicized spat with the king of Spain, Chavez offered this chestnut: “Fascists are not human; a snake is more human.” And Chavez on capitalism: “Capitalism leads us straight to hell.” And on the United States: “It makes us all slaves.”

Somehow, to Chavez supporters, this passes for political discourse; while Bush’s word choice, which by any measure is less demagogic, is a collection of oversimplifications and outright lies. Where Chavez is fiery, Bush is arrogant. Where Chavez is passionate, Bush is a zealot. Apparently, it’s acceptable to call your political opponents “snakes” and “devils”; just make sure you don’t use the word “freedom” too often.

And let us not forget religion. Liberals cringe when Bush references God. They mock his born-again Christian background and, while they may not fear Jesus, they certainly fear Bush’s belief in him. However, in Chavez’s speeches, God is ubiquitous. Chavez’s critics have often accused him of manipulating the masses through the use of religious references and symbols.  He has publicly compared himself to Jesus and sees himself as a Christ figure. Chavez’s use of the word “devil” in describing Bush was no accident, but, in fact, consistent with the religious tones his audiences are used to hearing from him.

Yet once again, many on the American Left choose to turn a deaf ear, giving Chavez carte blanche in his repetitive use of Christian references and symbols to strengthen his positions and justify his actions. Meanwhile, they accuse Bush of being dangerous, in part, because he is a “religious nut.” 

Many mainstream media outlets that started out sympathetic toward Chavez have only recently increased their criticisms of him and raised suspicions over his political machinations. Even the BBC has taken a noticeably harder edge. But others still have their heads planted firmly in the sand — and that’s not limited to the credulous crowds of Hollywood. There are well-organized groups who still defend Chavez.

And it is these groups that are so interesting — almost painful — to watch, as they contort their views into previously unimaginable positions in order to avoid condemning their socialist hero. The same organizations that call for Bush’s impeachment for alleged constitutional abuses and civil-rights violations apparently don’t think that Venezuelans should be afforded the same protections. The same groups that want to extend every protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution to terrorists committed to our mass murder aren’t nearly as concerned about the average Venezuelan’s civil liberties. They give Chavez an enormous amount of slack to pursue his socialist agenda, which often includes silencing his critics along the way. That same leash, of course, is pulled tighter than a snare drum when Bush so much as authorizes the review of someone’s library records. It’ll be interesting to see how long organizations such as FAIR and Democracy Now! (note the titles) continue to twist logic in order to support Chavez, undermining their own credibility.

With the referendum on El Presidente’s proposals at hand, the anti-Chavez demonstrations in Venezuela only grow larger, a recent one conservatively estimated at 80,000. It’s becoming increasingly difficult for Americans supposedly concerned about civil liberties to ignore this. How long will people like Danny Glover continue to look the other way? How long will Sean Penn keep defending Chavez for the same actions that, if carried out by Bush, would provoke his instant outrage? At some point, even they will have to admit that hating Bush and loving Chavez is intellectually dishonest and politically inconsistent. At some point, they’ll have to abandon “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality and admit they were wrong about their man in Caracas. At some point, common sense must trump stubbornness.

Fortunately, for all but the most diehard of Chavez’s American supporters, it already has. We can only hope that same overdue realization has taken place in enough Venezuelans so that Chavez's anti-democratic proposals are voted down.  Otherwise, this vote may be their last.