[NYTr] The Wash Post's Bias Against Democracy in Latin America

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Venezuelanalysis - Aug 21, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2119

The Washington Post’s Bias Against Democracy in Latin America

By Chuck Kaufman
Venezuela Solidarity Network

In the 1980s the Washington Post honed an editorial page style to
attack the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua that involved complex and
convoluted editorials weaving half truths, total lies, innuendo, and
unsupported speculation.  These editorials were impossible to respond
to with letters to the editor limited to 200 words.  The “big lie”
strategy is effective because to respond with the truth takes even more
words than the original lie.

The Washington Post is now using the “big lie” strategy against the
Bolivarian process in Venezuela and its democratically elected
president Hugo Chavez.  An editorial on August 17, 2007 is a textbook
example of this strategy.  It is entitled “Cash-and-Carry Rule” with a
sub heading “Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez cements his autocracy with
petrodollars and another push for ‘reform.’”

The US Venezuela Solidarity Network offers this sentence by sentence
deconstruction of the Washington Post editorial as a public service to
educate serious readers on important issues of US-Venezuela relations
and the campaign to derail the process in Venezuela to use its oil
wealth for the benefit of its poor majority.

WASHINGTON POST:  The Venezuelan businessman told inspectors there was
nothing but books and papers in his suitcase.  So imagine everyone’s
surprise when Argentine customs officers opened the suitcase – and
found $800,000 in cash.  The origin and destination of this money,
which was being taken to Buenos Aires on Aug. 4, shortly before a state
visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, is now the hottest mystery
in South America.

FACTS: The Washington Post took a single fact – a Venezuelan born
resident of Key Biscayne, Florida businessman was caught with $790,550
in undeclared cash entering Argentina on August 4 – and used innuendo
to tie it to President Chavez.  In the first place this Venezuelan
businessman was described in the first stories about the incident as
being US-based.  In the second place there has been not one shred of
evidence presented tying him to Chavez or the Venezuela government.
Chavez officially visited Argentina on August 7, as he has on several
occasions this year.  The Post editorial commits a post hoc, ergo
propter hoc logic fallacy, Latin for "after this, therefore because of
this."  There is nothing which ties the two incidents to each other.

WASHINGTON POST: But what is clear is that the cash-filled suitcase is
an apt metaphor for the way Mr. Chavez has been using petrodollars to
build an anti-American network that includes the leaders of Cuba,
Bolivia and perhaps Nicaragua.

FACTS: Leaving aside that the Washington Post hasn’t even made an
effort to develop a factual case that the “cash-filled suitcase” is
tied to Chavez, it is interesting that Venezuela’s use of petro-dollars
to pursue Simon Bolivar’s dream of Latin American integration and to
produce health, education, food security and family income is
determined to be anti-American.  Does that mean disease, ignorance,
hunger and poverty are pro-American?

WASHINGTON POST: Mr. Chavez seized the moment to unveil a long-awaited
package of constitutional “reforms.”  As you might expect, they are
self-aggrandizing and threatening to what is left of democracy in
Venezuela. 

FACTS: It is unclear which “moment” Chavez is supposed to have
“seized.”  Is it the “cash-filled suitcase” moment or the “build an
anti-American network” moment?  This is simply a rhetorical device to
strengthen the preceding unsupported arguments, especially when it is
tied to the implication that Venezuelan democracy is threatened.  In
addition, reform is put in quotes.  The Post surely knows that the
Spanish word is reformar which means to amend.  Common usage of the
English word reform implies a “good” change so by using the word reform
and putting it in quotes, the Post editorial intends the reader to
think the opposite.

WASHINGTON POST: They would extend the presidential term and abolish
term limits so that Mr. Chavez could get himself reelected every seven
years, starting when his current six-year term expires in 2012.

FACTS: This is factually true, but the phrase “could get himself
reelected every seven years” should more accurately be worded, “could
run for reelection every seven years.”  President Chavez won the
December 2006 election with 63% of the vote and a 75% voter
participation, a far higher percentage of total voter support than any
U.S. president has won since 1964.  If Venezuelans decide in a free and
fair referendum to eliminate presidential term limits, that is
completely an internal issue.  Who they will vote for in any succeeding
election is something that no one can know this far in advance. And if
the majority of Venezuelan voters feel that President Chavez is doing a
good job and they vote to keep him, then that is also their democratic
right.

WASHINGTON POST: His last opponent for the presidency was a state
governor; the proposed changes would weaken governors and mayors.”

FACTS: This is the Non Sequitur logic fallacy and forces the reader,
rather than the author to make the error since the logical fallacy is
unstated.  It goes: If Chavez’ opponent Manuel Rosales was a governor,
and if the constitutional amendment weakens governors, then Chavez will
have even weaker opponents in the future.

WASHINGTON POST: Most menacing, Mr. Chavez wants to establish a
“popular militia” alongside the regular armed forces.  Perhaps this new
force is the intended recipient of the 5,000 sniper rifles Mr. Chavez
has just purchased from Russia.

FACTS: Menacing to whom?  Dozens of peasants have been killed in rural
areas where big landowners are resisting land reform efforts.  Armed
Colombians from both sides of the civil war violate Venezuela’s border
with that country.  The US embassy was caught red handed bringing in
military aircraft parts as part of its “diplomatic pouch.” A US Navy
attaché was expelled for attempting to buy Venezuelan military
secrets.  A plot to use Colombian paramilitary forces to foment a coup
was foiled when a large arms cache was discovered.  And the U.S.
doctrine of “low intensity warfare” to overthrow progressive Latin
American governments and to defeat liberation struggles is well
understood in Venezuela.  Additionally, the Post fails to mention that,
because of a Bush regime arms embargo on Venezuela, Venezuela has had
to completely rebuild its military armaments from non-US sources, which
include Russia.  Despite this unexpected expense, Venezuela’s military
spending is significantly less than that of its neighbors.

WASHINGTON POST: This latest power grab is of a piece with other
measures taken by Mr. Chavez since his reelection to a third term in
December.  He has been undermining existing governmental structures by
channeling public works and welfare funds through “communal councils”
under his control, a process he promises to accelerate under the
revised constitution.

FACTS:  Somehow the words “power grab” aren’t too convincing in a
sentence that includes the fact that President Chavez has been
reelected three times.  In addition, he won approval of the 1999
constitution written by a constituent assembly during his first year in
office – which is what necessitated his running again before his first
term had expired under the old constitution – and that he won the
constitutionally permitted 2004 recall election midway through his last
term.  The words autocrat, dictator, and anti-democratic were never
intended to be used to describe someone who has won five
internationally certified elections, each by around 60%.  One of the
tenants of the “big lie” strategy is that if you repeat the lie often
enough people will believe it.

It is also simply untrue to say that “communal councils are under his
control.”  Community councils, in which neighborhoods and small
communities, play an important role in determining the needs of their
communities and administering the public funds to address those needs,
are one of the most important and encouraging trends of our time to
extend and expand the exercise of democracy beyond simply holding a
vote every x number of years.  Because the “Bolivarian revolution” was
a peaceful one through the ballot box, the discredited elites from
previous governments remained in their positions in government
ministries and thwarted the popular initiatives of the Chavez
government.  Community councils have bypassed obstructionist career
civil servants and are an exciting experiment in participatory
democracy.

WASHINGTON POST: He has nationalized telecommunications, electricity
and oil enterprises and established a new socialist political party.
He has forced an independent television channel off the air while
plastering the public spaces of Venezuela with his own smiling
portrait. 

FACTS: Here’s the crux of the Washington Post hostility to the
Bolivarian process in Venezuela.  The Washington Post is one of the
strongest voices in support of the “Washington Consensus” of free trade
and other neoliberal policies aimed at taking governments out of
economic policy making and leaving corporation profit unrestrained.
These policies have been an absolute disaster for the vast majority of
Latin Americans who have seen their standard of living in free fall
since the 1980s. Venezuela, thanks to its abundant natural resources,
has the economic means to power alternatives to neoliberalism such as
the Bolivarian Alternative for Our America (ALBA) in which trade among
equals is based on need and solidarity.  This is anathema to the Post
and its corporate sponsors.

It is surprising that the Washington Post didn’t milk the decision to
not renew the public airwaves broadcast license of the right-wing
television station RCTV.  Every developed country licenses use of the
public airwaves and requires that stations follow certain “public good”
regulations.  Non-renewal of a license for a station that actively
supported the 2002 coup and systematically violated broadcast
regulations should have been a non-issue.  The fact that RCTV continues
to broadcast on satellite and cable to a Venezuelan audience required
the Post to use the phrase “off the air” to leave the implication that
the station had been shut down.

WASHINGTON POST: In short, Mr. Chavez’s “21st-century socialism” looks
depressingly line the 20th-century version: a bloated, repressive state
headed by a hectoring strongman.  Mr. Chavez has adjusted the model by
adding certain methods of Middle Eastern petro-states, such as the use
of cash to purchase popular support, or quiescence, at home – and to
buy allies abroad.  Mr. Chavez’s mentor, Fidel Castro, stumbled on the
road to socialism for want of hard currency; Mr. Chavez can pump
dollars out of the ground. 

FACTS: How many emotionally laden words can be packed into one
paragraph?  Let’s see: socialism, bloated, repressive, hectoring
strongman, Middle East, purchase popular support, quiescence, buy
allies, Fidel Castro. It is intended to leave the reader with a
distasteful impression without having to actually present any
evidence.  And, it’s mostly lies.  Not even those working toward it
know what “21st century socialism” is going to look like.  But, based
upon actual changes in Venezuela so far it looks likely that it will
have a far stronger component of capitalism than committed socialists
will be happy with.  To call Venezuela a “bloated, repressive state
headed by a hectoring strongman” is to be reduce the writer to the
level of shouting school yard insults that have no basis in reality.
The majority of the Venezuelan population that is rising out of
poverty, thanks to a more equitable distribution of the oil wealth,
might not agree with the Post that their “quiescence” is being
purchased; they might think it is their natural due as Venezuelan
citizens.  Now there’s a revolutionary thought!  As far as buying
allies abroad, isn’t there a universal belief that rich countries have
an obligation to help poorer ones?  Isn’t that the premise upon which
U.S. foreign aid is based?  Why is Venezuela’s aid “buying allies” and
U.S. aid is humanitarian, or democracy building?  Finally, we missed
the fact that Cuban socialism had stumbled.  Even with Fidel Castro
ailing, it looks pretty stable to us, and is still standing independent
despite 48 years of unrelenting hostility by the U.S. government.

WASHINGTON POST: Though corrupt and corrupting, both for Venezuela and
the hemisphere, Mr. Chavez’s militaristic formula is undeniably
potent,...  

FACTS: When you control the editorial page of a corporate newspaper,
apparently you can say anything.  “Corrupt and corrupting.”  What does
that mean?  Undoubtedly there are some corrupt individuals as there are
in every human endeavor, including a few plagiarizers at the Washington
Post over the decades.  But there have been no credible claims that
Chavez has personally enriched himself while in government, and since
the most important element of the Post’s “big lie” campaign is to
personalize the Bolivarian process by naming it Hugo Chavez, then the
corruption charge must be aimed at him.  Where’s the evidence.  And
what does corrupting mean?  Is it corrupting for the people of the
hemisphere to see the Venezuelan people rise out of poverty through the
equitable distribution of national wealth?  Well, yes, probably it is.
It is like Nicaragua in the 1980s which Oxfam UK labeled “the threat of
a good example.”  If people see that they don’t have to allow the
corporations to steal their labor and their resources, or that their
governments don’t have to catch a cold when the US sneezes, then they
might begin to rediscover the concepts of self-determination and
sovereignty, and that would be bad news indeed for militarists and
corporate globalizers in the government, board rooms, and corporate
media.

And again, to label the Bolivarian process as “Chavez’s militaristic
formula” is without basis in fact.  Venezuela’s military does not
threaten its neighbors or even its own people.  It is one of the most
respected institutions in the country. 

WASHINGTON POST:  and no doubt he relishes demonstrating its power in
polarizing combat with the weakening Venezuelan opposition. Hence the
launch of yet another constitutional crusade. Since the opposition
unwisely boycotted the past election, the entire National Assembly
supports Mr. Chavez and is likely to approve his plan.  The next step
would be a national referendum this year, which might be Venezuela’s
last chance to prevent Mr. Chavez from setting himself up as president
for life. 

FACTS: The Post appears to be making the argument that:

1.      The Venezuelan opposition is the minority of the population.

2.      They stupidly boycotted the last National Assembly elections
resulting in a legislature made up of supporters of the Bolivarian
process (although many are not members of Chavez’s political party).

3.      The majority of the National Assembly will approve the
constitutional amendments.

4.      There will be a national referendum this year in which voters
will decide if the constitution should be amended.

How, by acknowledging that Venezuela is undergoing a democratic
process, does the Washington Post come to the conclusion that the
result will be Chavez’s “setting himself up as president for life?”
Apparently they believe their readers cannot recognize logical
fallacies if they string enough of them together and repeat them often
enough.

[Chuck Kaufman is the Interim Coordinator of the Venezuela Solidarity
Network.]