gdp's Comments

Caracas Chronicles : Subverting Chavismo\'s Discursive Standard

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:15:02 +0000

Omar makes a good point here. It is impossible to discuss with Chavez when he has all the power. I swats everyone aside (like that hapless Fox News reporter). However, when the opposition becomes a serious force then Chavez may change. He has changed before and may again if cornered (remember the guy is a shrewd political animal). How to become a serious force? Win over heats and minds. Engage moderate Chavistas (or anyone willing to debate issues and ideas). Maneuver into a position where the opposition can win elections. ...if Chavez then refuses to talk (or worse) we can talk about other options. Juan makes a good point with regard to Chile. Ultimately polarization ends by engaging the other side and having an open dialogue (consider Northern Ireland or South Africa). Ultimately it is hard to govern if half the country hates the other half. It is easy to feel that Chavez is an evil SOB, but Chavez can't be ignored. Even out of power he is likely to be a force. He found a raw nerve with the poor and ran with it with great success. Even after 11 years the guy is popular. However, as he got more power he grew increasingly arrogant, eccentric, intolerant and radical. So why not engage as much as we can with disillusioned Chavistas.

Caracas Chronicles : Dictatorship means never having to say \"the reason is...\"

Wed, 9 Dec 2009 08:01:30 +0000

I hear you. ...however, as Chavez drifts more and more away from liberal democracy and bungles the economy some reasonable Chavez sympathizers flip. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/oilwars/17482977... (comment on 12.03 at 9:42pm if the link does not work)

Caracas Chronicles : The three-legged stool

Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:42:30 +0000

I should have been more clear. I mean to say if Zelaya was a dictator (and everything else was the same) would the Honduras chain of events be justified. In other words, what if Zelaya was exactly like Chavez.

Caracas Chronicles : Dictatorship means never having to say \"the reason is...\"

Wed, 9 Dec 2009 00:09:31 +0000

I agree with this. It is hard to engage as Chavistas tend to swipe - and swipe nastily. Just like HCF himself. However, the goal much be to engage the reasonable ones and the waverers and win them over. As the economy collapses and disillusionment spreads there should be more of these folks around.

Caracas Chronicles : The three-legged stool

Wed, 9 Dec 2009 00:06:51 +0000

Yeah, I remember reading the views on Honduras and I agree with the substance of posts on CC in this regard. However, are you suggesting that if Zelaya was a dictator and could not be impeached then the Honduras chain of events would be justified. Basically, would you support something similar in Venezuela right now?

Caracas Chronicles : Dictatorship means never having to say \"the reason is...\"

Wed, 9 Dec 2009 00:02:30 +0000

Fair enough. It is not going to be possible to have a fair exchange of ideas with someone who believes religiously in HCF, just like it is probably impossible to debate Chavez or any in his inner circle. That is like trying to discuss the existance of God with a religious fanatic. Its futile. However, it is possible to debate with people who sympathize with Chavismo or with some facets of Chavismo as long as they engage in ways you describe in your post. Sympathizing with Chavismo (or seeing him as the lesser evil) does not mean you embody Chavismo or support everything it stands for.

Caracas Chronicles : Dictatorship means never having to say \"the reason is...\"

Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:09:16 +0000

I'm with Greg and Juan on this one. You seem to be running in the face of your post here. It is important to engage people on the other side who are willing to engage and discuss the issues. ...in fact, often Chavistas of all shades tend to get hounded off this site whether they are reasonable or not.

Caracas Chronicles : Dictatorship means never having to say \"the reason is...\"

Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:06:05 +0000

I disagree. Chavistas are over half the country. There is no reason not to engage with Chavistas who are willing to engage in honest debate on the issues. After all one day at least some of them have to be won over to take the country back.

Caracas Chronicles : The three-legged stool

Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:17:40 +0000

1. Popular support 2. Oil money 3. The military Nice post! I agree no one really controls 2. However, I think 1 can still be had even if Chavez still has 2. 2007 proves that. That being said, 3 is very hard to get. How to you get 3 except by plotting and conspiring? Therefore since 2 and 3 are unattainable we have to focus on 1. And as far as I can tell it will be harder to get 1 if the opposition plots and conspires. Why? Chavez can easily paint the opposition as golpistas, fascists, anti-democratic elites etc. He can bring up 11A. So the opposition should give up on 3. The best bet of getting 3 might be to get 1 so clearly that the military simply does not want to suppress 1. So we should be all about getting 1 instead of talking about subversion. That being said, as I asked before, would people here sympathize with a Zelaya event in Venezuela? Honduras would not have ended like it did if they did not have 1 and 3. I believe the Honduran opposition bungled the coup and could have gotten their ends with other means, but they didn't take any chances. Did the means justify the end?

Caracas Chronicles : Rules for Subversives

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:33:11 +0000

well said. I second this.

Caracas Chronicles : Rules for Subversives

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:43:02 +0000

Yeah, you right Chavez ended up doing many of the things that were explicitly voted down in 2007. I agree he blatantly undermined elected local officials after the elections last year. So in a sense you're right when you say he accepted defeat in the vote without accepting defeat on the issues. The guy does not care about institutions, laws, constitutions or ethical scruples as long as he gets what he wants on a daily basis. He has almost open contempt for a proper democracy with checks and balances, the rule of law, compromises and vibrant opposition. However, it would have been even worse if he had cheated. At least winning the elections helped (1) water down Chavez's control a little (local elections) and proposals a little and (2) gained the opposition some democratic and popular credibility. And on the biggest issue of all he did not try to squirrel it past voters (he easily could have found some pretext or excuse) but instead scheduled a new vote. Would he have accepted defeat on this issue very dear to his heart a second time? I'm not sure. "By now, "No Volveran" is burned into the center of official discourse, often accompanied by the kind of apocalyptic discourse about how allowing the other side to make power would imperil LIFE ON EARTH of the kind we got from" official discourse has been violent, bombastic and full of BS for a long time. Most of it is just BS. But Chavez also rants on about elections, the people and is clearly proud of winning elections and being popular. Sure, there is a blatant contradiction here, but Chavez's discourse has never really had internal consistency or logic as a strong point. "Overall, I think your little riff is about 3 years past its sell-by date. " Maybe. I don't disagree with your points entirely. Most of your points are well taken. I just think you're taking them a bit too far. Maybe Chavez will cheat in a presidential (and/or AN) election. Maybe he would ignore the AN if the opposition won a majority. Maybe he will start locking people up. I agree that these are possible scenarios that we should not ignore. ...but you write as if they will happen for sure. Chavez is shrewd. By becoming what he always has predicted you'd become (in all that apocalyptic discourse), you may be playing right into his hands. He'll have no trouble painting you as people who do imperil the life on earth just as he did for years after 11A. And it is bad tactics. Chavez wants to opposition to give him an excuse to crush them even more (i.e. arrests or tax inspectors). So why give it to him? ...would you support a Zelaya-coup-election deal as in Honduras? If it happened do you think it would be as popular in the Venezuela as it was in Honduras? Do you think the poor would ever forget Chavez (and draw the proper lessons from Chavismo) if he were removed in this fashion before he lost political support? If Chavez had cheated or canceled an election I'd be with you all the way. As it is I think you have a point, but you're making it a bit too strongly.

Caracas Chronicles : Rules for Subversives

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 20:51:54 +0000

what strikes me as surprising here is the premise that Chavez can not be removed with elections. Granted there is a chance (even maybe a significant chance) that he'd steal or cheat blatantly, but are you sure? As recently as two years ago the guy admitted defeat in a very close election. It is hard to predict what he would have done if it was a presidential election, but so far elections have been largely free, but only kinda fair (and the electoral law makes them even less fair it seems). How do you know for sure that elections are no longer enough? The guy is autocratic and democracy is flawed (and getting more flawed), but there is no evidence of fraud yet as say in Iran, Nigeria or Afghanistan. You have to make the guy cheat - and for that you have to have massive political support. You need to be able to win elections - and the opposition is not there yet. Not even close. ...the scary thing in some of what is written here is this: how many would support a Zelayaesque coup that removed Chavez? Or a 11A? Far too many it seems...

Caracas Chronicles : Rules for Subversives

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:39:46 +0000

I don't disagree with what you say here - and maybe I read too much into the word 'subversion' in my post. Chavez does treat dissent and opposition as betrayal and yes, subversion. Baduel is a dangerous precedent for anyone who presents a real challenge to the regime. Maybe you're right that Baduel was critical in convincing Chavez to accept defeat in 2007 - and that this precedent means no one will be around to keep him honest the next time. I'd say the jury is still out on that one. However, I think focusing too much on Chavez and how bad of a SOB he is distracts from what the opposition needs to do first which is win the hearts and minds of voters. I'm just not sure calling ourshelves subversives will help in this regard. In 2002-04 it was all about how bad Chavez was. He was widely claimed to be incompetent., autocratic and undemocratic and this blinded the oppo to the fact that Chavez was still very popular. As a result the opposition messed things up for themselves. Badly. If Chavez loses popular support I doubt he'll last long. He'd have to resort to violence and other tactics of repression in the medium term. It is this the oppo has to focus on. They need leaders that win back the people. They need to take the high road and stick to the priority of winning back the country and being in a position to win elections. If Chavez cheats, it will be the beginning of the end for him both domestically and internationally. The guy has an ego the size of an elephant...he wants to be liked. He is a populist by nature.

Caracas Chronicles : Rules for Subversives

Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:32:00 +0000

Chavez is no angel, but the opposition also has many black spots on it democratic reputation to overcome. Those 2002-04 antics are still fresh especially given how much Chavez exploited them. Maybe you'll argue that Chavez is worse. I would not disagree, but it is about perception. The poor still believe much of the Chavista propaganda about the opposition. But instead of having the opposition prove they are democratic, they should be subversive? They should play into Chavez's hand and prove him right? How are they supposed to call out Chavez on his increasingly autocratic tendencies if they are not playing democratic themselves? And what if you're wrong? What if Chavez will honor an election defeat like 2007? Chavez has talked about his opponents plotting assassinations, conspiracies and coups for years. You're going to play right into his hand by being subversive? Instead of trying to use the worsening economy and slipping popularity of Chavez to maneuver into a position where it may be possible to win an election (forcing Chavez to cheat or concede) we're supposed to subvert him? The opposition was finally starting to realize it needed to court all voters and speak to the issues (at least during the local elections last year), but now we're supposed to hide behind this excuse? Geeez. Chavez is still popular. The polls (objective ones) show him still at close to 50%. What we need is to change that by winning over as many people as possible. You're going to win over the poor by sneaking around plotting in the shadows? Chavez may be an autocrat, but he ain't no Stalin...yet. So don't treat him as Stalin. I do see the point of this post (Chavez is not going anywhere even if he loses or gets unpopular), but it is way over the top. If you are a democrat you don't sell out at this point. Not with elections still being kinda fair and kinda free (as some put it). Subversion failed spectacularly for the opposition in the past (granted the timing was horrible). But they played that card already. Their credibility is in tatters. They can't play it again unless Chavez gets much worse than he is now.

Caracas Chronicles : Intervention!

Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:25:04 +0000

My post above was on the cheerful side. The goal: to spark some much needed optimism. ...I see many obstacles. Briefly... 1. The opposition is as lame as ever. There were some bright spots last year, but overall the opposition is lackluster and there is no inspiring leader in sight 2. Chavez should never be underestimated. He is a shrewd political operator and even better when cornered i.e. 2002-03. 3. Chavez is slowly turning the screws in most fields i.e. economically and politically. It is no big bang revolution, but more like mission creep. You don't know how bad it is until it is already too late. 4. Chavismo controls everything that matters and usurps what it does not i.e. Ledezma in Caracas. 5. Voters have not been good at picking good leaders for 30-40 years. They are as addicted to petrocrat populists as before. ...that being said, I still think there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic and I largely stick with my earlier post.

Caracas Chronicles : Intervention!

Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:38:33 +0000

I'm with Lucia on this. Why? 1. Chavismo's naive and short-sighted economic policies are catching up to it. Witness the 30% inflation combined with falling output. Industrial production is a calamity. This is going to affect popularity. Chavismo no longer has anyone else to blame. Obama? The toothless opposition out of power for 11 years? Evil capitalists? Colombia? Come on...it is getting old. 2. Oil prices seem to have stabilized. Falling oil prices started causing problems before (i.e. PDVSA almost running out of working capital), but it will get worse as Chavismo fueled growth from ever increasing oil prices. OPEC seems intent on stabilizing prices (witness recent increases in production). At last the oil bonanza is ending. Note the sweatening of the terms for the Carabobo auction. Chavez's seems to need the hated multinationals again. Without oil Chavez is an emperor without clothes - and it will be interesting to see how this affects things. 3. Incompetent government is becoming more visible. The blackout and water shortages illustrate how the regimes is making a mess of governing (price controls, nationalization, lack of oversight and sheer bumbling incompetence). This is hitting popularity. Moreover, the missions are not doing as well as before. Mercal and Barrio Adentro are both creaking. For incompetence to shine through you typically have to wait. Oil plastered over things for a while. No longer... 4. Chavez's popularity is starting to suffer. He was down from 54 to 46 according to Dataanalisis's latest poll. The oppo did decently in the elections last year. At long last the oppo has a fighting chance in the long awaited AN elections. 5. Chavez seems to be running out of ideas. War with Colombia? Strangling trade with your neighbor for a lame reason nobody cares about? Come on... That being said Chavez should not be underestimated, however, after 11 years the ideas seem to be all the same old clothes. 6. The oppo needs to prove it matters. It can do so by polling well before the elections. Despite the electoral law and the "impartial" CNE, the oppo needs to prove it is democratic (a lot of work still to be done here after the earlier fiascos i.e. 2002-2005) and a viable alternative. If they are surpressed or cheated then at least everyone will know Chavez is a dictator. But they first have to be in a position to win - and they really have the chance now. Compare today to 2006. In many way things look bleaker for Chavismo today. Hurriance Feces here we come. http://www.caracaschronicles.com/2009/01/50-billi... It may take a couple more years, but it will come and not just economically. The train is hurtling and careening down the track at full speed and the metaphorical wall is ever closer. Everyone needs to see Chavez and the Chavez model fail. Voters need to learn. It is finally started to come apart - and oil is unlikely to save it this time. So why not be optimistic?

Caracas Chronicles : Hondurans go rogue

Thu, 3 Dec 2009 03:33:25 +0000

maybe Brazil's refusal to criticize Chavez for anything has something to do with this... http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/11/06/en_ing_... ...bad english translation, but the main point is clear enough (with the reservation that El Universal is not the most objective source out there). Brazilian companies seem to get great deals and a multitude of contracts (sometimes 'a dedo') from Chavez's Venezuela. The Orinoco bridge seems pretty expensive compared to similar bridges in China and elsewhere.

Caracas Chronicles : The Collected Wit and Wisdom of Nelson Merentes

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:51:20 +0000

"We have been waiting since the recovery in late 2003/early 2004. How many more years do you want" well...oil prices kept going up and up confounding expectations. Now prices have stabilized at a historically high level. The economy may not collapse yet, but merely stagnate. Or should I say stagflate.

Caracas Chronicles : The Collected Wit and Wisdom of Nelson Merentes

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:32:20 +0000

nice post. WSJ's take. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12585100616395311... ouch.

Caracas Chronicles : Is Iberdrola scamming Venezuelan taxpayers?

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:54:17 +0000

not sure I buy this. It could be more expensive due to one or more of the following: 1. the cumana project may be difficult or technologically challenging 2. the investment climate in Venezuela is risky. I'd argue it is even worse than Algeria and Russia. Chavez is an infamously volatile contract-shredder and Venezuela does very poorly in most studies of investor friendliness, free markets etc. 3. How will the spanish company be paid? In Bs or $? If it is Bs (as is likely) then exchange rate risk is a factor. Telefonica is stuck with lots of money in Bs that they can not get out of Venezuela (which may explain why Spain is being nice). The same could happen to Iberdrola. When will the money be paid? There is a significant risk of devaluation even if Iberdrola can use the official rate to get the money out. Moreover, lots of parts need to be imported. Again we have exchange rate risk. 4. inflation is still high in Venezuela. If the currency remains frozen and inflation eats at Iberdrola's costs that again would increase the price. "Are Iberdrola's stockholders aware that, because they list their ADRs in the New York Stock Exchange, Iberdrola would fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?" It is not technically corruption. Iberdrola (according to your allegation) is simply getting paid a fat price. That alone is not corruption unless you can show that somebody was paid off to arrive at the fat price. "As has become usual, the contract was just assigned, a dedo, on a presidential whim." This suggests that corruption may occur, but it nor what you posted is proof. Maybe it is just incompetence? Or maybe it is just compensation for the high risk and cost of doing business in Venezuela? Venezuela is a bad place to do business. So why should I be surprised of the high cost? Do I believe corruption is rife in the Chavez government? Of course, but this is not conclusive. It is merely somewhat suggestive (and there is an alternate explanation). Sadly, in Venezuelan politics, it always seems to stop at suggestive evidence of corruption as nothing is ever credibly investigated.