Tuesday, March 5, 2013

hilarious, in that depressing way

So there's the expected orgy of liberal Seriousness going on about the death of Hugo Chavez. I would merely point out that a lot of the self-same people who recently spoke out against privilege are now lecturing Venezuelans about their late president and what is best for their country. Perhaps they should pause and think it over.

Update: See anti-privilege warrior Cord Jefferson for the Platonic form of this sort of thing.

Update II: The spasm of Chavez coverage, in the next few days, is going to be absolutely hilarious. You're going to get such nakedness, such purity, in what people actually are, when push comes to shove.


Jack Crow said...

Vultures do have a sort of purity.

Brett said...

I'm indifferent. Chavez was just your garden-variety leftist, authoritarian Latin American leader (like many others back in twentieth century Latin America) - except with more money due to oil exports. When oil prices were high, Venezuela had really good growth and plenty of money for anti-poverty spending. When they weren't, they didn't have it.

For all of Chavez's rhetoric, too, the US did alright by his Presidency. We got Venezuela's oil, and a big chunk of the money they earned from selling it to us just got cycled back into the US to pay for imports (such as food - Venezuela imports more than one-third of its food from the US).

Freddie said...

I'm noncommittal myself, although the non-stop propagandizing is really clarifying. However, authoritarian-- it depends on your definition. Chavez was wildly popular in Venezuela.

Nathan Wright said...

Liberal seriousness indeed... I was just treated to some bitchclown on NPR giving himself a slow, sensual thumb-suck regarding Chavez.

The lead was the Torre de David, apparently an uncompleted financial tower which is now being occupied by formerly homeless people, which the BC regarded as symbolic (oh the horror, a space of the oligarchy's drones being occupied by filthy vagrants).

The segue was that for Chavez's talk of enriching the poor (tut tut), he allegedly could not succeed, because of his personality, and a lack of managerial expertise. Yes, yes ... if only he had a personality other than the one that makes him the rare head of state to give a shit about the poor; or if only he had swallowed the ethos and dogmas of the "managerial class", he may have succeeded.

Take heed, would-be revolutionaries, of NPR's words. For you can see, they're oh-so-concerned, that you might be empowered to succeed in the task that you set for yourselves.

Brett said...

RE: Freddie

He fell into the gray zone of "illiberal democracy". Elections aren't really a sham, but there's thuggish behavior from the incumbent's supporters in dealing with challengers, and possible fraud issues on the local level. He also tended to use the "decree" power a lot, even though his party controlled the Venezuelan legislature.

cian said...

The idea that things would have been better without him is grimly hilarious. The opposition are crooks at best, murderers at worst. That point is not made nearly enough.