The reason of this rant type of entry is that suddenly out of nowhere some people are proposing that the regime and the Venezuelan opposition "dialogue" again. At this point in time offering that as the lone idea to bring peace to Venezuela is to mock's people's intelligence. And worse, it does give Maduro some time to recoup and charge again.
In short, proposing dialogue is helping Maduro's regime. You cannot have neutrality when on one side you have a repressive regime, with military support, that has killed scores of dissidents, that has flaunted constitutional rules of Venezuela to remain in office against all odds. And it gets even uglier when you call the other side coup mongers when it is the side that puts the body count, that wants free and fair elections, and who make it very clear that its leader Guaido is a mere interim president until elections are held. Words have a weight and when you still read and listen to some media using "auto-proclamation" of Guaido, or consider that a coup is taking place against a president whose election is highly questioned, or media that seek for their nightly news the 20% that still supports Maduro with the goal of showing a supposedly objective balance, you realize how damaging has the left language be for the democratic processes of the world. Objectivity is dead.
Let's look at some examples.
Mexico and Uruguay were at the center of scandal today. They called for an "international conference" .
Uruguay y Mexico invitan a Conferencia Internacional sobre la situación en Venezuela. pic.twitter.com/c4oZg01MY7— CANCILLERÍA URUGUAY (@MRREE_Uruguay) January 30, 2019
In that communique for a hastily called international conference to favor diplomacy over sanctions (I presume) we notice several things:
- willful ignorance that previous dialogue operations have miserably failed and were ALWAYS followed by increased repression and more absolute control of the country. If for Uruguay there may be an explanation as to president Tabaré Vasquéz blackmailed for the shady dealing of his son, in Mexico it is unforgivable. I know that Obrador was elected with another view on foreign politics but they did inherit all the data of the foreign ministry. And yet welcomed Maduro to his inauguration. How can Mexico ditch all of that? I remind you that Mexico was a witness at the heart of the latest failed "dialogue". Bureaucrats know what happened then.
- "auto proclamation" of Uruguay and Mexico as neutrals countries, and thus righteous to convoke for that conference other neutral countries (I cannot wait for that list). Boldly assessing that you are neutral about Venezuela today is nothing but an admission that they want to keep Maduro in office and that at best they will try to get some minor corrections (that will be quickly swept by the regime).
- it is called for February 7 and its objective is to find tools to bring the regime and the opposition to the same table for a constructive dialogue. What the fuck? Venezuela is burning, we have two presidents, we are going to starve, etc, etc... and this bozzos want to apply a strategy that will take at least 1 month until any possible good result may happen? Saying "we want Maduro" would hardly be any clearer.
- and they take cover from the UN who after the last security council probably knows better than to ask for dialogue between Venezuelan sides. In other words Mexico and Uruguay are ashamed enough that they seek cover. But they forge ahead with what is only a leftist mind set that cannot accept that the left has failed so miserably in Venezuela.
On another note. We have fresh congresswoman Ilhan Omar. She is certainly smart: nobody dumb can go from Somalian refugee to be elected to Congress from Minnesota. She wrote a series of knee jerk Tweets on Venezuela that gave her enough flack that she was forced into tweeting something more neutral. She even notched down from condemn to caution.
Of course there is suffering in Venezuela and I strongly stand with the people. There many ways we can assist, that I would support but will always caution us against intervention.— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) 28 de enero de 2019
And yet a few hours later she could not help it and tweeted this:
Trump's new sanctions on Venezuela are nothing more than economic sabotage designed to force regime change by starving the very people we claim to be helping. We must lift these, & other sanctions impacting Venezuela's poor, & support dialogue between the opposition & government. https://t.co/hjOUseW1B6— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) 28 de enero de 2019
Now, I understand that there has been a strong historical tendency in the USA towards isolationism (Trump himself is its more recent avatar no matter what the congresswoman thinks). But Ilhan Omar is now part of the foreign committee of the House and she just cannot blurt knee jerk replies. The right tweet about a week ago should have read like: "we are very worried about the developments in Venezuela. We need to assess fully what is happening before any decision is made by the US. Dialogue should always be promoted before sanctions are taken as a last recourse". Or something to that effect.
But her left formation (and lack of true knowledge on Venezuela, and inability to get a good adviser apparently) brings her to mention "dialogue". I suggest that congresswoman Omar spends a few months instructing herself about world affairs before starting emitting opinions. After all on that committee she can get all sorts of verified data. But I am afraid her left heart will prevail.
To help her understand, sanctions so far were designed to hurt apparatchiks of the regime. Only now real sanctions are starting. And dialogues have failed several times. Calling for them without using a tool for pressure is simply crass.
And to finish this entry on light note: another leftist intelligentsia hero Jon Lee Anderson got into bad trouble today and had to remove a tweet he wrote on Venezuela, tweet mercifully saved in cache. Basically he poked fun of the opposition in a mean way, revealing at the same time his contempt and where his inclinations were in spite of all the suffering of Venezuela.
TO MAKE THINGS CLEARER TO ALL THIS TYPE OF PEOPLE
For the Venezuelan opposition to even consider sitting at a table with the regime the following conditions must be met first (conditions that are applied in one simple political decision by Maduro):
- freedom for all political prisoners
- restauration of the National Assembly prerogatives, retroactively to when these were abolished by fiat.
- allowing for international help OUTSIDE of government control least this one uses it for propaganda.
- restore freedom of expression.
Without that, dialogue is useless. Any one that promotes dialogue without taking these in consideration is not a friend of Venezuela but a friend of Maduro's regime/dictatorship. What we need now are negotiations as to the schedule on the regime's departure.
And note, in particular for Omar from Africa: the new sanctions are probably accepted by a majority of the population. We already suffer enough that some more we can take. See as an example the ANC under the apartheid in South Africa. As seen on the latest protest, a large majority of the country is against Maduro. Period.
As you point out, "dialogue" has been tried before, with no positive consequence for democracy in Venezuela.ReplyDelete
Sooner or later there will be negotiation. Maduro: can I at least keep one sword and my closet of red shirts? Oppo: sure but gtfoReplyDelete
"I suggest that congresswoman Omar spends a few months instructing herself...." Daniel I suggest that few months would be better spent in Venezuela!ReplyDelete
By the way, the time to even considering dialogue with the former president is long past.
I hope for a positive outcome for the Venezuelan people and to hell to Trump!ReplyDelete
Trump has busy schedule so he can't come to Venezuela William.A legal government is in place in the National Assembly. They need to pass urgent measures and the U.S. needs to offer food supplies as needed as advance payment against future oil sales. 20 million is ridiculous. A billion a month is a start.Delete
"Myself I politically gravitate between social democrat /liberal and center. Though if the candidate is appealing I have crossed the line more than once."ReplyDelete
I don't see why people need to label themselves, and others, as "liberal", "conservative", leftist or "de derecha". La droite, la guache, j'en ai rien a foutre. Even "center" makes no sense to me. If you are an intelligent, well-informed, objective observer, voter and citizen, you can just be "independent", which is what I call myself, when forced to label myself politically.
To begin with, I tend to despise traditional politics and politicians, but I digress. As social beings, we are exposed to all of that crap, obliged to face it at some point, and take a stand. As Boludo said before, one doesn't have to disagree with Trump on everything, or with the freaking Dems or everything. I could say I tend to be a bit more to the "right", in general, simply because they seem to be slightly less bureaucratic, a bit more straight forward than the "left". I certainly usually dislike the radical leftists, "socialists" and loathe communism, but there are some "socialist" policies that make sense. Within a free enterprise, rather capitalistic economic system, of course.
Take Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, even Germany. Some of the most successful nations, not perfect, but good countries to live in. People say they are "socialists". Bullshit. Recently, I think it was the Dannish prime minister who said something like "we are above all free-enterprise capitalists. Sure, we manage many social programs, etc, but we are not "socialists". You can't call that "Liberal", "conservative", left or right. Sino todo lo contrario.
As educated, free thinkers, I don't see the need to lock ourselves in political boxes and dumb semantics. A veces me voy pa la izquierda, a veces pa la derecha, a veces me quedo en el medio, evaluando la vaina. A veces no me meto en ese peo y me voy pal Avila. It's called Freedom.
The little part that your reply omits is that socialist policies were possible in certain countries of Western Europe only AFTER the wealth to implement them was there (and no money on self defense was needed since the US was defending them...). It makes no sense for poor countries like Venezuela without the wealth and the human capital necessary, to embark on such massive-scale social policies. Whenever you try this you either get one of the mediocrities we have had to endure in the last 200 years in the region or get Hugo Chávez.Delete
And contrary to your assertion, ideology matters. Ideology just happens to be a thought pattern so to speak, a set of principles that define a vision of society in the case of "politic ideologies). If your leaders and a critical mass of the population's "mental model" of your society is one where every man is entitled to the right to pursue his happiness without the intrussion of the State whenever possible, in all likelihood you get some version of the Original American Republic and all that it entails all differences considered.
However if your leaders and a critical mass of the population's mental model is one where the government has the right to intervene in every aspect of its citizens life in order to "ensure fairness" (operational envy) you get the expected results: Cuba, Venezuela if your administration is run by incompetents, crooks and idiots, URSS and the Eastern block if the people in charge of the public administration is competent and even brilliant...
"The little part that your reply omits is that socialist policies were possible in certain countries of Western Europe only AFTER the wealth to implement them was there"Delete
Actually, social democratic policies were introduced in much of Western and Northern Europe during the 1920's, the 1930's - in the teeth of the Great Depression - and the 1940's, after World War II, while, not after, these countries were being rebuilt. Similar policies were implemented in the Eastern Bloc while they were also rebuilding their societies and economies after World War II. You're being as dogmatic as the Stalinists with their rigid "two-stage theory" of revolution.
"Dialogue" with the criminal narco-regime is obviously beyond futile; it would be dangerous. Arranging any meetings or negotiations with such twisted crooks would only give time and a certain validity or legitimacy in public opinion. Conversations between opposing parties only work in fair conditions, as Daniel explains, but also between civilized people, not with malandros, mafiosos - criminals, who have proven over and over they have no moral values, no word, and cannot be trusted with 1 old bolivar.ReplyDelete
The Mexican and Uruguayan governments should be ashamed of themselves, for the very reasons Daniel detailed here. And of course, that lady Omar is just clueless, dumb, 'ta meando fuera del perol. These are politicians doing their thing, being ambiguous, playing for both teams. That's what politicians often do, for popularity, for votes, to keep the majority of the people happy. "Neutral"? Yeah, right.. As Mike Pompeo well said, at this point either you are with the 'forces of freedom', or you are with the Genocidal Narco-Kleptocracy (GNK) - No in between. Hopefully the Gman an Voluntad Popular (Seems that Leopoldo has been pulling strings from his house), plus MCM will be able to resist any freaking "dialogue" with the criminals. The only dialogue is when are they getting the hell out of Miraflores.
Sledge - i have been folllwing your replies for a while now. Your statements here have been right on. Great opinion supporting Daniel's opinion.Delete
It should be pointed out that Maduro to the Rusian media was very clear that he was calling for dialogue but will not call an election and an election can only be discussed in 2025. Hence his call for dialogue was very clear that it was dialogue without any intent to discuss a change in leadership.ReplyDelete
One thing the NA should be doing is voting out the Supreme Court as illegitimate and appointing those that fled and should have been there. The Supreme court as the only body that can constitutionally affect the NA needs to be dismissed.
Sledge couldn't have said it better, a good idea or a bad idea are what they are regardless which political party has them. You can and should be agreeing with some from each. Generally, most vote one way or another based on which they agree most with, but there are many but cases that back any idea that comes from the party they support left or right. They just don't think for themselves.
It seems it has come down to the military who one would believe the average soldier wants better for the people but the leaders are crooks and will back Maduro to the point of ordering the death of citizens. So how does the opposition get the majority support of the average soldier without the help from the crooked generals?
Because of gerrymandering, a person dumber than a pile of rocks can indeed be elected to Congress, and that is true whether they are a refugee from Somalia, Antarctica, or Mars. Ms. Omar only reaffirms this.ReplyDelete
But really, being a refugee has nothing to do with it. Maxine Waters may be the dumbest person in California -- she is certainly a viable candidate for this dubious honor -- and she has been in Congress for decades.
Liberal was a term stolen by the left in America in the 1930s. Leftists turned it into a dirty word, not Reagan.ReplyDelete
I was in the US in 1980. I saw the use of Liberal by Reagan.Delete
Daniel, PowerLine has linked to you.ReplyDelete
"now rednecks toss around Liberal in the same sentence as Commie. And that has been so damaging...". Yeah and Commies toss around Conservative in the same sentence as Redneck. Your casual use of a slur undermines your argument.ReplyDelete
Pay attention to context. I am hitting everybody.
One of my griefs against Reagan is that he turned decisively Liberal US into a dirty word.ReplyDelete
Daniel, I beg to differ. Liberals had a big hand into making "liberal" a dirty word. Consider Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan, for example. A childhood friend worked one summer for the Kennedy family at Hyannisport, so my contempt for the Kennedy family is based in part on first-hand observation of the Kennedys from a source I trust. Consider the horrified response of liberals at Daniel Moynihan's "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," when Moynihan was actually talking sense. A half century later, the percent of blacks born into one parent families has increased from about 25% to about 70%. That tells me that Moynihan was correct, and the liberals were dead wrong.
I never voted for Reagan. When he ran for President, I voted Third Party. However, Reagan's stance against the Evil Empire made more and more sense to me. Whereas, the "liberals" saw Reagan as an ignorant lunatic who would start WW3.
While the liberals saw the Sandinistas as "liberals in a hurry," my library research made it quite evident that the Sandinistas were fanboys for Soviet imperialism. Carlos Fonseca was one of the three founders of the FLSN. In his pamphlet "Un Nicaragűense en Moscú," Carlos Fonseca parroted the Soviet line that "Fascists" were behind the failed 1956 Hungarian Revolution. (Coincidentally, in Latin America I knew 3 Argentines who were refugees from Hungary. ) Such as the Sandinistas , less than 3 months after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, signing a joint proclamation with the Soviet Union, which I quote in part.
"The Soviet Union and Nicaragua resolutely condemn the campaign that the imperialist and reactionary forces have launched of building up international tension in connection with the events of Afghanistan, a campaign aimed at subverting the inalienable right of the people of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and other peoples of the world to follow the path of progressive transformation[s]."
Roberto Czarkowski, a Polish national, wrote De Polonia a Nicaragua, a book which recounts his five months in Nicaraguan jails. He was arrested upon his entering Nicaragua with a valid tourist visa, on suspicion of belonging to Solidarity. Does that sound like "liberals in a hurry," or does it sound like fanboys for Soviet imperialism? Just wondering.
Liberals claimed that Reagan was an ignoramus regarding Nicaragua and that Reagan was pushing the Sandinistas into the arms of the Soviets. My library research showed me that liberals were the ignoramuses regarding Nicaragua and that the Sandinistas had jumped into the laps of the Soviets well before Reagan was elected. Did this cause me to have contempt for liberals? You betcha, Daniel.
The previous paragraph prompts a cultural observation about liberals. Liberals see themselves as the wise, knowledgeable one, and their opponents as ignorant yahoos. "Vote Republican; It's Better than Thinking" was a bumper sticker from the '80s, when I voted Third Party. This didn't begin in the '80s. It was evident when Adlai Stevenson was running for President. It gets a bit grating, especially so when as in the case of Nicaragua, liberals were the ignoramuses.
Liberals were the heirs of a great tradition of free enterprise and social responsibility.ReplyDelete
They WERE. For example, Ted Kennedy had a big hand in airline deregulation legislation in the '70s. Today, liberals are all about increasing government regulation. Social responsibility- liberals? Today? That's a howler.
now rednecks toss around Liberal in the same sentence as Commie. And that has been so damaging...
Then it might behoove liberals to stop being so buddy-buddy with the Commies, or stop defending Commies. Consider some recent snapshots.
Consider Antifa, which is an association of street-fighting thugs modeled on the German Communists of the Weimar era- from whence came "Antifa." When it comes to standing up to the Antifa street-fighting thugs, liberals are mighty quiet.
Consider Bernie Sanders, who ran for the Democrat nomination for President in 2016. For five decades, Bernie Sanders has been a very vocal fanboy of Latin American Commie despots, like Fidel Castro or the Sandinistas in the 1980s. Bernie loved food lines in Sandinista Nicaragua, Bernie Sanders: "It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death." Bernie was very quiet about food lines in Chavezuela when he was running for President, but his opinion of food lines was already on the record.
When Bernie Sanders Thought Castro and the Sandinistas Could Teach America a Lesson.
Sanders had a hunch that Cubans actually appreciated living in a one-party state. “The people we met had an almost religious affection for [Fidel Castro]. The revolution there is far deep and more profound than I understood it to be. It really is a revolution in terms of values.”
Then there was the time that Bernie told us that Chavezuela could teach the United States a lesson in equality. From Bernie's Senate website (2011):
"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"
This Commie-loving /defending HDP ran for President as a Democrat. Had the machine not rigged the game in favor of Hillary, he might have won the Democrat nomination.
And to finish this entry on light note: another leftist intelligentsia hero Jon Lee Anderson got into bad trouble today and had to remove a tweet he wrote on Venezuela, tweet mercifully saved in cache. Basically he poked fun of the opposition in a mean way, revealing at the same time his contempt and where his inclinations were in spite of all the suffering of Venezuela.ReplyDelete
Good find. Which is why I say, better a redneck than a left-wing interlekchu-ul (deliberate misspelling). Recall that George Orwell quote: "'There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
In looking at the record, it would appear that when it comes to Venezuela, Jon Lee Anderson is prone to make careless mistakes, but that his mistakes might be called equal opportunity. While oppo people are annoyed at his recently deleted tweet, Jon Lee Anderson has in the past made inaccurate statements regarding Hugo Chavez and what his government has done.ReplyDelete
Bing Search: Jon Lee Anderson Venezuela mistakes. When Venezuelanalysis points out factual errors Jon Lee Anderson has made, and I agree with Venezuelanalysis, you know that Jon Lee Anderson has a problem with accurate reporting!
Someone who writes an 800 page biography of Che is not lazy. But careless and quick on the draw might be considered appropriate. Arrogant, perhaps.
One of my griefs against Reagan is that he turned decisively Liberal US into a dirty word.ReplyDelete
Reagan was an FDR Democrat and head of the Actors Guild. Commies in Hollywood changed him. Consider famed screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who before June 22,1941 wrote two anti-war books: Johnny Got His Gun and The Remarkable Andrew. After June 22,1941, Trumbo decided in tandem with Uncle Joe that US involvement in the war was a good thing. When pacifists who inquired about his Johnny Got His gun book, Dalton Trumbo turned them into the FBI.
In the Music biz, Pete Seeger had a similar change of heart. As a member of the Almanac Singers, he released an album of anti-war songs before June 2,1941: "Don't send our boys to war FDR" - something like that. After June 22,1941, Pete Seeger removed that antiwar album from circulation.
Liberals informed us that Stalinoid sleazebags like Dalton Trumbo and Pete Seeger were "victims" of a "blacklist." Granted, not all liberals defended Commies- Hubert Humphrey comes to mind. But enough liberals did defend Commies.
That is why "liberal" became a dirty word for Ronald Reagan- a former liberal.
now rednecks toss around Liberal in the same sentence as Commie. And that has been so damaging...
Liberals informing us for decades that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were innocent just might have something to do with that.
Books by Radosh and Weinstein and subsequent forays into Soviet archives showed that Tricky Dick was vindicated.Liberals were wrong about their innocence.
Excellent answers, but I'm afraid some persons will never fully understand the reasons behind the current events and reconsider their positions. IN our case, the Weltanschauung that made possible Venezuela, is the same behind the leftist ideologies. Namely a vision where the Government has to ensure a fair ending for everyone and has to become the biggest purveyor of "Social justices".Delete