BoRev.Net

As Chavez begins his new term, the English language Venezuela bloggers are breathlessly typing away to expose the sinister plots behind routine administrative changes. This perennial exercise follows two primary rules:

1) Incoming officials are evidence that the still-democratic Venezuela is surely now on the path to despotic Cubo-fascist autocratic totalitarianism, and

2) Outgoing officials, who were previously bringing Venezuela to the brink of tyrannical kleptocratic Stalo-authoritarian caudillismo, have been mercilessly cast aside because they were, in fact, moderates.

Here’s the word on the Vice Presidential transition, as brought to you by the wingnut brigade, Zagat-style.

Out: Jose Vicente Rangel, the “Prince of Darkness” with the “smug glare brimming with contempt and boredom and schadenfreude all rolled up into one,” and his “barely concealed delight at the way power allowed him to piss all over the truth.” Folks are ecstatic to see the last days of this “Macchiavellian” “evil genius”, who was probably shoved aside out “for opposing the move to shut down RCTV.”

In: Even before his swearing in session, incoming Vice President Jorge Rodriguez is already among “the top five as far as toxic regime personalities go.” A “a failed shrink, a failed public servant,” this “lackey” brings to the job “his intolerance, his vileness, his complete lack of ethical or moral values.” “A psychiatrist in the same sense Mengele was a doctor,” Rodriguez “will not bat an eye to fulfill any of the desires of his master, no matter how reprehensible those might be.” Clearly, this is all “another sign that the revolution is about to deepen and will be more radical.”

Whew. I’d like to see these guys’ take on the Bush Administration’s appointment of Dr. Death Squad to be Condi’s #2.

As mentioned below, today’s New York Times Magazine story on Chavez is an interesting, if not totally accurate, read. The headline, though? Bleh. It asks “A New Castro?” To which the obvious answer is: Haven’t I read this article a hundred times already?

You’d be forgiven for being confused, since last week Newsweek ran an article titled, “Chavez, the New Castro.” And over the fall, syndicated columnist Maria Elena Salinas published her groundbreaking piece “Hugo Chavez, a New Castro?” which came on the heels of August’s double whammy, when the Washington Post ran an Op-Ed called “Chavez, the Next Castro?” even as NPR hit the airwaves with, “Will Chavez be the Next Castro?”

And these are just the latecomers. Way back in 2005, George Gedda wrote an in-depth piece in the Foreign Service Journal called “Hugo Chavez: A New Castro?" while a column about Chavez in the Washington Times called itself, “A New Castro With Big Money” Points for originality, Washington Times!

Honestly, we don’t even know why we bother with the Miami Herald, the only newspaper in America that proudly notes that half of its Latin America staff is on the Bush Administration payroll. But like Sisyphus, we’ll keep pushing this stupid rock until we get results. Which is to say, forever.

Anyway, Steven Dudley serves up this steaming plate of journalistic integrity today. Quoting four “analysits”—three of whom are active members of the Venezuelan opposition—Dudley explains that Venezuela is a totalitarian dictatorship, except that its not because Chavez is incompetent, and the valiant opposition—while remaining totally powerless—have single-handedly prevented that from happening.

This all must be true, because “analysts” say it:

“Analysts believe that Chávez's intention is similar to Castro's, in that he seeks to create a single-party state where he has total control.”

“Analysts say the question isn't whether Chávez is emulating longtime mentor Castro, but exactly what pieces of Castro's regime is Chávez trying to reproduce in Venezuela”

“Analysts fear [giving power to community councils] would eliminate the need for mayors and governors and give Chávez more overall control -- à la Castro.”

Get the point? If not, Dudley condescends to actually quote the analysts directly, and they’ve got all kinds of analytical insights, like:

“The model is totalitarian, headed by one person,''

''This is a type of caudillo politics, and you see it in Fidel as well,''

"He's bent on doing away with representative democracy.”

So there you go. It’s totalitarianism. But it’s not. But it really wants to be. It’s super undemocratic, especially when it empowers local communities. It’s all so brilliantly complicated, but of course bumbling and incompetent.

Actually, analysts tell me that last sentence applies equally to Dudley’s writing.