Chavez camp, opposition demonstrate disturbing lack of originality

It's about as easy to tell supporters and opponents of Hugo Chavez apart as to see the difference between a tree and an obelisk. Observe their rhetoric, though, and the two camps are like identical twins.

PRESS

Most of Venezuela's media is anti-Chavez. No surprise here: the press is largely owned by the old oligarchy, which is largely anti-Chavez. Yet there are Chavista outlets, too. Ultimas Noticias, for instance, is a tabloid-format, reasonably serious, populist paper that has a "We report, you decide" style and is sympathetic to Chavez. But ask a Chavez opponent what he or she thinks of the paper? Prensa amarilla--yellow press. Fair enough. And what do Chavez supporters think of the private TV and most dailies? That's right... Prensa amarilla--yellow press. Two sides, same colour.

DEMOCRACY

Chavez supporters claim that never before Chavez was Venezuela a real democracy--the poor masses had never meant anything to the country's leaders, they say. Now, they claim, the country finally has a president and a new constitution that respect's the people's "protagonistic" role in the country's politics. Their opponents, meanwhile, are taking money from the US government and are blatantly "anti-democratic." Chavez's opponents decry Hugo's concentration of power and accuse him of destroying Venezuelan democracy, which has existed for nearly 50 years. They accuse him of fixing elections, too. In a word, he is classically authoritarian and profoundly "anti-democratic."

HITLER

This is more of an international thing. Speaking at the Poliedro during the World Social Forum (see a few posts down), Chavez called President Bush, as he often does, Mr Danger, and said he was the world's biggest terrorist. As he did so, people, as they often did during the Forum, waved posters subtly depicting Bush as Hitler. Look at my photo:



Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld recently compared Chavez to Hitler--in retaliation?--saying:

“He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others.”

Neither comparison to Hitler holds much water, though a mano-a-mano election context is hardly flattering to Bush.

He's the one whose friendly Supreme Court handed him a false victory in Florida in 2000, when he also scored second in the national popular vote, and who's never won the support of over 54% of voters nationally, while Chavez hasn't scored below that number in two votes. Chavez and his supporters have won seven elections in seven years. (Opinion polls now place his support in the 70% range, though such numbers are virtually meaningless.) And anyway, the Nazi party never scored over 44% in elections, and their seizure of absolute power was hardly, as Rumsfeld claims, legal.

(Also note, Nobel Laureate and Commie hack Jimmy Carter has mused that the American electoral system is noteably worse than Venezuela's -- see for instance this Wash Post article.)

CONCLUSION

It seems the culture of PR, talking points, and general stupidity has infiltrated the Venezuelan political discourse. As a result, to mix a metaphor, the mudslinging around President Chavez is severely impoverished. Now that's bad for democracy.