|
Will Obama backers look to Chavez? By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Feb. 19, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. Change indeed came once again this past Sunday, but this time, not in the United States. On Sunday, Venezuela’s dictator-in-waiting Hugo Chavez won a major political victory as his supporters voted to eliminate the presidential term limits that would have forced him to leave office in 2012.
As sad as it is to see a democracy come to an end, it is not surprising. With the corruption that has run rampant in Venezuela for decades, accompanied by the almost feudalistic wealth disparity in that country which has been fostered by the corrupt system, Chavez had the perfect opportunity to advance his socialistic agenda. What’s more, he had in the United States a perfect scapegoat for when circumstances were going against him. While Chavez appears to be honest in saying he is creating a socialist society in Venezuela aimed at helping the poor, it is likely his true aims are to create a Cuban-style communist society that will reward the most loyal supporters of his Bolivarian revolution while enslaving the population like is the case of the people of our Caribbean neighbor. Chavez is a very divisive figure in the U.S. as well as in Venezuela. Many see his true motives, but others support his actions and champion his compassion, saying he should be looked at as a role model for America. In fact, when Barack Obama said we need to “spread the wealth around” in the United States, his supporters trumpeted the idea. So, this makes me wonder — how far would President Obama’s supporters be willing to go to achieve their brand of social justice? In my own dealings, I have noticed a trend that seems to be increasing in frequency — people who are more open to the idea of socialism for the United States. Although I have heard one person or another extolling the virtues of socialism most of my life, it has been only recently I have heard so many unrelated people saying the same line: “They may call this socialism, but ...” Whether the topic of debate is nationalization of certain industrial sectors, limitations on the wealth of the rich, or implementation of a government-rationed health care system, the sentiment is the same — these things need to be enacted, whether or not they can be considered socialism. Socialism, like many political philosophies, is subjective and often misinterpreted. In essence, it entails a greater dependence on the government by the citizenry. The more it is implemented, the more it is likely to fail. The fatal flaw can be simply demonstrated in Ten Years After’s 1971 hit, “I’d Love To Change the World,” in which the lyrics say, “Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.” Well, after there are no more rich, who is going to feed the poor? A perfect illustration of this point is Venezuela, since Chavez was using high oil prices when gasoline was $4 a gallon in the U.S. to bankroll his push for socialism. Now that oil prices are a fifth of what we saw last summer, Chavez’s social programs are hurting for funding. Even with that setback, Chavez pushed on to become the permanent president in order to pursue his ever-elusive goal of social equality. This, of course, provides justification for him and him alone to stay in power. To date, President Obama has not advocated or even hinted at following the Chavez model, but what about his supporters? Many of them are already supporting socialist-style programs, there has already been a constitutional amendment proposed to eliminate presidential term limits, and although the White House said Wednesday Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine, many of his supporters certainly do in order to silence opposition views like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, much like Chavez did to opposition voices in his country. How long will it be before we begin hearing Obama supporters who say the president does not have enough time in office to complete his goals? That the economy is in too dire a condition to deal with the distraction of a presidential election? Or that his youth gives him a lot of years to lead? When the president visited Florida last week, we saw the embarrassing display of people who had their hands out, looking for Obama and only Obama to fix their lives. It would likely be these people who would readily surrender their right to vote in order to keep in office a man they think will take care of them. The Founding Fathers created a set timetable for elections, and an indirect electoral system to prevent one man from becoming a king at the hands of the desperate masses. However, as more people look to the government not only for their livelihood, but for their mere survival, they will increasingly view the symbol of that government as their savior. With the government providing the bread, we could see citizens voting themselves circuses in the form of a Chavez-esque referendum that ends in the coronation of King Barack I. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
The referendum, Chavez says, was necessary to give him the power he needs to finish converting Venezuela into a socialist country that eliminates to differences between the rich and the poor. Although he will still need to actually run for the office, his influence and control over the country’s courts and electoral system have pretty much assured that he has become Latin America’s latest president-for-life.
