Chávez Bashing

Chávez bashing has
long been a moral fixture of deliberation among U.S. elites.  The most
recent examples appear in the July 21st editions of the New York Times and
Washington Post, which document allegations that Chávez is responsible for the
rise in crime in Venezuela and the destablilization of Colombia. 

By Anthony DiMaggio - Znet
Topics
Short URL

Chávez bashing has
long been a moral fixture of deliberation among U.S. elites.  The most
recent examples appear in the July 21st editions of the New York Times and
Washington Post, which document allegations that Chávez is responsible for the
rise in crime in Venezuela and the destablilization of Colombia.  Of major
concern for the Washington Post is a recently released report from the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) that outlines supposed "corruption
at high levels of President Hugo Chávez's government and state aid to
Colombia's drug-trafficking guerillas [which] have made Venezuela a major
launching pad for cocaine bound for the United States and Europe."  Attention
is directed to Colombia's Marxist FARC guerillas, estimated by the Post to
control 60 percent of the Colombian cocaine trade.  Republican Senator
Richard Lugar is afforded space in the Post to demonize Venezuela for
"becoming a narco-state, heavily dependent on and beholden to the
international trade in illegal drugs."

Not to be outdone, the Times' July
21st story implicates Chávez in the growing abduction of citizens living in the
city of Barinas, located in western Venezuela.  Barinas suffers from
abduction rates over 3.5 times higher than the rest of the country, and the
city is currently governed by Chávez's brother Adán Chávez.  The Times
cites no evidence of the Chávez family's complicity in Barinas kidnappings, but
this hasn't stopped the paper from constructing generic links between
"armed gangs [that] thrive off the disarray [in Barinas] while Mr.
Chávez's family tightens its grip on the state."  Readers won't find
even the pretense of objectivity in such incendiary rhetoric.

Searching for actual evidence of a
connection between Chávez and the kidnappings is not a part of the Times' game
plan.  They'd rather muddy public discourse with vague polemics directed
at the Chávez regime.  In fact the Times concedes that Chávez's main
involvement in Barinas centers not on harming the poor (who have increasingly
suffered under the kidnappings), but on efforts to improve the lot of the
masses via the implementation of land reform and the use of oil funds for
welfare programs.

Attacks on Chávez also accompanied
Venezuela's 2009 referendum, which repealed the country's 12-year presidential
term limit.  The Times editorialized in the run-up to the referendum that
Chávez was a "standard issue autocrat - hoarding power, stifling dissent,
and spending the nation's oil wealth on political support."  Such
attacks, ironically, are followed by admissions that Chávez's support derives
from the social welfare programs he implements, which benefit the overwhelming
majority of poor Venezuelans.  His support for the masses is written off
without discussion as inconsequential, however, as the Times paternalistically
and calls on Venezuelans who "believe in their democracy" to
"vote no" on ending term limits.

A number of points are worth
reflecting upon when assessing the attacks on Chávez.  Regarding the
Colombia issue, literally no context is provided in Times and Post reporting on
the instrumental role the U.S. has played in creating the drug crisis.  No
attention is directed to the fact that U.S. leaders have spent billions of
dollars training and supplying right-wing, anti-FARC paramilitary groups in
Colombia (which are allied with the Colombian government), and are heavily
involved in the cocaine trade themselves.  Additionally, there is no
discussion of the ambiguity surrounding Chávez's supposed incitement of the
Colombian-Venezuelan conflict.  Much ambiguity does exist, nonetheless, on
this question.  Human Rights Watch, although it has been extremely
critical of Chávez  (perhaps justifiably so), is unable to uncover any
convincing evidence that Chávez is supporting FARC guerillas.  We should
also remember that it was Chávez himself who publicly railed against the FARC,
stating that the age of "guerilla warfare is history." He has
supported a return to peace negotiations between the FARC and Colombian
government, and pushed the FARC to end their terrorist practice of abducting
civilians and government officials as hostages.

On the issue of Chávez's
"dictatorial" politics, the U.S. media's coverage resembles more
propaganda than reality.  U.S. papers have an awfully difficult time
explaining how a dictator can be democratically elected four times in the last
ten years - in 1998, 2000, 2004, and 2006, particularly in contests certified
as transparent and legitimate by international elections monitors.  The
Times is also at a loss to explain the results of the 2009 referendum, which in
repealing presidential term limits, was certified as fair and democratic by
international observers.

The most obvious explanation for the
Times' attacks on Chávez is that the paper is contemptuous of Venezuelan
democracy.  Chávez has long enjoyed strong democratic support from the
majority of Venezuelans, while provoking the outrage of American politicians
who see Venezuela as fertile, but unutilized ground for corporate
investment.  Let's consider the evidence: 1. Chávez has been repeatedly
re-elected by margins that George W. Bush could have never dreamed of
attaining.  2. A Gallup International poll from 2007 reaffirms the
democratic legitimacy of Venezuelan politics in a number of ways.  53
percent of Venezuelans generally feel that their country is "governed by
the will of the people" under Chávez.  Additionally, 67 percent feel
that elections in Venezuela are conducted in a "fair" as opposed to
"unfair" manner.  Furthermore, as my analysis of the 2007 Gallup
poll shows, poor and unemployed Venezuelans (the poor making up the majority of
the public) are statistically more likely to believe that the country is
governed by majority will and that the country's elections are free,
democratic, and fair.  This stands in great contrast to Venezuela's
wealthy and employed who are more likely to reject these claims.

One would not get the impression
from U.S. media coverage that it is U.S., rather than Venezuelan officials who
are viewed with suspicion in Venezuela.  A 2007 poll by the BBC revealed
that most Latin Americans who were surveyed viewed the U.S. unfavorably and
opposed the former Bush administration's foreign policy activities.  Majorities
in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico felt that the U.S. influence in the
world was "mainly negative," while between 65-92 percent opposed the
U.S. handling of the war in Iraq.  Assessments of individual political
leaders found that Chávez enjoyed high levels of support from Venezuelans,
while former President Bush enjoyed low levels of support throughout not only
Venezuela, but the entire region.

Chávez's popularity, as American
journalists begrudgingly admit, is based upon his willingness to put the needs
of Venezuela's poor masses ahead of those of business elites.  This does
not mean that he's a saint or that political repression should not be a serious
concern for those living throughout the hemisphere.  No political leader
deserves a blank check to consolidate political power.  But what seems to
escape U.S. leaders is that Venezuelan democracy assigns the task of holding
leaders accountable to the people of Venezuela, rather than to
"enlightened" U.S. elites.

Chávez's "Bolivarian
Revolution" is indeed wildly popular in amongst Venezuelans.  He is
succeeding in promoting a plethora of social welfare programs paid for by the
country's oil export revenues.  Chávez is spearheading efforts to promote
gender equality, government sponsored health care, universal higher education,
increased state pension funding, land redistribution, and an expansion of
public housing, amongst other programs.  Chávez's welfare revolution is
significantly improving the lives of the citizenry.  A 50 percent increase
in social welfare spending from 1999-2005 (in the first 6 years of Chávez's
presidency) was accompanied by decreases in infant mortality, an increase in
school enrollment an increase in individual disposable income, and a decrease
in poverty.  From 1997-2005, the national poverty rate fell from 56 to 38
percent of the population.  By 2005, an estimated 50 percent of the
Venezuelan people enjoyed government health care, while the same number also
enjoyed government food subsidies.  The Bolivarian Revolution, one should
remember, also took place under fairly stable economic growth, ranging from
6-18 percent of GDP a year from 2004-2008.  This trend stands on its head
the assumptions of U.S. reporters that socialist policies are a major obstacle
to economic stability and prosperity.

No one in the U.S. should be
surprised that the Venezuelan people support Chávez because of his welfare
policies.  This basic fact, however, is concealed in Times editorials that
frame Chávez as a "Latin American strongman" who "exercise[s]
near-total political and military control of his country" through the
perversion of elections and the nationalization of natural resources. Media
distortions of Latin American politics are of course nothing new.  The
Times and Post have always looked at Latin America through neoliberal,
capitalist eyes, and coverage of Venezuela deviates little from this pattern.

Anthony DiMaggio teaches Global
and American Politics at Illinois State University.  He is the author of
Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in the "War on Terror
(2008) and When Media Goes to War (forthcoming February 2010). He can be
reached at: adimagg@ilstu.edu