A tale of two leaders
‘Socialism or death,’ or the pro-Bush media
ANDREW LODGE STAFF
Last week the inauguration of re-elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was held in Caracas. Chavez of course took the opportunity to delight himself and supporters with another fiery speech that sent Western journalists and governments scrambling for their cell phones and their laptops with an almost-audible “can you believe what he said this time?” Chavez, as has been reported everywhere, promised, among other things, “socialism or death” and called Christ the “greatest socialist ever.” He also cited the Bible at length, borrowed from Leon Trotsky and Antonio Gramsci, and even threw in a little Napoleon. Of course, there’s little need to report that here in North America, because we don’t learn much history, and it’s doubtful we would understand. Thankfully, North American leaders don’t engage in such intellectual drivel.
As usual, in a case like this a review of our mainstream media is instructive. The Los Angeles Times had to admit that the Venezuelan elections were “free and fair” but stated that it is “unlikely that its next one will be,” since “Chavez is intent on destroying civil society.” Just as Chavez had won a 63 per cent majority, the Miami Herald felt it accurate to report that Chavez had sent “Venezuelans reeling” with his re-election and subsequent re-inauguration. The Boston-based Christian Science Monitor — considered by many to be one of the most “objective” sources of international news in the U.S. — reported: “Chavez tightens grip.” And a columnist from our own Montreal Gazette wrote that Chavez “has chosen to lead his nation down a depressingly predictable path —a path that will most likely end in tears for all Venezuelans.” Naturally, there are plenty more examples where these came from.
Much of North American media outrightly refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of leaders who confront Washington’s neoliberalism head-on and/or seek alternative arrangements that, while threatening corporate control, seek to establish economic integration outside the sphere of economic exploitation, long a constant in U.S.-Latin American relations. This stands in stark contrast to their reporting of favourable leaders, who are presented as reasonable and nonthreatening. What’s more, when reporting on nations like Venezuela, there is a complete denial of any successful social policies. In the case of Venezuela, massive and previously unheard-of investments in education, adult literacy, and health care are completely ignored. Instead, CNN prefers to cite a member of the Venezuelan opposition from the business sector, who argues that “public spending is out of control.” The North American establishment delicately selects “appropriate” facts from a larger pool. As such, they’ll eagerly report moves by Brazil’s Lula to appease the business sector, or Argentine President Nelson Kirchner’s move to the centre. At the same time, they fail to report, for example, the attendance of those same two leaders and 10 others from Latin America to a summit in Cochachamba, Bolivia, hosted by avowed socialist Evo Morales, that had as an express purpose the goal of Latino integration as a means of economic independence from the Washington Consensus. Or they’ll fail to report the close ties fostered between Chavez — the lunatic — and many if not most of the leaders of the region. But, the popularity Chavez enjoys around much of the South or “developing” world in general — those under the yoke of U.S. economic or military imperialism, Chavez would say — is in sharp contrast to the virtually unanimous negativity reserved for him by the likes of Bush or Stephen Harper (although one can be sure that Chavez doesn’t think about Harper very much) and their friends in the press.
The contrast is that much more stark when one considers that Chavez, most commonly accused of being “authoritarian,” “totalitarian,” or a “tyrant” has won two elections by margins unheard of in the U.S., enjoyed massive support in a nationwide referendum on his presidency, survived a U.S.-backed coup in 2002, and pushed Venezuela through a crippling U.S.-supported general strike in 2002-03. Bush, on the other hand, is the symbol of “freedom,” “justice” and “democracy,” who meanwhile had friends in high enough places to prevent a recount and an investigation into his allegedly fraudulent 2000 election, that even with the favourable indiscrepancies, he won by only a margin of less than a per cent. His re-election was stronger, all of 52 per cent to 48. His presidential legacy has seen plenty of blood overseas, while enshrining such “democratic” policies as legal torture, incarceration without due process and so on.
Meanwhile, Chavez apparently has a “predilection for silencing any peep of opposition” (Montreal Gazette), which ignores the fact that Venezuela has one of the most rabidly anti-government media of any country in the world, a media that would never be tolerated in the mainstream American “news” outlets.
But this is all as it should be. In a world where bringing peace means dropping bombs, freedom means occupation, economic choice means economic slavery, so too should two systems, under two leaders be portrayed in the most doublethink of terms, so much so that “newspeak” makes perfect sense, to borrow two phrases from George Orwell. We all know, though, that Orwell is outdated.
Andrew Lodge is a fourth-year medical student and the Manitoban’s features reporter.
