[BostonCard]

I agree with you about CAP.  There is a mistaken tendency to look at things as black and white; Chavez' defenders (and there are an appalling number of left-of-center defenders of Chavizmo) neglect his anti-Democratic and corrupt side, while Chavez' opponents tend to look at the opposition as pure as the driven snow and reflect nostalgically on the pre-Chavez era.  If Maduro is toppled, we don't know what the country will get.  It could get a competent and technocratic leadership that learned from its three decades of mistakes dating back to the 70's, or it could get a bunch of corrupt guys who are in it for themselves.  History doesn't bode well, but there are examples of competent governments in Latin America.  As for Perez, he was corrupt, he did deal with the riots poorly, and 500 people or so did die when he called in the National Guard.  He was also legally impeached.  But corruption in Venezuela is like gambling at the Rick's cafe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

I went to Stanford a couple decades after you.  Karl was still a lefty at that point (as I point out), but even she called it right on Venezuela and Chavez.  She was no fan then and considered him a thug.  Even if you agree with Chavez' stated philosophy of bringing some of Venezuela's resource wealth to the poor, who had been dramatically left out, and even if you agree with his methods of doing so, I wish more liberals would acknowledge that a) despite the veneer of addressing inequality, Chavez and the rest of his party were more interested in enriching and empowering themselves than the true needs of the poor and b) he is horribly anti-Democratic in a way that none of his predecessors were.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree with you about CAP.  There is a mistaken tendency to look at things as black and white; Chavez' defenders (and there are an appalling number of left-of-center defenders of Chavizmo) neglect his anti-Democratic and corrupt side, while Chavez' opponents tend to look at the opposition as pure as the driven snow and reflect nostalgically on the pre-Chavez era.  If Maduro is toppled, we don't know what the country will get.  It could get a competent and technocratic leadership that learned from its three decades of mistakes dating back to the 70's, or it could get a bunch of corrupt guys who are in it for themselves.  History doesn't bode well, but there are examples of competent governments in Latin America.  As for Perez, he was corrupt, he did deal with the riots poorly, and 500 people or so did die when he called in the National Guard.  He was also legally impeached.  But corruption in Venezuela is like gambling at the Rick's cafe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

I went to Stanford a couple decades after you.  Karl was still a lefty at that point (as I point out), but even she called it right on Venezuela and Chavez.  She was no fan then and considered him a thug.  Even if you agree with Chavez' stated philosophy of bringing some of Venezuela's resource wealth to the poor, who had been dramatically left out, and even if you agree with his methods of doing so, I wish more liberals would acknowledge that a) despite the veneer of addressing inequality, Chavez and the rest of his party were more interested in enriching and empowering themselves than the true needs of the poor and b) he is horribly anti-Democratic in a way that none of his predecessors were.

BC