Why tyrants remain in power
Associated Press columnist Jorge Rueda wrote on some details of the upcoming Venezuelan election. In it he has a line that, when examined, sums up the reason why tyrants remain in power:
But Chavez supporter Jose Liendo, a 37-year-old carpenter, said he is tired of voting year after year for allied candidates "who don't help Chavez or us."
Mr. Liendo is obviously against Chavez, but is tired of having no clear opposition. Thus, there is an internal despair as to what the future holds, and in search of consistancy, and stability, what isn't more constant and stable than a dictator?
Even when a dictator's consistancy and stability is bullshit, murder, and oppression, people like Jose won't bat an eye at their country's problem so long as they have clarity in who their leader is: even when leaders like chavez and castro are clearly evil.
This is at the heart of why Cuba has suffered for 46 years. This is why chavez will win the election. This is why tyrants remain in power.
3 comments:
How do you determine that Mr. Liendo "is obviously against Chavez" in the AP article?
Your argument that Chavez is in power because people want stability at any cost could equally apply to the U.S. presidential election in 2004.
In the U.S. there is stability regardless of which candidate wins. As a Republican, I thought the world was going to end when Clinton was elected. It didn't. And neither will it end with Bush (for those Democrats out there). Our country, by virtue of the dispersion of power inherent in our system is very stable. That's unfortunately not the case in Latin America where people gravitate toward strong man caudillo types. Chavez will ruin Venezuela's economy. The example of Cuba should be convincing enough to them, but most Latin Americans have been brainwashed with anit-American propaganda. Unfortunately, the Venezuelans are going to have to learn their painful lesson on their own.
Dearest anonymous,
The answer to your question, into Liendo being a Chavez supporter, is quite simple. In reading the article, nay, in simply reading the quote that I took from the article you will see the following words: But Chavez SUPPORTER Jose Liendo... said... If that isn't clear, then what is?
Now, you claim:
Your argument that Chavez is in power because people want stability at any cost could equally apply to the U.S. presidential election in 2004.
Sorry, it's not the same thing.
Here's the difference:
You see unlike chavez, and unlike castro, a new president will be elected in the US, and regardless if one likes him or not, Bush's term will come to an end.
Whereas, chavez, walking in the footsteps of fidel, will not let go of power in the name of his own mini-bolivarian-revolotion. And he will do it at the despair of his own people.
Why can't Latin America learn from Costa Rica?
Some future advice:
If your going to make a heavy critique; you either support it with SOMETHING or just don't mention it.
Thanks
Post a Comment