Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 06:10:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  Chavez seeks indefinite rule
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Chavez seeks indefinite rule  (Read 3924 times)
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: August 08, 2007, 07:51:47 pm »
Ignore

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12848
United States


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: August 08, 2007, 08:38:01 pm »
Ignore

Hmmm.....Damn. You gotta hate when you back someone up, and everything that happens seems to slap you in the face. Im no longer a supporter of this man. I just cant take this anymore. -_-
Logged

“The meaning of life is not to be discovered only after death in some hidden, mysterious realm; on the contrary, it can be found by eating the succulent fruit of the Tree of Life and by living in the here and now as fully and creatively as we can”

~~~~Dr. Paul Kurtz (1925-2012)
KillerPollo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1994
Mexico


Political Matrix
E: -3.15, S: -0.82

View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 08, 2007, 08:53:22 pm »
Ignore

WHy not, instead of this silly idea of indefinite rule, does it like Vladimir Putin in Russia or the old PRI party in Mexico? Instead of having himself be re-elected multiple times, and risk eventual instability and a coup, he can just appoint a successor with the same interests as himself, have a rigged election, and then have his successor continue his legacy?

The Mexicans did it for 71 years, and it worked to stabilize the country. Throughout the 20th Century, Mexico was considered (and still is) the bastion of political continuity and stability in all of Latin America, where the norm of the times were violent revolutions, coup d'etats, civil wars, and military dictatorships.

Even the old Soviet government praised the PRI regime in Mexico and once coined it "The Perfect dictatorship" because it used democracy to justify its means. And now, I believe Vladimir Putin will turn to do as the PRI did almost 75 yrs ago. So why can't Chavez do that? eventually the political tensions in his country would wane down.
Logged




"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
-Rush Limbaugh-
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: August 09, 2007, 04:53:43 am »
Ignore

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").

*dies laughin'* That's perhaps one of the top ten funniest things I've ever read on this forum. Almost as funny as CitizenJames claiming neocons are really left wingers in disguise.
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: August 09, 2007, 07:09:18 am »
Ignore

Chavez's statement of "removing term limits will enhance democracy" reminds me of all these idiots that we elect that think the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea and should be revoked.
Well, it is. There isn't really much basis for a defense of term limits. Keeping individual politicians' ego in check and politicians in fear of being retired by the voters - preventing them from becoming as all-dominant as Chavez in Venezuela or Kaukonen in 50s-70s Finland - is a job for civil society, not the constitution.

There is. In presidential systems of Lat Am type actual electoral loss by an incumbent absent a major disaster of cataclismic proportions is an extremely rare, if not an unheard of, event. Even when press, etc., work well (as they rarely do), it turns out it is a lot easier to depose an incumbent who does not want to go by a coup or revolution, than at a ballot box. Hence, I tend to believe, that absent term limits, democratic transfer of power from a non-senile leader would be an extremely rarely observed phenomenon in Latin America (not every generation of voters would live to see one). At the same time, there would be a lot more coups.
"Practical considerations", eh?
Well, even then a term limit is but a weak surrogate for a strong civil society (which of course doesn't exist in South America)
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2007, 10:10:38 am »
Ignore

Chavez's statement of "removing term limits will enhance democracy" reminds me of all these idiots that we elect that think the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea and should be revoked.
Well, it is. There isn't really much basis for a defense of term limits. Keeping individual politicians' ego in check and politicians in fear of being retired by the voters - preventing them from becoming as all-dominant as Chavez in Venezuela or Kaukonen in 50s-70s Finland - is a job for civil society, not the constitution.

There is. In presidential systems of Lat Am type actual electoral loss by an incumbent absent a major disaster of cataclismic proportions is an extremely rare, if not an unheard of, event. Even when press, etc., work well (as they rarely do), it turns out it is a lot easier to depose an incumbent who does not want to go by a coup or revolution, than at a ballot box. Hence, I tend to believe, that absent term limits, democratic transfer of power from a non-senile leader would be an extremely rarely observed phenomenon in Latin America (not every generation of voters would live to see one). At the same time, there would be a lot more coups.
"Practical considerations", eh?
Well, even then a term limit is but a weak surrogate for a strong civil society (which of course doesn't exist in South America)

Not really. Not even the US would have done well without a presidential term limit (which, de facto, was customary pre-Roosevelt as well - thanks to Gen. Washington). In a presidential system of the American (drop the Lat) type, the incumbent's advantage is simply too strong. True, in the US incumbents, occasionally, loose - but most political scientists agree that they don't do so frequently enough. Without the de facto (originally) or a de jure (now) term limit you'd observe lengthy periods of single-person rule. Frankly, I am pretty confident that in the absence of the two-term tradition even the US would have lived through a few coup attempts in the 19th century, and, may be, a couple of extra civil wars.

Ok, I could imagine another remedy. For instance, allow a re-election by a supermajority (eg., postulate that if the challenger gets 45% of the vote against 55% for the incumbent the challenger gets elected), but any solution would be less clean than term limits.

Anyway, bad is that political system that is not based on practical considerations: otherwise, there would have been many perfectly defensible versions of Communism
« Last Edit: August 09, 2007, 10:12:46 am by ag »Logged
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: August 09, 2007, 10:13:25 am »
Ignore

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").

*dies laughin'* That's perhaps one of the top ten funniest things I've ever read on this forum. Almost as funny as CitizenJames claiming neocons are really left wingers in disguise.

I am happy that you find the real world this funny Smiley
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: August 09, 2007, 11:35:19 am »
Ignore

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").

*dies laughin'* That's perhaps one of the top ten funniest things I've ever read on this forum. Almost as funny as CitizenJames claiming neocons are really left wingers in disguise.

I am happy that you find the real world this funny Smiley

The real world is that Chavez is a left wing extremist and he certainly is NOT right wing.
Logged
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: August 09, 2007, 12:33:32 pm »
Ignore

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").

*dies laughin'* That's perhaps one of the top ten funniest things I've ever read on this forum. Almost as funny as CitizenJames claiming neocons are really left wingers in disguise.

I am happy that you find the real world this funny Smiley

The real world is that Chavez is a left wing extremist and he certainly is NOT right wing.

What about Mussolini? Because the two are really hard to distinguish. Of the current European politicians he is, unquestionably, the closest to Berlusconi. I don't really care if you call them right, left, down, up or strange, as long as you recognize their similarity.

Logged
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: August 09, 2007, 12:39:57 pm »
Ignore

Can we get Colombia to kill him and end his slow trek to Communism and Dictatorship?

If you really want to get a long-term civil war and, likely, a failed state in Venezuela, you, probably, could.  Otherwise, just wait until the oil prices fall or he himself screws up badly enough to be ousted in a domestic coup (preferably, entirely unrelated to US pressure - and, hopefully, even publically condemned by the US government). I'd give it another 10-15 years.
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: August 09, 2007, 02:15:29 pm »
Ignore

Anyway, bad is that political system that is not based on practical considerations: otherwise, there would have been many perfectly defensible versions of Communism
Admittedly. Smiley

Anyways, guess I sort of ignored just how common presidential term limits are all over South America.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28469
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 09, 2007, 02:21:15 pm »
Ignore

Not really. Not even the US would have done well without a presidential term limit (which, de facto, was customary pre-Roosevelt as well - thanks to Gen. Washington). In a presidential system of the American (drop the Lat) type, the incumbent's advantage is simply too strong. True, in the US incumbents, occasionally, loose - but most political scientists agree that they don't do so frequently enough. Without the de facto (originally) or a de jure (now) term limit you'd observe lengthy periods of single-person rule. Frankly, I am pretty confident that in the absence of the two-term tradition even the US would have lived through a few coup attempts in the 19th century, and, may be, a couple of extra civil wars.

Considering that between Jackson and Wilson we had exactly one President serve to the end of a second consecutive term, Grant, with one term Presidents between Jackson and Lincoln not even getting renominated by their own party, I think you're completely wrong about the prospect of a 19th century U.S. coup d'etat.  The Union dissolving as it did in Central America and Gran Colombia is a far greater possibility than any coup d'etat to take control of the then weak Federal government.  If that had happened, we'd probably have had some coups.
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
KillerPollo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1994
Mexico


Political Matrix
E: -3.15, S: -0.82

View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 09, 2007, 07:13:56 pm »
Ignore

Not really. Not even the US would have done well without a presidential term limit (which, de facto, was customary pre-Roosevelt as well - thanks to Gen. Washington). In a presidential system of the American (drop the Lat) type, the incumbent's advantage is simply too strong. True, in the US incumbents, occasionally, loose - but most political scientists agree that they don't do so frequently enough. Without the de facto (originally) or a de jure (now) term limit you'd observe lengthy periods of single-person rule. Frankly, I am pretty confident that in the absence of the two-term tradition even the US would have lived through a few coup attempts in the 19th century, and, may be, a couple of extra civil wars.

Considering that between Jackson and Wilson we had exactly one President serve to the end of a second consecutive term, Grant, with one term Presidents between Jackson and Lincoln not even getting renominated by their own party, I think you're completely wrong about the prospect of a 19th century U.S. coup d'etat.  The Union dissolving as it did in Central America and Gran Colombia is a far greater possibility than any coup d'etat to take control of the then weak Federal government.  If that had happened, we'd probably have had some coups.

to bad no one thought about it that way. Americans are too civilized for coups
Logged




"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
-Rush Limbaugh-
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines