Opinion of Hugo Chavez

[politicus]

Crazy commie caudillo or benevolent Bolivarian boss? Tell me what you think.

[k-onmmunist]

Literal FF

[Redalgo]

Quasi-FF. He has distorted the legacy of Bolivar, does not seem very eco-friendly to me, is too socially conservative for my tastes, and aside from that I am not an advocate of communitarian government. I also regard Lula more highly than Chávez... but on the other hand I think South American integration is a good idea, sympathize with his opposition to neo-liberalism, and think that on the whole he has still done more good for than harm to the people of his country. It's a little hard for me to decide what he's like due to how biased media portrayals of him tend to be.

[ingemann]

Buffoon who Americans for some reason have a obsession with.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Buffoon

This.

[Leftbehind]

FF

Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but far better than most country's leaders.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Very mixed, but lean HP overall. As a Cuban, I find it hard to sympathize with Latin American populist autocrats.

[RogueBeaver]

Buffoonish far-left caudillo. HP.

[Oakvale]

HP on balance.

[courts]

I'm half Colombian, what do you think.

[Lief 🗽]

FF, though obviously he isn't perfect.

[Platypus]

in comparison to his contemporaries, HP.

[minionofmidas]

Both; and both literally (voted neither).

[Gustaf]

Well, he causes a lot of misery, but it all hits poor people somewhere else with a weird language so that's sort of moot. And he's a strong voice against democracy and rights for oppressed people worldwide.

Obvious FF, I guess.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Buffoon who Americans for some reason have a obsession with.

Yeah, this.

[ZuWo]

Since I don't support authoritarian leaders and politicians who have a penchant for anti-Semitic utterances, I voted HP.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Well, he causes a lot of misery, but it all hits poor people somewhere else with a weird language so that's sort of moot. And he's a strong voice against democracy and rights for oppressed people worldwide.

Obvious FF, I guess.

Exactly my thoughts- the fact that people can respect or admire this man or the fascists in charge of Iran just show the knee-jerk anti-Americanism on this board

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, he causes a lot of misery, but it all hits poor people somewhere else with a weird language so that's sort of moot. And he's a strong voice against democracy and rights for oppressed people worldwide.

Obvious FF, I guess.

Exactly my thoughts- the fact that people can respect or admire this man or the fascists in charge of Iran just show the knee-jerk anti-Americanism on this board

Most of them are trolling. Those who are serious are retards, of course, but they are a minority.

[Pingvin]

Buffoonish far-left caudillo. HP.

[Gustaf]

Well, he causes a lot of misery, but it all hits poor people somewhere else with a weird language so that's sort of moot. And he's a strong voice against democracy and rights for oppressed people worldwide.

Obvious FF, I guess.

Exactly my thoughts- the fact that people can respect or admire this man or the fascists in charge of Iran just show the knee-jerk anti-Americanism on this board

Most of them are trolling. Those who are serious are retards, of course, but they are a minority.

Are they? I see no such indication. People like Lief, Opebo or Tweed have a track record of being against democracy and human rights so it would hardly be out of character (and yes, I know they have not all posted in this thread).

It is true though that it has long been fashionable on parts of the left to express understanding for certain oppressive regimes and that this is sometimes couched in jokes and the likes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

[Gustaf]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

This is the point. 95% of leftists are not "so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship". I don't know where this idea comes from, but I have yet to see any evidence of the behaviour you highlight. There are Chavez fans among the left just like there are Pinochet fans among the right ; this is called fringe minorities.

[k-onmmunist]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

Democracy as a yay word is a fallacy. If you had a dictator who was absolutely perfect and ensured a great standard of living for his people, would you really want/need democracy? Democracy is there purely as a safeguard against the abuse of power by the elite, it has never been an ideal system. I support it purely as the least bad option.

[Redalgo]

. . . the fact that people can respect or admire this man or the fascists in charge of Iran just show the knee-jerk anti-Americanism on this board

There is a difference between regarding someone more positively than negatively in a specific context and actually admiring them, just as there is a difference between not being unconditionally supportive of U.S. foreign policy and being anti-American. Chávez's regime is illiberal, which I obviously find distasteful, but in a region of the world beset with patrimonialism, corruption, and with a history speckled with military coups, authoritarian regimes, and influence exerted by outside powers I think it is understandable that one would judge leaders differently than within their own country. I think Venezuela can do better than Chávez but am not convinced that he should be lumped into the same category as the likes of Pinochet, Vargas, and Perón (though I suppose he in some ways resembles the latter-most).

If I were to raise the bar here to a level at which I am not deeply discontent with some aspects of leaders' agendas, personal backgrounds, or expressed traits of character an overwhelming majority of people involved in the politics of every country would seem like HP to me. Yet, to be honest, I like to emphasize the good in people. I want to better understand and come to respect their perspectives, and strongly dislike applying the "HP" label to most folks because I generally consider them FFs as a default until wandering terribly astray. I am open to being persuaded that a person is not a FF, but am almost always convinced that such people still either have good intentions (which, in my opinion, counts for something) or at the very least have the latent potential to better fulfill their capacity for... er... FF'icity?

Most of them are trolling. Those who are serious are retards, of course, but they are a minority.

I actually am autistic in a sense, though no offense is really taken since I have long come to expect most posters on forums to be less courteous and amiable than I. Incidentally, your later remark that, "They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him," strikes me as being much more agreeable. If I'm having a knee-jerk reaction it is likely in response to how vilified the bloke is in the States and the absurd extent to which the threat he poses to U.S. interests is exaggerated.

Aside from that, to Gustaf I want to express that I do not consider myself to be anti-democratic or pro-dictatorship so much as stuck in a world whose political leaders are mostly disagreeable. There is an awkward choice to be made: how should I strike a reasonable balance between being an ideological purist (Chávez is a political foe for several reasons) and an opportunist (Chávez is not my first choice but maybe he is useful part of a larger, leftward shift in Latin America that will eventually lead to results more to my liking). Perhaps a biasing influence is exerted from my environment - one in which I cannot be choosy about which candidate to support without facing almost inevitable defeat in every election. The mentality is one that socialists must be scrappy and flexible in who they support or be perpetually marginalized and divided into feuding sub-factions. Maybe my mistake is ethnocentrically transferring that attitude from an American to Venezuelan context; i.e. Chávez is flawed but nonetheless better than yet another centrist or right-winger?