Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is dead.
The commentary particularly from the well-fed north of course is abysmal. it is more dead than El Presidente Hugo.
Typical was the Globe oped by John Graham, former Canadian ambassador. He rips Chavez from stem to stern.
Then at the end of the article he admits that Chavez, this awful dictator, disappeared illiteracy, made education free and made health care universally accessible. Oh,yes, he also closed the gap between wealth and poverty and “improved the quality of life for millions at the bottom levels of society..”
Graham also tosses in “he imparted to these millions a sense of dignity….”
Is that all?
American papers of course were worse.Chvaez was basically Hitler incarnate.
Everybody knows Chavez’s faults…his bombast, his top down style of governance.
But talk about a leader actually governing for the poor.Was that Reagan, the Bushes or Clinton or the mean-spirited Harper? Not at all. all bought and paid for by the plutocrats.
What really pissed Americans was Chavez understanding that their neo-colonial rule in Latin America was coming to an end. Typically they supported a coup on behalf of wealth and power and the breaking of unions, an Uncle Sam staple in that part of the world.To no avail, the people demanded Chavez’s return and they voted him back again and again. They knew something the well-fed arm chair critics in the North didn’t. The man cared deeply for them.
Chavez was one among many in Latin America who resisted US hegemony.Count them— Lula in Brazil, Morales in Bolivia,Correa in Ecuador and on the list goes.
A new breed of “justice for the poor” presidents had arrived. Chavez was among the first.He used Venezuela’s oil wealth to raise up his country’s poorest.
Sounds almost Christian.