The American continent, if not the whole world, holds extreme opinions about Chavez: love or loath. Colombia is not different, as the hundreds of Colombians shouting “Chavez, asshole, respect the nation” in the recent marching against the Venezuelan president demonstrated. The animosity is understandable given Chavez war-rhetoric against Colombia. Nevertheless, the extreme perception that those mildly sympathetic to Chavez are communists, or paramilitaries in the case of Uribe’s supporters, and deserve nothing but utter contempt does not help the real debate about Colombia’s future, especially in an election year.
It is important to state the obvious: no president is as benevolent as their supporters claim or as malevolent as their critics argue. This is crucial for understanding the disservice that Colombians and even some foreigners are doing to the political debate. Human biases will always confuse our perception of reality. Politicians are masters of exploiting such shortcomings in order to increase their power. Alvaro Uribe and Hugo Chavez are not different in this regard.
Both of them utilize and amplify people’s fears -- in general terms the fear in Colombia is constituted by the guerrillas and in Venezuela is embodied by the oligarchy -- while highlighting their indispensable leadership for protecting us from such fears. What is remarkable, however, is the success that both presidents have had in utilizing different fears (many at times manufactured) to convince a population that could not share a more similar history. After all, the two countries’ basic problems have evolved from the same root: the inequality left in place by the colonialists, which has only increased in modern times.
Yet, both presidents have failed to decrease this gap - although there have been shifts of wealth in recent years: Colombia’s wealth has changed hands, from the traditional landowners to drug-lords and paramilitaries, while in Venezuela it has passed from the traditional elite to the boligarchs. But, paradoxically, both presidents maintain a high level of popularity in their banana republics.
There may be many reasons, many of them cynical, for explaining the paradox. But an important reason is that a sizable number of the populations truly believe, and most importantly, experience, the changes that these two presidents have brought to their communities. Naturally, Uribe’s and Chavez’ policies have several shortcomings. But what is undeniable is that some do affect certain parts of the population positively. Therefore, opposing every single announcement that each president makes only because there is a disagreement with their fundamental believes is not only ignorant, but also counter-productive to the public debate.
Real debates start when fully supported arguments are respected and counter-arguments with evidence are put forward. On the other hand, insipid diatribes result when the opposing party’s arguments are dismissed as idiotic because they resemble what a fundamentally different ideology may support. Since governments are far from perfect such argumentative and critical discussions are crucial for improving governance. Such discussions are even more valuable in elections years.
Unfortunately, some valuable ideas that opposing political parties, such as the Polo Democratico Alternativo, could have proposed will be dismissed because of Chavez’ positive remarks towards the party. Moreover, the heuristic of labeling presidential candidates in terms of their pro-Uribe or anti-Uribed stand, which has been widely instigated by the Chavez factor, could also affect other presidential candidates. The presidential chances of promising alternative figures such as the former mayor of Medellin Sergio Fajardo, who has not publicly expressed his support or opposition for Uribe could be affected dramatically.
Calling Chavez or Uribe an asshole, regardless of its veracity, does not nurture an argumentative debate. It only leads people to remain in their comfort zone of political ideas while continuing to embrace only news information congruent with their beliefs. The war of ideas is what can truly change a country. Unfortunately, in Colombia the word war does not have a figurative meaning.
Bluebird
said:
 |
... I understand that your whole purpose is to slowly, over time, in small increments, to try and change public perception of Chavez while try to appear fair and balanced. We the readers understand what you are trying to do. If you can get one or two people to grudginly acknowledge that maybe Chavez has "done some good" then maybe their perception of him will slowly change. In doing this you are asking all of us to forget that he is systematically destroying the freedoms of an entire nation and threatning the freedoms of his neighbors. Why is it that you never seem to write about what he is doing to the press or the broadcasting industry in Venezuela? I would think you would be up in arms about that.......but no, you try to minimize these assaults on basic freedoms. To compare this man to Mr. Uribe and infer that they are both basically good but just different is a slap in the face to the people of Colombia. |
Andrewmann552
said:
|
... This article tries too hard to find a balance between both men. The numbers from Venezuela don't lie: During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and do not take into account increased access to health care or education. Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half. Source Center for Economic and Policy Research 1611 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20009 202-293-5380 (The CEPR advisory board includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; plus Janet Gornick, Professor at the CUNY Graduate School and Director of the Luxembourg Income Study; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. |
Adriaan
said:
 |
... @ Bluebird, I wonder what could convince you that nothing is either pure evil or pure good. |
Bluebird
said:
|
... I have only recently come to realize that this "newspaper" is basically a nest of socialists hiding behind the pretext of presenting the news when your actual agenda is so very obvious. I don't think I am alone in understanding that this is the real objective here. The CEPR is just one of many ultra left organizations that dot the Washington landscape and since the figures they tout are not gathered independently but rather fed to them directly from the Chavez administration I don't see how they can be considered reliable in any sense of the word. And another thing.......taking the basic rights away from an entire country...even in the name of helping the poor is never ever justified. |
Andrewmann552
said:
|
... Bluebird, that's a little too crazy to accuse this paper of being a "nest of socialists." The coverage is pretty balanced, this article even accuses Venezuela of having "boligarchs." They posted a cartoon mocking Chavez's response to the Facebook marches, they post every accusation launched against Chavez when it comes to FARC, ELN etc. But they also post the accusations and scandals surrounding Uribe which too bad, you can't escape them, they are real, they are happening, they are there. Its pretty funny how you bash "socialists" when you're obviously caught up in some sort of right-wing personality cult when it comes to Uribe. |
Adriaan
said:
|
... @ Bluebird, You are being silly. I will tell you something that may be shocking to you. The website receives contributions from a lot of people around the world and I never asked them for their religion or political preference. This could mean that some of the writers in deed are socialists or even satanists. I never asked, because it doesn't matter. You are on this website, because you want to know what is going on in Colombia and what is being said about it. I am happy we are able to partially able to do the information part. It's good you draw conclusions from what you read. But if you are going to dismiss any opinion different than yours as socialist, you are only excluding yourself from a good discussion. Don't do this, you'll end up an ignorant, bitter old man. |
Adriaan
said:
|
... @ Andrewmann552, Do me a favor and register, so I don't have to manually approve your every comment. You're giving me RSI.  |
Bluebird
said:
|
... Adriaan, your concern is appreciated but this ignorant, bitter , old man is too tired today to argue the point further. LOL que tenga una buena noche....cuidate...chao |
Spy
said:
|
... Bluebird and the 'nest' is a great series! The social pull to equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity will generally elect nonsensical party hacks like Chavez and Obama. At least 70% of the population everywhere is lazy, ignorant and won't lift a finger to make their life work because it is someone else’s fault. Eventually, over generations, people are turned into drones satisfied with mediocrity and are only critical of disagreement and individualism. The few individual’s left can only become ‘criminals’ in this environment. Eventually the 'state, or the oligarchy operating from their puppet declare any disagreement with it is sedition and evil. The left have no ideas that stand on solid ground. The socialist mantra is one of lies and blood soaked sand while the right appears to stand on blood soaked solid rock. Neither ground grows much of anything. |
gringo michae
said:
 |
... I disagree in comparing Chavez and Uribe, but on whole the writer does make a valid point, droping to Chavez level of name calling adds nothing to the debate. andrew interest report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research , I stopped and read some of what they have written about Venezuela , with oil prices as high as they have been Chavez has been rolling in money to throw at social issues unlike Colombia which has less oil and on going internal conflict for over 45 years drainage the governments coffers to deal with it. so comparing both countries is not only unfair but impossible. I could tell you of Colombian who have gone to work in Venezuela only to return after working longer hours for less pay then inn Colombia their main complaint is the food is horirble that new the dogs in the streets will not eat it. atleast that is their claim. one reason bith men remainso popular is a failure of the media, in Venezuela case Chavez has taken ove rmost that dared report poorly of him, wht the excuse of the Colombian media is to be honest I don't know , but I doubt they have a good excuse to why they fail to report better |
azunoman
said:
 |
... I've found the news here fair and balanced. I read editorials to make me think from different perspective...then I form my own opinions... |
Albeiror24
said:
 |
... Yes, our purpose in CR is not to line in any political group. It is true: most of our writers are here because they love Colombia, know about Colombia, have a certain skill and experience to talk about Colombia and, most important, feel journalism as a service to look for information and share it with the public opinion. If you follow different writers, you will discover that some of them have different opinions. Now well, personally I am not sympathetic to Chávez and I do not consider Uribe the fount of evilness in Colombia. But as a journalist I cannot be blind in the consequences of several wrong policies in Colombia, as I cannot follow nationalist marches against Chávez that confuse the reflection. As a journalist, I have to see Chávez and Uribe as main actors of the history of their nations and how they crush each other with bad consequences for their peoples. As for me, both use each other to increase their own popularity, while put away the public opinion from real domestic problems. |
