Bad guy ‘electoral dictators’ scorned by good guys who bail out the rich
Al’s Loupe
Bad guy ‘electoral dictators’ scorned by good guys who bail out the rich
By Alvaro F. Fernandez
alfernandez@the-beach.net
Twenty-first century democracy is an interesting concept, especially when studied from the point of view of many here in the U.S. Part of my job as Progreso Weekly editor is to read about a wide variety of subjects. This diversity of topics allows me the chance to write my opinions later. And I’ll be honest… I can’t get my arms around the term “electoral dictatorship” being used frequently these days by some U.S. politicians and media.
For example, President Obama ran a winning political campaign in 2008 by tapping into a majority of U.S. voters’ discontent with the direction the country was headed. As a result he beat John McCain “handily” (not my term) with 53% of the popular vote. Today Obama’s victory is hailed as an overwhelming win in the world’s greatest electoral democracy.
Compare that to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. For more than a decade now, Chavez has waged winning political campaigns. Starting in 1998, Chavez ran for president on the promise of aid to Venezuela’s poor majority. Along the way, he tapped into the voters’ discontent and a large majority (north of 60% in every election) has rewarded him with victories ever since. Hugo Chavez is often referred to as an “elected dictator” and Venezuela a “pseudo” democracy.
Delving deeper
The U.S. finds itself in a financial mess. Our economy is tanking. Almost one out of every 10 potential worker in the country is unemployed. Since taking office in January, and having to react to this disastrous situation, President Obama has poured government money into our sinking economy. Most of the tax dollars spent, to this point, has been doled out to corporate giants or banks. Trillions of dollars wasted, say some, on the very persons and companies who got us into this mess. But whatever your views, Obama’s attempt to keep the economy afloat by bailing out the ‘haves’ is a move by a democratically elected leader to stop our downward spiral.
On the other hand, and before Chavez, Venezuelans lived in a dichotomous society. Leaders of a country endowed with natural resources (petroleum atop the list) did not believe in sharing it with those most in need. Twenty percent of the ‘haves’ in Venezuela considered themselves owners of 100 percent of the country’s wealth. The differences were so great that still today the hills where the rich live are called colinas; the poor survive in the cerros. Differing names meaning exactly the same thing and describing brown hills whose only differences consist of nice homes, running water and electricity on one side and shanty-town homes, no water and, if lucky, stolen electricity on the other.
President Chavez has tried to change these glaring differences amongst the Venezuelan population by spending part of the country’s vast petroleum wealth on education, medicine and making available affordable food for the ‘have-nots.’ Logically, these impoverished, never-attended-to-before Venezuelan voters turn-out in huge numbers for Chavez. Part of his project consists of registering them to vote. Nobody before had bothered to do so. This “waste” of Venezuela’s money (on the poor), say the ‘haves’, is just Chavez’ way of controlling a population and assuring their vote come election time. And in spite of clean elections (international observers have declared the past two Venezuelan elections transparent), Chavez’ attempt at alleviating the suffering of Venezuela’s impoverished population is being referred to as a power grab by a developing dictator.
What to make of this
For the past 10 years here in Florida, I’ve dedicated a great deal of my time running projects which register new voters. Each new voter I help register makes me realize that those in power don’t want new participants during elections. Under the guise of helping to prevent voter fraud, the laws for registering new voters become tougher every year. It makes sense (for those already in power): too many (new) voters are much harder to control.
The Obama presidential election is a good example. Nobody gave an African American candidate any chance of winning. What drove home the victory for Obama, though, was not a record number of voters turning out, but a record number of new voters casting ballots. Take my word when I tell you that new voters (voting) strike fear in the established powers that be in Washington, D.C.
Which brings me right back to the beginning. Less people voting is OK — the final tally can be more easily controlled in this manner. Subsidizing crooks and the rich with our tax dollars is also OK — don’t buck the system buddy, it’s the democracy we want and have come to love and admire. But don’t you dare bring me plans that might alleviate someone’s suffering; or teach those who are illiterate to read and write; or even entice more voters to cast ballots… Well, Chairman Mao is no longer around. So I guess they now fear a dictatorship not of the proletariat but one led by the people.
And they realize that people voting can be dangerous to their plans. What worries them? Consider this option. Instead of spending trillions on banks, AIG and the war, for example, what would happen if the president (under pressure from a mass of voters) were to stimulate the economy by spending the trillions directly with American workers… For example, each person who works receives a stimulus check of $30,000 to do with as he or she pleases.
How radical…
