Comments on: Frum Challenges Chavez’s Venezuela

By: Speaking of Venezuela - Andrew Coyne's Blog - Macleans.ca

Speaking of Venezuela - Andrew Coyne's Blog - Macleans.ca — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:23:38 +0000

[...] David Frum, speaking in, and of, [...]

By: Reducing Poverty « Red White Waves and Blue

Reducing Poverty « Red White Waves and Blue — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:27:23 +0000

[...] David Frum recently spoke in Venezuela about what he sees happening in the next ten years. He outlined three problems he sees: trying to [...]

By: mlloyd

mlloyd — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:11:07 +0000

The above commenters are correct about this speech– good for you for praising human rights in Venezuela.

A smaller question worth debating– just what does the economic experience of Chile under Pinochet reveal? Recall that they never privatized the world’s largest copper company, and growth was hardly consistent:

The GDP fell by 12% in 1975, but Chile’s economic performance began to improve thereafter. The average annual rate of increase in GDP between 1977 and 1981 was 7.8%, and the inflation rate dropped from 174% in 1976 to 9.7% in 1981. In 1982, however, a severe economic slump (caused by the worldwide recession, low copper prices, and an overvalued peso) led to an inflation rate of 20.7%, a drop in the GDP of 15% in real terms, and jump in unemployment to 30%.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Chile-ECONOMY.html

Now, this is a peripheral point. We should support governments doing what balconesfault describes, of course. But it’s important not to get swept up in historical mythmaking. The Historia Oficial is that Chile prospered under Pinochet, but it’s not obvious to me that that’s the case.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:42:30 +0000

I’ve been reading a lot about Russia under Stalin, and the ascendency of Mao, and I’ve concluded that what we really have to fear is when one party considers it acceptable to detain, torture and kill people on the presumption of guilt … or even just on expediency … in order to accumulate and hold power.

That’s the most important reason for checks on governmental power. And the reason why in particular an independent judiciary, which is not immediately responsive to political winds (and particularly to the clarion calls for stripping rights in order to preserve security), is so essential for freedom and so hated by despots.

By: joemarier

joemarier — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:36:37 +0000

Andydp, I don’t want to detract to much from your point, but Singapore is a one-party state. We could be a one-party state under the Democratic party, and still have major open conflicts between the factions within (as was the case during the thirties). The key is that the conflict is somewhat transparent. At least by Venezuela standards.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:23:26 +0000

An excellent speech, David.

I hope you were wearing a bulletproof vest and had at least two bodyguards with you when you gave that speech. And I’m glad you got back to the States safe and sound.

Chavez has demonstrated that he can brook no political opposition. And in that type of regime, dissenters often meet with unfortunate accidents.

By: andydp

andydp — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:14:51 +0000

Thanks for a great speech. Somehow it only pales in comparison to Chavez’s two + hour speeches on TV. Blaming unamed or external “villians” is a common tactic used by many governments, not necessarily dogmatic ones. Like David said, its the lack of checks and balances in any government that lead to abuses of power.

That is why I reguard our founding fathers as geniuses. They established checks and balances as a way to minimize the possibility of a one party system. In November, an election will take place that willl change the makeup of the Legislative Branch. It was pure genius to make The House stand for elections every two years. That way, things could change quickly.

Carl Rove’s “permanent majority” was a recipe for disaster. (Especially since changing the makeup of the Supreme Court was also in the cards.) Recent examples of such a unified structure are everywhere: Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, USSR, Nazi Germany and any other “tinpot” dictatorship you can name.

Interestingly, I find it amusing the GOP is screaming about the dangers of a “one party system” when that’s what they were looking for on a “permanent” basis when they were in power. Many times, during previous administrations I saw inherent dangers in the one party government ideas of the neo cons, Carl Rove and others (like Pelosi). If played out, there was a real danger we would become another Venezuela or Chile.

Sorry for channeling Slats Grobnick again but hey, its a free country.