Hugo Chavez and the U.S. election
Nikolas Kozloff, who has written a lot about Hugo Chávez, just published a curious article in the latest NACLA Report on the Americas. I say curious because he's always written very approvingly of him, but his main argument here is that Chávez's success in international relations and domestic policy is dependent upon the upcoming presidential election in the United States. Within this framework, even Rafael Correa deals with Chávez strictly in terms of the U.S. election:
At this point small, impoverished nations like Ecuador are no doubt eyeing the upcoming U.S. presidential election. If Obama should win, perhaps the wider region might receive greater economic assistance from Washington. Given this fact, Correa and some of his regional counterparts may believe that it is better to wait rather than precipitously embrace a plan like ALBA.
In other words, Obama takes the wind out of Chávez's sails because Latin American will love him and his policies. A McCain win, on the other hand, might even allow Chávez to improve his party's chances in the Venezuelan elections:
If McCain were to win the upcoming presidential election, Chávez could then turn to the Venezuelan electorate and say: “McCain’s right wing agenda for Latin America is clear. We must now do our utmost to preserve Venezuelan sovereignty from U.S. imperialism.” By cultivating such rhetoric, Chávez might rally the PSUV party faithful just three weeks before regional elections in Venezuela.
Even further, a McCain victory could be the spark for the spread of Chávez's socialist project:
Within such a polarized political climate Chávez might even succeed in passing his constitutional reform, thereby extending presidential term limits. If the reform contains many of the progressive measures of the original proposal, Chávez might regain political momentum throughout South America, consolidate his socialist state, and rekindle some of the political enthusiasm that characterized his movement from 2002 to 2006.
The idea that the U.S. election is the linchpin of Chávez's political future is bizarre. Kozloff views Latin American domestic politics essentially as driven primarily by events in the United States. Venezuelans have a host of different domestic concerns that they will weigh when going to the polls. Who is president of the United States is, in my opinion, will be very low on the list. Despite what is written in the U.S. media, Rafael Correa is no Chávez clone, and so we should not automatically expect him to follow every suggestion Chávez makes, and then attribute deviation to the U.S. presidential election.
12 comments:
I've too often found that kind of attitude among observers of Latin America—especially those highly critical of the US. Such attitudes are not just bizarre, they're extremely self-absorbed. The US is neither the cause of (nor the solution to) all of the region's ills. Dictatorships, corruption, populism, underdevelopment, racism, neocolonialism, etc. were all present long before the US played any significant role in the region. But, yeah, I've often gotten the impression that a lot of NACLA stuff is written more for the sake of arguing against "the empire" than to understand local political dynamics.
I like a lot of articles, and periodically use some in classes. This particular one just wasn't very well argued.
Yes, that's true (and I've used them, too). But I have often found that kind of undertone there (and other places more so at others). But the organization does have a mission statement about US-Latin American relations, so I can understand.
I too think that Kozloff is making a bit too much of the U.S. presidential election, but Greg unfortunately distorts the points being made.
The idea that the U.S. election is the linchpin of Chávez's political future is bizarre. Kozloff views Latin American domestic politics essentially as driven primarily by events in the United States. Venezuelans have a host of different domestic concerns that they will weigh when going to the polls. Who is president of the United States is, in my opinion, will be very low on the list.
Kozloff's point is not that the Venezuelan "swing voter" looks consciously to the United States for his cues as to how to vote in Venezuela. The point is that McCain --like Bush-- would serve as a useful whipping boy for Chavez. The foreign whipping boy is a time-tested political tool that can, under certain circumstances, swing elections. If the electoral margins are tight, the existence (or non-existence) of a useful whipping boy could be important.
Despite what is written in the U.S. media, Rafael Correa is no Chávez clone, and so we should not automatically expect him to follow every suggestion Chávez makes, and then attribute deviation to the U.S. presidential election.
Kozloff has never made any such claim, so it's quite misleading to make this point as if Kozloff has suggested such a thing. Kozloff's point is that any state's choices as to which foreign alliances to forge depends upon what options are available to it. If it were the case that McCain and Obama offered distinct options to Latin American states, the outcome of the U.S. presidential election could conceivably influence some states' choices as to whom they forge alliances with and for which purposes.
Everyone can read it and judge for themselves.
Everyone can read it and judge for themselves.
They most certainly can, and I encourage them to do so because you've distorted Kozloff's points.
Kozloff has never even remotely suggested that Correa is a "Chavez clone." In fact, Kozloff has gone out of his way to describe the two presidents' differences.
I fail to see where Greg said that Kozloff made such a claim. He wrote:
Despite what is written in the U.S. media, Rafael Correa is no Chávez clone ... (emphasis added)
Perhaps we should read carefully before we charge in w/ our arguments.
Interesting angle, this NACLA piece. I agree with the US angle is overplayed when it comes to influencing domestic elections, but Justin's point is well taken. Petty populists like to use the American whipping boy to draw attention away from failing policies. And Chavez has proven adept at using international foes to his domestic political advantage.
But at a geopolitical level, the argument that Correa and others are waiting to see what happens in the US before jumping fully on-board with Chavez, intrigues. Though aside from Paraguay's president, I don't know who else might be wishy-washy in that regard. Already most countries in the region, I think, are trying to balance between Chavez and the US, and maybe Brazil.
The issue is context, Miguel. While criticizing a particular scholar's points, Greg inexplicably busts in with this strawman argument to tear down:
Despite what is written in the U.S. media, Rafael Correa is no Chávez clone
Viewed in context, the clear implication is that Kozloff somehow suggests that Correa is a "Chavez clone." Nothing could be further from the truth, as Kozloff has never even remotely suggested such a thing.
I guess I didn't realize that NACLA was representative of the "US media". Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I didn't realize that NACLA was representative of the "US media". Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, I guess I'm a little confused by the fact that Greg himself doesn't explain why he floats the stawman argument in the context of criticizing a scholar who never proffered such an argument in the first place.
But, hey, I guess I should have realized that Miguel knows Greg better than Greg knows himself.
Post a Comment