How Hugo Chavez's revolution crumbled

The Washington Post ^ | January 25, 2010 | Jackson Diehl

[Cheap_Hessian]

While the world has been preoccupied with the crisis in Haiti, Latin America has quietly passed through a tipping point in the ideological conflict that has polarized the region -- and paralyzed U.S. diplomacy -- for most of the past decade.

The result boils down to this: Hugo Chávez's "socialism for the 21st century" has been defeated and is on its way to collapse.

During the past two weeks, just before and after the earthquake outside Port-au-Prince, the following happened: Chávez was forced to devalue the Venezuelan currency, and impose and then revoke massive power cuts in the Venezuelan capital as the country reeled from recession, double-digit inflation and the possible collapse of the national power grid. In Honduras, a seven-month crisis triggered by the attempt of a Chávez client to rupture the constitutional order quietly ended with a deal that will send him into exile even as a democratically elected moderate is sworn in as president.

Last but not least, a presidential election in Chile, the region's most successful economy, produced the first victory by a right-wing candidate since dictator Augusto Pinochet was forced from office two decades ago. Sebastián Piñera, the industrialist and champion of free markets who won, has already done something that no leader from Chile or most other Latin American nations has been willing to do in recent years: stand up to Chávez.

[Cheap_Hessian]

Mine too. Maybe us Freepers can get a group deal.

[Always Independent]

Right now I’d say he’s in trouble at home. He despartely needs a distraction and a boogey man to blame for the countrie’s problems. I’d bet that he will start a war eventually with Columbia to try draw us in and blame the US.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Chavez would have failed a long time ago if it wasn't for oil revenue.

I read somewhere that there's an old saying in Venezuela: "There are no good presidents and bad presidents. Only presidents when the price of oil is high and presidents when the price of oil is low."

[monkeypants]

You beat me to the punch on that - this article was well done until that part of historical revisionism...

[GonzoGOP]

SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS

The only socialist country to improve its economic welfare without the use of conquest is China. And then only by abandoning all but the trappings of socialism and becoming a capitalist dictatorship. The Soviet Union had a brief period of improved standard of living during the late 40s and early 50s. However that was largely because they were able to loot lands and technology conquered during World War II. Once their looted goodies were exhausted in the 60s they rapidly fell apart.

Socialism encourages consumption and discourages production. The result is that a socialist economy always has shortages, lines, and inferior products. It must continuously expand to bring in new sources of raw material and goods. One of the few things a democrat ever got right was Truman's idea of containment. If communism can't grow it eventually consumes itself.

Capitalist countries in contrast suffer from overproduction. Hence in hard times we don't suffer shortages, but unemployment and crashing prices. The store shelves are still full and there are plenty of cars, there just isn't enough money to buy them all.

It is ironic that the socialist and communists always complain about imperialism, and yet the only way a communist country can survive is by becoming imperialistic. They are economically incapable of being both at peace and prosperous.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

It just won't be the Washington Post without historical revisionism. When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, the Democratic Party was transformed from a rag-tag collection of fellow travelers into mighty battalions of valiant Cold Warriors, at least on the pages of the Washington Post.

[Bon mots]

You are right on all points. Honduras showed us the political battles you can win by defending your constitution.

Which is precisely why Obama couldn't support anyone else. He sits in office in violation of our Constitution. How could he possibly support another usurper being removed from office on Constitutional grounds?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

If he starts a war with Columbia, we need to do two things:

1.) Tie Chavez to a rafter like we did with Saddam. Through surrogates.

2.) Rescind the 1903 recognition of the indepence of Panama and return the canal to its rightful owners.

[Pajama Blogger]

Love the morph!!

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Yeah I guess the WaPo assumes that Obama and the interests of the United States are on opposite sides regarding Honduras.

Well I guess even a blind pig (WaPo) finds an acorn once in a while.

[Gothmog]

Are you talking about Obama or Chavez?

[Always Independent]

Chavez, BO will stick to blaming GW.

[itsahoot]

Ahab The Arab-Ray Stevens

[VeniVidiVici]

"Italy"
"1945"
"Hemp"
"Venezuela"

What awaits Hugo Chavez this year.