[Cincinatus' Wife]

Chavez's threat festers unnoticed***"Chavez believes that oil is the weapon that is going to bring down the capitalist system," he said. The fate of Chavez has major implications for both the United States and Cuba, which depend heavily on Venezuela for oil. The strike has slashed Venezuelan oil output to barely one-third of its normal levels. Some observers liken Venezuela's situation to two other former major oil producers: Libya and Iran. Both countries witnessed a dramatic cutback in oil production after revolutionary episodes in 1969 and 1979, respectively.

Throughout his presidency Chavez has battled PdVSA's management, trying to destroy the autonomy that many say was the secret to the company's much-vaunted efficiency. Before the strike Chavez's efforts to wrest control of PdVSA had failed. But when oil company executives threw their weight behind the opposition strike in December, they miscalculated badly. Two months later, thousands of PdVSA's top managers have been fired and Chavez is firmly in control. It remains to be seen if the new, inexperienced managers can bring back production to normal levels.

Either way, the United States faces a difficult choice. Does it place support for democracy above or below its need to secure oil supplies? While Washington may not like Chavez, he has pledged to continue to supply the United States with oil. It was in the name of democracy -- and to prevent what it feared was the spread of Cuban-inspired communism -- that the Reagan administration became deeply involved in Central America in the 1980s. But the world has moved on since the Cold War. Now the White House is fighting a new enemy: terrorism. Meanwhile, no one in Washington seems to be paying much attention to the spread of left-wing ideas -- not to mention anti-Americanism -- in its own back yard.***

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Sign of new U.S. hands-off policy: Chavez rules *** The failure of Venezuela's national strike to oust President Hugo Chavez carries significance far beyond Venezuela's borders. It is an indication of a subtle but significant shift in U.S. policy toward Latin America. The collapse of the strike that began two months ago -- despite broad support by the political opposition, the backing of nearly every business and financial leader in the country and a pro-business, pro-democracy platform that should have resonated throughout the hemisphere -- is partly due to its organizers' violation of the traditional rules of political rebellion. They underestimated their opponent, poorly exploited their own considerable resources, had no comprehensive strategy and found no appealing leader to rally their supporters.

But their failure also reflects the changing nature of U.S. involvement in Latin America. When they first called for the strike, opposition coordinators expected that the Bush administration would intervene on their behalf. This assumption was not without reason. Chavez has routinely turned his back on the United States, befriending Fidel Castro, meeting with Iranian and Libyan leaders and -- supported by the poorest elements of Venezuelan society -- enacting populist, anti-business reforms that fly in the face of American economic values. ***