Reply #71: FDR served as President of the U.S. for 12 years and 3 months. He ran for and

[Peace Patriot]

won four terms in office, and died in his fourth term. He was "president for life"!

Thomas Jefferson and other Founders opposed term limits. They felt that the people should elected whomever they want. And you can't find an historical figure more dedicated to "checks and balances," except maybe James Madison, who also opposed term limits.

Real representatives of the people need time to get things done against the forces of "organized money" (as FDR put it). The right has money--entrenched power in service to the few. The left has time and numbers, the majority. The right lives in tight, rich enclaves in the seats of power and operates like a cabal, able to swiftly attend to the interests of the rich and powerful. Whatever form of communication is current--men's clubs, carriages, couriers, in one era, telephones in the next, the right has more of it. The left is dispersed to wherever jobs are, and to wherever the poor are permitted to live, and to wherever cheap land is available--more difficult to organize, less access to speedy communication. The left needs time.

Ergo, when the people--the majority (the workers, the poor, small business, small farmers)--manage to get organized, which always takes time that the poor can't afford, and elect a president, in particular, or other representatives, they need that person to stay in office in order to, a) achieve sufficient power against "organized money" to be able to do something for the poor, and b) to counter the concentrated, swiftly communicating, tight cabals of power that seek to exploit the poor and all resources and government/legal powers for the benefit of the few, on an on-going basis.

Admittedly, this pervasive phenomenon--the poor need time against the power of the rich--can lead to situations like that in Russia with Stalin, and, indeed, Hitler, where, due to acute crises (always caused by the greedy rich--always!), one man takes over, perhaps rising to power legitimately at first, then his egomania takes over, he abuses power, he cannot be dislodged and we know the results of that.

The "check and balance" against that happening is not term limits (a tool of the rich--who always have "bought and paid for" representatives who can replace each other, and who seek to prevent the poor from achieving the long term powers of government against their "organized money"), but, rather, the strength of democratic processes. If elections are genuine--open, honest, with transparent vote counting--as they are in Venezuela (and were in the U.S. during FDR's era)--the people periodically assess the leader and his government, and vote them up or down. This has occurred four times already, during the Chavez government (including the U.S.-funded recall, which Chavez won handily), with Chavez increasing his popularity and vote margin every time (60% of the vote, in Dec 06).

In Venezuela additionally, the people vote on provisions of the Constitution--a power unheard of here--and Chavez lost a vote on constitutional provisions, recently, by a narrow margin (50.7% vs. 49.3%), and, although some of the 65 amendments proposed by the Chavez government would have given the president more power, including lifting the term limit on the presidency (allowing Chavez to run again in 2012)--and included also equal rights for gays and women, retirement and other benefits for informal sector workers (half the workforce), guaranteed free university education, and a shorter work week--Chavez immediately conceded the loss (a vote he could have rightfully challenged--it was so close), and moved on.

Is this a man who seeks to be a "dictator"? Absolutely not. It is man who, like FDR, seeks as much LEGITIMATE, CONSTITUTIONAL, RIGHTFUL power as he can achieve to serve the interests of the majority against "organized money."

And let me tell you, FDR had nothing of "organized money" to contend with that equals the "organized money" of Exxon Mobile and brethren, who just fired their first shot in Oil War II: South America--the Bush Cartel's new war against the poor--with Exxon Mobile's move to freeze $12 billion of Venezuela's assets, in a dispute over Venezuela's 60% share in Venezuela's oil industry. These fuckers would take food right out of the mouths of poor children, and banish them from school into slave labor, just like the rich of FDR's time, but, unlike then, "organized money" now operates like an independent, free-floating country, overriding the sovereignty of the people, in real country after real country, including our own. Indeed, they have hijacked the U.S. military to fight their corporate oil war in the Middle East.

Chavez may have narrowly lost the referendum, but he retains a 70% approval rating. He is hugely popular, not just in Venezuela, but throughout the region, and including many other leaders--his friends and allies--the presidents of Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua, in particular (and to some extent Chile). They don't consider him a "dictator," or any kind of a threat. They work closely with him on matters of social justice and regional self-determination.

To these countries--most of South America--Exxon Mobile and the U.S./Bush Cartel is the common enemy--and they all need time to address the current economic warfare against the poor, and the ravages of past economic warfare. In Argentina, for instance--devastated by World Bank loan sharks and now on the road to recovery with a good leftist government--Nestor Kirchner just retired, and his wife, Cristina Fernandez ran for president and won, to continue his policies (among them, close alliance with Chavez and Venezuela). All of these leftist leaders are seeking more presidential power, including longevity, in order to combat the power of "organized" money. And these countries and their leaders are far more democratic than our own, where "organized money" is absolutely out of control, and where our elections, in addition to being filthy with "organized money," are now conducted on electronic voting machines, run on trade secret, proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls!

They have hijacked our military and our election system! Not so in Venezuela. Not so in Argentina. Not so in most of South America, where awesome work on transparent elections and other democratic processes has been done, and where the people are taking back their countries and their governments.

This is what the Bush Junta hates and fears--the power of the people with strong, visionary leaders--and why they have slandered Hugo Chavez as a "dictator." He is not a "dictator." He is not even close. He has harmed no one. He has been scrupulously lawful. And he has helped many. Why did he lose the recent referendum on the 65 amendments? Most probably because Venezuela is a Catholic country with powerful rightwing cardinals and bishops (some of whom colluded in the 2002 coup attempt), and who loathe gays and women! The gay/women's rights amendment probably sunk the lot of them. Further, the Bush Junta has been pouring millions of our tax dollars, through USAID-NED and covert budgets into rightwing/fascist political organization in Venezuela. They ran ads that said, if the amendments pass, the government would take children from their mothers. They created enough confusion--with a complex plebiscite--to cause 10% of the voters (Chavistas) to abstain.

Venezuela has the highest citizen approval of its government in South America (and possibly in the world). It doesn't make much sense that Venezuelans would disapprove of Chavez running again in 2012--the narrative that the Bush Junta and its lapdog corporate media would like us to believe--but, even if that is the sole reason that 65 amendments were narrowly defeated, it is an insult to Venezuelans to presume that they cannot distinguish between a person, the president, and a governmental principle (term limits vs. no term limits). It flies in the face of the facts to say that, by this vote, they "rejected Chavez." The vast majority are hugely benefiting from his government, and approve of it in overwhelming numbers. Possibly this was the only issue to them--term limits. Much more likely, that wasn't the issue at all--neither the principle of it, nor its immediate effect, that Chavez would run again.

Run again. Subject himself to the approval of the voters again. Campaign again. Take the vitriolic abuse of the "organized money" all over again. Like FDR did in 1944!

How does this translate into being--or even wanting to be--a "dictator"? The evidence has finally caught up with the Bush liars who said that Chavez is a "dictator." Now they say he is a would be "dictator." And Donald Rumsfeld, as usual, hasn't even caught up with the latest lie--his title, "The Smart Way to Defeat Tyrants Like Chavez" (12/1/07, Washington Post).

Who are the "tyrants"? FDR? Cristina Fernandez Kirchner? Hugo Chavez, 10 years in power from highly transparent, honest elections? Or Exxon Mobile, in power forever? "Organized money," gobbling up lands, resources, and governments and their militaries, beholden to no one, loyal to no country or people, and passing their increasingly monstrous power from one generation's tiny super-rich elite to the next?

Your objection to Chavez being in power for 10 years ignores how it is that he has power, and ignores the reality of monstrous global corporate predator power that would kill him without a thought--that has tried to kill him, at least once already--and that would rob the Venezuelan poor of their only resource at present, oil, and that would, without a thought, enslave them, and torture and kill many of them, in order to enrich itself further. They've slaughtered 1.2 million innocent Iraqis to get their oil. They have tortured and slaughtered leftist leaders like Chavez for decades in South America. And if Donald Rumsfeld is to be believed, they mean to do it again.

"Who's side are you on?" is sometimes an unfair question, used to shut down debate, and disallowing reasonable nuance in a dispute. But not in this case, in my opinion. The "sides" are crystal clear: the poor majority in a democratic system, vs. fascist bastards with ungodly wealth and power, and absolutely zero conscience.

In this case, I think it's fair to ask, Who's side are you on? Or, rather, I would like you to ask that of yourself. There is a lot of disinformation around about Chavez. Please get informed. I recommend www.venezuelanalysis.com, for starters--an alternative view on Chavez, with lots of info and commentary. Also, the Irish filmmakers' documentary, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," about the U.S.-backed coup attempt against Chavez, in 2002, which was defeated by the Venezuelan people, who came out of their hovels in the tens of thousands, surrounded Miraflores Palace, and demanded that their Constitution be restored, and their kidnapped president be returned. The spirit of those Venezuelans is something we need to feel again here--the spirit of democratic revolution.