Written by David Starr   

Detractors of the late Hugo Chavez have been hell-bent on portraying the former Venezuelan president as a total failure with his Bolivarian/Socialist policies. But it's not these policies that are the real problem, despite trial and error. It is policies that have kept Venezuela, and thus its people, "captives" of a neoliberal, and thus an anti-democratic, model that's generally and repeatedly failed precisely because of its very nature: Profits before peoples, boom and bust instability, the have-mores' indifferent indulgence for even more, generally at the expense of the have-nots.

The well-worn script of the "hopeless scenario" targeting a Leftist "bad guy" and his legacy is a refuge for those in deep denial, who are economic predators, ignorant, abusing their intelligence and/or ultra-nationalists.

A report by William Ratliff, Research Fellow, entitled "The Economic Future of Venezuela" published in Defining Ideas, a Hoover Institution journal (10/11/2012), is a reminder. Ratliff proclaims: "The Venezuelan people have spoken. In their presidential election, some 45% favored center-left [!?] opposition challenger Henrique Capriles to incumbent Hugo Chavez, who secured 55% of the vote." The tone of his proclamation is a disingenuous twist on reality. Warped-wording aside, the Venezuelan people indeed spoke, favoring Chavez over Capriles.

Ratliff claims that it's "easy to tick off the failures of the Chavez government's corruption, cronyism, food and other shortages, inefficiency, politicization and electricity blackouts"; and Venezuela having "the highest inflation in Latin America, declining revenues, rising debt and often debilitating currency and price controls." This is sounds like perpetual dollar "democracy."

Ratliff admits that "causes and solutions" have won "[Chavez] such broad support for 14 years." He acknowledges that "seemingly intractable poverty and inequality," and "U.S. and domestic elitism" are causes for Venezuela's instability. But Ratliff clamps down, totally rejecting "21st Century Socialism." Ratliff seems to downplay the second cause, as though everyone is equally to blame. But U.S.-Venezuelan relations have been rooted in those two causes, not 21st Century Socialism.

Ratliff promotes "sustainable growth," but probably the pro-neoliberal/anti-socialist model. Sustainable growth should be based on common interests, i.e, the majority whose labor, is the "lifeblood" of the country itself.

Hugo Chavez understood this, thus promoting policies to sustain the "lifeblood" of Venezuela. Hostility from his accusers prevented a chance for fair negotiations. And Chavez responded, making it clear that he opposes the continuing, imperial relationship; and, yes, with occasional, charismatic outbursts. But what does one do when facing imposing hostility bent on business as usual?

Venezuela, as with other "Third World" nations, are overdue to have leaders who promote social-ethical policies that actually aim to end inequality and poverty, and secure sovereignty.

Ratliff, and the Hoover Institution, prove that a formal education and a fellowship don't always provide a reliable analysis on a country like Venezuela, and in regards to ideological motives.

© 2013 David Starr