Friday, September 07, 2007

How many Chavezes are out there?

A couple days ago, Quico wrote this interesting commentary about Chavez's flip/ flop in regards to indefinite reelection:

"Of course, like anyone else, Chávez is entitled to change his mind. There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to say, "hey, I used to be against indefinite re-election, for such and such a reason. Having thought more carefully about it, and in light of new circumstances, I've changed my mind. From now on, I have decided that I am a caudillo and/or indispensable, for this and this reason." I mean, if you're going to flip flop, do it honestly.

But, as Rory Carroll found out, that's not the way he's playing it. Having erased (in some cases, literally) his previous stance from the historical record, now he flies into a narcissist hissy fit when someone makes the exact same points he used to make. He hints darkly about their allegiance to foreign powers, blusters at length against them without addressing the substance of their points, and all without ever betraying the slightest whiff of understanding, the most oblique hint of self-awareness about the scale of the rhetorical U Turn involved."

Following up with the topic, here are the videos:

Chavez 2004, the democratic civilian who doesn't believe in indefinite reelection because nobody is indispensable and God's forbid, he is not a caudillo:

And, all the Chavistas (and Venezuela) agreed and cheered with him, because nobody wants a caudillo, and frankly, anybody is indispensable. Well said.

Chavez 2007, the exact opposite as the 2004 one. Hence, he MUST be today´s indispensable caudillo, right?:

And, all the Chavistas agree with him, did they really? All of them? How come that's possible if all agreed on his 2004 position?

Do this "commune" ideology also share one single neuron that all Chavistas flip flopped at the same time on such antagonist concepts with such perfect synchronization? It sounds to me very sheepish, doesn't it? Chavistas behaving like a school of fish, as a solid lump, like the Borgs. No individual thinking. Yes, yes, no, no. The leader say no to indefinite reelection and no it is for indefinite reelection. The leader say yes to indefinite reelection and yes it is for indefinite reelection. The leader said there is no letter, and there is no letter. Right, Francisco Ameliach?

Where have I seen an official obligated to eat his words in public because the leader says so? Certainly, not in a democratic country my dear readers. How pathetic.

No comments: