Failed Hit

I sometimes think journalists should write more about the stories we wind up not writing. In a slow moment, for example, I thought I'd click over to The Nation to see if they'd published something embarrassing about Castro that I could flag to try to regain my mainstream credibility. Instead, I wound up reading this:

Conversely, if [Hugo] Chávez is such a democrat, why has he embraced Fidel Castro--a full-fledged authoritarian who, for decades, imprisoned his critics and quashed internal dissent--as his mentor and model? Why has he aggressively undermined the independence of the Venezuelan judiciary and concentrated power so heavily in the president's office? And why, most recently, did he use the referendum to seek sweeping powers to suspend due process rights in times of emergency?

What follows is a long and nuanced discussion of the situation in Venezuela that puts the whole thing into much more context than I'd seen previous in a magazine article.

Comments

What the hell, Yglesias? Why pick on the Nation? Yeah, yeah, you joke about restoring your MSM credibility, but that's exactly what you're doing. "After all, if I criticize both The Weekly Standard AND The Nation, I must be a very serious commentator."

Please. The Nation isn't perfect but it does some great work. You would do well to acknowledge that sometimes instead of trying to burnish your village credentials.

(P.S. Still love the blog.)

Posted by Mike | February 25, 2008 3:46 PM

Conversely, if George Bush is such a democratizer, why did he embrace Islam Karimov--a full-fledged authoritarian who, for decades, boiled his critics and quashed internal dissent--as his ally and model?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 25, 2008 3:48 PM

Funny how you could replace Castro with House of Saud and Chavez with Bush, and the statement would still be just as true.

Posted by samba00 | February 25, 2008 4:34 PM

Why pick on the Nation?

er..he's not picking on The Nation. He's making a humorous point about mainstream-ness, and about himself.

MY's actually providing a little evidence against his position that political polarization, like we in the US have now, is not only historically normal, but also a good thing. It's all in how you define 'polarization'. What I see in the last decade+ is, if anything, an avoidence of true ideological combat. The GOP talks about having ideas a lot but they have consistently relied on obfuscation. Massive intellectual sandbaging is very effective because your opponent has to excavate through masses and layers of crap ('pitches'), which runs out the clock, and Dems really really fall for that in a big way. Polarization for its own sake. It's the HRC/Obama-primary stuff we see now, except that it's been this trivial on a national scale for years, really. Lots of nothing. Maybe it turns out alright in the end, but you waste a lot of time drifting entropically.

Posted by jonnybutter | February 25, 2008 4:56 PM

But more than that, Matt, the Nation piece should provide plenty of commentary on mainstream reporting on Venezuela, right? Because if you were surprised and/or educated by what the article says, it clearly means that the coverage of Venezuela in the MSM has been lacking that very context and depth. Not that that's surprising, but still...

Posted by Nationite | February 25, 2008 4:58 PM

Too bad you don't write Instapundit. Then you wouldn't have to read it; you could just link and write "More Castro appreciation from the left" or something.

Posted by Clambone | February 25, 2008 5:00 PM

Did you read the piece in the NYT Week in Review? It's not "hard news," it's more "reporter goes personal" but I recommend it as an easy and quick read with good nuance nonetheless scattered throughout.

Adiós: A Future to Wince At
By ANTHONY DePALMA
"For 50 years, Cubans have lived without sudden change; now the prospect stares at them, like an intruder."

Posted by artappraiser | February 25, 2008 6:03 PM

As someone who got widely ripped as a tool of the Miami Mafia - notwithstanding the fact that I oppose the embargo, the travel ban, believe Elian belongs with his Dad and that Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch belong in a Venezuelan jail - for taking the position that health care and literacy rates are irrelevant when discussing human rights abuses in Cuba, Wilkinson's article is important.

A just society should establish institutions that transcend leaders. There is no reason to believe that any attempt to change a society can only be embodied in one person such as Chavez or Castro. All too often it's really just about the power.

This is why I respect Lula the most. He has always sought to achieve his goals through democratic means.

Posted by Randy Paul | February 25, 2008 11:01 PM

Matt, you should have quoted what came just before:

Predictably, the diatribes avoid the many knotty questions about Chávez and his presidency. If he is such a dictator, why has he won so many internationally validated elections? Why have his opponents remained so vocal and active? And why was the opposition able to defeat him in the 2007 referendum? Conversely, ...

The point of the article is that Chavez is a complex figure, and that to say that he's a dictator, or to say that he's a democrat, is too simplistic.

Posted by Joe Buck | February 25, 2008 11:18 PM

This kind of thing is why Yglesias rocks

Posted by B | February 26, 2008 12:56 AM

This kind of thing is why Yglesias rocks

Posted by B | February 26, 2008 12:56 AM

"If he is such a dictator, why has he won so many internationally validated elections?"

Because the threshold for international validation of elections is fairly low.

"Why have his opponents remained so vocal and active? And why was the opposition able to defeat him in the 2007 referendum? Conversely, ..."

Because he's an aspiring dictator, of course. Hasn't quite got it right yet.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | February 26, 2008 7:27 AM

Does this make The Nation an Yglesias Award Winner (TM)?

Posted by Rod Hoffman | February 26, 2008 10:28 AM

As is pointed out above, shaking hands with dictators is nothing new for democratic politicians: Bush is not only best friends with the house of Saud and Hosni Mubarak; he basically owns them. Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, and so on - all were perfectly willing to not only meet with, but prop up, defend, install, and create dictatorships of mind-boggling sadism if it happened to be politically convenient at the time. This does not invalidate their "democratic credentials". It's called statecraft.

In his own country, democracy is basically the only thing Chavez has. He doesn't have the solid support of the military. The police of most major cities are openly opposed to him, and persecute his supporters. The media denounce him as a "monkey king", an illiterate negro who has no business running the country, and their attitude is shared by the light-skinned, English-speaking middle classes so beloved of foreign journalists. The rich, of course, hate him to the point of openly calling for his murder. The church hierarchy want him gone - Ratzinger, remember, made his bones as a Vatican McCarthyite - although a lot of individual priests, who actually live with the poor, like him. Thanks to the US and Europe, he has very little significant international support, and none he could count on in a putsch or invasion.

All he's got is his popularity. It already saved him once in 2002, against the combined strength of the groups mentioned in the previous paragraph. He knows his revolution is in a precarious position, with so much of it embodied in one man, and he's trying to get around that by building and organising the PSUV (which is reported in the liberal press as an attempt to create a one-party dictatorship). To clamp down on democracy in Venezuela - to, say, start meddling in elections, or increase the civil power of the army and police - would be absolutely suicidal for him. That kind of thing only works for people who have the support of the elite - you know, the "good guys", like our friend Alvar Uribe.

Posted by Mick | February 26, 2008 11:16 AM