| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« A plea to our dysfunctional Congress | Main | Perceptions »

March 11, 2013

If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

by Evert Cilliers aka Adam Ash 

ChavezHugo Chavez did two great things for Venezuela. He wiped out illiteracy, and reduced the poverty rate from 80% to 20%. In other words, he empowered the poor. He had the imagination to think big (like promoting a South American Bolivarian Union) and the cojones to act big (like nationalizing oil, banking and land).

And what do our leaders do in America?

Nothing big. Nothing much. Unless it's wasting time and money and words on fake problems like the deficit and "reforming" Social Security, or trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

What are our real problems?

I see four big ones: unemployment, rising health costs, income/opportunity inequality, and Wall Street fraud.

So how can we solve them?

There's a simple solution to rising health costs: Medicare for all. Put it out there as an option, and watch everyone sign up except the rich who can afford to pay doctors, hospitals, Big Pharma and the health insurance industry the exorbitant rates they like to get away with. The state of Vermont has Medicare for all already, and maybe other states will follow suit, so that the Feds won't ever have to get around to it, which they are constitutionally unable to do anyway.

As for unemployment, we don't ever have a real discussion about it. Add up the officially unemployed of 12 million, the underemployed of 8 million, the 6.8 million who are not counted in the labor force but say they want a job, and you have 26.8 million unemployed and underemployed. That's a pretty big chunk out of the 155 million employed Americans.

What's to be done? Perhaps we should be talking about some imaginative solutions, ferchrissake. Just for starters.

Like maybe we should be talking about a four-day work week. What with machines taking over, there might not be enough work for everybody anyway, so we could employ more people if we shorten the work week.

Or maybe we should discuss a massive investment in a new Public Works Administration. Here we are paying out gazillions in unemployment insurance to our millions of unemployed, when our government could pay them wages instead to work on fixing our infrastructure (rated F by our engineers), and building new infrastructure.

Those are two real solutions, and they're not even being discussed.

Then there's the fact that Wall Street gets away with fraud (and laundering drug lord money and terrorist funds), and therefore will continue to do so, which will continue to sabotage our economy. When he had the chance, Obama lacked the imagination to nationalize the big banks, fire their management, break them up and sell the parts back to private industry, as advocated by no less an economist than Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz. And this week Eric Holder admitted that Wall Street banks are too big to jail. In other words, he's not man enough to prosecute Wall Street fraudsters. Doesn't have the balls. Take them to court if you can't take them to jail: that might be enough to scare them into behaving. He doesn't even have the balls to prosecute HSBC for laundering millions in drug cartel money despite being warned not to. But he does have the balls to go after medical marijuana suppliers. What an asshole.

As for income equality: well, at least Obama has put raising the minimum wage on the table -- except he wants it to go to only $9 an hour, when doubling it will inject a huge amount of spending into our economy, which our big corporations are not doing, even though they're making bigger profits than ever before. If some of their big profits were diverted into the pockets of their employees, our entire economy would benefit.

Let's not forget that corporate profits have doubled since 2000, while median household incomes are 8.1% less than they were in 2000. All the productivity gains of the American worker go to their bosses instead of to them. If workers were paid to reflect their productivity gains since 1980, our average annual household income today would be $92,000 instead of $50,000. That's $42,000 a year the top 1% have been stealing from the 99%. Think what an amazing economy we'd have today if our median household income were $92,000.

What is the biggest force against income inequality? The labor union movement. So where is Card Check, which would make union recruitment easier? Not a word from our leaders about it.

Instead we worry about Iran getting a nuclear bomb, which would actually be a very good thing, because it might establish a counterweight to Israel acting like the big regional bully.

Or we worry about the deficit. The problem is not that we should cut our deficit, which is actually shrinking from year to year (did you know that?), but that the government should be creating a bigger deficit, because what we need now is more spending from government to give our economy a jolt in the butt. At a time when we should be arguing about spending more, Washington is having a debate about spending less. Apparently they don't understand the first thing about economics. Just like in Europe, where they think that austerity is the solution to their recession, when it's actually making things worse.

Chavez is an exemplary example in another regard. He kept a close alliance with his nation, and especially to the poor. He actually loved them, and they loved him back. He had a TV show every week where he interacted with them.

But our politicians have little connection with our citizens. Our citizens are worried about unemployment, but our politicians are not. Our citizens think Wall Street should be held accountable for tanking our economy, but our politicians don't. Our citizens are worried about income inequality, but our politicians aren't. Our leaders probably don't know anyone personally who is out of work, like the rest of us have friends who can't find a job, so they don't worry about the unemployed.

Our politicians live in a bubble. I'm reminded of these words by the American political philosopher Herbert Croly (1869--1930) about what wealth can do to people. 

"In the long run men inevitably become the victims of their wealth. They adapt their lives and habits to their money, not their money to their lives. It preoccupies their thoughts, creates artificial needs, and draws a curtain between them and the world."

Substitute the word "power" for "wealth", and you have the reason why Washington is America's problem, instead of a place where solutions are engendered.

I can think of only four politicians who talk to me like they have any appreciation of the problems of regular Americans: Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown. 

Note that Barack Obama is not one of them. The big thing he could learn from Chavez is this: Chavez demonized his enemies as much as they did him. He endeared himself to me forever when -- speaking at the UN after George W. Bush had spoken there -- he joked that the Devil had been there, and that he could still smell the sulphur. Unfortunately Obama is not like that. He tries to work with his arch-enemies, the GOP, instead of crushing them, like a Chavez would.

The fact that Obama does not realize that the GOP is everything that is wrong with America shows what a political fool he is. Instead of promoting his own agenda (whatever that may be: maybe he doesn't have one), he is trying to accommodate a GOP agenda with deficit and Grand Bargain games. He is in fact willing to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table as bargaining chips. Three programs that regular Americans don't want any messing about with (except to lift the cap on Social Security contributions).

Today we have a country in which Washington does not try to solve our problems. In fact, they actually create them, like they've just done with sequestration.

If only Obama were more like Chavez. But he isn't. He lacks the three things Chavez had in abundance: imagination and balls. Obama does not even have the imagination of the 185,000 nurses of National Nurses United, who are pushing for a financial transactions tax. When our nurses have more common-sense imagination than our leaders, you know we're in trouble.

Our entire political class lacks balls and imagination. Washington can't think or act big anymore, and America is all the smaller for it.

Chavez was a big man who made his nation bigger. We have incredibly shrinking leaders who are creating an incredibly shrinking America. Heck, we used to have big leaders. FDR. LBJ. Where are they now that we need them? 

Nowhere, dear reader, nowhere.

Posted by Evert Cilliers at 01:15 AM | Permalink

Comments

Very well described undisputed facts. Suggestions are pretty good too.

Posted by: Arsalan khan | Mar 11, 2013 1:44:14 PM

I see you're coming around to my way of thinking, Evert. Remember when I commented shortly after the last election that no substantial changes would happen in the US no matter who's in power? Well, there ya go. A leader like Chavez is impossible in the U.S. right now. He would never get to be even a viable candidate, because this monolithic system of entrenched corruption and influence peddling is too strong to let that happen. And everybody is too busy watching Oprah and Honey Booboo to care much about it.

Posted by: Pepito | Mar 11, 2013 1:52:04 PM

Loved the essay but one minor quibble about Iranians getting the bomb.
They would actually USE it (most likely through a proxy). Hezbollah had a rally where several of the banners had mushroom clouds.
I know, I know, this is an outrageous moral position to take but: I don't think anybody should be nuked.
You can quote me on that if you like, haha.
Well, that's not true, maybe those teeny little tactical nukes have their place but that's not the kind of thing the Iranians would develop first (they are much harder to build).
Anyways, great essay. Ever the provocateur, Evert.

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Mar 11, 2013 7:46:45 PM

Also, I did a double take on that 'three things he had in abundance' line then spit my coffee out. Bravo, good sir, Bravo.

. . .and according to LBJ himself, his uh, gentleman's area, nicknamed Jumbo, was massive. He was also quoted saying "I have slept with more women by accident than JFK did in his whole life" or something along those lines. How one sleeps with someone by accident is beyond me, barring a true blackout drunk.

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Mar 11, 2013 7:54:27 PM

This otherwise great website is continually marred by:

1. Endorsements of Hugo Chavez

2. Anti-Israel politics

3. Worship of Chomsky

How can anyone in their right mind present Chavez as any sort of model?

Posted by: Al | Mar 11, 2013 10:31:28 PM

If that be so, I'm proudly out of my mind (and there's actually a fair number of like-minded individuals): http://www.religiousleftlaw.com/2013/03/hugo-ch%C3%A1vez-and-chavismo-the-venezuelan-transcendence-of-neo-liberalism.html

Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Mar 12, 2013 1:19:33 AM

"He wiped out illiteracy, and reduced the poverty rate from 80% to 20%"

Hi, I live in Venezuela, and this is the most stupid thing I heard in my entire life.

On illiteracy

http://caracaschronicles.com/2012/05/25/15613/

The slight drop in the number of illiterate adults they do find between 2003 and 2005 – from 1,108,000 illiterate adults to 1,016,000 - is consistent with long-term demographic trends – basically, older illiterate people dying off.

On poverty

You have never even seen a picture of Venezuela, have you?


Please stop helping them ruin my country. Please, I beg you, go be useful idiots somewhere else.
I heard the middle east is pretty good in this time of the year.

Posted by: whitemanburden | Mar 12, 2013 1:20:17 AM

Inclined to agree with Al on the Chavez worship bit (although Israel is a whole nother ball of wax)
I have probably said it here before but:
My best friend's father in law got his rental house expropriated by the state on live TV (that same program, Alo Presidente, that Adam Ash sites above). This is a guy that started with literally nothing and ended up with three properties, two of which he rented out. He watched in horror as Chavez walked up with his camera crews and lackeys and announced "Expropriate it!" to a round of applause.
I cannot stress this enough: this is a guy who busted his ass his whole life, started with nothing, and got his shit stolen on live TV by his president to the applause of said president's sycophants.

Chavez is much more complicated as a moral character than this piece makes him out to be, but you can see examples of anti Chavez writing on this site as well (they linked a Hitchens piece earlier, Al).

And in fairness to Mr. Ash, he focused way more on how some of Chavismo's qualities could benefit a head of state here in the US than on the legacy of Chavez himself (thankfully).
I could continue with more anti Chavez stuff but it is all based on Venezuelans (a lot of 'em) here in the US that were told not come home and try to stay in the US as long as possible because of how much the middle class was being swept under the rug down there. I don't know any poor Venezuelans so my opinion is biased, but what happened to the homie's father in law is fucked up by any measure.

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Mar 12, 2013 2:11:35 AM

"My best friend's father in law got his rental house expropriated by the state on live TV (that same program, Alo Presidente, that Adam Ash sites above). This is a guy that started with literally nothing and ended up with three properties, two of which he rented out. He watched in horror as Chavez walked up with his camera crews and lackeys and announced "Expropriate it!" to a round of applause.
I cannot stress this enough: this is a guy who busted his ass his whole life, started with nothing, and got his shit stolen on live TV by his president to the applause of said president's sycophants."


Yes, he committed excesses. Played to the gallery on that one and expropriations were made sometimes without following a legal procedure. But let's be honest here: 'expropriating' and 'stealing' are not the same shit. As far as I know everything that has been expropriated in Venezuela has been paid to the former owners or is in the process of being paid. I dislike what Chavez allegedly did to some people, but you have to also understand Venezuela's problems: there's a shortage of about 2'000,000 affordable homes in the country. It's almost an emergency situation. Under such dire circumstances, it's no surprise that the government started rushing expropriations and sometimes forcing owners to sell their rental homes so those who live in cardboard boxes can actually have a decent home.

Posted by: Pepito | Mar 12, 2013 9:54:05 AM

P-
He still hasn't seen a dime. Doubts he ever will. And I would be surprised if he gets the full market price if he ever does get paid.

Hey, I'm all for doing it to Monsanto; they got plenty to spare. But this dude had to tell his daughter to stay in America because he couldn't afford for her to come home anymore. Fuckin sad.

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Mar 12, 2013 12:32:27 PM

"But let's be honest here: 'expropriating' and 'stealing' are not the same shit."

#anythingover1propertyyourfucked

Posted by: Troy | Mar 12, 2013 2:08:26 PM

Or how about how Chavismo's attempts to nationalize the last privately owned bank in Venezuela meant he could no longer send my friend any money and she now scoops ice cream for a living here in the states despite having a law degree in Venezuela (and a successful law practice). She couldn't even get at her own money that she saved up.
I have a million anecdotes like this from the Venezuelans I know here in the states.
Again, I don't know any poor Venezuelans. It takes considerable resources to come to California to study English and pursue other types of education and whatnot, so the many Venezuelans I do know were not the types 'living in cardboard boxes' or whatever.
But sweeping the already small middle class under the rug when you are sitting on a mountain of black gold just seems, I dunno, wrong?
I still haven't been there yet (plan on going next winter), so I don't claim any expertise, I just have a lot of anecdotes from close friends that don't put Chavismo in a very flattering light. And I went to Berkeley high where the guy was worshipped, so it irks me when I see the almost blind allegiance to him from the left. Forgive me for rambling,
-Dan

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Mar 12, 2013 3:22:53 PM

The United States is a federal constitutional republic characterized by greater power in the upper house of the legislature, a wider scope of power held by the Supreme Court, the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive, and the dominance of only two main parties:Democrats and Republicans.
So as Pepito said before in the comments, someone as Chavez, a military squad leader officer that tempted a coup d'état, will be in a jail if he would be an american officer.
It's just the same as to ask "IF ONLY WE HAD A LEADER LIKE Napoleon, WHO SOLVED REAL PROBLEMS -- INSTEAD OF DEBATING FAKE ONES LIKE THE DEFICIT..."IF ONLY WE HAD A LEADER LIKE Lenin, WHO SOLVED REAL PROBLEMS..." IF ONLY WE HAD A LEADER LIKE Charlemagne, WHO SOLVED REAL PROBLEMS..."
Chavez was created by the extreme poverty of the people and his own demagogy and he created a new form of welfare socialism based on oil reserves and abusive expropriation of private ownership. In other words and in other worlds, the ascension to power of this sad histrion would not be possible and neither his accomplishments: you need huge reserves of oil and extreme poverty...and both don't exist in USA(a welfare paid in USA is superior to most of Venezuela wages)and neither in all the Latin America (no oil, only poverty)...
If the premises of this article are so absurd, what about the rest? absurd of course, as not understanding the system, the concept of capitalism; offering populist solutions that indeed only a dictator as Chavez, Lenin or Napoleon may implant them ...and maybe with the same disastrous results as Chavez...
I will recommend a better article that is analyzing the Chavez's cult :
Bernard-Henri Lévy On the Idiotic Posthumous Cult of Hugo Chávez
Mar 12, 2013 8:01 PM EDT
Leaving aside his anti-Semitism and his dictator allies, why would the left celebrate a man who repressed his people and wrecked the economy? It’s an insult to Venezuelans, says Bernard Henri-Lévy.
The death of Hugo Chávez, followed by his elaborate funeral, has unleashed a wave of political idiocy, and thus of disinformation, of a magnitude not seen in some time.

I will not dwell—because this much is well known—on Chávez the “friend of the people” whose closest allies were bloody-handed dictators: Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Fidel Castro, and, formerly, Gaddafi.

Nor will I dwell long, because this, too, is public knowledge, on the Chávez whose pathological anti-Semitism over his 14-year rule drove two thirds of Venezuela’s Jewish community into exile. (It is hard to image that this Chávez is viewed by a minister in François Hollande’s government in France as a “cross between Léon Blum and de Gaulle.”) Was not Chavez the devotee of the conspiracy theories of Thierry Meyssan, the disciple of Argentine Holocaust denier Norberto Ceresole, who professed his surprise that Israelis “like to criticize Hitler” even though they “have done the same and perhaps worse”? How was a Jew in Caracas expected to react upon seeing his president stigmatize a minority made up of “descendants of those who crucified Jesus Christ” and who had, according to Chávez, “made off with the world’s wealth”?
What is less known, something that we will regret overlooking as the posthumous cult of Chávez swells and grows more toxic, is that this “21st-century socialist,” this supposedly tireless “defender of human rights,” ruled by muzzling the media, shutting down television stations that were critical of him, and denying the opposition access to the state news networks.

What is less known, or deliberately not mentioned by those who would make of Chávez a source of inspiration for a left that seems to lack it, is that this wonderful leader, seemingly so concerned with workers and their rights, tolerated unions only if they were official. He allowed strikes only if controlled or even orchestrated by the regime. And, up to the end, he prosecuted, criminalized, and threw into prison independent trade unionists who, like Ruben Gonzalez, the representative of the Ferrominera mineworkers, refused to wait for Bolivarism to be fully realized before demanding decent working conditions, protection against mining accidents, and fair wages.
more on http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/12/bernard-henri-levy-on-the-idiotic-posthumous-cult-of-hugo-chavez.html

Posted by: mirel | Mar 13, 2013 2:30:22 AM

80% of the population has done better with Chavez.
The other 20% has had to sell one of the houses in Switzerland to send Junior to Yale.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Mar 13, 2013 11:30:37 AM

Dave,
Again, as an anecdote, I think the experience of my friends dad is quite illustrative:
A guy that started with nothing (literally worked a food cart) and ended up with a rental home. Then it got expropriated on live TV and he still hasn't seen a dime for it.
Hardly the same as a swiss chalet, yes?
I dunno, if I was sitting on a black gold mine I wouldn't throw small business owners under the rug in the process of providing services to the poor.
My close Venezuelan friends do NOT have money. They shop at the dollar store. They live in closets and shit here (literally). And Chavismo's careless destruction of their family's already scant resources has forced many of them to try to stay here in the US because they cannot afford to go home anymore.
Just something to think about.

Posted by: DrunktankDan | Mar 13, 2013 10:56:23 PM

We interrupt your 3qd Chavez worship for BREAKING NEWS:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/16/venezuela-toilet-paper-shortage-50m

Posted by: Sundar | May 16, 2013 9:09:31 PM

The weak point of Evert Cilliers' (entertaining and readable) tirades is the childlike simplicity of his view of the economy.
Is it really such a black v white good v evil fairy-tale world where evil bankers with hooked noses rob the poor of their resources? Is there not a little more complexity than that ? Does the all-wise leader really know exactly how to best distribute budgets and property rights? I mean, ok you want more social justice, but surely you know that the economy is a hugely complex machine involving a little more than dumb destitutes and mean millionaires?
About 2 billion people took part in experiments with communism last century. Was that too small a sample?

Posted by: jo smith | May 17, 2013 8:12:43 AM

Sundar, what do you think about places where there is permanent shortage of toilet paper and people use stones instead? Or is that too close to home to be funny?

Posted by: Raza Husain | May 17, 2013 1:21:38 PM

In those "places where there is permanent shortage of toilet paper and people use stones instead" there is poverty: They don't use toilet paper because they have not enough money. A SHORTAGE of toilet paper is sign of a wrong economic politics and model,; shortages were in my youth in a socialist country where we were looking for days and weeks to buy meat or we were paying bribes to buy shoes or a book.

Posted by: mirel | May 18, 2013 6:08:01 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Thursday Poem

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Jim Sanders on the hudson review

Ian Kaplan on Stephen Wolfram: Dropping In on Gottfried Leibniz

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

sjg on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

billy on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

Raza Husain on How do Finnish kids excel without rote learning and standardized testing?

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

DAS on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

czrpb on The case against empathy

Jesse M. on The case against empathy

Khader on Mourning (in)formation of Palestinian Collective Memory: A Mythopoetic Reclamation of Palestine, Part I

Dredd on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

waqnis on Thursday Poem

Dredd on Here’s how to change the world

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed