Chavez seeks indefinite rule

[ag]

Chavez's statement of "removing term limits will enhance democracy" reminds me of all these idiots that we elect that think the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea and should be revoked.

Well, it is. There isn't really much basis for a defense of term limits. Keeping individual politicians' ego in check and politicians in fear of being retired by the voters - preventing them from becoming as all-dominant as Chavez in Venezuela or Kaukonen in 50s-70s Finland - is a job for civil society, not the constitution.

There is. In presidential systems of Lat Am type actual electoral loss by an incumbent absent a major disaster of cataclismic proportions is an extremely rare, if not an unheard of, event. Even when press, etc., work well (as they rarely do), it turns out it is a lot easier to depose an incumbent who does not want to go by a coup or revolution, than at a ballot box. Hence, I tend to believe, that absent term limits, democratic transfer of power from a non-senile leader would be an extremely rarely observed phenomenon in Latin America (not every generation of voters would live to see one). At the same time, there would be a lot more coups.

This is, actually, the reason I believe Chavez will never be defeated at the ballot box: the conditions for a successful and widely socially supported coup in Venezuela would be achieved ages before the conditions for an electoral defeat he would acknowledge. Frankly, I wouldn't give him more than one in four chance of dying in his own private non-presidential bed in Venezuela at this point (mind it, I actually expect him to live long).

[ag]

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").

[ag]

Chavez's statement of "removing term limits will enhance democracy" reminds me of all these idiots that we elect that think the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea and should be revoked.

Well, it is. There isn't really much basis for a defense of term limits. Keeping individual politicians' ego in check and politicians in fear of being retired by the voters - preventing them from becoming as all-dominant as Chavez in Venezuela or Kaukonen in 50s-70s Finland - is a job for civil society, not the constitution.

There is. In presidential systems of Lat Am type actual electoral loss by an incumbent absent a major disaster of cataclismic proportions is an extremely rare, if not an unheard of, event. Even when press, etc., work well (as they rarely do), it turns out it is a lot easier to depose an incumbent who does not want to go by a coup or revolution, than at a ballot box. Hence, I tend to believe, that absent term limits, democratic transfer of power from a non-senile leader would be an extremely rarely observed phenomenon in Latin America (not every generation of voters would live to see one). At the same time, there would be a lot more coups.

"Practical considerations", eh?
Well, even then a term limit is but a weak surrogate for a strong civil society (which of course doesn't exist in South America)

Not really. Not even the US would have done well without a presidential term limit (which, de facto, was customary pre-Roosevelt as well - thanks to Gen. Washington). In a presidential system of the American (drop the Lat) type, the incumbent's advantage is simply too strong. True, in the US incumbents, occasionally, loose - but most political scientists agree that they don't do so frequently enough. Without the de facto (originally) or a de jure (now) term limit you'd observe lengthy periods of single-person rule. Frankly, I am pretty confident that in the absence of the two-term tradition even the US would have lived through a few coup attempts in the 19th century, and, may be, a couple of extra civil wars.

Ok, I could imagine another remedy. For instance, allow a re-election by a supermajority (eg., postulate that if the challenger gets 45% of the vote against 55% for the incumbent the challenger gets elected), but any solution would be less clean than term limits.

Anyway, bad is that political system that is not based on practical considerations: otherwise, there would have been many perfectly defensible versions of Communism

[ag]

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").

*dies laughin'* That's perhaps one of the top ten funniest things I've ever read on this forum. Almost as funny as CitizenJames claiming neocons are really left wingers in disguise.

I am happy that you find the real world this funny

[ag]

An arch-Nationalist, quite lacking in democratic instincts (while obviously no dictator - if he really wanted a full dictatorial position he's had ample opportunity go by unused) who aspires to regional leadership? That's right-wing in my book, anyhow. Although of course an entirely legitimate opposite view can be held (Chavez is certainly on the left on traditional race/class cleavages and such) - but was Peron a leftist?

Agreed here. It is, actually, from a "Western" (or, better say, European) perspective that Chavez is a right-winger.  It should be always rememered, that most of Latin American "leftists", if they are not Communists, are, actually, National Sociallists (ie, Mussoliniesque fascists) ideologically.  In fact, outside of  Chile I can barely think of a major leftist party (or individual politician) in the European sense of the word in Latin America at this point that is also on the left of his country's politics (Costa Rica's Arrias used to be, but he is now locally labled "rightist").

*dies laughin'* That's perhaps one of the top ten funniest things I've ever read on this forum. Almost as funny as CitizenJames claiming neocons are really left wingers in disguise.

I am happy that you find the real world this funny

The real world is that Chavez is a left wing extremist and he certainly is NOT right wing.

What about Mussolini? Because the two are really hard to distinguish. Of the current European politicians he is, unquestionably, the closest to Berlusconi. I don't really care if you call them right, left, down, up or strange, as long as you recognize their similarity.

[ag]

Can we get Colombia to kill him and end his slow trek to Communism and Dictatorship?

If you really want to get a long-term civil war and, likely, a failed state in Venezuela, you, probably, could.  Otherwise, just wait until the oil prices fall or he himself screws up badly enough to be ousted in a domestic coup (preferably, entirely unrelated to US pressure - and, hopefully, even publically condemned by the US government). I'd give it another 10-15 years.