The Hugo Chavez Show

These are some thoughts I had and sent to Frontline after watching the latest show, The Hugo Chavez Show.

Whenever I hear the alarmist rhetoric, sadly also present in this film, stating that “Chavez is using oil money to pay for social services” I kind of snicker, it’s like saying “property taxes are being used to pay for public schools!” oh my, the scandal!

The Alberto Barrera statement that Chavez’s overblown rhetoric is a result of his need to compensate for not having an epic story is pretty odd considering that Chavez came from a rural family, attempted a coup, became a popular leader, was elected, survived US supported economic sabotage and a coup attempt, a recall vote and was reelected by the highest margin ever.

The attempted military coup was supported by the US. Sadly this film only says that some say there may have been involvement, quite disingenuous.

Closing RCTV was a bad move, lacking is an explanation of why he did it. It was because they had advocated for the overthrow of the democratically elected government. So how would that go down in the US? What would Bush and Chaney have done to a media organization that had actively supported a coup attempt? I agree it was the wrong decision, but it‘s not an outlandish one for a political leader. In that same vein, Rory gets a ridiculous answer from Chavez, this is not unique for a politician, more helpful and interesting would be an explanation of this systematic effect of government in silencing the press, ie. This is a universal problem, see how the Venezuelan government does it too . . . .

The only proposals of the referendum discussed were allowing reelection and executive powers. This is just following the hyped story that was echoing in all the US news coverage of the referendum. Whether or not one agrees with it, there is a tradition in Venezuela of granting exceptional executive powers to allow a president to transform institutions, so not too unusual there. Permanent reelection? Yep I think it’s a bad idea, so did the Venezuelans. Too bad the substantive economic and political proposals of the referendum were ignored. Considering the likes of Pat Robertson who advocated for his assassination and the nonsense that Chavez is a dictator, (dictators don’t lose votes), why no critique of the misinformation that has been fed to us by our media?

In Bikel’s interview she states, “And since the U.S. never showed any respect for Latin America, there has always been resentment towards the U.S.” Too bad this helpful context was lacking from the film. Also, no coverage of the PSUV? Hmmm, somewhat significant don’t ya think? Especially since the acronym is visible many times, including all over the clothing of interview subjects. 10 years later problems remain? That’s certainly an odd measure of failure, no statistics of the decrease in poverty, illiteracy or increase in the access to healthcare?

The idea floating around that Chavez is a socialist is patently not true, one might say that his economic goals tend in the direction of socialism, or that he embraces the transition to socialism, but simply put, are the means of production in the hands of workers? As Feeney wrote in the Boston Globe review, the documentary avoided typical depths of mischaracterization, but also seems to have avoided Chavez’s politics. Overall I feel this film very clearly highlighted the oddities and blowhard moments of Chavez, but almost completely avoided the political questions that have undoubtedly been brought to the fore and are of greatest consequence to the Venezuelan people.