Don't Vote for Evil
Back during the George W. Bush neocon regime, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in his UN speech summed up George W. Bush for the world. I am quoting Chavez from memory, not verbatim. "Yesterday standing at this same podium was Satan himself, speaking as if he owned the world. You can still smell the sulfur."
Chavez is one of the American right-wing's favorite bogyman because Chavez helps the people instead of bleeding them for the rich, which is Washington's way. While Washington has driven all but the one percent into the ground, Chavez cut poverty in half, doubled university enrollment and provided healthcare and old-age pensions to millions of Venezuelans for the first time.
Little wonder he was elected to a fourth term as president despite the many millions of dollars Washington poured into the election campaign of Chavez's opponent.
While Washington and the EU preach neoliberalism − the supremacy of capital over labor − South American politicians who reject Washington's way are being elected and reelected in Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Bolivia.
It was the Ecuadoran government, not Washington, that had the moral integrity to grant political asylum to WikiLeaks' Julian Assange. The only time Washington grants asylum is when it can be used to embarrass an opponent.
In contrast to the leadership that is emerging in South America as more governments there reject the traditional hegemony of Washington, the US political elite, whether Republican or Democrat, are aligned with the rich against the American people.
The Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has promised to cut taxes on the rich, taxes which are already rock bottom, to block any regulation of the gangsters in the financial arena and to privatize Social Security and Medicare.
Privatizing Social Security and Medicare means to divert the people's tax dollars to the profits of private corporations. In Republican hands, privatization means only one thing: to cut the people's benefits and to use the people's tax dollars to increase the profits in the private sector. Romney's policy is just another policy that sacrifices the people to the one percent.
Unfortunately, the Democrats, if a lesser evil, are still an evil. There is no reason to vote for the reelection of a president who codified into law the Bush regime's destruction of the US Constitution, who went one step further and asserted the power to murder US citizens without due process of law and who has done nothing to stop the exploitation of the American people by the one percent.
As Gerald Celente says in the Autumn Issue of the Trends Journal, when confronted with the choice between two evils, you don't vote for the lesser evil. You boycott the election and do not vote. "Lesser or greater, evil is evil."
If Americans had any sense, no one would vote in the November election. Whoever wins the November election, it will be a defeat for the American people.
An Obama or Romney win stands in stark contrast with Chavez's win. Here is how Lula da Silva, the popular former president of Brazil summed it up: "Chavez's victory is a victory for all the peoples of Latin America. It is another blow against imperialism." Washington, making full use of the almighty dollar, was unable to buy the Venezuelan election.
How will a Romney or Obama win be summed up? The answer will be in terms of which candidate is best for Israel's interest; which is best for Wall Street's interest; which is best for agribusiness; which is most likely to attack Iran; which is most likely to subject economic and war protesters to indefinite detention as domestic extremists.
The only people who will benefit from the election of either Romney or Obama are those associated with the private oligarchies that rule America.
This article originally appeared at www.paulcraigroberts.org, republished here with author's permission (copyright Paul Craig Roberts).
Posted by fbobhand on 10/19/12 11:11 AM
I, too, am dismayed at Mr. Roberts' use of Hugo Chavez as a model political leader. A bit of research would show that under Chavez' leadership, Venezuela ranks near the bottom of the rankings of economically free countries in the world, just above Zimbabwe.
During his administration, the GDB of Venezuela has been declining every year, in spite of the income from oil resources. He has nationalized so many industries that no sane businessman would invest their or start a new business for fear that it would be confiscated if the owner was not one of Chavez' favorites.
I live in Brazil and have observed the politics here since Lula was president. There is a major trial going on right now over the corruption during the Lula administration. And in the administration of his successor, Dilma, already six or more high ranking politicians have been sent packing for corruption. For Lula to issue praise of Chavez speaks more of his friendship with Chavez than of his honest evaluation.
I have usually admired the writings of Mr. Roberts and find this praise of Chavez to be unlike his normal point of view. He's right about not voting for evil. I've decided not to vote in this election for that very reason. I just wish Mr. Roberts would have done more research and selected a different model for this article.
Posted by hondomatic on 10/18/12 06:38 AM
A wise man once said, "Don't Vote for Evil". Thank You Mr. Roberts
Posted by ccuthbert on 10/17/12 08:26 PM
Ay carrumba, por supuesto. Lo siento. Está cerca de Medellín, me imagino. No?
Posted by laceja on 10/17/12 02:54 PM
Well, La Ceja, of course.
Posted by ccuthbert on 10/16/12 10:44 PM
laceja, I agree that the current Rube Goldberg money system is terrible, but your solution is no better. While we are dicussing solutions that won't happen, we might as well propose one that is sound in terms of both economics and politics--free market money. End the fed and end fiat money though the free market.
Btw, what city are you in?
Posted by laceja on 10/16/12 05:50 PM
Although Mr. Roberts is right about the two evils the American people are being goaded into voting for, he is incredibly wrong about Hugo Chavez.
My wife is in Venezuela now, visiting her brother. When she arrived there, last week, she called and the first thing she had to tell me is how violent it is there. Seems everyone there lives in fear of being robbed or murdered. She has spent nearly a week there, holed up in her brother's house for a few days and then to her cousin's house. They went out once to do some shopping and she was terrified the whole time. Tomorrow comes the biggest challenge, taking the bus to the airport to return home.
BTW, we live in Colombia, a place that has for decades been thought of as terrifyingly violent. Frankly, I've never lived in such a peaceful place in my life. If Mr. Roberts would like to pick a country to use as an example, he did a very poor job, picking Venezuela. Maybe he should get out more.
Nevertheless, he is right on, when he suggests that Americans would be far better off, if we all simply boycotted this election.
Anyway, if the US Government would take away the power to print money from The Fed, they could just print the money to pay SS benefits. Although many like to resort to scare tactics, saying that the politicians would just print up a storm, there are ways to control the urge. Borrowing our own money to give to the banks and then having to pay interest on it is far more insane. Not to mention we, as individuals, then borrow the money created by government borrowing and pay interest again. NUTS!
Posted by email@example.com on 10/16/12 08:29 AM
Two different wings; same turkey.