HUGO CHAVEZ AND JOE CONASON MEET THE POPINJAY

Joe Conason, columnist for the New York Observer, took umbrage with me the other day for implying that he was a fan of Hugo Chavez. I made this charge in a roundabout way to see if anyone would remember a column he wrote during the short-lived coup that put Chavez out of power for a few days in 2002. Conason was annoyed with the Bush administration for "not standing up for a democratically elected president." Please. Everyone knew then what is painfully clear now: that Chavez is (and was then) a tyrant (Communist, Marxist, Stalinist, Nazi...you pick the label) and having him out of power would only be to the benefit of Venezuela.

But Chavez is a good Leftist and the American Left has a long love affair with Leftist dictators, whether it be Castro, Ortega, Stalin, Gorbachev, et al. Now if your dictator is more of the Right Winged persuasion like say, an Augusto Pinochet, then it's off with his head!

I SAY: A dictator is a dictator, whether he's "elected" or not.

UPDATE: Conason responds:

"Hard to say which is worse - your reading comprehension or your personal integrity. To take the simplest example, the phrase you put in quotation marks above did not appear in my column. It's a trick you can attempt only because there's no link to the column you are supposedly quoting.

I would be happy to send that column to any reader who'd like to know what it actually says. My email address is jconason-at-observer.com."

There is no link because the New York Observer's archives are subscription only. I did not republish any any of it on my website because of that fact, but very well, you have forced my hand: Here are the first two paragraphs of the column in question (which I paid for):

It was a good week for democracy in Latin America, and not such a good week for democracy in Washington and New York.

Beyond those immediate observations, we know far less at the moment than we need to know about the events leading up to the coup and countercoup in Venezuela. Who was killed in the violent street demonstrations of April 11? Who did the shooting? When did the State Department learn that a coup was imminent? What did our diplomats (and military attachés) say to the plotters? Why did the White House and the National Security Council ignore our treaty obligations to oppose the unlawful overthrow of an elected President? (Emphasis mine)

Joe is correct. I shouldn't have paraphrased his words and for that I apologize. The two statements have the exact same meaning, but that's still no excuse. I do however suggest that everyone take Joe up on his offer and have him send the column to you directly. It's speaks for itself.

Reliapundit adds: I think Popinjay is right: Conason's column clearly was supportive of Chavez. And I agree that it's because the Left likes Leftist dictators who talk of "class war" and promise "economic justice", "free" healthcare and the like. The road to serfdom is littered with billboards promising this crap.

Unike Popinjay, though, I wouldn't ever lump Pinochet in with scum like Chavez. I admire Pinochet for what he PREVENTED, and accept his tactics as a necessary part of the war against Leftism which he waged successfully - resulting in the fact that Chile is now the most properous, freest, and most stable democracy in South America. The numbers of political deaths in Chile as a percentage of total population are miniscule compared to those in Cuba or any other socialist nation -- like Cambodia or the USSR, for example - socialist tyrannies which most folks like Conason - Leftie MSM'ers - have never decried. I abhor Chavez and Castro because they use similar tactics as Pinochet, BUT they used them in the service of SOCIALISM which is ESSENTIALLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY an ideology and politico-economic system which hostile to and limits individual liberty.

I agree with the late GREAT Jeane Kirkpatrick - a former socialist herself - who said authoritarians like Pinochet were categorically better than Leftist tyrants and Chavez and Castro. Means must in part be graded or measured against the ends, and with the agents intentions in mind. Lenin wanted to create a UTOPIA - if he had to commit genocide against MILLIONS, then so-be-it. Pincohet had no such utopia goal he merely tried prevent Marxism from smashing Chile, and to foster a state which would eventually allow for democracy and maximum individual liberty - and the prosperity which is a by-product of that liberty. Chile was lucky for Pinochet's service. Venezuela suffers because of Chavez: Their economy is faltering and they have fewer liberties. Like Hayek said: it's the road to serfom.