[News] What U.S. Voters Can Learn from Venezuela’s Election

[Anti-Imperialist News]

  What U.S. Voters Can Learn from Venezuela’s Election

By Keane Bhatt - NACLA, November 5th 2012

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7423

Over the past 30 years, the top 1% of the United States has experienced 
a 240% increase 
<http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-income-figure-2m-change-real-annual/> 
in its real annual income, while that of the median household has barely 
budged 
<http://stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/real-median-household-income/>. 
Imagine if this explosive, decades-long growth of inequality were 
somehow reversed—and reversed at an even faster rate than its original 
expansion.

This is, in fact, what has happened in Venezuela, and it goes a long way 
toward explaining why President Hugo Chávez was re-elected in October, 
despite many pundits’ predictions <http://j.mp/VZ100p> of a victory by 
opposition leader Henrique Capriles. The likelihood of coming across 
<http://nacla.org/blog/2012/10/8/hall-shame-venezuelan-elections-coverage> 
an accurate assessment of Venezuela’s social and economic advances in 
the media, however, is about as small as the odds of encountering honest 
portrayals of that country’s elections.

It’s difficult, for instance, to find any mention in the media of the 
Gini index for the United States or Venezuela. A standard measure of 
income inequality, it ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 100 (perfect 
inequality). According to the Luxembourg Income Study, the Gini index 
<http://www.lisdatacenter.org/lis-ikf-webapp/app/search-ikf-figures> for 
the United States was 29.9 in 1979. By 2010, it had shot up by more than 
7 points to 37.3.

Contrast this with Venezuela: the country’s Gini index in 1997, the year 
before Chávez was elected, stood at 50.7; in 13 short years, it had 
fallen by over 11 points to 39.4, according to United Nations data 
<http://websie.eclac.cl/sisgen/ConsultaIntegrada.asp?idAplicacion=1&idTema=363&idioma=e> 
for 2010.

This rapid reduction of inequality is largely a result of the Chávez 
administration’s policy of promoting broadly shared economic growth. 
Having cut 
<http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf> both 
poverty and unemployment by half over roughly a decade, Venezuela is now 
the least unequal country 
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19339636> in Latin 
America, according to the UN.

The poverty and inequality statistics are based only on cash income. But 
Chávez also introduced a suite of oil-financed social programs that 
provide free healthcare, education, housing, and subsidized food, among 
other benefits. Their effects include substantial reductions in infant 
mortality 
<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/new-york-times-cant-seem-to-understand-how-their-side-lost-in-venezuela> 
and the doubling 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/opinion/why-chavez-was-re-elected.html> 
of the country’s college enrollment.

Chávez’s social and economic agenda has also helped him to win 14 of 15 
elections or referenda despite the inevitable voter fatigue that 
develops toward any incumbent over 14 years in office. On October 7, 
Chávez won by an 11-point margin in an election process described 
<http://bit.ly/vzshame> by Jimmy Carter as “the best in the world.” This 
suggests that for voters, continued advancements in well-being have 
outweighed ongoing problems like crime and inadequate infrastructure.

The paradigm that has emerged during Chávez’s presidency is threatening 
to the dominant political discourse in the United States for two related 
reasons. First, it demonstrates that poverty and inequality, far from 
being implacable economic phenomena, are primarily political issues, and 
can be successfully tackled through aggressive public policy. Second, a 
governmental commitment to improving the general public’s living 
standards engenders a new kind of politics, distinct from the consensus 
that prevails under a decades-old regime of ever-increasing economic 
polarization.

Elite policy circles in the United States have agreed that austerity is 
necessary <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/opinion/29krugman.html>: 
both major parties’ presidential candidates suggested 
<http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11991-social-security-president-obamas-biggest-failure-in-last-weeks-debate> 
the need to institute cuts to an already-weak social safety net. 
Unemployment, in Bill Clinton’s incorrect rendering 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/11/the-politicians-are-failing-theory-of-unemployment/>, 
lies outside the purview of immediate government efforts to spur greater 
demand. Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke attributed 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-7114229.html?pageNum=4> 
inequality, which has concentrated income within the top 1% and even 
more so within the top .01% 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html>, 
mostly to “educational differences.” He ignores 
<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/graduates-versus-oligarchs/> Princeton 
economist Paul Krugman’s observation: namely, “that we’ve become an 
oligarchy—with all that implies about class relations.” Bernanke’s 
statement also conforms with economist Dean Baker’s dismal assessment 
<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2012102915021526447.html> 
that most in his profession “are paid for telling stories that justify 
giving more money to rich people.”

The press, in turn, adheres closely to elite opinion. Establishment 
<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4384> media 
<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/new-york-times-puts-another-anti-social-security-editorial-in-the-news-section> 
have 
<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-left-and-right-can-agree-that-npr-completely-misled-listeners-about-the-supercommittee-and-the-deficit> 
abetted <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4200> efforts to scale back 
the anti-poverty program Social Security, while meaningful discussions 
of poverty comprised a fraction 
<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4604> of 1% of the media’s campaign 
coverage. The reason is easy to see. Baker writes 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/president-obama-social-security>, 
“while Social Security may enjoy overwhelming support across the 
political spectrum, it does not poll nearly as well among the wealthy 
people—who finance political campaigns and own major news outlets.”

While experts in the United States warn that banks have engaged in 
widespread 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-usa-housing-defaults-idUSTRE81G04M20120217> 
illegal foreclosures, exacerbating housing insecurity, the U.S. media 
have disparaged Venezuela’s public housing initiatives as an unsavory 
political scheme. David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, 
wrote an op-ed for CNN 
<http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/10/10/cnn-exposes-villain-chavezs-dastardly-plot-to-house-the-poor/> 
titled, “Chavez Clown Prince of a Decaying Society,” decrying “massive 
government vote-buying” through “giveaway programs, including one that 
aims to build 200,000 housing units for Venezuela's poor.” /The Wall 
Street Journal/’s reporting 
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444138104578030700356304858.html> 
similarly criticized Venezuela’s housing construction, citing unnamed 
analysts who wondered “whether the spending spree will buy as many votes 
this time around as in past elections.”

/USA Today/’s coverage 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/07/venezuela-vote-chavez/1617817/> 
of Venezuela’s elections included quotes by critics who condemned 
Chávez’s “patronage machine,” which “unleashed a spending orgy.” The 
paper also dutifully noted 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/08/chavez-opponents-election/1620259/> 
that Capriles considered “new social spending” to be “vote buying.”

Rarely is the U.S. political system similarly condemned as a patronage 
machine, despite each major presidential candidate securing 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/us/politics/obama-and-romney-raise-1-billion-each.html> 
$1 billion <http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance> for his 
campaign, often through $35,000-a-ticket 
<http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-07-23/romneys-50000-plates-obamas-35800-the-windows-open-again/> 
fundraising dinners with corporate executives 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-14/obama-returns-to-nyc-for-first-wall-street-fundraiser-of-year.html>. 
Research has also shown that nearly half 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601562.html> 
of all federal lawmakers become lobbyists 
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/shadow_congress_former_lawmakers_become_lobbyists.php> 
after returning to private life. Little wonder Princeton political 
scientist Martin Gilens’s research finds 
<http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/ndf_martin_gilens_money_politics_democracy.php> 
that “in most circumstances, affluent Americans exert substantial 
influence over the policies adopted by the federal government, and less 
well off Americans exert virtually none.”

Interestingly, /USA Today/’s post-election breakdown 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/08/chavez-opponents-election/1620259/> 
for Venezuela failed to mention its historic, 81% <http://j.mp/vzshame> 
participation rate. Such a turnout would be unimaginable within the 
United States, even leaving aside vigorous efforts 
<http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20121030-voter-suppression-tactics-on-rise-nationwide-officials-say.ece> 
of voter suppression all over the country. In an earlier article 
headlined 
<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-15/non-voters-obama-romney/57055184/1> 
“Why 90 million Americans Won't Vote in November,” /USA Today/ itself 
offered a reason: it found that six in 10 eligible but unlikely voters 
said, when surveyed, that they “don’t pay much attention” to politics 
because “nothing ever gets done: It’s a bunch of empty promises.”

The era that preceded Chávez’s 1998 election has echoes of the current 
predicament of U.S. politics—two major parties with fairly similar 
agendas took turns managing the country’s governmental institutions 
while elites controlled the country’s resources. Venezuela’s democracy, 
like much of Latin America’s, has meant a break with that past.

The U.S. press helps to enforce the status quo in a country whose 
majority has faced declining living standards 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/us-incomes-dropped-last-year-census-bureau-says.html> 
in recent years, largely as a result of policies 
<http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/inequality-and-political-power/> 
furthered by a bipartisan 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/clinton-criticizes-voters_b_2003817.html> 
political system. So it’s not surprising to see the U.S. media’s hostile 
reactions to the politics of Venezuela, where citizens expect their 
votes to translate into genuine improvements in their daily lives—and 
politicians must deliver on those expectations.

/A version of this piece will appear in the December issue of /Extra! 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/t/1038/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=51>/, 
a publication of the media watchgroup FAIR <http://fair.org/>./

-- 
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20121105/cebbcbd4/attachment.htm>