Estimados fans de Samuel Beckett y Lewis Carroll: para este período vacacional, les regalamos una dosis de absurdo, cortesía del partido Conservador Republicano de los EE.UU. y del partido autocrático militar reaccionario de Venezuela. Esperamos hayan podido seguir a los voceros de la lobotomía argumentativa que son los gringos Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh y O’Reilly. En caso de que se hayan perdido los episodios entre estas orugas fumadoras de narguilé y la opinión pública, acá reproduciremos algunas de las afirmaciones más divertidas y sus versiones tropicales, cortesía del PSUV. Busquen las cotufas…
1. Glenn Beck y F. Hayek: El animador de Fox News, conocido por afirmar que Obama era racista (entre otros disparates), logró destronar a Stieg Larsson de la lista de Best-sellers de Amazon al recomendar “El camino a la servidumbre“, de Hayek, como “remedio contra el socialismo”. Sin embargo, los expertos afirman que Hayek estaría horrorizado con las políticas del partido republicano, con Fox News y el gobierno de Bush (pero este detalle jamás fue mencionado por Beck).
1.b. Versión tropicalia: Hace un año más o menos, el señor Chávez creó una sensación en ventas al regalar el libro, “Las venas abiertas…” del uruguayo Eduardo Galeano, al Presidente Obama. Igual que Beck, el hecho de que Galeano haya retirado su apoyo a Cuba hace años (y haya sido insultado por ello) jamás será mencionado por Chávez.
2. La negación de la responsabilidad. El absurdo de la matriz de opinión republicana alcanza la cima cuando se trata de discutir la guerra en Irak o la debacle económica de los EE.UU. y asumir responsabilidad. Uno de mis orates favoritos, John McCain, afirmó este mes que “ya ganamos la guerra en Irak“. Sí, Johnny, y la tierra es plana. La otra versión, igual de psicotrópica, afirma que la guerra en Irak fue planeada por… ¡Bill Clinton! No, no, en serio. Si quieren reírse y entienden inglés, *tienen que ver este video*. El 11 de septiembre fue culpa de… ¡Clinton! La debacle económica… A ver… ¿Clinton? ¡Bingo!
2.b. Versión tropicalia: Aquí tenemos para escoger. Al final, todos sabemos que *nada* es culpa de Chávez. Cómico, ¿no? Un tipo que llegó a la presidencia en gran medida porque fue el único que reconoció su responsabilidad en el golpe de Estado que condujo, hoy en día no es capaz siquiera de reconocer sus errores en anti-política energética. Los apagones son culpa de Clinton, perdón, de “la Cuarta República”; la estanfación predicha hace *años* hasta en blogs, es culpa del “capitalismo” o de la “transición hacia el socialismo” o cualquier otro invento sacado de Esperando a Godot.
De igual manera, si usted ve Fox News se dará cuenta de que *nada* fue culpa de George W. Bush. Las responsabilidades se reparten entre Obama y Clinton. De hecho, según Limbaugh, el adulterio del gobernador Mark Sanford, ¡es culpa de Obama! ¿La deuda de los EE.UU.? Culpa de Obama (Beck). ¿Los que dividen al país? No son los comentarios racistas y llenos de odio de Fox News o el PSUV; son culpa del otro partido (Beck).
En fin, podría seguir un buen rato, pero el absurdo tiene sus límites. Si extendemos el análisis, podemos entender por qué es fundamental que el PSUV controle la Asamblea Nacional. ¿Qué sucedió cuando llegaron los demócratas al Congreso de EE.UU? Defenestraron a Alberto Gonzales. ¿Recuerdan a Gonzales? ¿El que inventó que los talibanes no eran presos de guerra? Fue depuesto por colocar fichas a dedo. La versión venezolana de Gonzales debe estar temblando. Sí, es contigo, Luisa Ortega Díaz: la que reescribe la “libertad de expresión” como Gonzales la reescribió en el nefasto Acto Patriota. Tampoco te salvas, Cilia Flores, la que colocó a dedo a la mitad de su familia en la Asamblea Nacional.
Tienen razón: tienen suerte de que no estén en Estados Unidos donde serían la vergüenza nacional. De todos modos, igual que las empresas que controlan el poder allá, se copiaron la artimaña de Bush para ser electo Presidente por encima de Gore, aunque W sacó menos votos. ¿No, Jackie Farías?
La misma autocracia, la misma postura discriminadora, los mismos valores retrógrados y reaccionarios, se encuentran en ambos países.
Since you linked to my article I thought that I would help you by adding a little context.
Why did Beck say that Obama was racist? Well first of all he had made statements referring to “typical white people”. Obama had also made statements about people in Pennsylvania “who clinged to religion and guns”. Obama also attended a church for 20 years that sold DVD’s of the sermons which involved all sorts of conspiracy theories against whites and preached hate against whites. These racist clips of Rev. right are on youtube for all to see.
Later Beck said that he said this because he did not understand “black liberation theology” which is basically an attempt to teach Marxism and claim that it is Christianity, so it is not so much racist as it is the typical conflict theory to divide and conquer that is typical Marxist practice. So saying that Obama is racist is not reflective of the whole story, it is rather much more than that as Beck clarified later.
Back to Dr. Hayek – I encourage all of your readers to read his books, because his reasoning is so powerful that most anyone who reads them would abandon marxsim and socialism. Hayek would condemn most Democrats and Republicans for being too far to the left and being too interventionist in the market. Both political parties supported a Federal Reserve Bank that artificially kept interest rates below market levels (for political reasons) which helped to create the housing bubble. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for economics with his research on market bubbles. The truth is that Hayek would be even more upset at current economic policy because it is more and faster of the same that we had before. Not all Republicans are free market people, some just believe in interveining in different ways than Democrats.
Hello, Chuck.
Thanks for stopping by and providing that valuable context. Notwithstanding, Beck’s flip-flopping on so many issues and his sub-par rhetorical antics show that he is nothing more than an apparatchik for the Conservative right. The point of this article was comparing his sofisms (if we can call his half-baked ideas, sofisms) with the propaganda-style, flagrantly goebbelsian rhetoric of Chávez’ own private state-owned TV.
It’s not very amazing that the strategy is the same, since they’re both reactionary conservatives.
Context aside, I really don’t see how context comes into play when you say, “I think Obama is a racist, I think he hates white people” (literal Beck quote). Personally, the fact that a wino with no studies can rally so many people in the USA is appalling. I thought your country was worth better than that. I guess I overestimated you guys. The conservatives are destroying your country by leaps and bounds, in order to win some stupid “get this chip of my shoulder” contest.
Christopher Hitchen’s read on the Beck rally in Washington is very lucid. Give it a look.
We’ve commented Hayek here a lot, before Beck discovered he was hooked on phonics. His radical agenda is no different than radical marxists, that’s why both groups complain that no government “really” represents them and that they’re not radical enough.
Here, in Latinamerica, it’s no surprise we’ve got authoritarian, military, propaganda driven, chauvinistic governments after the libertarian economic policies followed in the 90s. LA was a laboratory for the Chicago Boys, Friedman et al., and boy, did they fuck it up. Numbers looked good, though. Argentina and Chile were a disaster.
So yes -Hayek makes for a fun read, so does Ché Guevara-, but if you go around thinking they were right, you’ll wind up turning your back to huge chunks of population who’ll not be “free” at all. But that’s another discussion.
Thanks for stopping by,
Cheers,
Vinz.
Hello Vinz,
Thanks for the response. However your response in my view does not provide a very good analysis.
For example, you ask me to look at Chris Hitchens for a “lucid response”… are you kidding me? Chris Hitchens HATES religion and has made that very clear. You might as well have asked me to read a piece by Osama Bin Laden on the greatness of Israel’s Passover Celebration. When it comes to any matters of faith, Hitchens may be called eloquent because he is a fine wordsmith, but “lucid”, give me a break. Beck is trying to revive the strong faith that helped America at its founding, helped end slavery and helped propel the civil rights movement. The American Founders, the Abolishionists and Dr. Martin Luther King were all people of faith who stood up for change.
So something to keep in mind Vinz, haters do not give lucid responses.
Also your analysis of Friedman and the Chicago Boys is flawed. While the free market reforms in Chile did provide an improvement from the previous marxists, only a portion of what Friedman taught was ever implemented there. Friedman critiqued that government for being authoritarian repeatedly and warned that economic benefits provided by a more free and stable market are hampered by authoritarianism for a number of reasons. Lack of political freedom often leads to corruption, regulatory uncertainty, limited economic growth, limited investment, and eventual economic instability. Friedman was on record stating this repeatedly.
If you go around relying on the analysis of haters and a narrative filled with half-truths, you may wind up with whole populations who will not be “free” at all.
Again thanks for your response,
Chuck
Hello, Chuck:
The article I refered you to doesn’t talk about Hitchen’s atheism, a posture with which I have many problems myself. It talks about the huge transformation North America is undergoing and the rejection from white fundamentalists such as Beck of their novel minority status. Therefore, I recommend the read.
Listen, I think you’re confusing two things: Faith, and government. It is one thing to argue your Founding Fathers were religious peoples, another very different to propose legislation and politics based on religion. Ending slavery, the civil rights movement, freedom of speech: Those highpoints were achieved not through chest-banging faith claims quoting the bible, but through political and social action.
I have no problem with people beliving men come from clay or from a spaguetti monster. However, it’s a different thing to propose biology courses based not on science, but on creationist speculations.
That’s the difference and that’s why Beck is no more than a manipulative hack. He doesn’t care about democracy, compromise or discourse. He’ll just pedal whatever argument creates fear in the population (“death panels”) in order to attain political power for his cause. He’s the North-american equivalent of an iranian Ayatollah.
OTOH, you seem pretty misinformed as to the Chicago Boys work in Chile. Friedman himself wrote Pinochet a letter congratulating him and urging to blast through with his reforms, no matter how big social discontent was on the streets and how many people were jailed: http://wwww.naomiklein.org/files/resources/pdfs/friedman-pinochet-letters.pdf
Quite the democrat.
Once you understand these failed, radical economic policies, you can place the appearance of Chàvez and other fiery rethoric politicans in the South into context. They are a pure product of Friedman’s policies.
Regards,
Vinz