Headline: Apart from the War on drugs and financial crises Latin America rarely commands our headlines

I am writing to register my discontent with the August 25th “To the Point”

I was disappointed to hear NPR, indispensable as it is, once again unquestioningly beating the white house’s drum in a diplomatic show of swords with a country in possession of, you guessed it, oil. If Chavez is indeed a strongman, would the American security establishment even know his name but for that noxious, dwindling, delusion-inducing black substance deposited under him?

70-75% approval rates—if only George Bush could have the kind of popularity. Perhaps the secret is that infamous dirty trick: buying off your constituency (75% of the population) with bribes of human services and worker protections, and then honoring that bribe after fair and square elections. But apparently in such cases even popularity is not above suspicion, or beneath contempt—for it is “creeping.” That’s right, like communism before it, and socialism too, popularity itself now creeps, and only accrues, one would infer, to creeps. Creeps like Hugo Chavez, not our own humble, democratically elected head of state, who wisely chooses to be dispopular.

“The State Department emphatically stated that the US does not engage in the assassination of elected officials”—but apparently NPR does engage in the assassination of their character.

But please don’t accuse me of socialist anti-American dogmatism, or left-leaning dogmatism, or dogmatic, Fidel-befriending anti-Americanism for saying so-—because though I might for good reason be anti-Canada and Anti-Antarctica, as these countries [sic] truly do lean to the left, I am not anti-American. At least not as anti-American as the creepy subject of your show (Chavez) who garnered somewhere between 5 and 500 such epithets within a short 30 minutes on your show today. To be concise: please be more careful with the jingoistic “anti-American” and check on the definition of “dogmatic” adj, definition 2? And also “despot”, as in: ‘He’s an elected head of state yet the United States considers him a hostile despot.”

Latin Americans have suffered long under the reforms of the Washington Consensus and the policies of those who subscribe to the Chicago School of Economics—like the World Bank’s new head, Paul Wolfowitz. Though you call Chavez a symptom of these failed U.S. economic interventions in Latin America, more likely he and leaders like him will be the cure, if there is to be a cure for what ails this region. And to risk being dogmatic, I dare say the US is what ails the region. But as you report, Latin America never makes the headlines except in relation to the war on drugs or financial crises. Yes, we must remember those, but let’s not forget the coups—-some of them get into the papers. Our business leaders must have timely information on such matters. But not often enough for most Americans to see the pattern. We’re too forgetful anyway. What happens in Latin America should happen quickly and quietly so far as the US and US media are concerned.

“What is America’s beef with Venezuela?” I couldn’t really make out the arguments or evidence amid the spew of colorful epithets, but the real reasons were palpable by the shape of your guests’ evasions: Venezuela could be an example to other countries in the region. You know, like the Haitian Revolution and the first slave democracy was an “example” in the Carribean? Couldn’t have that which is why when it happenned, in the early 19th century, the US censured it. And what might Venezuela’s example mean to the region today? For one, Chavez in Venezuela is reversing the usual cycle of nationalization and privatization of Latin American industries. For the 25 year period referred to on your show as being almost unprecedented in impoverishment, not just in Venezuela, but elsewhere in the region and world, leftist governments were supposed to nationalize industry after it had been run into the red by American and European companies, thus socializing debt, and then after a coup by the right and a return to General or Colonel so-and-so, everything would be privatized again, ready to reap profits for American businessmen at the expense of the people and the land’s resources. Hugo Chavez represents Latin American nations seeking the national interest, avoiding if possible the terms and conditions of US and World Bank-engineered trade deals, and developing a social infrastructure that can prosper without the heavy hand of the US upon them. And this attempt by Venezuela includes such scandals as the “multi-billion dollar social programs” your guests decried. I think it was said best by the guest who proffered incriminating quotes from Chavez’ speeches, the one about Latin America not kneeling down before US demands anymore. Is that bad? For Latin America to get up off its knees? Apparently so.

We could use a few multi-billion dollar social programs here in the US, like funding education initiatives, increasing college grant and loan money, and criminal and drug addict rehabilitation programs, rather than the multi-billion dollar wars, tax cuts, and emerging police state apparatus that we are getting. If our leaders cared what we thought of them, we might get some of our tax money spent on us—-though some might call it bribery.

As for the veneer of democracy—what’s that? You don’t even question that the democracy in Venezuela is a sham—-it just is because your guests say it is, again because of the leanings and bents and streaks that Chavez purportedly has (“a very authoritarian bent”, etc) but not because of facts or evidence or analysis or anecdotes. If you are looking for democracy’s veneer, try looking in the US and use the press/radio to halt the erosion of our democracy and its replacement with those ironic terms that say one thing and mean another. There’s democracy’s veneer. Why is democracy only endangered “over there” and only if there’s oil “over there.” The US record in Latin America of coups, assassinations, assassination attempts, arms dealing, death squad training, etc., is appalling, and was not even mentioned. Of course Venezuela is suspicious of us. That is the history there. The Monroe Doctrine as applied in practice: United Fruit, ALCOA, Exxon-Mobile, Standard Oil, Monsanto, etc.

And what about: “meddling in other democratic institutions, like TV and the courts.” Host: “It is a democracy, there’s a lot of anti-Chavez propaganda . . . on the Venezuelan airwaves.” News flash: Latin American TV is US TV in Spanish. They get Spanish CNN, Portuguese Fox, whatever we give them via our satellites. So Venezuela puts up one channel that broadcasts 4 hours a day – to counter the countless hours of US-made for-Latinos TV. And even though it’s only four hours, and Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner supply 24-hours a day – the US Government is promising to spend our tax money to send up another satellite to counter theirs, to “push” more democracy. Great.

Try to connect US aid for democracy in the region with its emergence or even its prospects for emergence. (Hint: it can’t be done). It’s just like trying to plant “democracy” with tanks and bombers in Iraq. Does it work? Clearly not. Do our leaders intend it to work? Hmmm . . .

And you didn’t even pause to consider our humble leader’s meddling in our democratic institutions like TV, courts, etc.

As your guest remarked, he believes, “frankly’ he believes, that Hugo Chavez lies awake at night thinking—“what can I do to really irritate the United States?” That really, really is a quote from your show. Yes, the leaders of most nations spend their nights that way. Also, take note of Cindy Sheehan. Obviously she’s up nights thinking “what can I do to really irritate George Bush.” Not of there own good, but of doing us harm they dream. Why is everyone always picking on the United States?

And one last bit on your hatchet job. “Hugo sees China as an ideological ally.” Now that should rile a lot of Americans, because who doesn’t know someone affected by our loss of jobs to the growing economy of China? And upon reflection, what’s the US answer to those kinds of shady ideological alliances: CAAFTA, and other similar trade agreements: you know, trade agreements that export more jobs to worker’s-rights-barren hinterlands–like China.

P.S. To the person responsible for reading this: I write you because I care, both about Latin Americans, and NPR and our democratic institutions. I am an avid listener and I think most of NPR’s programming has an important role in helping the public be informed. Especially shows like “To the Point.” I understand this show is not investigative journalism, but a talking-heads style interview show. But you don’t have to soft pedal your questions, and as in this case, you certainly don’t have to ask them in a leading, self-answering, FOXesque way. As in “what are the Bad things Chavez has been doing”—bypassing the more essential question of whether he’s actually done anything bad at all. Remember, this was on your show today as a result Pat Robertson’s comments—which included the words “kill” and “assassinate” although after his retraction/refinement, most respectable journalists now quote him as having said only “take him out” as he later asserted. Then we accuse Chavez of “playing the victim” in this. Yes, he’s trying to play that coveted role usually reserved for the US. So we have the nut case Robertson throwing a spit-ball at Chavez from the right, and NPR doing a similar deed for everyone not quite so gullible as a Robertson Rapturite. Your show as a whole seemed to say, “with everything except the assassination part we agree.” I know it’s not supposed to be advocacy journalism on your show either, but today it was.

With Venezuela the current US elite will either go the way we went with Cuba, or the way we went with Chile. Neither choice is good for Venezuela, and neither choice is good for us. Such considerations are decidedly beneath–consideration-—with this administration. But why is it always our job to be involved in other peoples’ affairs? And will NPR and “To the Point” march beside the administration, Howard Cosel style, giving us the play by play, as they did during the run-up to the Iraq war, or will NPR and “To the Point’ seek and report the truth, no matter if the truth involves debunking a powerful interest.

If this is evidence of the “chilling effect” Washington’s funding threats have had on your enterprise—don’t worry, Americans care about their independent media and will sponsor your reportage in the pursuit of the truth.

Thank you

Nothing can change without the power to make it happen. Maybe I am not as wise, maybe I lack creativity, but you need power to change things…