Nikolas Kozloff

In late 2007, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez narrowly lost a vote on a constitutional referendum which would have allowed the President to run again in future elections. Hardly discouraged, he pressed forward. On Sunday, people will vote on a similar referendum and in the event that Chávez wins, he could stand for reelection in 2012.

That’s an outcome which the opposition seeks to avoid at all costs. What Chávez really wants, the opposition claims, is to become a fledgling tyrant and to institutionalize his own personal power. Originally elected in 1998, Chávez is now serving his third term in office. While pushing his referendum, the Venezuelan President has said that he needs more time in office in order to secure vital socialist reforms.

For Chávez, holding the referendum is a big gamble. If he should lose on Sunday, the opposition will be able to claim its second straight victory. Already, the right is feeling more emboldened following its decent showing in local elections last year. As a result, victory on Sunday might lead the opposition to call for a presidential recall in 2010.

Currently polls show Chávez with a slight lead, but if the President simply ekes out a victory this could reinvigorate the opposition which had been swamped by Chávez in previous elections. Perhaps, if the President had done more to groom and promote a political successor, the Chávez forces would be in a more politically advantageous situation right now. By tirelessly campaigning for his own right to reelection, Chávez has given ammunition to the opposition and, arguably, imperiled the future of the so-called Bolivarian Revolution which has done much to bring social and economic benefits to Venezuela’s neediest.

The dilemma over the constitutional referendum underscores a larger problem. At long last, Chávez forces are running up against the structural limitations which characterize populist regimes. A charismatic leader, Chávez has established a tight bond with millions of Venezuela’s poor. Indeed, one might argue that the fervor that many feel for Chávez verges on the religious. Given this high level of adulation, finding a political successor to Chávez is a challenging task.

Possible heirs might include Julian Isaías Rodríguez, a former vice-president and Attorney General; Diosdado Cabello, a former army Lieutenant Colonel, Vice President, Minister of Interior and Justice and Governor of the provincial state of Miranda; José Vicente Rangel, who served as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defense, or Jorge Rodríguez, who worked as a director of the National Electoral Junta as well as the nation’s Vice President.

There are a number of other promising and intriguing figures associated with the Chávez regime which I profiled in my new book, Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008), including the young Andrés Izarra, who headed up Telesur, a satellite news station partially funded by Venezuela, and Nora Castañeda, who was appointed by Chávez to head the Women’s Development Bank in Caracas. Izarra and Castañeda however don’t have much of a political base and are even greater long-shots than Isaías Rodríguez, Jorge Rodríguez, Cabello or Rangel.

The fact that Chávez forces have not come up with alternative leaders is not very surprising in light of recent history. Chávez-style populism, which in certain respects resembles earlier Latin American populist variants, is characterized by an enormous focus on the individual leader and his dominant power—similar to the paternalistic hacendado on the traditional hacienda. In the populist model there’s a great deal of emphasis placed on unquestioned decision making power and seemingly “god-like” qualities that permit leaders to interpret the needs of the people and to chart the future trajectory of the state in order to satisfy those needs.

Populists whip up their own popularity and mythology by emphasizing a personal crusade. They rail against ill-defined “oligarchies,” entrenched political parties, local elites, the church or media establishment. Indeed, populists may seek to set up their own rival media in order to create a sense of public accessibility. Master orators, populists employ fiery, emotional rhetoric to establish a psychological connection with the people. They may seek to build up an image of themselves as the cultural epitome of the nation, while meanwhile channeling nationalism against various and sundry political threats. Hardly content to work within conventional political channels, they conduct militant street rallies and mass mobilization of civil society to achieve their long-term objectives.

While populist regimes in Latin America haven’t been particularly revolutionary, some have achieved a significant degree of economic redistribution. They may even succeed in empowering disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups for a time. The problem however is that populism is difficult to sustain in the long-term. Ideologically inchoate, populist movements rely on their leaders to provide vital political glue. Populism is socially heterogeneous and may succeed in bringing together a multi-class coalition, but only temporarily.

In the absence of a charismatic leader, populist movements may fall apart or languish. Will popular forces be able to advance in Venezuela if their leader falters? If Chávez does not win on Sunday or achieves only a modest victory, this question will be sorely put to the test.

To read the article, click here.

To read the article, click here.

To read the article, click here.

In a careless slip of the tongue in August, 2006 Virginia Senator George Allen shot himself in the foot and ended his political career. During a campaign rally Allen pointed to a man of Indian descent and remarked “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great.”

Allen’s supporters began to laugh.

“Let’s give a welcome to macaca, here,” the Senator added. “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”

The word macaca is an ethnic slur meaning either a monkey that inhabits the Eastern Hemisphere or a town in South Africa. In some European cultures, macaca is also considered a racial slur against African immigrants.

Allen’s infamous outburst was captured on video and circulated widely on the internet after the footage was posted on YouTube. The Senator’s campaign manager dismissed the issue with an expletive and insisted the Senator had “nothing to apologize for.” But once the story started to circulate, Allen sought to salvage his career by claiming that the word had no derogatory meaning for him. He then said he was sorry.

The issue however did not go away. S.R. Sidarth, the man who Allen had slurred, remarked that he suspected the Virginia politician singled him out because he was the only nonwhite face amongst about 100 Republican supporters. “I think he was doing it because he could, and I was the only person of color there, and it was useful for him in inciting his audience,” Sidarth remarked. “I was annoyed he would use my race in a political context.”

Allen’s stunning gaffe contributed to his defeat in the 2006 election when the veteran politician lost against long-shot Democrat Jim Webb. Some Republican strategists believe that Allen might have been a contender for the 2008 Republican presidential ticket if he had not made his macaca gaffe.

Racist Rhetoric in Bolivia

Such ethnic slurs have no place in modern politics and yet the United States continues to openly support backward and racist figures in South America who hurl such insults with wanton abandon.

Take for example the case of Rubén Costas, an opposition figure in Bolivia. Speaking to his followers last month, Costas called indigenous socialist President Evo Morales a “macaca.” Costas has also insulted Morales as an “animal” and a “monkey.”

Fair skinned and European looking, Costas hardly resembles Bolivia’s indigenous president Morales. Elected Prefect of the energy-rich, western department of Santa Cruz in 2005, Costas has become a key advocate for greater regional autonomy and a thorn in the side of the La Paz government.

Costas, like many of his white and mestizo racist followers, regard the Indians in the highlands with contempt. The Santa Cruz politician would like to retain control over the lucrative gas industry and deprive the cash-strapped government in La Paz of much needed revenue.

Following Costas’ election, the right opposition escalated its pressure on the Morales government, organizing protests in the city of Sucre against the President’s proposed Constitution which would have given the country’s indigenous majority a greater say in political decision making. An advocate for powerful business interests, Costas was also one of the right wing politicians who called for a referendum on autonomy for Santa Cruz. When 85% of the residents of Santa Cruz voted for autonomy, Morales called the vote illegal and nonbinding.

A demagogic populist who likes to stir ethnic hatreds, Costas continued to up the ante last month. As a result of Morales’ victory in an August 10 recall referendum, the Santa Cruz politician called the President “murderous” and demanded that Morales cease his “bullying.”

Speaking in a plaza full of his supporters, Costas said Bolivia should say “no to the big foreign monkeys.” It was an obvious racial barb aimed at Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a key Morales ally [physically, Chávez has indigenous-African features].

When asked by the Brazilian magazine Terra whether he would retract his statements about Chávez, Costas remarked “I don’t regret it at all.” The Santa Cruz politician said that “monkey” was based on the concept of gorilismo, “a term which is very common in Latin America to refer to soldiers. We can’t forget that Hugo Chávez is a military coup plotter who has turned himself into a neo-populist.”

Our Man in Bolivia

Even as he was escalating the racist rhetoric, Costas sought importantly allies. On August 25th, he met with U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg. Though the diplomat claimed that he had met Costas in public while on a routine trip to Santa Cruz, the meeting provoked suspicion amongst Bolivians that the United States was supporting the lowland opposition movement. A portion of U.S. aid to Bolivia is directed towards eastern provincial governments that are the nexus of opposition to Morales.

The La Paz government, desperately fighting to keep the country together, expelled Goldberg and accused him of conspiring with the conservative opposition. Having made a blunder and seriously imperiled U.S.-Bolivian relations, the State Department made things worse by retaliating and expelling the Bolivian ambassador to Washington. Coming to the aid of a friend, Chávez ordered the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador in Caracas. Predictably, the State Department again seriously erred, this time by expelling the Venezuelan ambassador.

The diplomatic tit-for-tat brings political tensions to new heights. Last week, anti-Morales sentiment reached a crescendo when protesters burned government offices in Santa Cruz. Anti-government activists also took over several natural gas installations in the east. Morales, who called the protests a “civil coup,” ordered additional troops to the eastern provinces to secure gas and oil installations. The protesters have been fighting Morales supporters with clubs, machetes and guns. In all, more than 30 people have died in the fighting.

Even Virginia Senator George Allen, a politician with a long history of making racist comments, ultimately realized that he had made a mistake and apologized at long last. Not so Rubén Costas, a figure who is unabashed about his views. Far from shunning racist leaders like Costas, the United States has embraced the Bolivian opposition. By doing so, the Bush White House has seriously inflamed U.S.-South American relations even more.

To read the article, click here.

Prior to Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican Convention, I was preparing an article arguing that John McCain’s VP pick would lead to the implosion of the Republican Party and imminent defeat in the November election. After watching Palin deliver her speech however, I realized I would have to scrap my plans. While Palin certainly didn’t say anything of substance, the Alaska governor was poised on stage and even managed to get in a couple of memorable zingers. Amongst the chattering classes on TV, the consensus seems to be that Palin vaulted over her first political hurdle and overcame initial widespread skepticism towards her candidacy.

This election is fast sizing up as a showdown to see who can effectively capture the votes of the so-called Reagan Democrats, perhaps the most shiftless, fickle, hyper-nationalistic and racist constituency within the U.S. electorate. Geographically located in the Rustbelt and Midwest, they are susceptible to vicious GOP strategizing seeking to paint Obama as a cultural elitist and a highbrow intellectual. Palin, who the GOP wants to cast as a working class hero, could emerge as a major headache for the Democrats in key battleground states.

Roseanne and Palin: A Psychological Analysis

Spunky and scrappy, Palin is akin to Roseanne Barr, an Emmy-awarding comedian who had a hit TV show on ABC between 1988 and 1997. The show portrayed a working class family struggling to get by on limited income in small town Illinois. Roseanne herself was dominant and caustic but had a wry sense of humor. In sheer economic terms Palin bears little resemblance to Roseanne: the Alaska Governor makes a yearly salary of $125,000 and her husband Todd has done quite well for himself as a commercial fisherman and oil production manager.

In a sense however these economic differences are irrelevant since Palin comes off as culturally working class. She didn’t attend elite colleges, which is always considered an asset amongst the Reagan Democrats. What’s more she was an athlete in her youth and earned the name of “Sarah Barracuda” because of her intense basketball play.

Roseanne’s husband Dan, played by actor John Goodman, was a lot more portly than Palin’s husband Todd. In other respects however the Palin household bears some similarity to Roseanne’s family. Take for example the TV character Becky, Roseanne’s eldest child. Like Bristol Palin, who had premarital sex and got pregnant at the age of 17, Becky also ran into trouble when she skipped college and eloped with her boyfriend. She eventually wound up living with him in a trailer park.

Working Class Women in the November Election

On the face of it, Bristol’s underage sex life would seem to undercut her mother’s candidacy as this deviant behavior clashes with the Alaska Governor’s longtime emphasis on Christian morals. On the other hand the reality is that teen pregnancy is a feature of many white working class families. As a result some women might identify with Palin’s situation and see the Alaska Governor as more “authentic” in their eyes.

On the surface at least one might think that women who work and juggle family and jobs would identify as feminists and not support Palin’s candidacy. However, many feel uncomfortable with the feminist label because they see it as too liberal or secular. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Democratic strategist Susan Estrich remarked, “I have been hearing from women, especially women who didn’t go to Harvard or Yale Law School, saying, ‘Hold on, this is a woman we can actually relate to. The very fact that she could go from the PTA to the vice presidency is the story they connect to—without regard to her position on abortion.”

The Democrats should pray that Palin never gets as popular as Roseanne: the TV show became a national sensation. Though the program declined somewhat by the mid- to late 1990s, in its first few years it consistently racked up high Nielsen ratings. In the 1989-1990 Season Roseanne even tied the Cosby Show for #1.

Palin vs. Biden: Will the Real Working Class Hero Please Step Up?

At the convention, the GOP sought to build up Palin and the working class narrative by playing uncool classic rock like John Fogerty and, of course “Barracuda” by Heart. It’s a cultural strategy that the Democrats have sought to counteract when they introduced Joe Biden. When Obama trotted out his running mate in Springfield, Illinois loud speakers played Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising” in the background.

The song is about a firefighter who gives his life while trying to save others in the World Trade Center on 9/11. The last verse takes place at his funeral, with his wife and kids in attendance. “The Rising” is a good song to be sure but somewhat odd for a campaign rally. It doesn’t really matter though: the reason the Party played the song is that Springsteen is a working class icon and appeals to Reagan Democrats.

With all of the calamitous domestic and foreign policy problems confronting the country, it’s absurd that the Culture Wars should once again figure so prominently in electoral politics. For better or worse however, the Obama camp will have to convince the fickle Reagan Democrats that Biden is more working class than Palin. It’s not an easy task anymore since mainstream media pundits, particularly men, won’t want to be perceived as bullying the Alaska political neophyte.

Shrewdly, Palin herself laid down the gauntlet in her convention speech. “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment,” she said. “And I’ve learned quickly these past few days that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for those reporters and commentators. I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.”

Palin’s line drew some of the loudest cheers of the night.

Most Americans don’t make a habit of waking up in the morning, heading straight outside to shoot wild game and then frying up moose burgers. Nevertheless, in this electoral season it has become obligatory for politicians to defend hunters and their so-called “way of life.” Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain’s vice presidential pick, is but the latest example of this most barbaric and retrograde of American political traditions.

A woman from an exceedingly macho state, Palin takes pride in her hunting skills. She has even gone as far as taking her daughter out with her on caribou shooting expeditions. In passing on the hunting lifestyle to her daughter, Palin is merely following in the footsteps of her father who in turn took her as a child to hunt moose. What is the governor’s favorite food? That would be moose stew, of course! A longtime member of the National Rifle Association, Palin once proudly announced that her freezer was full of wild game.

No friend to wild animals, Palin has offered incentives for people who kill wolves in an effort to boost Alaska’s predator control program which so far has failed to meet expected numbers. The incentives include offering 180 volunteer pilots and aerial gunners $150 in cash for turning in gruesome legs of freshly killed wolves. Outraged by Palin’s predator control program, environmentalists have argued that bounties have no place in modern wildlife management.

By picking Palin as his running mate, John McCain helps to shore up the macho, frontiersman constituency. The Arizona Senator is hardly an avid hunter and has had a rocky relationship with the National Rifle Association. During a speech before the group in May, McCain sought to soothe sore feelings by portraying the Democrats as a common enemy. “They claim to support hunters and gun owners,” he said. “If… Sen. Obama is elected president, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk.”

Mitt Romney: Seeking to Prove Varmint Credentials

It’s not the first time that the issue of hunting has come up in the presidential campaign. During the primaries Mitt Romney was keen to emphasize his hunting credentials and erase the perception that he was some kind of effeminate easterner. “I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life,” he remarked in New Hampshire. “I’ve never really shot anything terribly big,” Romney said. “I used to hunt rabbits. Shooting a rabbit with a single-shot .22 is pretty hard, and after watching me try for a couple of weeks, (my cousins) said, `We’ll slip you the semiautomatic. You’ll do better with that.’ And I sure did.”

The next day however, the Romney campaign said the former Massachusetts governor had gone hunting just twice — once as a teenager in Idaho and in 2007 with GOP donors in Georgia.

But then Romney explained that it was his staff that had gotten it wrong and that he had indeed hunted rabbits and other small animals for many years, mainly in Utah. Taking a “second shot” at the issue, Romney said “I’m not a big-game hunter. I’ve made that very clear. I’ve always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times.”

Huckabee Hunts For Votes in Iowa

By waffling, Romney fell right into Mike Huckabee’s trap. Speaking on Face the Nation, the former Arkansas governor said Romney was wrong to suggest he was a lifelong hunter and that his opponent’s comments strained credibility. “I think it was a major mistake,” Huckabee said. An avid outdoorsman, Huckabee had hunted for twelve years, mostly ducks, deer and turkeys.

“It would be like me saying I’ve been a lifelong golfer because I played putt-putt when I was 9 years old and I rode in a golf cart a couple of times. I think American people are looking for authenticity. Match their record with their rhetoric.”

Hoping to cultivate that “authentic” image, Huckabee took an hour and a half to hunt pheasant eight days before the Iowa caucus. Flanked by about a dozen reporters, the former Arkansas governor wore a microphone from CNN as he went shooting with Dude, his 3-year-old bird dog, and Chip Saltzman, his campaign manager, at his side.

In the first half hour, Huckabee, Saltzman and a friend shot three birds. Their last shot flew over the heads of reporters, one of whom cried out: “Oh my God! Oh my God! Don’t shoot. This is traumatizing.” Moments later when Huckabee took a break, a reporter yelled out: “Who are those birds? Romney? Thompson?” “Well,” Huckabee responded, “these three birds all said they would not vote for me on caucus day. You see what happened?”

Connecticut Indoorsman and Lone Vegan

Traditionally the Democrats have not gone as out of the way to court the gun-toting, hunter crowd. During an interview with grist.com, an environmental Web site, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd was asked “Are you an outdoorsy fellow? When you’re not in the halls of Congress or on the campaign trail, do you like to escape to the natural world?”

Dodd responded, “No. I don’t try to pretend I’m something that I’m not. But I live right on the Connecticut River, I have for 26 years, and the lower Connecticut River Valley is one of the most wonderful environmentally sensitive areas in the world. It’s stunningly beautiful. We do a lot of fishing in that lower valley area. But I don’t pretend to be a great hunter.”

Needless to say, Dodd went on to drop out of the presidential race after the Iowa caucus when he placed seventh.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich hardly did much better than Dodd during his own quixotic campaign for the White House. Kucinich has pressed for stronger regulation of pain and distress in animal research, has worked to help protect whales from harmful navy sonar and supports rural sanctuaries to protect farm animals. As early as 1995 he became a vegan and is currently the only vegan member of Congress.

Such progressive stances notwithstanding, Kucinich did not do well in the primaries and withdrew from the race in early 2008.

Hunting Exotic Prey in New Mexico

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, a good shot who had the prey to prove it, did slightly better than Dodd and Kucinich. Ever since 2004 Richardson had taken up hunting and fellow outdoorsmen praised the governor’s skills.

Relaxed in his Capitol office and dressed in blue jeans, cowboy boots and a silver bolo tie with turquoise — Richardson told the Associated Press that he began hunting because he “wanted to go one step beyond” the skeet shooting he’d done in the past. With skeet, clay targets are flung into the air at different angles.

The politician had bagged traditional game such as elk and turkey but also stalked the exotic: he shot an oryx, a long-horned antelope native to Africa, during a guided outing in 2005 on a New Mexico ranch owned by media mogul Ted Turner. Richardson said it was his most memorable hunt.

The governor downed the oryx with one shot from at least 100 yards. He had the oryx head mounted and kept it in a downstairs room at the governor’s mansion. Richardson’s other hunting trophies are displayed in the building: a set of bull elk antlers and a stuffed wild turkey.

And what happened to the elk meat? “We ate it — at the mansion,” said Richardson.

Richardson owns a 12-gauge Browning over-and-under shotgun, which he uses for hunting birds including quail and dove. He borrows rifles to hunt big game such as elk, deer and the oryx. During campaign appearances, Richardson proudly mentioned how he had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

Early during the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, Richardson aired a TV commercial filled with western images. The ad opened with New Mexico landscapes and included scenes of Richardson hunting with two other people and riding horses with his wife, Barbara.

Being Macho in a Man’s World

Once Richardson exited the race three contenders were left in the race: John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Edwards hunted when he was young and grew up in rural areas where owning a gun was part of a way of life. In an interview with the Associated Press Edwards said he grew up hunting deer, rabbits and birds but didn’t hunt any longer. “I think it’s important for us to respect the right to own firearms and to use them for protection,” he said. “I don’t think, though, that it means anybody needs an AK-47 to hunt.”

Edwards didn’t seem to connect as well culturally with poor whites as hunter Mike Huckabee. Once the former North Carolina Senator was out of the race, Clinton sought to court hunters by playing on her own personal history. By February, having already been roundly defeated by Obama in a slew of primaries, she told a crowd pleasing tale about shooting a duck when she was Arkansas First Lady.

“I’ve hunted. My father taught me how to shoot,” she told a crowd at the Labor Temple in rural northern Wisconsin. “I remember standing in the cold water. It was so cold, you know, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men. And they all were playing a trick on me, and said, ‘We’re not going to shoot, you shoot,’ cause you know what they wanted to do. They wanted to embarrass me. So the pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck.”

Clinton lost the Wisconsin primary but continued to hark on the hunting issue.

“I disagree with Senator Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about trade and immigration simply out of frustration,” she began, referring to the Obama comments on small-town Americans that set off a political tumult.

She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught be how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said. “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

Obama on Animal Rights

Unlike much of the Republican field and some of the Democratic contenders, Obama has shown a bit more compassion towards animals. During a candidate’s town hall meeting outside Las Vegas, a woman shouted out at Obama, “What about animal rights?” Obama responded that he cared about animal rights very much, “not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog.”

Obama added that he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and had been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society. “I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other,” he said. “And it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.”

To his credit Obama has not gunned down animals with television crews in tow, as in the case of Mike Huckabee. Nevertheless the Illinois Senator supports the right to hunt wild game.

In April 2007 he said: “I don’t hunt myself, but I respect hunters and sportsmen.”

Hunting and the American Psyche

Needless to say hunting in American politics is hardly a new phenomenon. In Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire, Sarah Watts writes:

“In 1885, returning East after a bighorn hunting trip to Montana, Roosevelt had another studio photo made. This time he appeared as a self-consciously overdressed yet recognizable Western cowboy posed as bold and determined, armed and ready for action. ‘I heartily enjoy this life, with its perfect freedom,’ Roosevelt wrote, ‘for I am very fond of hunting, and there are few sensations I prefer to that of galloping over these rolling, limitless prairies, rifle in hand.’ Though himself a New Yorker, Roosevelt enjoyed demeaning the tame outdoor pastimes of Easterners. He preferred his Western life of wild horses, wild terrain, and wild game to Eastern foxhunting, he wrote in 1884 to Lodge, an Eastern patrician and foxhunter. Western hunting required natural buckskin shirts, rifles, and rugged cow ponies, Roosevelt said, rather than tailored red coats worn during scripted jumps over fences chasing a ground-dragged scent. ‘A buffalo is nobler game than an anise seed bag,’ and one could kill buffalo only in the West. In 1883, when he had killed his first buffalo, Roosevelt spontaneously danced a ‘war dance’ that he repeated thereafter in a lifetime of famous hunting. In the aristocratic gentility of the hunt club, no member would ever have allowed himself such freedom.”

It’s remarkable to consider that more than a hundred years after Teddy Roosevelt donned his cowboy outfit politicians are still falling all over themselves to prove their backward and retrograde hunting credentials. On the other hand, with the entrance of Sarah Palin into the presidential race the country has the opportunity of holding a long overdue debate about hunting and animal rights in wider U.S. society. Unfortunately, the media seems more intent on talking about the Alaska Governor’s pregnant daughter.

It’s no secret that John McCain has been a longtime friend of the telecom industry. Indeed, the Arizona Senator has had important historic ties to big corporations like AT&T, MCI and Qualcomm. In return for their financial contributions, McCain, who partly oversees the telecommunication industry in the Senate, has acted to protect and look out for the political and economic interests of the telecoms on Capitol Hill.

Such connections are well known, yet few have paused to consider how Iraq fits into the wider jigsaw puzzle. Prior to the war in Iraq, McCain was one of the biggest boosters of the invasion. While it’s unclear whether the telecoms actually lobbied McCain on this score, they certainly benefited under the subsequent occupation.

To get a sense of the sheer scope of McCain’s incestuous relationship with the telecoms, one need only log on to the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics. In the 1998 electoral cycle, AT&T gave $34,000 to McCain. In the 2000 cycle, the telecom giant provided $69,000, in 2002 $61,000, in 2004 $39,000, in 2006 $29,000 and in 2008 $187,000. Over the course of his career, AT&T has been McCain’s second largest corporate backer.

What’s more, AT&T has donated handsomely to McCain’s International Republican Institute (IRI), a private/public organization that carries out the far right’s foreign policy agenda in Iraq and elsewhere (for more on McCain and his relationship with the IRI, see my previous column, “Promoting Iraqi Occupation For ‘a Million Years,’ McCain and The International Republican Institute,” June 9, 2008. In 2006, the company gave the IRI $200,000. AT&T spokesman Michael Balmoris declined to elaborate on why the international telecommunications provider wrote a big check. “AT&T contributes to a variety of charitable organizations," he said flippantly.

If all that money was not enough to secure the Arizona Senator’s allegiance, AT&T may also count on an army of lobbyists who are now allied to the McCain campaign. Take for example campaign adviser Charlie Black, whose lobbying firm BKSH has represented AT&T for the past decade. Then there’s Mark Buse, McCain’s Senate Chief of Staff, who worked as a lobbyist for AT&T Wireless from 2002 to 2005.

Other companies such as MCI and Qualcomm have also played a role in the Arizona politician’s Senate career. Take for instance Tom Loeffler, McCain’s campaign co-chairman and former Congressman of Texas. Loeffler, through his lobbying firm Loeffler Group, has represented Qualcomm since 1999. All told, Qualcomm employees, spouses and political action committees have given tens of thousands of dollars to the McCain campaign. Meanwhile Kirck Blalock, a McCain campaign fundraiser, lobbied MCI from 2002 to 2005 through his firm Fierce, Blalock and Isakowitz.

Though McCain routinely derides the influence of "special interest lobbyists," his ties to the telecom lobbyists undermine any such claims. Of the 66 current or former lobbyists working for the Arizona senator or raising money for his presidential campaign, 23 have lobbied for telecommunications companies in the past decade.

McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the telecom industry and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Arizona Senator has repeatedly pushed industry-backed legislation. McCain’s efforts to eliminate taxes and regulations on telecommunications services have won him praise from industry executives. In the late 1990s, the Arizona Senator wrote the FCC, urging the agency to give serious consideration to the idea of allowing AT&T and MCI to enter the long-distance market. Four months later, AT&T wrote a check for $25,800 to McCain.

If that was not enough, high-up McCain officials such as Charlie Black secretly lobbied Congress to approve a measure wiping out all private lawsuits against the telecoms for assisting the U.S. intelligence community’s warrantless surveillance programs. McCain himself became an “unqualified” supporter of telecom immunity, claiming in a statement to the National Review that “neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate.” Needless to say, McCain voted in favor of granting amnesty to AT&T and other telecoms at exactly the time that his close adviser Black was taking money from AT&T to influence Congress on its behalf.

Making a Killing in Iraq

Even as McCain was lobbying hard for the Telecom industry in the late 1990s, the Arizona Senator worked overtime to build up the case for war in the Middle East. McCain served as the “honorary co-chair” of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group which helped push for official government as well as public support for the invasion of Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks.

In the aftermath of the invasion, the telecoms scrambled to get a piece of the action as Iraq was opened up for business. Cellular giant Qualcomm managed to exert political influence over the Pentagon which in turn pressured the Coalition Provisional Authority to change an Iraqi police radio contract to favor Qualcomm’s patented cellular technology.

What’s more, the Pentagon hired MCI—the former World Com, which had declared bankruptcy amidst an accounting fraud scandal in July, 2002—to build a small wireless phone network in Iraq. Incensed, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy urged major federal agencies to stop doing business with bankrupt telecom giant MCI and explain why its record $9 billion accounting fraud should not disqualify the company from receiving lucrative government contracts.

As it turned out Kennedy was right to harbor suspicions about the dodgy company. After the Coalition Provisional Authority issued MCI cell phones to U.S. personnel in Baghdad’s Green Zone, problems arose. Reportedly, cell phone owners received monthly bills as high as $10,000. The individuals had never received bills, leaving the impression that the phone calls, which cost $1.25 a minute, were free. The U.S. State Department subsequently decided to shut the phone calls down.

AT&T, McCain’s second largest corporate backer, also fell into controversy. After the invasion, the telecom giant received an exclusive contract to provide pre-paid calling cards to military personnel stationed in Iraq. But U.S. soldiers quickly complained about the exorbitant prices they had to pay under the arrangement.

According to the Newark Star Ledger, many pre-paid AT&T cards bought in the United States and shipped to soldiers in Iraq allowed only a fraction of the minutes promised on the cards. Even the cards bought in Iraq, which an AT&T spokesman said were a better bargain for the troops, cost between 19 and 21 cents a minute for a call.

House Representative Frank Pallone, Democrat of New Jersey, was disturbed by the price gouging. “AT&T should be required to provide a clear and straightforward system of calling time that will make it easier for our troops to call home,” Pallone said in a statement. “It disturbs me to think that companies are more interested in making a buck on our soldiers in Iraq than providing the quality services they have been paid to provide.”

Since the inception of the oil industry in the early twentieth century, Venezuela has had strong cultural ties to the United States. President Hugo Chávez however has sought to change this by cultivating a sense of cultural nationalism in his country. Perhaps the hallmark of Chávez's new cultural policy is Villa del Cine, a spanking new film studio. Inaugurated in June 2006 amid much fanfare, the $42 million project under the Ministry of Culture aims to produce 19 feature-length films a year, in addition to documentaries and television series.

 

Through this "Bolivarian Cinecittà," Chávez seeks to spur production of films dealing with social empowerment, South American history, and Venezuelan values.  Chávez himself has long favored such movies: two of Chávez's favorite films include El Caracazo, directed by Roman Chalbaud, which depicts popular protests and riots against the corrupt government of Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1989. The second, Amaneció de Golpe (The Coup Awakened) by Carlos Azpúrua, deals with Chávez's attempted military coup against the Pérez regime in 1992.

 

By spurring local film production, Chávez and the staff at Villa del Cine hope to counteract the pervasive influence of Hollywood and to promote Venezuelan history and culture. "They [foreign films] inoculate us with messages that have nothing to do with our traditions," the
Venezuelan leader said during Villa del Cine's inauguration ceremony. Though some foreign films were "enjoyable," Chávez remarked, most Indians and Latin Americans in them were portrayed as people that were "savage and dangerous, who have to be eliminated."

"Hollywood sends a message to the world that tries to sustain the so-called American way of life and imperialism," he added. "It is like a dictatorship." Venezuela is hardly the first government to subsidize cinematic production. In many European nations as well as Latin
American countries like Brazil and Mexico, it's common for authorities to provide state funding for movie making. On the other hand, Villa del Cine has not been immune from criticism. Ironically, some charge that the film studio is promoting Hollywood stars like Danny Glover while neglecting the local Venezuelan film industry. The controversy has put Villa del Cine on the defensive and led to accusations that the facility is playing favorites.

 

Villa del Cine Seeks To Counteract Hollywood

 

While researching my latest book, Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left
(Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008), I traveled to Villa del Cine, located outside of the Venezuelan town of Guarenas. The government had spent lavishly there, and the facility included two film studios, audio and video equipment, warehouses and an administrative building with areas
for post-production, animation, costumes, casting, and food service.

 

I sat down to speak with Lorena Almarza, Villa del Cine's idealistic director. A former student of social and political psychology, Almarza became particularly interested in culture as a means of encouraging community organization. Growing up in the western city of Barquisimeto, she familiarized herself with the writings of such theorists as Antonio Gramsci and Paulo Freyre. Meanwhile, she frequented local film clubs and became interested in cinema. "Later I went to Caracas to study psychology in the Central University," she remarked. "I started to work as an usher. After that I began to organize film festivals."

 

Once Chávez came to power, Almarza worked with the state-run Bolivarian schools, helping to bring movies to children and provide manuals explaining how students might interpret images and psychological profiles of different characters.  When I asked Almarza to talk about her work at Villa del Cine, she explained enthusiastically that she was proud to be part of an
"experimental" state project. Historically, the Venezuelan authorities had provided minimal resources towards cultural promotion. But the Chávez government established a distributor, Amazonia Films, as an alternative to commercial networks.

 

Since opening in 2006, Amazonia has acquired films from Latin America, Europe and Asia. Amazonia officials have also started to provide support to independent film producers with cost reductions of up to 35 percent. Instead of merely providing minor funding towards
incipient film production, the state has now created incentives so as to increase film production and to enable moviemakers to acquire their own equipment.

 

The new Minister of Culture, Francisco Sesto, began to encourage the creation of audio-visual cooperatives. The idea was that filmmakers would bring their proposals to the table and Villa del Cine would decide if the government was interested in promoting the project. "It's
all about the transformation of the state," she says, "and how people might become participants in the development of film through their own art." So far, Villa del Cine has shot on location in all twenty-four Venezuelan states and in 2005-2006 the studio filmed 357 productions.

 

Almarza has overseen the production of TV series documenting educational developments under Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution. But Villa del Cine has also shot films about Indians and music, and in 2007 the studio planned to commence work on some fictional films. The authorities also hope to spur the creation of a network of community movie theaters. In 2006, 80 new theaters were created and authorities seek to build yet more that could show films produced at Villa del Cine.

 

Ultimately, Almarza and her staff hope that films made at Villa del Cine will be shown at most any Venezuelan shopping mall along with the usual Hollywood fare. Venezuela cannot compete economically with Hollywood, but Villa del Cine seeks to provide alternatives to
globalized homogeneity. As Almarza explained to me, film serves as useful tool in the "battle of ideas."

 

Enter Danny Glover

 

As I sit with Almarza at Villa del Cine, I turn the discussion towards African-American actor Danny Glover, co-star of the Lethal Weapon and Dreamgirls movies. A long-time civil rights activist and critic of the Bush administration, the actor is chairman of the TransAfrica Forum, an advocacy group for African Americans and other members of Africa's diaspora.

 

The Hollywood celebrity, who considers Chávez "remarkable," has been a frequent visitor to Venezuela. In January 2004, TransAfrica Forum sent a delegation of influential artists, actors, activists and scholars to Caracas to meet with government officials. Glover, who accompanied the delegation, expressed his excitement at the social changes taking place in Venezuela. The actor remarked that the U.S. media's portrayal of Venezuela had "nothing to do with reality."

Glover added that he was in Venezuela "to listen and learn, not only from government and opposition politicians, but to share with the people, those who are promoting the changes in this country and we want to be in contact with those who benefit from those changes."

Glover and others later presided over the inauguration of a new "Martin Luther King, Jr." school in the coastal town of Naiguata. The area is home to large numbers of Afro-Venezuelans. The school inauguration was the first official Venezuelan recognition of the
importance of the slain civil rights leader. What's more, the government launched a photo exposition to honor Dr. King.

 

Speaking at the event, Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States Bernardo Álvarez declared, "The visit by members of the TransAfrica Forum represents a struggle that goes beyond the figure of Martin Luther King; his struggle, his ideas and the African-American social movements inspired by him. This is a struggle aimed at defending people's rights, not only in the United States, but in the hemisphere and the world."

 

Glover, clearly touched by the occasion, commented, "This isn't Danny Glover the artist. I'm here as a citizen, not only of the U.S., but a citizen of the world. We understand fully the importance of this historical moment." Chávez later honored the late Dr. King during his radio and TV show Aló, Presidente!. Glover and others were invited on air to participate.

 

Glover's support for the Bolivarian Revolution continued into 2005. In July of that year, the Hollywood entertainer returned to Venezuela, this time accompanied by singer Harry Belafonte. Once in Caracas, Glover attended the ceremonial launching of a new TV news station called Telesur, a network that has received key financial support from Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and Uruguay.

 

Glover was impressed with the new media initiative but criticized the station for not having any people of African or indigenous descent on its advisory board. Chávez himself called in to the inauguration shortly after and said to Glover, in English, "Danny, I am with you."

 

A few months later, Chávez traveled to New York to address the United Nations. During his visit, the Venezuelan leader made an appearance at the Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew in Manhattan's Upper West Side where he praised U.S. icons such as Martin Luther King. The forum for Chávez's speech was called, "Social Forum on Poverty andJustice in a Globalized World," and was attended by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Danny Glover.

 

Glover's Venezuela Ties

 

Recently, other progressive Hollywood celebrities have paid visits to Venezuela. Just last month, actor and writer Tim Robbins toured Villa del Cine; the actor is reportedly contemplating the idea of initiating some type of film project in Venezuela. Robbins, who is
known for his political activism and opposition to the Bush White House, praised Chávez's film installation for its support of novel film directors. Robbins has been joined by Kevin Spacey and Sean Penn, two other Hollywood stars who have paid recent visits to Villa del Cine.

 

Glover however has gone farther than the likes of Robbins, Spacey or Penn in declaring his support for the political changes occuring in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. Indeed, the veteran civil rights activist has even signed on to Telesur as a member of the TV station's advisory board.

 

In May 2007, Glover attended an International Communication Conference in Caracas with noted journalists, media executives, and intellectuals. The two-day event, which was open to the public, held interesting roundtable debates. Some of the topics included were: "Impunity and power of major media outlets," "The responsibility of national governments," "The use of radio and TV airspace as a public asset," and "Social ownership of the media."

 

Glover remarked that in the U.S., the issue of media control and citizen participation in the media was off the table. "People (in the United States) don't participate in a dialogue that allows them to see that they have the power of information," he said. "We see the positions that the media take, and people should take that power back and make themselves the architects of the media."

 

At the end of the conference, participants agreed to promote the creation of independent, community-based alternative media outlets as a counterbalance against the corporate media. In a manifesto approved by Telesur's advisory council, participants declared that radio and
television were an "asset for humanity," and should be administered by national governments, not by corporations. Furthermore, national governments should use their authority to revoke, concede, or renew licenses in accordance with their various constitutions. The participants applauded recent decisions taken by Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay to reclaim public air space.

 

The Myth of Toussaint

 

Glover's relationship with the Chávez government goes deeper than Telesur, however. During my interview with Almarza, the Villa del Cine Director, she remarked, "We have a very fraternal relationship with Glover. He came here to Villa del Cine in 2006. He's interested in
developing some film productions."

 

Since that interview, Glover's ties to Villa del Cine have taken off. Chávez's film studio has funded Glover's new epic film, Toussaint, about Francois Dominique Toussaint Louverture (1746-1803), one of the fathers of Haiti's independence from France. The film represents Glover's directorial debut; the star will also co-produce the movie.

 

Together with Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Toussaint L'Ouverture was one of the principal leaders of the Haitian rebellion at the end of the eighteenth century that struggled against the revolutionary French as well as Spanish, British, and Napoleonic forces. Toussaint liberated
black slaves not only in Haiti but all across the island of Hispaniola (today, the island is divided between Haiti and the Dominican Republic).

 

When Toussaint concluded a ceasefire with Napoleonic forces, which were determined to reestablish colonial rule and reimpose slavery, the Haitian revolutionary was betrayed, apprehended and deported. He died in France in 1803. Toussaint's lieutenant Dessalines, an ex-slave just like Toussaint, continued the rebellion. Haiti finally declared its independence from France in January 1804. The impoverished Caribbean colony was the first black nation to throw off imperial rule and become a republic.

 

Political Controversy Swirling Around Toussaint

 

Unfortunately, for Glover, controversy has recently swirled around Toussaint, which will be filmed entirely in Venezuela (and not in Haiti, for security reasons). Connie Mack, a U.S. Republican congressmember from Florida, blasted Glover for cutting "a sweetheart movie deal" with Chávez. Such complaints are practically pro forma for Mack, who has been a vocal critic of Chávez's Telesur. However, Mack has been joined by various Venezuelan filmmakers, who have raised a number of objections to the Glover film.

 

In 2007 the National Association of Film Makers and the Venezuelan Chamber of Film Producers criticized Glover for using political contacts to secure the funding package without a bidding process. The filmmakers called such methods "demoralising and detrimental to future
generations of Venezuelan movie-makers." Claudia Nazoa, president of the Venezuelan Chamber of Feature Film Producers (known by its Spanish acronym Caveprol), said, "What worries us is this trend for neo-colonisation by international figures who come to talk of their
support for Chávez's government—and leave with money for their projects."

 

In 2007, Venezuela provided $18 million to fund Toussaint, and this year the authorities kicked in an extra $9 million. Venezuelan directors complain that the budget for Glover's film matches the entire state budget for domestic films from 2003 to 2008—a sum they say could
"finance 36 Venezuelan films." Culture Minister Sesto called it "naive" to think the movie industry would be out $18 million, since the money did not come from Villa del Cine's operating funds but were part of an "additional credit." He added, "The funds earmarked for this movie will be invested exclusively in Venezuela ... creating jobs and providing
excellent experience for our national film industry."

 

Thaelman Urgelles, a Venezuelan director, remarked to Inter Press Service that "we don't have anything personal against Glover and it even seems good to expand our relations with the movie industry, but the quantity of money is excessive [and] it fails to consider the efforts of Venezuelan moviemakers who can't even get $450,000 to make a film." Urguelles added that normally filmmakers only obtained funding after competing in competitive bids and sometimes had to dig into their own pockets.

 

Even Diego Rísquez, the director of Villa del Cine's Francisco de Miranda (see below), has remarked that funding Glover's film was "an error, a lack of reflection, it puts all the eggs in one basket." The director added that Spanish, French and Italian directors had come to Venezuela to film, and even Steven Spielberg had made part of Aracnophobia in the Andean nation. Unlike Glover however, those directors had brought international capital into Venezuela.

 

Iván Zambrano, President of Venezuela's National Association of Cinematic Authors or ANAC, said he had questions about how government money invested in Glover's film would be spent. "They say that the artists will be 30 per cent Venezuelan and 70 per cent foreign," he
said. "We want to know how this co-production will work and whether [the money that the government is investing] will include paying the artists. If you have Hollywood actors charging Hollywood salaries, then the budget will go on just two or three actors."

 

Chávez has said that he would like to break Hollywood's tight stranglehold over the film industry by creating Villa del Cine. Yet ironically, though the film shall include African and Haitian actors, high profile Hollywood stars have also been billed for Toussaint. The film will star Don Cheadle, Angela Bassett, and Wesley Snipes.

 

"In a country with rampant poverty, a catastrophic health crisis and 14,000 violent deaths a year, President Hugo Chávez gives away our money for his friends to play with," said L.A.-based Venezuelan director Jonathan Jakubowicz. The Venezuelan filmmaker's 2005 kidnap
drama Secuestro Express was a local hit but also angered Chávez's government for its hard-hitting portrayal of sociopolitical malaise in Venezuela.

 

Villa del Cine Defends the Project

 

Representatives of the government wasted no time in hitting back at the Venezuelan filmmakers. Sesto declared that the Ministry of Culture would no longer recognize Caveprol and ANAC. According to Sesto, the filmmakers at these organizations were not "legitimate representatives of universal cinematography. They represent themselves; they are small groups with a monetary vision." Sesto added that by funding Toussaint, Venezuela had the opportunity of joining the "major leagues" of cinema.

 

Some Venezuelan filmmakers complain that Villa del Cine will only produce films that fall in line with Chávez's socialist ideals, an accusation which Glover denies. The veteran actor has remarked that Toussaint won't be left-wing revisionism but rather a critical movie dealing with
a part of the hemisphere's past that has been "essentially wiped out of our historic memory."

 

Villa del Cine adminstrators claim that political pressure doesn't figure into their decisions. "We are looking to make good films, no matter what the script. We really want writers and directors to come to us with their ideas. If they're good, we'll support them," Villa del Cine executive director Marco Mondarain told the BBC.

 

During my interview with Almarza from Villa del Cine, she said that Chávez had never intervened in the studio's affairs. Almarza had never spoken personally to the Venezuelan president, though she and her colleagues at the Ministry of Culture had met with Chávez as a group. In 2007, says Oscar Murat, a project co-ordinator at La Villa del Cine, the studio "received various different proposals and of the ones which won commissions, none was linked with politics."

 

Chávez, Miranda and Haiti

 

Despite the denials, it's clear that a movie dealing with Caribbean slave revolt dovetails with Chávez's frankly anti-imperialist political outlook. "This film [Toussaint] will form part of our
ideological canon against Metro Goldwyn Mayer [MGM]," said Venezuelan congressman Simón Escalona. Outside of Venezuela, high-profile figures are pleased with Glover's project. Haitian President René Preval told the New York Daily News that "we had the first successful anti-slave rebellion in this hemisphere. It's our contribution to humanity. If Glover can take this story to the big screen, we will be happy."

 

For Chávez, the Haitian independence struggle has key symbolic meaning. In March 2007, the Venezuelan leader traveled to the Caribbean island nation. Chávez timed his arrival in Haiti for maximum political and historic effect. "We know that March 12, 1806 [two years after Haiti became a republic] exactly two centuries ago and a year … a very great Venezuelan cried out for independence," he said. "And it is here in a revolutionary boat with a revolutionary crew that the Venezuelan flag was hoisted for the first time. Francisco de Miranda, as you know, was that great Venezuela, and the reason for our visit is linked to what he did way back then."

 

Francisco de Miranda (1750-1816), considered by some to be a forerunner of later South American independence figures such as Simón Bolívar (1783-1830), was a soldier who fought in the American and French revolutions. In addition, he played a key part in events leading
to Venezuela's declaration of independence from Spain in 1811. The revolutionary was captured by Spanish colonial forces and spent the last days of his life as a prisoner. He died in a military fortress in Cádiz.

 

Within the National Pantheon of Caracas, where Bolívar lies in state, there's an empty tomb awaiting Miranda's body. A group of Spanish scientists has tried to determine whether certain remains in the fortress indeed belong to Miranda. The scientists have extracted DNA from bones in the fortress and will compare the genetic material to Miranda's descendants in order to reach a final determination.

 

Not surprisingly, Chávez has expressed personal interest in the investigation. Though obscure, Miranda is one of Chávez's favorite historical personalities. In the run-up to the December 2006 presidential election Chávez hailed his followers, nicknamed Miranda's electoral "battalions."

 

In 2006, Villa del Cine celebrated the two hundredth anniversary of Miranda's return voyage to Venezuela by producing a film about the exploits of the late eighteenth-century hero. The film, Francisco de Miranda, glorifies the struggle of the intrepid revolutionary and draws
attention to his dream of a united South America. After opening in 35 of Venezuela's 400 movie theaters, the film did quite well at the box office and surpassed Hollywood blockbuster Superman Returns during the summer 2006 season.

 

Historical Symbolism of Venezuelan-Haitian Solidarity

 

Chávez has long emphasized historical symbolism in his political rhetoric, and his speech in Haiti proved no exception. Addressing the Haitian public in 2007, the Venezuelan leader remarked, "We are very conscious of what the Haitian people are—a people who were able to
defeat empires and free their country well before the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean—a heroic people and also a ravaged people over the past two centuries. You must also know that Bolívar passed through here … in 1816 when in Venezuela … all appeared lost in the battle against Spain."

 

The Venezuelan leader went on to discuss the important political connections between the Haitian Revolution and the Venezuelan independence struggle. Bolívar arrived in Haiti on Christmas Eve, 1815 after being expelled from Venezuela. Fortunately Haitian President
Alexandre Pétion (1770-1818) welcomed Bolívar and his freedom fighters and provided them with shelter, guns, ammunition and a printing press.

 

Four months later, as he was about to depart from Haiti en route to Venezuela, Bolívar asked his benefactor how he might repay Haiti's generosity. Pétion replied that the best thanks Haiti could receive would be the liberation of all slaves residing in the Spanish colonies.

 

Bolívar later honored his debt to Pétion by freeing the 1,500 slaves his family owned in Caracas. He also printed a proclamation, on Pétion's very own printing press, abolishing slavery in Venezuela. The proclamation, however, only applied to black slaves who enlisted in
Bolívar's army. It wasn't until 1854 that slavery was finally abolished in the country.

 

"All of this [history] has to do with why I am here today," Chávez said while addressing the Haitian people. "Today I feel I am paying part of our historic debt to Haiti. And I say this, after more than 8 years in government, this is the first time I visit Haiti. I should have come here earlier." Chávez's choice of words couldn't have been more symbolic: to this day, Venezuelan children are taught in school that their country owes a "historic debt" to Haiti for helping Bolívar.

 

Bolívar's Political Significance

 

It's no accident that Chávez would go out of his way to bring up Bolívar while visiting Haiti. In Venezuela, it is almost mandatory for political leaders to make historic allusions to Bolívar, the "Great Liberator" against Spanish rule. Bolívar, Chávez has said, was a socialist like himself, was stridently opposed to the United States, and was also determined to build a classless society. What's more, the Venezuelan leader has argued, Bolívar's dream of uniting Latin America represented a threat to oligarchs and imperialists, thus awakening the ire of the United States.

 

Chávez has no doubt taken some historical liberties and embellished his causal intellectual ties to Bolívar. The Liberator never talked about class struggle per se, though he did pursue progressive social legislation by issuing decrees for the establishment of schools for boys as well as girls. Bolívar also deplored the misery of indigenous peoples and ordered the conservation of forest resources.

 

But Bolívar was perhaps most forward looking when he spoke of the necessity of integrating Latin America. It was Bolívar, early on, who understood that the region had no future unless it confronted both Europe and the United States as a unified bloc. The United States, Bolívar once famously declared, seemed "destined by providence to plague America with misery on behalf of freedom."

 

Chávez has said that he will not rest until Venezuela is liberated from the "imperialist and anti-Boliviaran threat." He frequently draws comparisons between Bolívar's struggle against the Spanish Empire and his own political confrontation with the United States, which Chávez
habitually refers to as "The Empire."

 

In Venezuela, Bolívar is revered as a God-like figure and his popularity continues to soar. Indeed, a popular religion based on the fertility goddess of María Lionza has appropriated Bolívar as one of its central ritual figures. The faith is based on indigenous, black,
African, and Catholic roots, and priests hold ceremonies in which the spirit of the Liberator is channeled through a medium who coughs when Bolívar is present since Venezuela's most distinguished native son had a debilitating case of tuberculosis. Meanwhile, religious altars of the faithful generally feature a portrait of Bolívar.

 

In addition, Venezuela's currency, main squares, and universities bear the Liberator's name. His sayings are taught in schools, broadcast on the radio and emblazoned on government buildings. Chávez almost reverentially has referred to his political movement as a "Bolivarian
Revolution." Chávez has renamed his country the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and has reportedly left a chair empty at meetings to honor the Liberator. Chávez supporters, or chavistas, have dubbed the areas they politically control as "liberated zones of the Bolivarian Republic" and adorn offices and homes with portraits of the Liberator. Chávez has promoted so-called Bolivarian Circles, local grassroots groups at the local or barrio level, which lobby the government for important grassroots resources.

 

Furthermore, Chávez champions Bolívar's idea of a unified South America and echoes the Liberator's words during his televised speeches. Chávez also likes to appear on television with a portrait of Bolívar near at hand. Riding along Caracas highways, one may see repeated instances of murals juxtaposing portraits of Chávez and Bolívar. In Caracas, a key historic landmark is Bolívar's native house. Located along downtown streets crowded with informal vendors, the house is often full of visiting school children.

 

Taking his picturesque concept of history to yet greater political heights, Chávez is now intent on proving that Bolívar was poisoned by corrupt oligarchs and did not succumb to tuberculosis. The Venezuelan leader asserts that in Bolívar's day, tuberculosis was not lethal
enough to cause death in a few scant weeks. As evidence to support his claim, Chávez points to one of Bolívar's letters in which the Liberator discusses his future plans. Bolívar wrote the letter shortly before his own death in the coastal Colombian town of Santa Marta.

 

"Some say he [Bolívar] was very ill and knew he was going to die, and he wanted to die by the side of the sea and he died happy, and Colombia was happy and Venezuela was happy," Chávez said in a long speech. "How the oligarchs fooled us, the ones here, the ones there.
How the historians who falsified history fooled us."

 

The Venezuelan leader recently convened a high commission, led by his Vice President and composed of nine cabinet ministers and the Attorney General. Their mission: exhume Bolívar's remains, which lie in a sarcophagus at the National Pantheon in downtown Caracas, and conduct scientific tests to confirm Chávez's contention—that diabolical assassins murdered Bolívar. "This commission has been created because the executive considers it to be of great historical and cultural value to clarify important doubts regarding the death of the Liberator," Venezuela's Official Gazette said.

 

But even Chávez's most stalwart supporters say their leader may have gone too far this time. "This doesn't make any sense," said Alberto Mueller Rojas, a retired general who works as a presidential adviser on international affairs and military matters. "Why should I care? Bolívar
died. If they killed him, they killed him. If he died of tuberculosis, he died of tuberculosis. In this day and age, this doesn't have any significance."

 

Perhaps not surprisingly given the political importance that Chávez has attached to Bolívar, Villa del Cine is reportedly planning to produce a film about the Great Liberator. The movie will be adapted from the Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez's historical novel
about Bolívar entitled The General in His Labyrinth.

 

The book, which was originally released in 1989, tells the story of the last days of the Great Liberator as he departs the Colombian city of Bogotá for Santa Marta on the coast. Venezuelan authorities have paid out a handsome $2 million for the rights to the Márquez book, which is reportedly Hugo Chávez's favorite novel. Almarza, as director of Villa del Cine, is clearly enthusiastic about taking on the project.

"Bolívar is a world figure and belongs to all Venezuela," she remarked.  In addition to The General in His Labryinth, Villa del Cine has also produced Libertador Morales. The film centers on a Simón Bolívar-quoting motorcycle-taxi driver seeking social justice.

 

Honoring Venezuela's "Historic Debt' to Haiti

 

Chávez's recent trip to Haiti and his emphasis on vital historic symbols is taking place against a volatile political backdrop. In 2004, observers say that Haiti's democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped with the connivance of Washington. When
a new government took power in Port-au-Prince under Gérard Latortue, Chávez snubbed the Bush administration by refusing to recognize the regime, which the United States, Canada, France and the European Union all recognized as the new government.

 

In Venezuela, Chávez decried the participation of Latin American troops in the United Nations' "stabilization mission" sent to Haiti and even offered refuge in Venezuela to exiled President Aristide. The former Haitian President, who blames the U.S. government for his downfall, likens his own story to that of Toussaint who was betrayed and brought to France. Aristide currently resides in South Africa.

 

In 2006 Haiti elected René Préval, who had served as Prime Minister in Aristide's first administration and as President from 1996 to 2001.  Though Préval hinted that Aristide might return to Haiti, he has not provided a time frame for the exiled leader to come back. Speaking in South Africa Aristide criticized the 2006 election, calling it a "selection" in which "the knife of treason was planted" in the back of the Haitian people.

 

Some Haitians hope that Chávez might help to ease the way for Aristide to return some day. When the Venezuelan leader visited Haiti in 2007, cries of "Chávez" could be heard throughout the streets of the capital. At the Port-au-Prince airport, Haitians arrived minute after minute and chanted "Chávez, Chávez, it is you whom we seek ... President Préval needs your help to return Aristide." Meanwhile, the demonstrators denounced UN peacekeepers for using overwhelming military force to suppress violent gangs.

 

In an effort to strengthen the historic bond between Haiti and Venezuela, Chávez has created a $20 million fund for Haiti to provide humanitarian aid and to develop joint cooperation projects. The money will pay for health care, education, housing and other basic necessities sorely lacking in the Caribbean nation of 8 million. Haiti will also benefit from Chávez's Petrocaribe initiative, which provides petroleum products and other aid to needy Caribbean countries to help them counter rising energy prices. Recipients are offered deferred
payment and long-term financing for fuel shipments.

 

Never one to neglect rich historic symbolism, Chávez remarked during his visit that it was time to encourage the "union of our republics. It is an old project of Miranda's and Bolívar's … of Pétion's and of Louverture's—all those who dreamed of a great nation, of a free nation…The President of the United States is the representative of the cruelest empire," Chávez added, "the most cynical, criminal and murderous which has ever existed. He represents the project of colonial domination. Whereas we, I say this humbly but with dignity, represent
the Bolivarian project to liberate our nations."

 

Following their historic meeting, Chávez and Préval commemorated the occasion by placing flowers at Port-au-Prince's monuments to Pétion and Bolívar.