The Chávez Comparison
Trump has something in common with Hugo Chávez.
In listening to The Daily earlier this week, I was struck by this passage describing a key moment in the regime of the late Hugo Chávez. It was in 2002 when he decided to remove a large number of skilled employees at the state-run oil company, PDVSA. This would end up being a major pivot point in the regime because it would start a long decline in the proper running of PDVSA, and therefore, in oil revenues, a major power source (in more than one way!) for the regime. It was a moment in which a strong man decided that loyalty was more important than expertise.
Remind you of anyone?
Anatoly Kurmanaev
In 2002, Chavez goes on national television, pretends to be a soccer referee, blows the whistle and fires PDVSA senior executives.
Archived recording (hugo chavez)
Offside. Offside.
Anatoly Kurmanaev
He says, “You are offside.”
Archived recording 7
When Chavez replaced the oil company’s top executives with political appointees, some of whom were radical Marxists, there was a management revolt.
Anatoly Kurmanaev
And this fuels nationwide protest that rocked the country throughout 2002. This is a crucial moment in Venezuela’s history, because many of the country’s middle class realize that this is a power grab. These people who have, for generations seen PDVSA as model of national development, they see it being taken apart for a political project without any consideration for accountability or democratic norms.
The whole referee bit also reminded me of how theatrical Chávez could be, not unlike a certain sitting US president. Chávez was also an early adopter of Twitter.
Still, what I am most struck by is how the way Chávez dealt with PDVSA is exactly how Trump has dealt with the federal government. He has appointed hacks, cronies, and loyalists instead of experts, and we are already seeing the results (e.g., in public health and global deaths due to the dismantlement of USAID).
I have no big lesson here, save that there is a clear propensity of a certain kind of centralizing leader to prefer spectacle over substance and to value loyalty over expertise (indeed, I used to work for someone who behaved similarly, which created, and continues to create damage). While I understand that experts aren’t perfect, it is axiomatic that an expert is to be preferred to a non-expert, something we all know instinctually when the power is out at our home or if the drains are clogged. I inherently do not trust leaders who value loyalty and ideology over expertise. Any healthy nation needs to understand this fact (and we are currently unhealthy).
And if you will excuse me, I have to go to the dentist, and I assure you, they are not just some guy.
(BTW, I recommended that episode of The Daily for a good basic background on Venezuela.)
********************@
It’s worse, he appoints hacks opposed to the mission of the department they are to lead, e.g. RFK Jr., many other examples. Carrying on the tradition started by Pres. Reagan appointing James Watt to Secretary of Interior.
Empty spectacle/bullshit may work well for them. It certainly did for Trump – and not just during his political career.
And certain kinds of pseudo-intellectuals will be more than happy to put lipstick on that pig, as this infamous Karl Rove quote illustrates:
It may not actually work, but it certainly feels good in the meantime!
This sounds like envisioning something happening right away now:
What I bolded is craziness.
This is not going to happen right away. Working over damaged oil wells and drilling new wells, repairing or replacing damaged or cannibalized processing facilities would take a lot of time, including obtaining the needed parts and supplies .
Coincidentally, I was listening to The Daily this morning on the subject of what is happening in Iran.
And this is what I heard:
Trump : Khomeini :: American protesters : Iranian protesters.
@charontwo: I believe I talked back audibly to the podcast when she said that.
I get sooo frustrated when the MSM indulges these Trumpist fantasies.
Right now I’m asking myself whether this is a false dichotomy. In other words, is it possible to have political leadership that is both good at the “theatrical” politics, and can also put competent people in place?
Have we seen such a person? Would FDR be like this? I think I should limit consideration to the age of media, which takes figures like Polk and Lincoln out of the equation.