Why does the Guardian hate Chavez so much?
by MIKE MARQUSEE
Yesterday on facebook , James O’Nions asked why the Guardian hates
Chavez so much?
Today’s coverage drives home the hatred. The editorial, Rory Carroll’s
coverage from Caracas, Martin Kettle’s narcissistic ruminations (which
led him as they always do back to his starting point: the necessity of
a rejection of the left), and worst of all Phil Gunton’s obituary, the
most slanted I have ever read in the Guardian.
According to Gunton, the process of democratisation in Venezuela,
which is incomplete but whose advances are demonstrable, has been
nothing other than a steely march to dictatorship. It’s a remarkably
demonic account of history, in which the people of Venezuela are
merely dupes.
When Blair goes, you can be sure the Guardian will run a respectful,
“balanced” obituary and a “measured “ editorial. Some faults and
failures will be acknowledged, but he will be handled with kid gloves.
Yet Blair is guilty of a range of crimes which dwarf anything that can
reasonably be attributed to Chavez.
One of Chavez’ political errors was to embrace repressive regimes
simply because they were on the US’s bad side. But unlike Obama, he
did not arm dictators and he did not strike at his foreign enemies
with lethal violence, which Obama does week in week out. Yet the
Guardian elite treats Obama with a respect and a kind of (spurious)
collegiality that they would never extend to Chavez.
Chavez’s achievements cannot be acknowledged because to acknowledge
them would be to concede ground the Guardian elite cannot bear to
concede: that the poor and working class can shape their own destiny
and mould their own leaders; that effective democratic leaders do not
have to conform to the Guardian‘s sense of decorum; that the inflated
world of political calculation and positioning as the Guardian elite
know it is itself marginal; that in the end the makers of history are
not people like themselves.
The Guardian elite sneers at Chavez’ “populism” – i.e. his popularity
among what is assumed to be an emotion-driven uncritical lumpen mass.
Policies that prove effective in alleviating poverty and improving
social conditions are dismissed as “populist”, as a form of electoral
bribery, just in case anyone gets the dangerous idea they might be
more broadly applicable.
Is there another example of poverty-alleviation on the scale seen in
Venezuela since 1999 anywhere in living memory (or even beyond)? You
might think that this achievement alone would give pause and make the
Guardian rethink its Chavez narrative, but no. The facts are just too
awkward to be assimilated. They undermine not just a world view but a
world view in which these people have a personal stake.
What’s vital to their self-perceptions is a sense of being cognisant
of and playing a role within “the world as it is”. It’s this that
makes them feel superior to others, especially others who persist in
seeking radical change. In most cases subscribing to “third way”
politics and its evasions is what got them where they are. Had they
resisted the neo-liberal tide, they would not have progressed as they
did. They have a vested interest in “the world as it is” and so they
cannot afford to acknowledge that “another world is possible.”
I specify the Guardian elite because many people who work there do not
share these views and values. There is a battle inside the Guardian
but in the end the elite prevail. After all, it’s not a democracy or a
cooperative.
Do not underestimate the self-regard of this elite. Their wildly
misjudged support for the Lib Dems in 2010 was partly driven by the
desire to be “players”, “king-makers” in the political game. Far from
being inveterate oppositionists, the Guardian elite resent being
excluded from the power and prestige they believe they deserves. One
of the thorns in their side is their readership, which they would if
they could happily exchange for another – less left wing, less
critically minded, and certainly richer.
http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?
by MIKE MARQUSEE
Yesterday on facebook , James O’Nions asked why the Guardian hates
Chavez so much?
Today’s coverage drives home the hatred. The editorial, Rory Carroll’s
coverage from Caracas, Martin Kettle’s narcissistic ruminations (which
led him as they always do back to his starting point: the necessity of
a rejection of the left), and worst of all Phil Gunton’s obituary, the
most slanted I have ever read in the Guardian.
According to Gunton, the process of democratisation in Venezuela,
which is incomplete but whose advances are demonstrable, has been
nothing other than a steely march to dictatorship. It’s a remarkably
demonic account of history, in which the people of Venezuela are
merely dupes.
When Blair goes, you can be sure the Guardian will run a respectful,
“balanced” obituary and a “measured “ editorial. Some faults and
failures will be acknowledged, but he will be handled with kid gloves.
Yet Blair is guilty of a range of crimes which dwarf anything that can
reasonably be attributed to Chavez.
One of Chavez’ political errors was to embrace repressive regimes
simply because they were on the US’s bad side. But unlike Obama, he
did not arm dictators and he did not strike at his foreign enemies
with lethal violence, which Obama does week in week out. Yet the
Guardian elite treats Obama with a respect and a kind of (spurious)
collegiality that they would never extend to Chavez.
Chavez’s achievements cannot be acknowledged because to acknowledge
them would be to concede ground the Guardian elite cannot bear to
concede: that the poor and working class can shape their own destiny
and mould their own leaders; that effective democratic leaders do not
have to conform to the Guardian‘s sense of decorum; that the inflated
world of political calculation and positioning as the Guardian elite
know it is itself marginal; that in the end the makers of history are
not people like themselves.
The Guardian elite sneers at Chavez’ “populism” – i.e. his popularity
among what is assumed to be an emotion-driven uncritical lumpen mass.
Policies that prove effective in alleviating poverty and improving
social conditions are dismissed as “populist”, as a form of electoral
bribery, just in case anyone gets the dangerous idea they might be
more broadly applicable.
Is there another example of poverty-alleviation on the scale seen in
Venezuela since 1999 anywhere in living memory (or even beyond)? You
might think that this achievement alone would give pause and make the
Guardian rethink its Chavez narrative, but no. The facts are just too
awkward to be assimilated. They undermine not just a world view but a
world view in which these people have a personal stake.
What’s vital to their self-perceptions is a sense of being cognisant
of and playing a role within “the world as it is”. It’s this that
makes them feel superior to others, especially others who persist in
seeking radical change. In most cases subscribing to “third way”
politics and its evasions is what got them where they are. Had they
resisted the neo-liberal tide, they would not have progressed as they
did. They have a vested interest in “the world as it is” and so they
cannot afford to acknowledge that “another world is possible.”
I specify the Guardian elite because many people who work there do not
share these views and values. There is a battle inside the Guardian
but in the end the elite prevail. After all, it’s not a democracy or a
cooperative.
Do not underestimate the self-regard of this elite. Their wildly
misjudged support for the Lib Dems in 2010 was partly driven by the
desire to be “players”, “king-makers” in the political game. Far from
being inveterate oppositionists, the Guardian elite resent being
excluded from the power and prestige they believe they deserves. One
of the thorns in their side is their readership, which they would if
they could happily exchange for another – less left wing, less
critically minded, and certainly richer.
http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?
Click here to Reply
 |
Hugo Chavez's stinking, rotting corpse to be stuffed & mounted like
Joe Stalin, Lenin & Mao - he's in good company!
More arsehole losers!
Fuck 'em!
|
On 2013-03-08, Morrissey Breen <morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why does the Guardian hate Chavez so much?
Gets readership up. More profit.> Why does the Guardian hate Chavez so much?
|
- show quoted text -
No comments:
Post a Comment