Category: National

The crowd at the corner of MLK Boulevard and Himes Avenue — not counting two uniformed police officers and one in plain clothes — numbered about 60 people. Their nationalities-in-solidarity: Venezuelan and Cuban. Their signs: hardly nuanced – most notably “Chavez = Castro + Hitler.” Their ardent message: Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s easily demonized, polarizing president, must go.

“We’re here to tell the world, ‘No more Chavez,'” said protest organizer Norma Camero Reno, a Temple Terrace attorney and one of an estimated 2,600 Venezuelan natives living in Hillsborough County. “He’s dangerous. He’s signed treaties with Iran. Sure, the U.S. makes mistakes, but we’ve got to take care of our hemisphere first. There has to be a leader. If not the U.S., who?”

What’s a super power to do?

Arguably, it’s the question of the ages for the U.S., especially in America’s own backyard. And nowhere, including Fidel-less Cuba, is this more apparent or more important than in The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the socialista South American nation with oil and attitude.

I was there for two weeks recently with the Washington-based Latin American Working Group, and while I wouldn’t presume to have divined all there is to know, I do feel confident in saying that Venezuela looks very much like a country in the midst of a sloppy, hybrid upheaval. “Revolution” is too dialectical a term.

You can’t always get milk or black beans; toilet-flushing can be a real crapshoot; inflation hovers near 25 percent; and an even-tempered discussion on oil-revenues-as- foreign-policy-priority is an oxymoron. But it has its own time zone (Eastern minus 30 minutes); satellite dishes dominate skylines; and gas goes for about 15 cents a gallon.

This is obviously not the zero-sum solution that Castro imposed on Cuba at the end of a gun barrel. This is a messy mix of bona fide ballot box, unwieldy bureaucracy, education and health commitments to the traditional “have nots” and swaggering, in-your-face nationalism combined with socialism, consumerism, idealism, pragmatism and populism. Sprawling, carbon emission-choked Caracas has five-star hotels, a financial district, high-end fashion, Chrysler Dodge dealers, over-the-top media, tony neighborhoods, Domino’s Pizza delivery, a spotless, world-class metro system, internet cafes and ubiquitous visages of Chavez, Che and Simon Bolivar.

It also features gridlock from hell, motorcycle mayhem, foreboding street crime and some of the worst slums anywhere. Caracas has relegated Bogota, Colombia, to the runner-up spot as South America’s most dangerous capital.

Venezuela is one of those Latin American countries that, until Chavez was elected in 1998, largely stayed under the geopolitical radar. What happened in Venezuela stayed in Venezuela.

Sure, it had the usual hemispheric syndrome: a negligible middle class, a majority of dark-skinned poor and an entrenched, largely white, minority upper class – plus endemic corruption, “Midnight Express” prisons and electorate-insulated politicians. However, this country of 26 million was stable; it loved baseball, beer, American fast-food franchises and T-backed bathers; it led the world in Miss Universe finalists; and it was a reliable energy source. Our kind of OPEC member.

The charismatic Chavez has become a geopolitical game-changer and unwelcome security variable for America, Venezuela’s biggest oil-trade partner. One upshot: the U.S. has been regularly upping the ante on aid to quasi governmental entities — such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Office for Transition Initiatives — that “promote democracy” in Venezuela without actually (illegally) intervening in a sovereign country’s domestic politics. Talk about fine lines.

Venezuela is also a volatile, border antagonist to Colombia, America’s South American surrogate.

For Venezuelans living in the teeming barrios and remote rural areas, Chavez is the avatar of hope. Illiteracy has been virtually eliminated, and infant mortality rates are down during his tenure.

For political incumbents, the business community, the private media and the traditionally educated, professional class of Venezuela, Chavez is a worst-case scenario. There aren’t enough upsides to an authoritarian enamored of nationalization. It’s hardly happenstance that the ranks of Venezuelans in Florida, especially Miami, have been swelling for nearly a decade.

There is no neutrality; no political DMZ. Chavez, 54, is the personification of polarization. He’s already survived a coup attempt (2002), a devastating strike/lock-out (2003), a Recall Referendum (2004) and an ongoing, opposition-media drumbeat. He was re-elected in 2006.

“Inflation is bad, there are shortages, this is not working,” said Ingrid Melizan Lanser, the coordinator of educational programs for Fundacion Cisneros, the media conglomerate owned by billionaire Gustavo Cisneros. “Chavez is embarrassing in some of the things he says and does. We are stuck with him until at least 2012.”

But, interestingly enough, Melizan Lanser, hardly a prototypical Chavista , voted for Chavez – the first time. She said the festering poverty and intractable, third-world housing that dot the hillsides surrounding Caracas were demeaning reminders of derelict priorities. “Nobody ever did anything,” she sighed. “We needed a change from the past. He had appeal — but no more.”

Schools, Clinics and Hope

Then there’s Carolina Bello, wife and mother of two, who lives in a modest house at the base of a citrus hill in Charallave outside Caracas in northern Venezuela. Her husband, Emilio, is a bus driver. She talked about what the Bolivarian Revolution has meant to her, and why she was grateful. She mentioned access to schools and health clinics and community councils. When she got to “hope,” tears welled up and she sobbed audibly and reverently about “a brown man with a mole” who was her president.

This is what Chavez has tapped into. He doesn’t look like a Spanish land baron. He’s mestizo. The indigenous people see themselves in their president. As do others: An estimated 60 per cent of the population is of African ancestry.

When Chavez called President George W. Bush “Satan” at the United Nations, Americans saw a buffoonish caricature. When he insulted King Juan Carlos, Spaniards saw a Latin lout. But Chavez’s constituency of workers and the dirt poor — and it is a majority — saw one of their own standing up to the imperialist bully and a classic symbol of colonialism.

The challenge for Chavez, it would seem, is meeting the lofty expectations he, himself, ushered in with his people-empowering call for a “Bolivarian Revolution.”

The plan to keep expanding and upgrading the (Mision Barrio Adentro) health clinics as well as eventually replacing the thousands of Cuban doctors and related health-care personnel must work. (Even the fiercely partisan, opposition Federacion Medica Venezolana concedes the Barrio Adentro approach is a “good idea,” but lacks the properly qualified people — including Cuban doctors of “unknown quality” — for successful implementation.)

Improvements in housing, crime rates and inflation must be manifest. Venezuela, the fifth largest oil exporter in the world, has a petro-skewed economy that still cries out for diversification. Using oil revenues for weapons purchases as well as a barter-and-leverage commodity throughout Latin American must be seen by the disaffected as a meaningful benefit.

Chavez’s poll ratings have slumped recently, which government officials attribute to bureaucratic bungling and resultant frustrations. And the Chavez administration lost an important referendum vote (51%-49%) four months ago.

While it was vote up or down on a 69-amendment proposal, no one denies that a critical provision was the one to remove the president’s term limits. It’s no secret that Chav
ez thinks 2012 is too soon to call it a career at the Miraflores presidential palace. And no one thinks that referendum won’t be revisited soon with a down-sized package and a major, get-out-the-Chavista-vote campaign starring Chavez, his own best advocate — especially on television. Chavez even has his own TV show, the Sunday afternoon “Alo, Presidente,” a quirky, often interminable, paean to his father-figure status among true believers.

Chances are that channeling Bolivar, who distrusted the U.S. and dreamed of uniting the continent, will only go so far with those expecting their piece of the action. Rallying cries against “Neo-liberalism” and all things Adam Smith won’t obviate the need for bread-and-butter-issue help. And Venezuelan oil, among the most expensive to extract in the world, is particularly vulnerable to recessionary ripples because of Chavez’s ambitious domestic agenda.

Phil Gunson, who covers Latin America for The Economist magazine and is based in Caracas, thinks Chavez is teetering politically. “Only high oil prices stand between this government and a really frightening economic, social and political collapse,” opined Gunson. “And the worst thing is there’s no organized alternative ready to take over if the government implodes.”

And, yet, there’s no gainsaying the impact of clinics and schools where there were none. Or higher education access for those traditionally excluded. Or community television and public radio for areas previously considered too unimportant. Or the visceral power of “hope” for those who see the face of Venezuela in “a brown man with a mole.”

That Adm. William Fallon stepped down as head of U.S. Central Command didn’t surprise insiders. He’s not on board with key elements of US strategy in the Middle East. He can be a unilateralist – as seen with impending, blindsiding personnel cuts at Centcom. He has a tendency to talk outside of school. And he’s also far from the most popular guy at MacDill Air Force Base. That’s a recipe for resignation.

What’s concerning is that his legitimate issue-differences may be diminished by his ill-timed departure. Among other things, you don’t use Esquire magazine or Al-Jazeera as forums for foreign policy critiques and criticism without repercussions.

Protocol demands that if you feel so strongly on Iraq or, especially, Iran, and see no hope of affecting change, you vent exclusively in-house, then resign, then go public. In that order. And then your views and credibility will not be undercut by an awkwardly high-profile resignation – and the inevitable, anonymous-sourced bad-mouthing sure to follow.

That Fallon was at odds with Iran hawks, while not surprising, is disturbing. Some, including the author (a former Naval War College instructor) of the Esquire article involving Fallon, have projected that a Fallon resignation in the near term could signal a precipitous turn toward war with Iran.

I’m reminded again of the words of Steven Kinzer, the author of “All The Shah’s Men,” who lectured this month at USF. He’s a strong advocate of diplomacy toward Iran.”We’re not yet at the end of political development in Iran,” he stated. “In the long run, be patient; don’t do anything crazy. Democratic elements will become stronger in Iran. There’s more potential for the development of democracy in Iran than any other country in the Middle East.”

Unless, of course, somebody does something “crazy.”

To call it “Checkersesque” wouldn’t be fair to Barack Obama’s recent, riveting speech on race, although the results could be pragmatically similar: saving a candidacy. In “Checkers,” it was Richard Nixon’s1952 vice presidential slot on the Eisenhower ticket that hung in the balance. At stake last week was Obama’s viability as a presidential candidate uniquely positioned to transcend race and the familiar chasms of politics as usual.

Arguably he reclaimed it – although certain inflammatory footage will be recycled should he capture the Democratic Party’s nomination. That Obama talk in Philadelphia was a tour de force on race, the likes of which we’ve not heard before in this country.

Sure, it was imperfect – not unlike this Union. Such as analogizing his white grandmother’s racial stereotyping with his black pastor’s hateful, racist screeds. Or equating anything that the seething, separatist, the Irreverent Jeremiah Wright, shrieked with the politically incorrect comments uttered by Geraldine Ferraro. Or going easy on black Americans’ complicity — by countenancing dysfunctional culture in their midst — in America’s racial disparities.

And yet, for the first time we heard a person of such prominence and uncommon eloquence actually put race into a context that could resonate on both sides of the color divide.

In a speech he crafted himself, Obama reminded us what the stakes are, why anger in those of both hues is real and why “retreat into our respective corners” is a counterproductive non-option. He underscored the unique role and dynamic of the black church and why members of an older black generation that came of age under Jim Crow might be less than sanguine about prospects in America. And he referenced the dichotomies that are the racially private and public lives we all lead in a society too often polarized by pigment and over-corrected by political correctness.

The usual partisans had the usual takes, but there is this irony. It took the venomous, “God damn America” rhetoric of the race-baiting Rev. Wright – and its potential to bring down his parishioner-presidential candidate – to put this critically important speech into play.

It’s been long overdue – and deserves better than the context of damage control. Anything even approaching it – since Martin Luther King Jr. – typically has been delivered by racial hucksters and opportunists, two of whom also ran for president.

One other irony. What are the odds that those who truly undermine America by living down to all its worst racial stereotypes – actually watched and learned anything?

However this all shakes out regarding the Democratic Florida primary fiasco, there’s no lack of principle in play. There’s the principle that “every vote counts” and disenfranchisement should never, ever be countenanced. And then there’s the principle that you “play by the rules” that all parties had agreed to. And then there’s the principle that says, in effect, that if the two aforementioned principles are irreconcilable, then you do the politically expedient thing.

So much for principle.

You don’t have to be Geraldine Ferraro to observe that “If he (Barack Obama) was a white man, he would not be in this position

If anything is truly absurd in the Obama-Clinton dynamic, it is the prospect of an Obama vice presidency. It’s beyond disingenuous for Hillary Clinton or her husband to hold out such a scheme-team ticket to the Democratic faithful. Especially after diminishing his candidacy by saying how ill-prepared Obama was to be commander-in-chief. But a heartbeat away from commander-in-chief is no problem?

Moreover, why would any politician with tons of future upside want to play cabana boy to President Hillary Clinton and Executive President Bill Clinton?

The reactions to the resignation of infirm, 81-year-old Cuban President Fidel Castro have been, for the most part, predictable: whether pragmatically political or purely — and personally — partisan.

The former was in evidence in a bipartisan congressional letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that called for a “complete review” of U.S.-Cuba policy. The missive, with its 104 signatories, referenced America’s failed, Cold War-era policy with Cuba, including the 46-year-old, economic embargo.

“Allies and adversaries alike have rejected our approach,” said the letter, “and instead engage the Cuban government directly on diplomatic issues and make billions in dollars in economic investments on the island, making it even less likely that our sanctions will ever achieve their stated purpose.

“Our policy leaves us without influence at this critical moment, and this serves neither the U.S. national interest nor average Cubans, the intended beneficiaries of our policy.”

Of course, none of those signatories were from Florida, where no one, including Tampa’s own rookie Rep. Kathy Castor, wants to touch the third rail of status quo Cuban politics. “No guts, no glory” obviously doesn’t apply here. More like, “No guts, no sweat – and no needless re-election issue.”

But no reaction was as intriguing as that of high-profile Tampa attorney Ralph Fernandez, the long-time, anti-Castro activist.

Havana native Fernandez, 56, who has represented former Cuban political prisoners, has often railed against any form of rapprochement with the Castro government. He has been highly critical, for example, of Cuban trips undertaken by former Mayor Dick Greco and former Congressman Sam Gibbons. He took up legal recourse for Brothers to the Rescue. He’s been a rhetorically provocative, partisan’s partisan.

These days, however, he has leavened his dogmatic credo with pragmatism.

“We need to call a time out,” says Fernandez, who stresses that an America stretched beyond its geo-political, military and intelligence capacities needs to consider Cuba in a more realistic context.

“The sign of an intelligent person is to change with changing times,” he notes. “We need to revisit everything. Put it all on the table. The embargo. Helms-Burton (Act). Asylum claims. ‘Wet foot-dry foot’ affects our moral position. We want to build fences and kick out people. Then we have people (Cubans) coming over without any connections to political persecution. It makes us look awful to Mexicans.”

And hypocritically ironic. Fernandez cites Saudi Arabia.

“What do we have in common (other than the obvious) with our ally, the Saudis?” he asks rhetorically. “In Cuba, even if they say so, they don’t hate us. They follow the Yankees. They pray to the same God. They drink like us. Their women are opinionated. We have a lot in common. Change is good.”

He sees the change in Miami. He points to the aging exile generation and assimilation. The “road of less resistance” now beckons, he says.

As for Castro, Fernandez remains perversely smitten – and unforgiving.

“Castro is a unique package,” avers Fernandez. “A brilliant orator. A voracious reader. He’s knowledgeable about everything, although not as knowledgeable as he thinks. He’s intellectually superior to most people. And he’s 100 per cent evil. But charismatically evil. No one could ever duplicate his feat of negative accomplishment.”

Fernandez thinks it’s only fitting that Castro, for all the summary executions, legions of political prisoners, confiscations, expropriations and monumental economic failures, leaves the world’s stage looking like a forlorn failure. “The world will remember him as a weak, pajama-clad soul who outlived himself,” he states.

But Castro shouldn’t be allowed to simply fade from the scene, says Fernandez, who still seeks retribution.

“This president has pandered to the (exile) Cubans more than anyone, and he has an obligation,” declares Fernandez. “We should indict him (for the Brothers to the Rescue shoot-down). Take it as far as possible. He no longer has head-of-state exemption. The government should prosecute the case.

“We can’t forgive him for the thousands he executed,” underscores Fernandez. “It sends the wrong message to the enemies of America if we forgive that. We go across the world to kill for far less. This would make some progress to closure, part of the healing process. Sure, it may be a Pyrrhic victory. But it’s important that he goes down as a criminal.”

As for the new, post-Fidel regime, Fernandez is “cautiously optimistic.”

Change, he projects, will be “gradual.” Should Raul Castro, 76, who’s hinted at reform, formally succeed — as expected — his brother as President of Cuba’s Council of State, it will belie what’s going on internally. Fernandez perceives orchestration and likens it, ironically, to “an old Soviet power play.”

While the cast of characters will feature Raul Castro, as well as Finance Minister Carlos Lage, 56, and Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, 42, Fernandez is wary of “younger talent coming in” from the powerful network of intelligence operatives. He says he’s heard “rumblings” — but no names.

Of this, however, he’s certain: Raul is not the right man for the job.

“He has no longevity,” says Fernandez. “He can’t hold it together. He has known dependencies (alcohol). He’s not sharp enough to run Cuba. Plus, to run Cuba, you need to be charismatic.”

And a final Fernandez take on the Castro resignation: “It was a really good day.”

So what’s with the flap over John Mellencamp denying John McCain use of his songs at campaign events? So the balladeer of middle class sufferance looks askance at the McCain candidacy? So McCain is precluded from using “Our Country” and “Pink Houses”?

McCain had a winner on his last Tampa visit. No, not the Four Tops number that preceded his Tampa Convention Center speech, the one that most folks still think is “Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch.” But it’s actually “I Can’t Help Myself.” That would, of course, be fodder for the Democrats as well as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

But what’s wrong with “Johnny B. Goode,” which followed his Tampa presentation – along with a volley from confetti guns? Johnny might not be good enough for evangelicals, but Chuck Berry over John Mellencamp is a winner.

For those still concerned that the Democratic primary could still be decided by super-delegates, here’s a suggestion. Do a Florida and Michigan re-vote — not a caucus — in the spring. And fund it from the obscene coffers of the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

Florida, for one, can’t afford it, and they can. But this democracy can’t afford the perception, let alone the reality, that regular voters matter less than political elites.

Last fall Hillary Clinton changed her position on torture. She said, “As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period.” That’s straightforward and consistent with American ideals, even in a perilous world.

The previous year she had said, “In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable.” She called it a “very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances.”

She was slammed by Barack Obama for having taken that initial position.

Two points.

First, what’s wrong with changing your mind, especially after getting military input? As if there were no precedent for presidential candidates changing, indeed, routinely overhauling, multiple positions to accommodate the politics of the moment.

Second, maybe she, ironically, shouldn’t have changed at all.

Maybe just fine-tuned a more appropriate response. To wit:

“If I, as president, were ever confronted with a situation where we have a detainee – and not some low-level dragnetee – who we know – not just suspect – has knowledge of an imminent – not indeterminable — threat to millions of Americans, then you can rest assured that I would do what most Americans would want their president to do: err on the side of millions of American lives. And then be prepared to take whatever heat is generated.”

Candor has to count for something.