Kevin Grier writes:
Don't get me wrong here, I'm NOT endorsing Hugo. Do I think that Chavez and his policies are going to serve the long term economic interests of Venezuela? NO. Do I think Chavez is a charming guy? NO. Would I be sad if Chavez lost power? NO. If George Bush and Chavez were in a burning building and I could only save one would it be Chavez? NO.
Now look: I'm neither particularly enamored nor distressed over Chavez. I think he should probably be channeling more oil revenues into infrastructure development and the diversification of the Venezuelan economy, but, as Kevin points out, "Venezuela has relatively high levels of income inequality (a gini coefficient in 2000 of around .44 compared to .36 for the US according to the UN) from a relatively low base and was run by a corrupt elite class who swallowed up oil wealth while the economic standing of the country plummeted," so I don't cry too many tears for the country's elite.
To get back to the burning building, though: Size matters. Say what you will about Chavez, but the worst he's doing is harming a small country's economy. Bush is playing on a larger field. Given the scale, if Bush is even a tenth as malign as Chavez -- and I'd argue he's quite a bit worse than that -- the impact of his actions, thanks to the size and power of the country he helms, far overwhelms anything Chavez can lay claim to.
There's a conceptual flaw in our tendency to compare various world leaders based on their actions as individuals rather than how their personal qualities interact with their country's capabilities. Put it this way: A heavily armed bodybuilder with occasional rage blackouts is quite a bit more worrisome than a sociopathic six-year-old who can do little more than pick the wings off flies. The kid may be nastier, but the muscleman is considerably more dangerous. And, similarly, there are plenty of world leaders who'd prove more unsettling after a psychological evaluation than Bush. But none are near as dangerous.
