The left in the Americas and the Problem with Losing the Moral High Ground on Venezuela

Photo: The Tico Times

“Where have you gone, Progressives of the New World?  A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, uh, uh, uh.”

Given how the Venezuelan situation is reverberating throughout Latin America and Southern Florida, I find the timid attitude of the Latin American left, and of U.S. democrats, to be both baffling and outrageous.

As a Venezuelan, this ambivalence is unacceptable. For instance, the role of U.S. Democrats and the Vatican was pivotal for the collapse of a recall referendum that could have ended this situation democratically in 2016. Some argue that Obama and Bergoglio opted to throw Maduro a lifeline as a way to stabilize the peace process in Colombia (in which chavismo mediated on FARC’s side). Whatever the reasons, Venezuelans are suffering the consequences.

But beyond mad, I find myself increasingly intrigued. In sharing standard brands and themes with chavismo, the left should be most interested in separating explicitly and credibly from their brutality. This should also be the easiest moment to do so, given how overall attitudes on chavismo have shifted from where they were 10 years ago.

So why don’t we see the Latin American left and U.S. Democrats being, at least, as aggressively outspoken against chavismo as the Uribes and the Trumps of the world?

One rough explanation would be that they’re chavismo’s ideological allies. They won’t go against someone who’s doing something they’d like to do in their countries. If you’re thinking about expropriating land, capturing monetary policy, concentrating political power and repressing dissent, then you’re probably less willing to reject chavismo openly.

In sharing standard brands and themes with chavismo, the left should be most interested in separating explicitly and credibly from their brutality.

This does not describe most U.S. Democrats –I find much more of Chávez in Trump’s personalism. Nevertheless, Democrats have been super timid about condemning chavismo: Bernie Sanders, who outspokenly supported Chavismo at least until 2011, opted for the “of course I have an opinion, but I have no comments” alternative during the last democratic primaries.

Hillary, towards the end of her campaign against Trump, did bring the issue up in an attempt to rally the Latino vote – without saying much about Obama’s ongoing policy or what she would do differently. It was too little, too late: In Florida, where Republicans won by a narrow margin, Cuban voters (who are representative of Venezuelan voters on this issue) didn’t support Hillary as strongly as other Latinos.

The case looks different in Latin America, which is worrisome given the string of elections happening this year. The front running candidates in Mexico and Colombia, both with populist platforms against markets and economic integration, have already presented the idea of a Constitutional Assembly – literally the first thing Chávez did as president. This logic of supraconstitutional control over the nation was the core chavista strategy during these long 20 years. In the context of the ongoing populist swing worldwide, the fact that these are the front-running candidates suggests that the chance of the Venezuelan experience coming about elsewhere in the region is real.  

But do these candidates represent the left in their countries? In Mexico, only José Antonio Meade, PRI’s technocratic candidate from within the incumbent government (which is highly unpopular, but very anti-chavista), seems a viable option from the center-left.

The case looks different in Colombia, where there are a number of moderate left wing candidates in open race. As you can see here, their positions are of the “chavismo was a result of previous governments” kind – that is, way too shy.

The front running candidates in Mexico and Colombia, both with populist platforms against markets and economic integration, have already presented the idea of a Constitutional Assembly.

This is in direct contrast to what the right is doing. The right has all the incentives to be opportunistic on the left’s ambivalence, and the fear that news from Venezuela instills on their citizens. This worked for Trump and Piñera, it worked in Colombia during the peace process, and it worked in Mexico against AMLO. Sadly, if left unaddressed, the politics of fear work.

The Colombian case is particularly interesting. Uribismo milks the cow of “those not with me are all ‘castro-chavistas’” with impunity. The answer from center-left commentators is frequently to disregard the accusation, even as a joke, an attitude at peak display in La Pulla’s latest video on Venezuela. Distasteful and alienating, the gist of her argument is that, because Colombian institutions are so mighty and solid, the threat is not real over there – that is, the whole thing is a fabricated non-issue, and Colombians should better focus on something else.

Without engaging with her Venezuela no es Cuba kind of thesis, the point is that dismissing the fear that comes from “mírate en este espejo” leads to all the wrong political prescriptions.

First, acting dismissively hands the moral high ground on this existential issue to your adversary. Second, if you are a candidate from the left, it’s clearly strategic for your rivals to highlight your ambivalence, turning the election about an ideological crossroad. Third, Venezuelans in your country and back home, for whom this is just too personal and painful, will become suspicious of your silence and will start supporting the right. Fourth, these dynamics will nudge Venezuelan political leaders to ally with the Right and endorse their candidacies. Overall, you’ve allowed the Right the chance to define you in the worst possible light, lending credibility to accusations by alienating Venezuelans against you.

So, say you are a center-left candidate who wants to see your country develop into a more prosperous and fair nation. While you would never think of going full-commie, you do think it’s important to expand public goods and services for everyone, especially the poor. You think what’s going on in Venezuela is appalling, yet you find yourself on the receiving end of these unfair and manipulative attacks.

How do you go about it? Don’t dismiss the issue and own the attack head on. You might want to:

  1. Be outspoken and specific about rejecting chavismo, about your stance on what your country and the region are doing about it, and about how you would deal with it if you become president. This would make it costly for your potential presidency to ally with chavismo, further lending reassurance to your voters and to Venezuelan observers;
  2. Be outspoken and specific about how you’ll address the Venezuelan refugee crisis. Reshape the debate into an anti-discrimination issue. Show solidarity and empathy, which is a great way to get support from Venezuelans, and a credible way of implying that you would never do what chavismo did;
  3. Try to build a consensus platform on Venezuela across campaigns, underscoring how the emergency calls for a unified stance agreed by all camps. This will allow you to regain control over the issue and insulate you from future attacks, letting the debate to flow into issues you want to address;
  4. Rescind any campaign connections with chavismo’s allies within your country. This is key for credibility: these connections open a huge flank, because they underscore where your policy commitments will be as president. Letting these guys loose may shrink your initial base, but it will get you closer to the median voter. This was consequential in the recent Chilean race;
  5. Accuse candidates that do indeed represent a threat. The Petros and AMLOs of your country shouldn’t agree with your consensus platform on Venezuela, so it should work as a credible mechanism to separate yourself from them.

As Drew Westen puts it, in politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. The Venezuelan crisis presents the region with a deeply normative juncture that elicits some of the strongest human emotions: The sadness of loss on those of us who have lived through these last 20 years, and the fear of loss of those who worry about a similar future for their families. In this dramatic context, silence speaks louder than words.

People vote for the character of candidates, and platforms should be signals of that character. Only a clear resolve on this sensitive topic will prevent your rivals from defining your character for you. Respect our loss, and respect the fear of your people – because, in the words of Master Yoda, “fear of loss is a path to the dark side.”

Previous articleAt the Vanguard
Next articleThe Nicaraguan Strategy
I work in development economics for countries with governments that want to deal with (some of) their issues. I think I'm a fiscally-responsible progressive. I've thought a bit about the Political Economy of oil in Venezuela, and I worry about the politics of the things that need to happen. I think Rómulo Betancourt, Adolfo Suárez and George Washington were exemplary politicians. What I miss the most about Venezuela: My family, my friends, my weather, my food, my band, and teaching in my university.


  1. “So why don’t we see the Latin American left and U.S. Democrats being, at least, as aggressively outspoken against chavismo as the Uribes and the Trumps of the world”

    Many of them will never say anything against chavismo because they are directly working under castro communism, the creators of chavismo in Latin America.

    • It is a quicktake outline for those running for office in LA on how to politically deal with the issue of Venezuela in general and Chavismo specifically.

    • Ira, agreed.

      But the general thrust of the article is this: if international Leftists would merely try harder to distinguish themselves from the Venezuelan tyranny, it would become clear to everyone that there is no inherent danger linked with centralized power and rejection of free markets.

      Therefore, Leftists could march on and win more electoral victories, which has brought so much prosperity and happiness in the past. Never mind the 100 million murdered by Leftists, the thousands of starving families everywhere from Azerbaijan to Zulia, the extreme violence one finds in cities and countries led by Leftists.

    • Socialism is a venom. It attacks the logical thought process causing cognitive channel blockage resulting in a condition of “fame spiritualis” which is extremely debilitating, causing rashes towards others, and is usually fatal. At the first signs of infection a visit to the library is recommended. Antivenom is available in the form of logic and applied logic such as “Common Sense” (T. Paine) or “The Wealth of Nations” (A. Smith) or heavy doses of “Capitalism and Freedom” (M. Friedman – Timely treatment may reduce both the symptoms of hateful, irrational speech and writing, as well as reducing the infection itself.

      • Actually, I hadn’t started reading “Capitalism and Freedom” until today. It kind of surprises me to find this sentence: “To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them.” I have posted here more than a few times that the proper role of government is to provide a stable and predictable environment in which individuals are free to produce and prosper. The correct and logical is intuitive to the individual. Maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised.

        • Unfortunately, such wise statements are utterly lost on the writers for CC.

          It’s not that they are incapable of complex thoughts, but, they cannot admit their mistakes.

          Chavismo is what it always was. This author just can’t grasp that fact.

          Good to see him stay with the “Trump is Chavez” mantra. Would hate to see him be inconsistent.

          BTW: 300k+ jobs added in the USA. Imagine what Trump could have accomplished if only he had embraced his inner Maduro.

          • “Inner Maduro” (LOL!)

            It’s the relative deficiency of morals and morality that seem to be, (echoing a movie), “for lack of better words”, inbred. I just read an article about Puerto Rico and what has become of the billions the U.S. pumped into it to recover from Irma and Maria. How does one spell “guiso” in Puerto Rican? They know it injures them all, we know it happens, yet we continue to pour money down rat holes, and it doesn’t seem to get any better. The notion that government is a caretaker is what doesn’t go down.

    • I am having the same problem. Is this an essay on how to preserve the “standard brands and themes [of] chavismo” through deflection, rather than subjecting them to rigorous falsification? To distinguish chavismo as the “wrong socialists in charge” due to their brutality? At times it seems so.

      Yet, he deems AMLO and Petro (not the digital coin) the populist dangers that they are, and urges that they be distinguished and isolated.

      Still, he does not urge a vigorous defense of liberal democratic institutionalism domestically and in Venezuela, thereby pulling the one punch that matters.

  2. It seems to me that you have, as a center leftist, your priorities reversed. First you get a robust economy, then you gage what extra help is needed. And I don’t mean this in a temporal sense: you can do both at the same time.

    Not first Mercal and then a free exchange rate.

    Or, as a friend of mine once put it: everybody wants to be the merciful king. But mercy doesn’t make kings, it requieres them.

  3. Didn’t you guys watch the Oscars and all the other USA award shows? Leftists are kind wonderful people and the Right is deplorable…

    Chile is a stable and prosperous nation, Cuba is a sex tourist destination yet Pinochet is reviled and Castro is a G-d

    Left = Good Right = Bad… It’s bad in the USA and it’s worse in Lat Am.

    While bad for Venezuela, I think the example your dictators are setting is a great one for the rest of the region. Cuba is an island, they can limit LatAms exposure to their tragedy. And with the USA offering, until recently, easy access, the rest of LatAm didn’t have desperate Cubans flooding their countries. (Except for Doctor/Slave labor who when given the chance went to the USA anyway)

    But now, poor Venezuelans are flooding into countries that have had a strong leftist presence. Perhaps that university student in Brazil or Columbia in a Che T shirt will notice and maybe think…

    • I’m not so sure anyone watches the Oscars anymore. Nothing but self congratulatory, ass kissing Leftists who get a free 30 second shot at popping off about this or that latest outrage.**

      Brando (1973) set the standard for self-importance and pompous arrogance with his Indian princess. Everything else since has been a weak attempt.

      **I did see Wes Studi’s native language presentation on YouTube the next day, a tribute to vets and Native Americans who served. “Hello. Appreciation to all veterans & Cherokees who’ve served. Thank you!” (In Cherokee!) Pure class.

    • “Perhaps that university student in Brazil or Columbia in a Che T shirt will notice and maybe think…”

      Sure, they will think … that the poor Venezuelans are victims of the economic war waged by evil capitalist imperialist colonialist cisheteronormative white supremacist capitalist patriarchy that only cares about making a profit by stealing the fruits of the labor of the poor and downtrodden.

      • One of my daughters (#1) was pretty centrist when she left for college. Within 3 years of leaving home, she was a bed wetting liberal. (sounds like VZ kids are no better than US kids!)

        Now that she is out and earning an income, she is veering back toward the center, as her uber-progressive unemployable friends have turned out to be anything but contributing members of society post college graduation. Perpetual victims of (fill in the blank) who have 1001 reasons for why they can’t make an income doing what they WANT to do… not the least of which is their majors were not conducive to earning any sort of income beyond what a Starbucks barista might earn.

        The best you can do with your own college kids is make sure that they aren’t hypocritical. I warned my kids early on that college was for preparing them for their careers, not a protest march. If I got a call from the provost saying that my kid was involved in a protest/sit in that resulting in arrest, they could pay for their own damn education. And they knew damn well that I’d better not see any Mao posters or Che t-shirts.

        “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”

        • That’s why I went to science / engineering / agriculture university. You learn something useful instead learning how to bitch and moan about the inequalities of universe. Learn thermodynamics / economics / sciences / medicine / animal and plant biology. I know that it is “boring” for many. But it is something that always helps understand reality. (I didn’t include law – politics – always can result Chavez like assholes)

  4. One more thing, the title of this article is “…losing the moral high ground..”

    No one has a permanent claim to the moral high ground, in healthy societies, the high ground is fought over, debated, and most importantly voted on… It doesn’t belong to any one just because, leftist.

  5. Not a huge fan of leftists in general, less so after we saw what’s happened in Venezuela and elsewhere under the guise of “socialism”

    I sincerely hope that Chavismo sticks to socialism like a fly on poo for the rest of the ages.

    While I do believe in a better management of public resources for the benefit of all, the thing I keep coming back to is how socialism is like that drug laced candy the drug dealer pushes on kids.

    Easy to hook people onto, bad consequences down the road for all.

    • This is why Chavismo must be allowed to fail all on its own. Let Maduro and Diosdado and Delcy OWN ALL OF IT. The AN is sidelined. The opposition has ZERO power. This mess is all on Chavismo.

      We cannot allow US troops to shorten the course of the Marxist/Leninist cancer. Only when the former Chavista faithful start manning the barricades and torching military vehicles and burning down their own hovels will the cancer be cut out.

      • Yes!!! We have watch the cancer patient go through Metastasis and die on own (no chemo / radiation or drugs to ease to pain (ignore coke). I can’t offer a pretty prognosis about its course. But its has to be left to run own course.

        • It’s more a case.of the patient refusing treatment that they know would do more good than drinking herbal tea for what ails them.

          But they get to feel good till the end because the medical marijuana is free. Weeds are easier to grow than food, anyhow.

          Ignorance is bliss.

  6. They get a free pass.
    The most backward ideology gets called “progressive”.
    They can kill at will “in the name of the people” and be revered.
    They can “distance” themselves for the predictable debacle just by saying “it wasn’t real socialism”.
    No wonder Latin America never progresses.
    Nauseating article.
    The provebial “RANCHO EN LA CABEZA”.

  7. The US “liberal” left used to be the ones who valued free speech, dissent and conflicting opinions.
    Now it has become the Neo-Communist party.
    They loved chavez and castro.
    Now they want to shut up anyone with a different opinion than their own.
    They cannot bring themselves to say anything bad about the chavistas, because they would be saying they made a mistake.

    • Liberals claim that everyone is entitled to an opinion. They are then shocked and offended of someone’s opinion differs from their own.
      Social media campaigns are playing into this group think. People desire to be accepted and immediately jump on all types of bandwagons when whatever the cause / outrage of the day sweeps across Twitter or Facebook.
      Critical thinking and educating oneself on issues has taken a backseat to group think.

  8. I find the timid attitude …. of U.S. democrats, to be both baffling and outrageous.

    Part of it is that many Democrats are of the opinion that non-intervention is nearly always the way to go, given the alleged evil effects of US interventions in the Third World. Or Democrats have the opinion that as the US is so EEVUL, the Great Sinner incarnate- just think of the various prog narratives- who are we to condemn others? This, of course, sets up some odd situations, such as feminists refusing to denounce how women are treated in Muslim countries while they are very vocal in the US- a country where women get a much better deal compared to Muslim nations. Or in Chavezuela? Ditto homosexuals- who are treated much worse in Chavezuela or Muslim nations than in the US. Where are US gay activists loud, and where quiet? You betcha. (With at least one exception- Bruce Bawer. But he no longer lives in the US, which is a good segue into the next paragraph.)

    In addition, most Democrats don’t really care about foreign policy, because they don’t really care about what goes on outside the borders of the US. Which means that instead of treating foreign policy as an entity of inherent importance for the US , foreign policy is for many Democrats merely an extension of domestic policy. This often results in knee-jerk reactions. If a Republican President proposes a given foreign policy stance, that is often prima facie evidence that the given foreign policy is bad. Which helps explain why all but 5 Democrat Senators voted against Bush the Elder’s Gulf War I with Saddam back in 1991. Or consider Kerry’s and Pelosi’s pilgrimages to Damascus to denounce the EEVUL policies of George W Bush- a pilgrimage which the racist David Duke also made. Since David Duke was also an enemy of George W Bush- ignoring that Duke also gave anti-Semitic reasons for opposing Bush policy on Iraq- Pelosi and Kerry saw no problem in aligning with David Duke on Iraq.

    I suggest you research how the Democrat politician John Kerry- US Senator, Presidential candidate and Secretary of State- was a de facto fanboy of the Sandinistas back in the 1980s. Then you wouldn’t be so baffled, so surprised, so shocked, so disappointed, so outraged. As Reagan was an enemy of the Sandinistas, and any enemy of Reagan became a friend of the Democrats, it all made sense to Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry and many Democrats found it much easier to denounce an EEVUL Republican like Reagan than a Third World dictatorship that supported Soviet imperialism- which the Sandinistas definitely did. The Sandinistas supported Soviet imperialism from the start, when President Carter was trying to establish good relations with the Sandinistas. (Or even decades before they took power. Carlos Fonseca was of the 3 founders of the FSLN. In his book, Un Nicaraguense en Moscu, Fonscea supported the 1956 Soviet crushing of the Hungarian Revolution.)

    The Sandinistas, far from being “independent leftists,” were open and explicit backers of Soviet imperialism. Before three months had passed after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with 100,000+ troops, the Sandinistas signed a joint proclamation with the Soviet Union:
    “The Soviet Union and Nicaragua resolutely condemn the campaign that the imperialist and reactionary forces have launched of building up international tension in connection with the events of Afghanistan, a campaign aimed at subverting the inalienable right of the people of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and other peoples of the world to follow the path of progressive transformation.”

    Recall that in 1980, President Carter was trying to establish good relations with the Sandinistas, so it would not be accurate to claim that the US pushed the Sandinistas into the lap of the Soviets.

    In addition Robert Czarkowski, a Polish citizen, entered Nicaragua in early 1982 on a tourist visa. He was arrested at the border on suspicion of belong to Solidarity. After five months in jail, he was finally released. He wrote about his experiences in De Polonia a Nicaragua.

    With Senator Kerry being a a fanboy of the Sandinistas, who had shown themselves to be outright supporters of Soviet imperialism, it is no surprise to me the record of Democrats with regard to Chavezuela, though it may surprise you, Democrats are much more comfortable with denouncing EEVUL Republicans, such as Reagan or Trump, then they are with denouncing evil on the part of Third World dictators.

    If a Republican President denounces a Third World Dictator, for many Democrats that is prima facie evidence that said Third World dictator isn’t so bad. For many Democrats, foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics. If a Republican President proposes a given foreign policy, it must be bad.

    So here are at least 3 reasons why Democrats are so quiet about Venezuela. 1) Shame at previous US interventions in Third World countries. 2) Refusal to be judgmental about foreign countries- save being judgmental for those deplorable Republicans! 3) Indifference to actual foreign policy, which often leads them to treat foreign policy as an extension of domestic policy, often resulting in knee-jerk opposition to Republican foreign policy stances.

    I would add a personal note. My experience as a tourist and worker in Latin America weaned me away from seeing the US as the Great Sinner- both in its foreign policy and in comparing the US domestic scene to what I saw at ground level in Latin America. Which means that I view Democrats who take the Great Sinner stance about the US as people who know very little about the world outside the US.

    • I only read the first two paragraphs, and it is just mind-boggling to think that there are people who believe the Democrats are strict anti-interventionists. It was a Democrat, after all, who intervened in Bosnia; it was a Democratic president who ramped up the troops in Afghanistan; it was a Democratic president who intervened in Libya; it was a Democratic president who was arming rebels in Syria; it was a Democratic president who continued drone warfare in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Like… for real?

      • Your point is well-taken. Perhaps it would be better phrased that Democrats are much more inclined be anti-interventionist when the President is a Republican. Such as Gulf War I.

      • Perhaps you should have read more than the first two paragraphs, because I presented a number of examples to show that Democrats are anti-interventionist- at least when the President is Republican. Your point that Democrat Presidents have provided quite a few examples of intervention is a point well taken.

      • It was successive Democrats JFK and LBJ that got us deep into the Vietnam war.
        The only Place Hillary Clinton didn’t want to send troops to was Benghazi.
        The Liberals don’t seem to have any problem putting others in harm’s way. At the same time they don’t want to commit to supporting the military.

  9. This worked for Trump and Piñera, it worked in Colombia during the peace process, and it worked in Mexico against AMLO. Sadly, if left unaddressed, the politics of fear work.

    Let me fix that for you.
    Sadly ?, if left unaddressed, the politics of fear telling the truth work.

    That so many Latino lefties want to go the WHAT WE NEED IS A NEW CONSTITUTION route, just like Chavezuela did in 1999, should inform you that the reason they do not denounce Chavezuela is because they are more inclined to see Chavezuela as a model instead of as a warning.

    No enemies on the left and all that. The autocratic tendency on the left is very strong. No accident that the Chavezuela fanboys such as Correa, Evo, and Daniel Ortega are all autocrats. Lefty autocrats look at Chavezuela and conclude that when THEY get absolute power to bring about lefty heaven on earth, they will get it right THIS time, unlike Chavezuela, unlike Cuba, unlike the USSR………

    There is a very strong underlying autocratic tendency in Latin American politics. The man on horseback is a strong, long-lasting theme in Latin America. The man on horseback was expelled from Venezuelan politics in 1958. Most of us thought the man on horseback, although he had ruled Venezuela pretty much since Independence, was now permanently banished from Venezuela. We found out differently.

  10. “So, say you are a center-left candidate who wants to see your country develop into a more prosperous and fair nation. While you would never think of going full-commie, you do think it’s important to expand public goods and services for everyone, especially the poor. You think what’s going on in Venezuela is appalling, yet you find yourself on the receiving end of these unfair and manipulative attacks.

    Let’s see what we got here:
    – CC is now in the business of helping leftists in LatAm win their elections.
    – A little never-working income redistribution by bureaucrats is fine, while full-commie is not. As if after the former doesn’t work they wouldn’t go on to the latter.
    – “Public goods and services for everyone” don’t work unless you tax the living hell out of everybody. Then again it won’t be sustainable in the long term. Econ 101.
    – They whitewash basic rights violations in Venezuela but attacks are “unfair and manipulative”. With all due respect, go fuck yourself.

    I thought this blog hit bottom with its Editor’s pathetic post declaring himself a Falconista a couple of days ago, but this one shows they’ll keep digging.

  11. Just tell them the truth: Yes, you want to make it like in Venezuela, only with lots more free stuff.

    You will win in a landslide.

  12. I could never understand why venezuelans put up with all the chavista madness. Reading articles like this in one of the main opposition blog helps to clarify why.

    Thanks CC.

  13. The left won’t criticize Chavismo because it did everything in the left’s wish list and it failed. Hence the silence. And that silence is particularly noteworthy if not revolting because there, to my knowledge, has not been a signifacant protest march in London, Paris, Rome etc because the left marches but not to demonstrate against fellow leftists. Hypocrisy is the name of the game and I would love to hear Quico’s explanation for the profound silence from the workd’s leftists to the horror of Venezuela. I can’t comment on south american leftist silence but I am more conversant about the silence of the Democrat party in the US. Recall Nicaragua and how the American left twisted itself into a pretzel because Danny Ortega was their man. Believee me if the Chavistas were a right wing party the Democrats would be marching in LA , San Francisco and up and down the east coast and the NY Times would be breathlessing braying against the Chavistas. Call it professional courtesy. The left does not protest the left period. Thanks for reporting about this issue. It is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Shame on the left. Bunch of hypocrits.

  14. The only thing the left gonna say about the Chavismo madness is whisper in the lonely of their own palaces a self-congratulating Hail Hydra

  15. “So, say you are a center-left candidate who wants to see your country develop into a more prosperous and fair nation.”
    The left, including the “center left” these days, doesn’t give a DAMN about prosperity. Only equality of outcome and “fairness” as they define it, which always means taking freedoms and money from people. Consequences that kill prosperity are of no consequence to them because they feel so good about themselves.

  16. All socialists are like that, it is true socialism worth defending until hunger kicks in and then “it was never real socialism”

  17. The Left is rooting for Maduro. I guess the author missed that day in class when this was explained.

    Socialism and communists are not failing in VZ. The problem is that it is working exactly as it always has and always will. It is succeeding as it should. How is this hard to understand?

    The show on display before us is exactly what Bernie Sanders and Faucahontas we’re hoping to bring to the United States.

    So before you author another article that shows your ignorance of what the “progressives” are about, maybe try to realize why Trump supporters want to do things differently.

    Things like smaller gubmint, fewer taxes, making/holding people responsible for their actions… Just the little things in life.

    But, have it your way. Just be grown up enough to stop asking for handouts when we see how quickly you bit us last time. No leftists are going to rescue you… Help yourself first.

    Trump will never send in the military until the AN and the exciled TSJ (rightfully elected) give legal coverage to US/Intl troops. Enjoy the show!!! You have earned it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here