Hugo Chavez was an aspiring dictator who clamped down on civil liberties in Venezuela, spouted anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, and grossly mismanaged his country — but such a record didn’t stop some liberals in America and abroad from mourning the demagogue’s death from cancer Tuesday.

From the world of politics, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter mourned Chavez’s death in a statement, and British Member of Parliament George Galloway, who was last seen storming out of a debate in horror when he discovered he was talking to an Israeli, tweeted his condolences.

Farewell Comandante Hugo Chavez champion of the poor the oppressed everywhere. Modern day Spartacus. Rest in Peace.

— George Galloway (@georgegalloway) March 5, 2013

The Nation magazine’s Greg Grandin perhaps outdid all of the Chavez eulogies with his fawning obituary.

Speaking of the media’s reaction to Chavez’s clownish 2006 speech at the United Nations, in which the Venezuelan leader called President George W. Bush “the devil,” Grandin wrote that what really bothered American elites was that Chavez was claiming a right American opinion makers and leaders reserved for themselves.

“I think what really rankled was that Chávez was claiming a privilege that had long belonged to the US, that is, the right to paint its adversaries not as rational actors but as existential evil,” he wrote.

Saying that he is “what they call a useful idiot when it comes to Hugo Chávez,” Grandin went on to dismissively compare the worldview of Chavez’s opponents to that of Mitt Romney.

“Chávez’s detractors see this mobilized sector of the population much the way Mitt Romney saw 47 percent of the US electorate, not as citizens but parasites, moochers sucking on the oil-rent teat,” he wrote.

Sure, “Chávez was a strongman,” Grandin admitted. “He packed the courts, hounded the corporate media, legislated by decree and pretty much did away with any effective system of institutional checks or balances.”

But the “biggest problem Venezuela faced during his rule,” he continued, “was not that Chávez was authoritarian but that he wasn’t authoritarian enough.”

“It wasn’t too much control that was the problem but too little,” he wrote.

Continue reading →