jcberry

Not keen on the Gaetz pick. Just some things too extreme.

The new Avengers!

I don’t know how Elon is going to juggle all these jobs. We do need an outside eye to look at this behemoth.

I don’t want to get too ahead of myself, but this is turning out to be too good to be true. There is a lot of animosity still. It’s only been a few days.

I want to say something “profound”–can’t do it. Sometimes elation is all that is needed. The precipice was avoided. For democracy, for independence, for family, faith, and freedom.

We’re flying illegal immigrants to swing states where the margin of victory is only in the thousands. The democrats want to legalize them as soon as possible.

Is there any doubt on why this is happening?

There’s a certainty: if one wins, the other will deny it.

Is there an objective observer? Whom would it be? We’ve come so far, yet so short of what we should be.

This is disappointing before it happens.

Until recently, Americans were not accustomed to violent political unrest. But the dissent and violence during the George Floyd riots in places like Minneapolis upended our ability to tune out political turmoil. Freedom of speech, association, and assembly have always been ingrained in our culture, and we’re used to generally less repressive responses by authorities to those kind of events in the US.

Meanwhile, Americans have seen increased concerns about election integrity and voter suppression. While not as severe as in Venezuela, these issues have the potential to erode trust in democratic institutions and lead to political instability. It is important to note that the current crisis in Venezuela is the result of economic mismanagement, political repression, and corruption–hallmarks of socialism. Key events contributed to the crisis and the aforementioned are not an exhaustive list. The situation in Venezuela remains fluid and uncertain, and it will require a concerted effort from both the Venezuelan people and the international community to find a lasting solution.

Americans should understand the parallels between the rise of socialism in Venezuela and the current state of affairs in the US. For now, the US has stronger democratic institutions and a more diversified economy. But the embrace of socialist policies and the erosion of democratic norms could lead to challenges similar to Venezuela in the long run. We should learn from Venezuela’s mistakes and strive for a balanced approach that promotes both economic prosperity and individual freedoms.

The US’s reservoirs of tax money are not unlimited. For every federal outlay, more money is borrowed. The author of the Great Society, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, “It is not enough just to send in a cheque. Real charity isn’t giving away what you don’t need. Real charity is sacrifice.” Unfortunately, the sacrifice is of taxpayers for programs in sore need for reform. Pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.

While a social safety net is something that we as Americans have assented to, more socialism will not solve our social ills. The socialist solution has been tried and that way leads to debt and disaster.

Americans have avoided the most severe reactions to occasional economic downturns due to, among other things, fluctuations in global commodity prices. Despite the Great Recession and “quantitative easing,” we’ve profited from a more diversified economy and stronger institutions. The risk lies in our increasing reliance on government intervention and unsustainable spending resulting in long-term economic instability.

The US has seen a growing divide between the two major political parties. Populist leaders in the US, both on the left and the right, have seen a surge of support. Americans are disillusioned with the political establishment. Populist leaders offer appealing short-term solutions that could lead to long-term economic and political challenges.

With increasing polarization and gridlock, we may be facing economic challenges and a need for necessary reforms that require cooperation.
Calls for constitutional changes and a “political revolution” power American progressive movements. While these calls are often framed in terms of social justice and equality, they inevitably lead to the concentration of power and the erosion of checks and balances.

Despite such warning signs, the US has seen a push for increased government intervention in the economy. The Harris campaign has suggested price controls and nationalization of certain industries, which could lead to similar economic distortions and discourage private investment.

While there has lately been some dissent over allegations of election fraud in the U.S., the 2018 and 2024 Venezuelan presidential elections were marred by irregularities and allegations of fraud to where the legitimacy of the Maduro government has been called into question by international bodies.

Widespread protests against the Maduro government have been met with repression and violence. As mentioned earlier, dissent over radical economic reforms can lead to government crackdowns on democratic freedoms. National instability can follow. The Venezuelan government should have respected the right to peaceful protest and engaged in dialogue with the opposition to address the legitimate grievances of the people.

Widespread protests against the Maduro government have been met with repression and violence. As mentioned earlier, dissent over radical economic reforms can lead to government crackdowns on democratic freedoms. National instability can follow.
The Venezuelan government should have respected the right to peaceful protest and engaged in dialogue with the opposition to address the legitimate grievances of the people.

The death of Chávez in 2013 and the subsequent election of Nicolás Maduro further exacerbated the crisis. Rather than a “new way forward,” Maduro’s government continued Chávez’s policies, leading to hyperinflation, economic collapse, and a humanitarian crisis.
The Venezuelan government could have implemented comprehensive economic reforms, including removing price controls and liberalizing the exchange rate. It could also have respected democratic institutions and engaged in dialogue with the opposition to find a peaceful solution to the economic crisis.

The adoption of a new constitution in 1999 and the launch of the Bolivarian Revolution further consolidated Chávez’s power and led to the implementation of policies that ultimately were proved unsustainable. Venezuelans voted for granting Chávez sweeping powers and a more balanced approach to economic and social reforms. But these policies contributed to the country’s economic decline.

The election of Hugo Chávez marked a turning point in Venezuelan politics. Venezuelans were disillusioned with traditional political parties and were attracted to Chavez’s populist policies and anti-establishment rhetoric. But, importantly, economic policies have to be upheld by political ones. Chavez’s policies of increased government control over the economy led to the erosion of democratic institutions. The Venezuelan people could have been more critical of Chávez’s populist promises and supported candidates who offered more sustainable economic and political solutions.

The Venezuela of the 1980s saw the collapse of oil prices, exposing the vulnerability of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy. Instead of implementing economic reforms to diversify the economy and reduce its reliance on oil, the government borrowed excessively and lacked fiscal discipline. Austerity measures led to social unrest and economic hardship, which continue to this day.

With the start of oil exploitation in the early 20th century, companies from the United States began establishing operations in Venezuela, bringing with them U.S. citizens. By the 1960s and 1970s, Venezuela was a comparatively prosperous country and gladly received millions of immigrants from Spain, Italy, Portugal, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and other European and South American countries. With the economic prosperity driven by the oil industry, Venezuela was a destination for both Americans and Europeans.

However, the nationalization of the oil industry in 1976, while initially leading to increased government revenue, also sowed the seeds for future economic problems. The focus of the government should have been on furthering good economic performance by diversifying the economy instead of relying solely on oil revenues. But with the good times came a failure to invest in the oil industry’s infrastructure and human capital to ensure its long-term viability.

The Venezuela that my aunt was from was a prosperous nation. But by 2017, the creeping, unconstrained far-left policies and decisions had led to the socialist hellscape described above.

The human catastrophe in Venezuela is unspeakable. Record hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, unemployment, environmental destruction, high child mortality, malnutrition, disease, poverty, rampant crime, and political corruption. Since June 2024, mass emigration has created a refugee crisis of almost 8 million people fleeing the country for neighboring South American countries and the US. Credit reporting agencies declared Venezuela to be in default with its debt payments.

The rapidly deteriorating human rights situation has spread to the US southern border.

Dashing all hopes for reform, the results of this July’s elections were overturned by President Nicholas Maduro.

The key economic and political events that shaped the current crisis are a warning to the US, where the perennial promise of more handouts without long-term consequence rears its head every election season. In Venezuela, it was the incremental changes that slowly boiled the proverbial frog unaware of its doom.

There’s an interesting phenomenon that takes place in both progressive and more conservative or mainstream administrations. Anthony Blinken is typical of both types. Neo-liberal foreign policy has brought war to various parts of the globe.

This is true even for hope and change Barack Obama. I was impressed that Obama oversaw the raid that killed Bin Laden, but it just showed that no matter the government the neo-liberal officials kowtow to an aggressive foreign policy. The Trump administration may have decreased our involvement in wars. But if Trump is re-elected, all eyes will turn to the new admin’s direction.

Is the Trump foreign policy different? Not so sure. But I can still hope for a policy that will present an alternative to neo-liberal aggression.