Thursday, May 7, 2020

British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read

April 24th, 2020

British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read

Apr. 24th, 2020 at 11:38 AM

“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:

A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

Can you read these stories from people impacted by coronavirus, and then add your name to tell Congress to include our priorities in the next relief bill?

Tonight, May 7th, at 8pm Eastern Time, Bernie will be hosting a livestream on the devastating effect of the coronavirus pandemic on people in our prison system. We hope you'll tune in on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter.

The human suffering being experienced in our country today is more widespread and intense than at any time in modern history.

Seventy-three thousand Americans have already died from the COVID-19 virus, 33.5 million have lost their jobs, there has been a significant increase in childhood hunger and people from coast to coast are worried about being evicted from their apartments or losing their homes. This crisis is especially severe for the working class of our country, especially in Black and Brown communities.

Over the past several weeks we have asked our supporters to describe, in human terms, how the pandemic and economic meltdown has impacted them and their loved ones. We received thousands of responses, many of them almost too painful to read. And I'd like to thank you, Jessie, for sharing your story with me.

But, if Congress is going to respond to this unprecedented crisis in a meaningful way, it needs to do something it too rarely does. Face the truth. Congress must understand the reality and pain that is being experienced in our country today.

Today I would like to share a few of those stories with you, and then ask you to tell Congress to act immediately on a new and comprehensive coronavirus relief package which includes our list of priorities as part of the bill.

Now, more than ever, it is important to remember that none of us are alone in this crisis. We are in this together.

"No job, no money, and on the verge of being homeless. Stimulus check paid the rent. I am 79 years old and must work full time. This is terribly scary. Another stimulus check is desperately needed."
- Iris from Florida

"My husband is an undocumented immigrant, he lost all three of his jobs and although I still have mine, we cannot afford to live with just my salary. We couldn't pay April's rent and will not be able to pay May's because my husband and I file our taxes together, his ITIN disqualifies us from receiving any type of government financial assistance/stimulus payments. We live in an inhumane system."
- Jimena from California

"My entire community has been impacted. Most of the factories that supply the majority of jobs here are shut down due to Covid-19. My fiance was temporarily laid off of work for three weeks (so far) from SEP Cummins Engine Plant due to their part supplier shutting down over Covid-19. My fiance has filed for unemployment, but has yet to receive any money. He has not yet received his stimulus check. We are pretty tight on money."
- Kelly from Indiana

"We've been struggling here – no sign of a stimulus check, trying to keep food on the table, unable to pay my bills because I cannot reach anyone at my debtors, I am in big trouble here. I have lost my income – because I am disabled and cannot drive, I lost my job three years ago when I became disabled, I have since tried to open my own business, and it was going great until this occured, I have a ton of product, and no sales or income coming in since the end of February. I do not receive disability from the government, because I was denied. I really need help."
- Cindi from North Carolina

"I am a primary care doctor in Minnesota. Right now I am scared for my patients. We know that millions of people in this country have lost their jobs, and because of our employer-based health insurance system, millions have lost their health insurance at a time that they need it most. I am scared for the patients who I am no longer seeing. I am devastated for my patient with diabetes who can not only no longer afford a visit, but will soon be out of his medications with no way of affording more. The absence of patients seeking care is both devastating and difficult to quantify. We can and we need to do better. We need universal access to quality health care for every person living in this country. And we need it more than ever."
- Hannah from Minnesota

"I’m a mail carrier with the USPS. Yes it’s very hard work, harder than most people think. Delivering mail, checks from the IRS, medications, packages are all things we do and that are vital to the community. If the USPS shuts down, America shuts down. There are people in rural areas who will no longer get mail. People count on us. Save the USPS, save America."
- Robin from Colorado

As Congress prepares for the next package of emergency relief legislation, it is imperative that it acts boldly to address the unprecedented crisis we are now facing. Here is a list of priorities that must be included in the bill. You can read more about them below, but first I would like to ask for your support:

Add your name to say you support our coronavirus priorities and tell Congress to include them in the next relief bill.

Here is some of what I believe must be in the next relief bill:

1. Guarantee workers can continue to receive their income through the Paycheck Security Act

It is imperative that we protect workers during this crisis, and one of the best ways to do that is to ensure they can continue to have income and health care.

I recently put forth a proposal, together with Senators Warner, Jones, Warren, Klobuchar and Blumenthal, to ensure all workers whose jobs have been negatively impacted by the pandemic can keep receiving their pay and benefits during this crisis.

This is not a radical idea. Countries including Germany, France, Norway, Denmark and the U.K. have all successfully adopted similar programs. Now it is time for the U.S. to join them.

2. Provide universal health coverage with the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act

Representative Pramila Jayapal and I introduced a proposal that would cover health care costs for everyone through Medicare for the duration of the pandemic.

If you are uninsured, underinsured, if you have high copayments, high deductibles, or out of pocket expenses, Medicare will cover those expenses so that everybody — regardless of their health care needs, and not just for coronavirus — will get the health care they need.

We understand that health care is a human right — it is not simply an employee benefit. And we must ensure, now more than ever, that people can access the health care, testing, and treatment they need.

3. Send $2,000 monthly payments to everyone as long as the crisis lasts

We are facing an economic meltdown the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. In the last 7 weeks, more than 33.5 million people have filed for unemployment — and the actual number of people who are out of work is even higher than that.

Workers have lost income, whether they've been laid off or had their hours cut, and their bills are piling up. Congress must act immediately to get money out to workers and families as soon as possible, and those payments must be universal to avoid bureaucratic delays.

That is why we must begin issuing cash payments of $2,000 a month for every person in America to provide households with the assistance they need to pay their bills and take care of their families.

4. Adequately fund the United States Postal Service to protect it from risk of collapse and to enable everyone to vote by mail

As we experience this pandemic, it is important to remember a fundamental American institution that is on the verge of collapse and under attack by the Trump administration. And that is the United States Postal Service.

While more than 600,000 postal workers are working on the frontlines, the USPS is at serious risk of going under and is expected to lose 50% of its revenue due to the crisis.

With such a large drop in revenue, it will be unable to carry out its work.

If we do not act quickly to save the United States Postal Service, hundreds of thousands of workers will be out of a job and millions of people will struggle to get crucial deliveries such as their medication. And as we face an unprecedented challenge of getting people out to vote in this year's elections, we need the Postal Service to ensure everyone across the country can vote by mail.

5. Ensure relief is accessible to immigrants and undocumented people

One group of people who we have not focused on enough is the undocumented.

Despite the fact that they pay taxes, undocumented people and mixed-status families have been left out of the recent coronavirus relief policies passed by Congress. And if an undocumented person loses their job, they are not eligible to file for unemployment benefits.

Many undocumented people are working in jobs on the frontlines of this crisis and are putting themselves at risk everyday. And yet because of their immigration status, many are worried about going to a doctor to get tested or treated if they are experiencing symptoms.

No one — regardless of immigration status — should be worrying about how they will get food, or support their family, or get the care they need. That is why we must work to ensure the next coronavirus relief legislation will include benefits for the undocumented.

There is much we still need to do to support those who are struggling financially or struggling to get the health care they need during this crisis, which is why I am asking:

Add your name to tell Congress to include our list of priorities in the next coronavirus relief package.

What we are experiencing right now is something that we have not experienced in the modern history of this country: a pandemic and an economic crisis, threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.

Many people are hurting right now. But I am confident if we stand together as one people — if we do not turn to fear or panic — we will be able to address this crisis and help minimize the pain.

Let us go forward together.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

ADD YOUR NAME

Paid for by Friends of Bernie Sanders

PO BOX 391, Burlington, VT 05402

Daily Kos Recommended

ICYMI: Here are the top stories of the week so far:

The Daily Kos Recommended email includes our most read and widely shared stories from Daily Kos staff and our community. Stories about 2020 presidential candidates do not equal endorsement.

FAIR: 'There's a Perceived Need to Get This Over With So We Can Get Back to Work'

View article on FAIR's website

'There's a Perceived Need to Get This Over With So We Can Get Back to Work'

Janine Jackson

Janine Jackson interviewed FAIR's Jim Naureckas about Covid-19 false choices for the May 1, 2020, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

MP3 Link

NYT: Trump and Kushner Engage in Revisionist History in Boasting of Success Over Virus

New York Times (4/29/20)

Janine Jackson: There was a story in the April 29 New York Times about how, even as coronavirus cases in the US have surpassed 1 million, and more American people have died than in the Vietnam War, Donald Trump and Jared Kushner are pushing the line that the White House response is “a great success story” and “We're on the other side of the medical aspect of this.” It's the sort of elite media reporting that imagines it’s holding Trump and his cronies up to derision, with withering terms like “revisionist history” and “at odds with the reality on the ground.”

“Mr. Trump has demonstrated a striking tendency to try to frame the political narrative on his own terms, even when at variance with the facts,” says the Times, as it provides a platform for him to do just that.

There is some great data reporting, of course, but corporate media’s overweening focus on “competing narratives” or “spin” colors and clouds their own relationship to the facts. Dangerous at all times, it's especially reckless in a time of still-evolving public health crisis.

Joining us again to talk about what we know about the reality on the ground of Covid-19 is Jim Naureckas, editor of FAIR.org. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Jim Naureckas.

JN: Thanks for having me back.

WaPo: Nearly seven weeks into the shutdown, here’s why so many are still getting sick

This exceptional Washington Post piece (4/30/20) came out the day this interview was conducted, and directly addresses the question of how people are still getting infected despite the lockdown.

JJ: I say, “to talk about what we know about the pandemic.” So much coverage seems to be reflected through a lens of what the speaker wants, or assumes: “Since the economy has to reopen soon, how do we do that?” You almost have to force yourself to pull back, and just look at actual information: Who is getting sick? Where? Who is dying? And so on. But I know that you've been concerned that reporters aren't being tenacious enough on what you might think would be Question 1 to stop a virus, the news we could most use: Namely, how are people catching it?

JN: Yeah, I do think that is an incredibly important story that is not really being covered. The fight against the coronavirus involves, certainly, healthcare workers trying to cure the sick. But, really, the bigger terrain that this is being combated on is keeping people from getting infected. And we have to do that ourselves. No one is keeping us from being infected except our own actions. So we need to know, what works to keep us safe and what is putting us at risk? And I don't think that media are really giving us the information that we need to know what those risks are.

JJ: Yeah, they're talking about cultural battles between people wearing masks and people not wearing masks, but it's sort of apart from a conversation of, “Do we have evidence that that works?” Because, of course, if you know how people are catching it, you'll also know how people maybe are not likely to catch it, and we can shape our actions around that.

JN: And it does seem like the kind of thing that reporters can do, to talk to people who are sick—not all of whom are gravely ill—and ask them what they were doing, what their lifestyle choices were under the lockdown. I have seen some good reporting on case studies that have been done, mostly before the lockdown, that show that there can be a great number of cases spread from a single social event, where people are in a room together and give the coronavirus to each other. But I have not seen that kind of reporting done, to talk about where the new infections keep coming from, now that most people are sheltering in place.

FAIR.org (3/30/20)

JJ: The way that media refer to something in what we call the “boilerplate,” the sort of thumbnail description they give of an event or a phenomenon—it might be inserted into lots of different stories—but it reflects their essential message about this situation. And with that in mind, I know that you took issue with the way AP, a very influential wire service, was describing the coronavirus. What was the problem there, and has it changed?

JN: They seem to be using the same boilerplate. There's this paragraph they stick into just about every article that they write about the coronavirus. And it seems to reflect a fear that people are too worried about the coronavirus. It stresses that this is mostly a problem for people who are old or have health problems, and concludes, “The vast majority of people recover.” The vast majority of people recover from cholera, you know; it doesn't mean it's not a deadly disease. I think that this is really sending a message, especially to young people, that this is not something that you need to take seriously. It's not something that is going to affect you, so why worry about it?

JJ: Yeah. And they talk about, “Well, it's just with people who have underlying health conditions.” But then when you parse that out, that turns out to be a large, very large number of people.

JN: Yeah, a huge number of people are considered overweight, have high blood pressure and may not be aware of it. It works out to be about half the population have the kind of underlying health issues that they say are dangerous.

The Hill (4/10/20) projecting the US Covid-19 outbreak will end by August 4 with a total of 60,415 Covid-19 deaths; the US passed that number on April 29.

JJ: In this Times story that I saw yesterday, Jared Kushner says, “We're on the other side of the medical aspect of this, and I think that we've achieved all the different milestones that are needed.” You know, he's a humanoid, and the piece is trying to make clear that these claims are “out of step with reality,” but media themselves have talked about a “peak,” and us being on the other side, having turned some kind of corner, or other countries having done that, and they do it with what looks like data and charts and everything. What's troubling you there?

JN: There is this, I think, very comforting idea that as quickly as the coronavirus arrived, it will go away. There are these charts that have been widely circulated, from an outfit at the University of Washington, that show very neat peaks, where the infections go up, and then they come right back down again. And when you look at the math behind these forecasts, you find that the assumptions that they use require that the disease go away as fast as it arrived. And in fact, when they correct their data for a steeper increase in infections, they have to correct on the other side, and have the disease going away just as fast.

When you look at the real world, and you look at the course of infections in countries that have had the coronavirus for longer, you do not see a sharp peak with the infections coming down. The coronavirus outbreaks can linger for a long time, with a long period of ongoing death at relatively the same rate. And that seems to be a more realistic view of what the endgame is going to be here.

NYT: Rhode Island Pushes Aggressive Testing, a Move That Could Ease Reopening

New York Times (4/28/20)

JJ: Everyone, of course, wants to see hopeful news. And there is hopeful news out there. We just want it to be based in reality, and not in sort of magical thinking. But you took issue with a New York Times piece the other day out of Rhode Island. What’s that about?

JN: Well, the point of the article was that Rhode Island has done a lot of testing. And it was really trying to assert that Rhode Island only looks like it has a bad outbreak of coronavirus because they test so much, and so they're more aware of it. But really, when you look at deaths from coronavirus, which are not subject to bias from doing a lot of testing, they have the seventh-worst case in the nation. They really have been hard hit.

And while they have, to their credit, ramped up testing, they did that like two weeks ago. Since they've been at this high level of testing, they continue to have new cases rising, and that's not because they’re testing a lot, it’s because they actually have an ongoing infection that is serious.

And the article was framed as: The fact that they're testing so much will make it easier for them to reopen their economy. And I think that is underlying a lot of this wishful reporting, is that there's a perceived need to get this over with, so we can get back to work. And so you look for whatever hopeful signs you can point to, that say that it's OK to go back to having economic activity, even though the virus is still out there. And in most places, where they're talking about reopening, there's far more cases now than there were when the economy was shut down in the first place.

NYT: ‘Life Has to Go On’: How Sweden Has Faced the Virus Without a Lockdown

New York Times (4/28/20)

JJ: Yeah. Which makes it hard to follow. But let me just ask you, I know you just wrote something about Sweden, which is another place folks first thought was a good model, then thought, hmm, that wasn't such a good model. What’s that about, now?

JN: Yes. The New York Times, again, had a story talking about the “apparent success” in Sweden where they have not had a lockdown, and tried to get by with social distancing and banning gatherings over 50 people, but have not told people to stay home. And a lot of people point to Sweden and say, “Ah see, look: Sweden.”

JJ: They’re being more sane about it....

JN: And they're doing a great job. And the New York Times claimed that they have been as successful as most countries in the world at controlling the virus. And it's just not true. Per capita, in terms of deaths, they have the tenth-worst outbreak in the world. That's not a success.

They have roughly a third, per capita, more deaths than the United States. And I don't think many people would say that the United States is a role model for dealing with the coronavirus. But Sweden has done worse.

When you compare it to their neighbors, who are similar countries in terms of their social structure and population density, which I think is an important factor here, Norway and Finland have had one-sixth the number of deaths per capita as Sweden. So it's not clear to me why we're not writing stories about Finland's apparent success of dealing with the coronavirus, rather than looking at Sweden.

Jim Naureckas: "A lot of coverage...assumes that the two choices are to sit in our homes and have people basically go bankrupt as they can't work, or else to force them back into the workplace and have them take their chances with the coronavirus."

JJ: Again, it's hard not to see what's pointed to as a solution being shaped so much by what people want to see as the solution, and want to happen.

Finally, you understand that people don't think we can just stay in lockdown, and just wait, and just wait for a vaccine, and maybe that'll be a year or maybe that'll be two years. But it makes it sound as though that's all we can do. What do you think about that framing as we go forward, in terms of, we've exhausted our options, and now we just sit and wait?

JN: You do see a lot of coverage that assumes that the two choices are to sit in our homes and have people basically go bankrupt as they can't work, or else to force them back into the workplace and have them take their chances with the coronavirus. And the idea that you could support people through this crisis, give people the resources they need, delay obligations like rent and debt repayment and so forth, that these things could be put off while we deal with the crisis—it’s not really being seriously considered as an option. The idea that the landlord must get paid seems to be a sacred cow that really can't be trifled with.

JJ: We've been speaking with Jim Naureckas. He's the editor of FAIR.org. Thanks, Jim Naureckas, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

JN: Thanks for having me back.

FAIR: Guardian Blames Trump’s Murderous US Exceptionalism on Hugo Chávez

View article on FAIR's website

Guardian Blames Trump’s Murderous US Exceptionalism on Hugo Chávez

Lucas Koerner

Guardian: Bluster, distraction, denial: Trump follows Chavez's successful template

The Guardian's Rory Carroll (4/19/20) presented Donald Trump and Hugo Chávez as brothers under the skin: " as media-savvy populists they worked the same pitch: the avenging outsider out to overturn a rotten system and make their nation great again."

What better time to vilify the popular former leader of a country under deadly US siege than a deadly pandemic?

Such was clearly the reasoning of Guardian journalist Rory Carroll when he penned an op-ed headlined, “Blunder, Distraction, Denial: Trump Follows Chávez’s Successful Template” (4/19/20).

Seemingly immune to irony, Carroll compares Venezuela’s late socialist President Hugo Chávez to the right-wing real-estate developer at the helm of an empire currently strangling the former’s country with deadly sanctions (FAIR.org, 2/6/19, 6/14/19, 6/26/19).

This analogy was repeated at least 30 times by the corporate media during the 2016 US presidential election cycle (LA Times, 2/10/17), despite being the subject of penetrating critiques (Washington Post, 10/17/16; NACLA, 10/20/16; Venezuelanalysis, 2/16/17).

The demonization of Chávez and Chavismo on the basis of a false equation of left and right has been instrumental in discrediting other leftist figures and their movements, including former British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn (New York Times, 1/25/19; Daily Telegraph, 2/4/19; Express, 11/26/19), US Senator Bernie Sanders (Wall Street Journal, 3/20/19) and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (FAIR.org, 7/11/18).

A Stale, Self-Serving Comparison

Guardian: Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez

Carroll's recent column is largely a remix of one he wrote in 2016 (Guardian, 6/22/16), which argued that "in the extemporized mix of bombast, menace and bawdy humor, the symbiotic relationship with crowds, the articulation of long-repressed grievances, Trump echoes the comandante."

Carroll’s latest is a condensed rehashing of a longer 2016 article with the same thesis (Guardian, 6/22/16).

“Despite ideological differences, there are eerie similarities between the late socialist strongman and the Manhattan billionaire—and warnings to heed,” he wrote at the time, laboring to give his simplistic see-saw analysis an aura of sophistication.

The article was one of many “think” pieces hawking cheap comparisons between Trump, Chávez and other Latin American leftists.

Politico (3/24/16) placed Chávez in the same trinity as Trump and Pinochet, while the Wall Street Journal (3/6/16) included him among the US real-estate mogul’s “Latin role models.”

Corporate outlets typically prefaced their vulgar analogies with a token reference to the two leader’s stark “ideological differences,” though they largely ignored or downplayed the obvious Manichean gulf separating the very personification of US racialized capitalism from an Afro-Indigenous revolutionary.

“Beyond their ideological differences…Mr. Chávez’s and Mr. Trump’s speeches raise the possibility that violence may be the best solution,” the New York Times (9/20/16) quipped.

Elsewhere (11/3/16), the paper of record suggested that Chávez, López Obrador and Trump “are united in posing as the enemy of the entrenched, corrupt elite, who make possible whatever ails the people, be it Muslim refugees or global capital.” The formulation suggests that it’s just as specious and inflammatory to criticize the wealthy for enriching themselves at the expense of the poor as it is to scapegoat immigrants and religious minorities.

The neoliberal establishment’s attempt to cast Trump as an imported Latin American phenomenon continued after the election, with Vogue (1/27/17) crying “déja vu” and the Washington Post (1/27/17) warning, “Chávez, however evil, was not actually stupid. Neither is Trump.” In both cases, outlets were happy to cede the floor to Venezuelan emigres, who peddled these shallow parallels on the basis that policies are less relevant than “rhetoric.”

Refusing to accept that Trump and his European counterparts are the outcome of decades of class war waged by the neoliberal “extreme center,” corporate journalists like Carroll have found a new bogeyman in “populism,” dusting off the discredited horseshoe theory to equate diametrically opposed figures in an empty formalism.

Imperial Smear 101

NYT: What Hugo Chávez Tells Us About Donald Trump

Equating Trump with an Official Enemy like Hugo Chávez is a popular way for establishment media to strike a faux-oppositional pose (New York Times, 9/20/16).

As in his 2016 article, Carroll refused to let basic facts or journalistic standards get in the way of his “strongman” analogy. Indeed, the Guardian’s former South America correspondent came out of the gates shamelessly lying about Chávez and his three-term presidency:

During his 14-year rule, Chávez presided over economic dysfunction, managerial chaos and creeping authoritarianism.

In fact, according to the World Bank and the CEPAL, Chávez presided over the most prosperous economic period in Venezuelan history (FAIR.org, 10/10/12, 12/1/12, 2/20/19).

Between 1999 and 2012, Venezuela slashed poverty and unemployment by half, jumped from seventh to fourth in the region in human development, and reduced income inequality to the second-lowest in Latin America. While yearly inflation averaged 22%, this was a drop from 37% during the 18 years preceding Chávez.

Chávez and his mass movement achieved all these gains despite facing down a US-backed coup d’etat and oil lockout, which in the latter case led Venezuela’s economy to contract by 27% in the first trimester of 2003, causing poverty and unemployment to spike.

Scandalously, Carroll accused Chávez of creating a “narrative of elites out to get him,” suppressing any mention of the Western-sponsored opposition’s long-running destabilization campaign, which since 2002 has included coup attempts in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2019.

This stunning omission allowed the Guardian journalist to denounce Chávez’s “authoritarianism,” accusing him of “building a state propaganda apparatus and cowing private outlets.”

The fact that Chávez (and his successor) won numerous democratic elections (FAIR.org, 12/1/06, 5/23/18), and went to extremes to accommodate a violent, foreign-backed opposition with a stranglehold on corporate media (FAIR, 5/20/19) and the private sector, generally does little to dent this ideological claim, which has become an article of faith among Western liberals and leftists alike (FAIR.org, 2/12/20).

‘Quite Deceptive’

Observer: Noam Chomsky criticises old friend Hugo Chávez for 'assault' on democracy

Noam Chomsky called this write-up of an interview Rory Carroll (Observer, 7/3/11) conducted with him "quite deceptive."

This is hardly the first time that Rory Carroll—who reported from Caracas between 2006 and 2012—has slandered Venezuela’s Chavista government with glaring lies of omission.

Back in 2011, the Guardian correspondent interviewed Noam Chomsky , who had published an open letter to Chávez calling for the release of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, for the Observer (7/3/11), the Guardian's Sunday edition. The judge was under house arrest, awaiting trial for ordering the release of a wealthy banker charged with multi-million dollar embezzlement.

Carroll reported that the renowned linguist and left-wing intellectual had “accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an ‘assault’ on Venezuela's democracy.”

Chomsky later told journalist Joe Emersberger (Venezuelanalysis, 7/4/11) that Carroll’s article was “quite deceptive,” complaining that the Guardian had omitted his harsh criticisms of the US and its regional garrison state, Colombia, whose human rights records are “incomparably worse” than Venezuela’s.

The outcry at Carroll’s dishonesty was such that his newspaper was forced to release the full transcript of the interview (Guardian, 7/4/11), as well as modify the title of the original article.

Propaganda Pandemic

Carroll’s decision to reheat his 2016 hit piece comes as the world confronts the deadly coronavirus pandemic. With decades of neoliberal social ravaging on full display in Western states, corporate journalists have scrambled to blame the multilevel crisis of the imperial core on the periphery, whether China (FAIR.org, 3/6/20, 4/2/20) or Venezuela.

Ideological mercenaries like Carroll have eagerly jumped at the opportunity to present Trump’s criminally incompetent response to Covid-19 as a symptom of “populist” decay à la Chávez, rather than the modus operandi of a genocidal empire.

Carroll’s attacks on Chávez are outrageous, not only in light of the late president’s unprecedented popular healthcare initiatives and heroic role in disaster relief, but more importantly because they obscure murderous US economic warfare against the Caribbean country.

The Guardian’s message is clear: Venezuela’s collapse is the inevitable outcome of Chávez’s pathological “authoritarianism” and “dysfunction,” rather than two decades of unremitting US assault, including years of sanctions responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, which the “progressive” newspaper has been instrumental in justifying.

The Western media’s propaganda “playbook”—perfected by Carroll and his corporate colleagues covering Chavismo—was subsequently turned on Corbyn, Sanders and other Northern social democrats whose anti-systemic challenge was less revolutionary.

Yet, for all its overwhelming firepower and media smokescreen, Washington has repeatedly failed to achieve regime change from Caracas to Tehran, facing fierce resistance from peoples who prefer to die on their feet than live on their knees. The facade of US exceptionalism is ever more riven with cracks—in no small part thanks to Latin American leaders like Chávez. That is why, seven years after his death, he still needs crucifixion, journalistic ethics be damned.

Middleboro Review 2