Alright, this has been bugging me because like ten people I've talked with recently have used this line on me, and it's this sort of knee-jerk thinking which has had me bothered a lot in recent months. I sort of feel that the same thing happened with Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.

A lot of people seem to think that Chavez is the most awesome thing to grace the recent political scene, but it seems mainly because he was an opponent to Bush. Chavez is supposedly working towards breaking down class structures, but in doing so has destroyed the previous two decades of growth, induced a set of nepotism in how things run now, uses strong armed political tactics and is a bit on the crazy nut side. He's actively involved with Iran currently and seems quite keen on continuing to improve ties with it's current leader.

Am I an unenlightened idiot or am I missing something here?

I'm also an unelightened idiot!
Now someone tell me who the *bleep* is chavez?!

Bush knocked down the towers!

Should I be embarrass that I do not know who Chavez is?

The president of Venezuela. My stepfather is Venezuelan and he is completely against Chavez. He says that he's destroyed the Economy.
I for one think that Chavez is extremely intelligent because of him making a friendship with Irans leader. He also seems quite honest and friendly.

I disagree. Chavez is an embarassment to the left because of his poor conduct. What I like about Chavez is that he has tried to diminish the horrendous class differences. That's mainly it.

What else has he done?

Completely bought out the Venezuelian Senate, they're all his lapdogs.

Has shut down and is continuing to close media outlets who speak out against him.

Arrests protesters and activists against him, and he has made up criminal charges against political opponents.

Has started to buy out private investment and turning them over to government control.

Supports the FARC in Colombia, which try to make their political statements via kidnapping people.

Is quite rude. He mocks his opponents...that's one thing. But to go as far as call Bush the devil at the UN? That's a bit over the top.

Hurt food economy by setting price limits. While it's good he's reduced the price of food staples for the poor...they're limited in the amount they can buy, and markets are routinely out of stock...ahh Communism, how we missed you.

Took out a loan from Russia to buy weaponry? When so many of his people are going through tough times?

Associates with Iran, which is another country beautifully run by leaders who have democracy and human rights at the forefront of their agendas.

Tried to edit the Constitution to allow himself to run for President for life.

Food for thought, I hope.

Exactly, but there is an irritating fan following forming in North America and Europe. It seems like, while they don't like those aspects mentioned above, they are quite willing to overlook such "minor instances" due to his apparently "successful" social programs.

Wow, he has a nice idea set out but no foundations, ethic, morals to follow it. No real foundation. He lacks education, he needs to be enlightened on Esoteric. Then, and maybe then, he might be able to make a positive change.

Chavez is a difficult figure because what he represents is great, but as Bri points out, he has done

But he has done some really fantastic things for the Venezuelan people. They love him and continue to democratically re-elect him. His larger economic policies have been more or less what the Venezuelan people want. It remains to be seen what the future of the Venezuelan economy will be, as it is largely dependent on oil, but because of the socializing of the markets that went on the past decade under Chavez, Venezuela was relatively not very hardly hit by the recent recession. You may dislike tariffs or socialism, but anyone has to recognize that the overall quality of life for the people of Venezuela has really gotten better under Chavez and that he is a far more popular in his country than Obama is in ours. Furthermore he is elected without having to get support from major business sectors, something that is unimaginable with our elections.

What is most appealing about Chavez is that he does stand up to the US imperialism. Sometimes too strongly, but perhaps that is what is needed after a century of US hegemony in Latin America. South and Central American countries are showing a trend of becoming more independent and self sufficient and are probably the most democratic countries in the world right now.

I think a better figure that the left should look to for inspiration is Evo Morales, who stands up to US imperialism, but isn't over the top like Chavez. His story is also very inspiring; he is a indigenous Bolivian who were arguably the most repressed people in the whole Western Hemisphere at the time.

A democratically elected official shouldn't need to extend the powers of his presidency to the degrees he has. I'm not adverse to socialism to the same degree as many Americans are, just because of where I was brought up, but you have to really question the power of a democracy when it stands because it's got a stranglehold on the media, amongst other strongarm tactics. A democracy requires some freedom of the media, and within Venezuela, there isn't any, unless you agree with the leader.

It's easy to love someone when all you get is one sided information. A reminder that the reason many infamous dictators maintained power was by restraining opposing broadcasts, one of the reasons why the downtrodden in North Korea are so adverse to fighting back. Another reminder that one of the reasons some of the most well remembered leaders of the countries here were regarded as criminals or otherwise was due to freedom of the press and outside viewpoints. Would lashback on the Prime Minister of Italy, the previous leader of Japan or President Bush/Obama be so strong if not for the differing viewpoints of the media having access to the people?

He has not done lots of fantastic things for the Venezuelan people. Much of what is known is, well, questionable. Even with the increase of petro profits, the primary reason of Venezuela's growth (for the thirty years previous to his reign as well, where there was also large amounts of social funding), did not reflect poverty rates in Venezuela. Prominent economists such as Easterly support the concept that an increase of 1% of GDP will improve the lot of the lowest earners by a likewise amount. However, the poverty, exacerbated by the oil crash in the eighties and early nineties, has not fallen back lower. In fact, as time goes on and the country earns more, poverty has risen even further, to where more than 50% of the nation is in poverty conditions. While the government of Venezuela attempted to argue this by making their own system and declaring it at 40%, the standards as set by the UN show it at much higher. Even with all the money they are making, they are failing to do anything similar to what Lulu is attempting in Brazil, which heeds much less attention to socialism. In Venezuela, there has also been a risen in the Gini coefficient, which is worrying -- for a country attempting socialism, it's had more extensive centralization of money amongst the few over the past few years, making me worry extensively about nepotism within the upper layers of the country -- the top two fifths hold almost 80% of the wealth, and 36% goes to the top tenth, yet in total GDP of the country, only 30% goes towards government spending -- compare this to over 50% at least in most mixed-capitalist economies.

Like America, I feel a little too much is being spent on guns for a nation not at war rather than feeding a growing amount of poverty-ridden populations.

Let's not forget inflation and food prices. While they have tried in part to control inflation, they have still managed to get double digit inflation within a year more than once, and the food price controls have more than once failed or caused extensive backlash in the economy due to a failure to follow through with controlled setups properly, as nations like Canada do.

His connections with Tehran, his issues with neighbouring countries military maneuvers, and his recent import of a whopping 100,000 assault rifles from Russia also bugs me. For a man given over to the concept of socialism, he is making a lot of use of people control, brinkmanship and ridiculously overt military poses.

This man has also lead Venezuela to a dangerous level of centralization. I do not mean a centralization of power within an economy, I mean the actual power of single goods in that economy to destabilize the rest of it. If an aspect of the Chavez government fails, there can be serious repercussions across the nation. If oil fails, Venezuela is, to put it lightly, screwed. A lack of diversity in the products being handled/nationalized means that it would only take large problems in one or two industries for the others to be dramatically effected, especially considering that oil revenue is the engine behind many of the changes taking place in modern era Venezuela.

I'd argue extensively that he is doing wonders for the economic situation there, and I'd argue a lot about his politics. I think you are quite wrong in his current economic successes, Dudeguy, it seems more like things are getting tenuous as time goes on.