Column on Brazil’s President Lula, Venzuela, and the U.S.A.

Brazil’s President Lula, Venezuela, and the U.S.A.

Tibor R. Machan

The president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva–President Lula for
short–was recently interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on the latter’s Sunday
CNN program, GPS (Global Public Square). In this interview much was
discussed in rather vague, geo-political terms, with banalities being the
norm rather than the exception. For example, President Lula insisted that
in the international community all the different cultural and national
political practices and histories must be accorded equal respect, a
notion, like multiculturalism, that is at best a gesture, more likely an
impossibility and certainly something without much practical prospects.

At one point in the interview, however, President Lula discussed
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and proposed that Chavez and Barack Obama
reach some kind of rapprochement. And one particular proposal he gave
voice to is that President Obama "show generosity toward Venezuela,"
especially now that oil prices are falling and the country’s president no
longer can afford to persist in its obstreperous ways. President Lula
wasn’t oblivious to America’s own current economic difficulties. Yet he
compared Venezuela to a looser in a boxing match, with America being the
winner, so that by all the terms of good sportsmanship it is America’s
role to reach out and embrace Venezuela.

Of course, much of this is quite offensive to anyone who knows well and
good that America and president Obama do not literally have the capacity
to be generous. Generosity is a moral virtue of individuals who can, if
they choose, dip into their own resources–which can include goods and
services one may be able to produce–and give those to others whom they
deem deserving. Countries can only be generous through the generosity of
their citizens–so that, for example, when one calls America a generous
country one must mean that the people of America practice the virtue of
generosity in their own lives. Or they can have organizations, such as
Rotary or the Salvation Army, with voluntarily generous members. But no
president of a country can be generous except in his or her personal life.
To confiscated resources from the citizens of the country of which one is
the president and then give those resources to someone simply isn’t being
generous. Sure, people often talk that way but it is a mistake and
produces a lot of confusion.

There may be various ways in which the president of the United States of
America can facilitate better relations with another country–although
when that other country’s president calls the US "Satan" and is by all
reasonable assessment a fascist dictator (see for this Enrique Krauze,
"The Shah of Venezuela," The New Republic, April 1, 2009, pp. 29-38)–but
generosity simply isn’t one of them. Perhaps President Obama should push
for foreign aid and similar wealth-redistibutory measures toward
Venezuela, although these would have their own moral problems.

More likely, what Obama could do is promote the elimination to all
restraints on trade with Venezuela. Yet, again, with Hugo Chavez it is
difficult to fathom whatever would induce in him anything but hatred for
America. He despises liberal democracies, for example, and he aspires to
be the supreme ruler of the Americas. That seems to me difficult to
reconcile with the principles of even a relatively free country like the
USA.

President Lula seems like a man of good will but he, like so many others
who head up governments around the world, seems to be totally oblivious to
the idea that it is not he but the citizens of Brazil who are sovereign
and that he is a civil servant, period. And of course Hugo Chavez is not
just oblivious to what he really is in Venezuela but insists on claiming
for himself virtual monarchical powers, as if these were a genuine
possibility rather than a fiction from the past.

Sadly, as some have pointed out, America’s own civil servants appear to be
under the illusion that they are saviours, that their judgments in
economic and other spheres must be superior to those of American citizens.
(Obama’s whole team appears to operate like the owners and managers of a
huge corporation, which completely repudiates the idea of a genuine free
society!) Maybe America will move toward the European model of social
democracy, given that not much movement is actually needed any longer.

Still it is worthwhile to observe and critique the collectivist ideas that
are in ascendancy these days, including the notion that President Obama
and his administration could by any stretch of the imagination engage in
generous conduct toward, say, Venezuela.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s