Monday, November 07, 2005

The pot (with a little help from the media) calls the porcelain black

George Bush gave a speech today in which the name "Hugo Chavez" wasn't mentioned, but, remarkably, both the New York Times and the AP were able to conclude that these remarks were "aimed at" Chavez or were "a jab" at Chavez. It's a little unclear, aside from the White House aides whispering the spin du jour in their ears, how exactly these reporters arrived at that conclusion. Bush claimed that he was offering Latin America "an American-supported 'vision of hope'" which was counterposed to a "roll[ing] back the democratic progress of the past two decades." But Hugo Chavez has repeatedly won elections by wide margins, without the slightest hint that the elections were either decided by a partisan Supreme Court or outright stolen through electoral fraud, and currently has an approval rating nearly twice that of George Bush. So surely that couldn't have been aimed at Chavez. It couldn't have been himself Bush was talking about, could it?

Bush also claimed those unnamed people he was speaking about were "playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and blaming others for their own failures to provide for their people." Well, that couldn't be Chavez either. As Mark Weisbrot wrote in the article I referenced just below, Venezuela is experiencing the highest rate of economic growth in the hemisphere, and, unlike growth that occurs in the United States, that growth is being directed for the benefit of the population:
"Billions of dollars of increased social spending ... now provides subsidized food to 40 percent of the population, health care for millions of poor people, and greatly increased education spending. The official poverty rate has fallen to 38.5 percent from its most recent peak of 54 percent after the opposition oil strike. But this measures only cash income; if the food subsidies and health care were taken into account, it would be well under 30 percent."
So clearly, that bit about "failing to provide for their own people" couldn't possibly have been referring to Chavez. Like "playing to fear" and "pitting neighbor against neighbor," it sure sounds a lot more like what is happening in the United States than what is happening in Venezuela. It's just too bad the American media can't recognize the phenomenon of projection like I can.

Update: Knight-Ridder adds this curious claim to the story:
"Administration officials declined to say if Bush was specifically talking about Chavez."

Really? Then isn't it curious that every single reporter reached that conclusion on their own. Sure they did.