Pat Robertson, the one-time presidential candidate and evangelical religious leader, has called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. I have spent a fair amount of time in Venezuela and work with many Venezuelan exiles who have come to the United States to escape the dictatorship that Chavez is creating there. Chavez meets with Fidel Castro regularly and there is little doubt that he admires and wants to create a Cuban-style state. But can we agree that calling for the assassination of a foreign leader is probably not something a religious leader should do?
The worst thing about this whole episode is it gives Chavez an excuse to rachet up his anti-US rhetoric and blame all of his country’s problems on the United States. Poverty has increased since Chavez has been in office, primarily because of his anti-free market policies. And this despite an oil boom that should have brought cash and jobs to hundreds of thousands. Much of the oil money is going to Chavez’s cronies and to buying weapons. Chavez has imported nearly a million rifles that he supposedly is giving to “the people” to fight a planned U.S. invasion. (This is exactly what the Sandinistas did in Nicaragua, Castro did in Cuba and Noriega did in Panama).
The Church has once again proven its sagacity in dealing with Chavez. It has ignored political issues and continued to emphasize building up the kingdom of God. If the tensions mount, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Chavez eventually threaten to kick out U.S.-based missionaries or accuse them of being spies. Robertson’s call for assassinating Chavez can’t help in that regard.
Geoff, when I read the news headlines on this one I had the same reaction. Why in the world is Pat Robertson, a Christian religious leader, taking a political position that advocates assassination? It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing a religious leader should be saying or doing.
From what I have read about Chavez previously, he does certainly come across as a fruitcake or a nut-ball.
My brother’s Ph.D. thesis is on NGO’s and terrorism/violence. He used the church as a case study. The church is extraordinarily resiliant to terrorism and violance (maybe even the most succesful) for many reasons. One of the largest reasons is that it enforces a non-political tenor abroad (think East Germany).
Its sad to see any leader spewing that kind of rhetoric, let alone a spiritual leader. Robertson should be able to see the moral ambiguity of assasinating anyone. He should be above such questionable morality.
It is clear he wants to engineer the headlines. Chavez was not in the news but after Robertson’s remark it was all over the media. It also boosts the light on Robertson himself. I’m not saying it was all for the sake of the camera, but that could be a big motivator.
I think it was more likely his anger at the cost of the current war and Robertson was just venting in a very flambouant way. I wouldn’t be suprised if there is an apology in the next couple of days. I wouldn’t count on it, but I wouldn’t be suprised.
I hope we can agree on this! But while Robertson is going around issuing Christian fatwas, maybe he can get around to issuing one on Osama bin Laden. I’ve wondered why no one in the Muslim world (that I’ve heard of) has done that yet. I guess these fatwas aren’t that effective, anyway. Salman Rushdie is alive and well – I saw his wedding announcement in the NY Times a few months ago.
Hmm –
On NPR they seem to love Chavez. Everytime he comes up *that I’ve heard* (important caveat), they treat him as a bold reformer who stands up to the imperialistic USA.
Amazing what you don’t hear.
Robertson, on the other hand, seems to exist only to give anti-religous liberals talking points.
Elisabeth, it’s scary to think that much of the world will perceive that this is what Robertson is doing: issuing a Christian fatwa (as if there were such a thing). Of course the difference is that he is not asking for Chavez to be killed for religious reasons but instead for what he perceives to be national security reasons. Much of the world won’t see the difference unfortunately. Ivan, agreed that Robertson and many other extremists tend to give Christian conservatives a very bad name indeed.
On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart they regularly make fun of Robertson praying to “open an other Supreme Court slot.” It really is creepy, with it coming off like he’s praying to knock of some judge.
I’m not sure NPR love Chavez. I’ve heard probably the most informed and rather critical accounts about Chavez by far on NPR. Especially his dealings with FARQ, his work with drugs, his intimidation and a lot more. Of course one must acknowledge that previous leaders put precious little of the oil money back towards the poor. And it is thus understandable what Chavez is doing in terms of trying to raise some people out of abject poverty.
Clark, without being contentious, it’s important to understand that there is a huge difference between rhetoric and reality, especially in Venezuela. Venezuelan leaders have a long history of handing out money to the poor at different times to buy votes and loyalty. Former president Carlos Andres Perez was famous for this. The best way to spread the oil wealth around is to give people jobs, not just handouts. And the best way to give people jobs is to let the free market work. By this I mean allow oil companies that know what they are doing invest in Venezuela and develop the oil industry to its full capacity. If they are allowed to do this, they will develop more oil more efficiently and provide more jobs. Not just oil jobs, but jobs for people who make tools to sell to the oil industry and jobs for people who make food to sell to oil workers, and on and on. But of course for decades the Venezuelan government has restricted investment and put in place literally thousands of regulations that have kept the oil industry from being as efficient as it could be. Chavez is slowly but surely encircling the oil industry and instituting more and more regulation. This means fewer jobs.
What happens in the business world is that when companies see this happen and they see the kind of rhetoric used by Chavez they decide not to invest in Venezuela. Given a choice between Colombia — pro-American government, good investment climate — and Venezuela — horrible investment climate, lack of return on investment — companies will always choose Colombia. These are real-world choices that companies make every day. Lack of investment means lack of jobs, which means more people out of work and more poverty.
Of course, Chavez couldn’t give a hoot about that. More poor people relying on him to provide money for them — so they are dependent on him to be Santa Claus — is exactly what he wants.
So, it’s hard to see how Chavez is raising anybody out of abject poverty. The poverty rate is up significantly since he was elected, and he is avoiding policies that would provide jobs and help lower poverty.
Geoff B – I don’t regularly hear about what Pat Robertson is doing, so I’m not sure if many people will hear his pronouncement about Chavez. How wide is his usual readership/listenership? Of course, these kinds of incendiary statements are probably carefully planned to get more attention from the media and to boost his supporters. I agree that Robertson’s extremism gives Christians a bad name. I hope people see that Robertson, Falwell, and others are not true followers of Christ (or, to be more fair, very flawed followers of Christ, who selectively ignore His teachings).
Clarq Goble: I think the group you refer to is FARC, not FARQ, unless you would spell the name of Venezuela’s neighbor Qolombia (it’s an acronym for Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia).
Elisabeth, as many people as watch the opening segment of the Today Show will have heard Robertson’s statement.
gst: I don’t have my TV hooked up, so I’m kind of behind schedule on this stuff unless it’s front page news on the NY Times (or on the snippets of NPR as I’m getting ready in the morning). All I can say is, let’s hope that Secretary Rice resists the urge to take Robertson’s foreign policy advice.
PR is now acting crazy and giving succor to those in the secular world who compare fervent Christianity and Christians to the Taliban.
Elisabeth, I believe Robertson was talking on the 700 club, which is a cable TV show with a few million watchers. I’m as alarmed at Robertson’s claim as anybody (which is why I did this post), but it’s probably worth pointing out that he does a lot of very positive things as well — raises money for anti-poverty and mission programs to Africa, for example. There are uplifting and good messages about the Savior on shows like the 700 Club also. I think that people like him and Falwell would be better served by separating their political projects from their religious projects.
It’s pretty widespread. Comic book writer and Star Trek novelist Peter David has, over on his blog (www.peterdavid.net) used PR’s actions as yet another excuse to attack Christianity and conservatism.
Pat Robertson says dumb things, and its all over the media, as though he speaks for those benighted conservative religous types that live in fly over country.
As for NPR – As I said, I’ve only heard two reports on Chavez, and both seemed rather glowing. But I am open to the idea that other NPR coverage of Chavex was more balanced.
Geoff, I think the problem was infrastructure and Chavez is building that for the poor. Here in the US we take it for granted that even poor neighborhoods in a city will have fire, police, street lights, plumbing running to the neighborhoods and so forth. There it wasn’t.
I agree with you with regards to jobs. But I think inequal distribution of infrastructure meant that the poor were unlikely to get very far. I don’t think this excuses the many, many bad things Chavez is doing. Nor does it make his attempt to make himself into a new Castro any less dangerous to US interests (and the interests of the region).
I didn’t have cable TV when Pat Robertson ran for president (was that 96?) so the first time I “saw” him was in a Saturday Night Live send-up of a debate among the Republican contenders. I thought that SNL had done a crude caricature of the man, until I ran into his program on cable years later.
It turns out that Pat is just a smarmy in person as he was portrayed on SNL.
And this latest comment is a sign that he’s lost it. It’s time to shut off his mike, let the kids take over, and send him down to the dog track.
The worst of it is that this will only aid Chavez in maintaining and extending his power.
Clark, agreed. He’s going to use this for years.
Just look at this article in which the Venezuelan VP is already using it. Notice no other evangelists are backing up Robertson.
I just say CNN/Lou Dobbs with the headline “Evangelical Fatwa” at the bottom of the screen.
WHich shows that CNN/Lou Dobbs 1.) Overestimates the power of Robertson to sway Evangelicals and 2.) Doesn’t really understand what a Fatwa is.
I think it is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, they needed someone so crazy he would make Bush’s UN ambassador nominee, Bolton (forget first name at the moment, Michael sounds right, but isn’t that the whimpy singer?) seem middle of the road…
So Rove say’s “who’s the crazyest MoFo that we control?”
Dude in the back of the room answers “Pat Robertson”…
Rove says “get him on the phone…”
rest is history.
My next door neighbors for several years were a Venezuelan family who had abandoned their comfortable middle-class life with their family and friends close by to escape life under Chavez. The parents are well-educated, but the father was reduced to working menial jobs here while he struggled to learn English. Their move was certainly not made out of immediate economic desperation, as is the case with many immigrants to our country. It was because they saw that the future of their country, as they saw it under Chavez, was so bleak.
We are no longer neighbors, but this family is still in our ward, so we get to see them every week. They have made nice lives for themselves here — the father has learned English quite well, and has a job that utilizes at least some his many skills (at least he doesn’t have to do the physical labor that was hurting his back any more). The mother seems to have found a community of friends here as well. The two daughters are wonderful, thoughtful girls who we would have babysit more if they didn’t live so far away. Still, despite their successes in making a life for themselves in this country (through much hard work), the last time I talked to the father about his home, there was a definite longing in his voice for a place that no longer was.
If a political leader can make conditions such that families like this one will uproot themselves to face an uncertain future in a foreign land, he must be doing something very, very wrong.
Or, Ivan, it shows that Lou Dobbs is the same pompous arrogant yahoo that he’s always been.
ACcording to Media Blog yesterday http://media.nationalreview.com/073955.asp
It’s official: According to CNN there is nothing else going on in the world but Pat Robertson’s comment that the United States should assassinate Hugo Chavez — a man whom I seriously doubt even a small fraction of Americans could identify.
Right now I’m totally amazed at CNN’s Kyra Phillips, who just dismissed an e-mail from a viewer who said CNN was using “slanted language” to describe Robertson by disagreeing but thanking the viewer for the comment. CNN anchors have been bashing Robertson all day, dredging up anything controversial he’s said over the past few years and not just criticizing but ridiculing it.
(most of that last quote was an excerpt from Media Blog – my code deosn’t seem to work – perhaps I should use the buttons next time….)
Times like these make me grateful for not having my TV hooked up. I caught a glimpse of the controversy in the school cafeteria yesterday before class, and I was just amazed that it was such a slow news day that Pat Robertson was headlining every news show. Wow.
Geoff, I just haven’t heard that many good things about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and I have to admit I’ve never seen their shows (unless you count a few debates in 1988 during Robertson’s fleeting campaign for President). I’m glad that they are engaged in charitable activities – thanks for sharing that info. And I do agree that religious leaders would be better off separating their political projects from their religious ones.
Now Robertson is, incredibly, denying he called for assasination, even when everyone on the internet can watch a video of him doing just that.
Hey Pat, when you’re in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
It would probably be a good idea for folks to visit the 700 Club web site and learn a little more about what Robertson supports. Some causes are worthwhile, especially the efforts on international aid and evangelism, which I think is a good cause. My personal opinion is that Robertson should do a better job of separating the gospel from his political projects, but that is not his style. Ironic to note that his Bible quotation of the day is: “Don’t act thoughtlessly, but try to understand what the Lord wants you to do (Ephesians 5:17 NLT).”
Robertson apologizes.
Pat’s work in Africa should be looked at through the lens of his business dealings there. He had huge interests in Charles Taylor’s terrible Liberian governmnet and many see PR’s turn against Bush from when Bush helped oust Taylor. PR wanted to let Taylor sort out his problems on his own. Ridiculous.