El Gringo Does the Copa

as GW makes the rounds in mexico, brazil, guatemala, colombia and uruguay, the bush administration has been eager to make the trip appear as though it has nothing to do with hugo chavez, i.e., with the awakening from neoliberal torpor that is ongoing in latin america:

"I know you want to make this trip about Chavez," Snow [i.e., Tony Snow, the current whitehouse spokesperson] told reporters aboard Air Force One as it flew to Uruguay. "It's not."

--here for article; the article will come down from yahoo soon.

of course, this is a lie. a smoke screen. chavez himself summed up the purpose of bush's trip well, stating at an "anti-imperialist" rally in Buenos Aires, Agentina:

"I believe the chief objective of the Bush trip is to try to scrub clean the face of the empire in Latin America. But it's too late."

bush's trip has everything to do with chavez and the movement against the washington consensus that is gaining force in latin america, of which chavez is a leading figure.

in tandem to bush's latin american visit, the US press and bush administration spokepeople have also posed as though the adminsitration is holier-than-thou vis-a-vis chavez's penchant for calling bush names--i.e., devil, gringo, etc. though bush may not have engaged in any direct name-calling of chavez, his administration spokespeople have in the past called him names--dictator. their new tact of calling chavez "the bolivarian gentleman," as in the quote below, is a phony attempt to assume a holier-than-thou position in this labeling game:

Calling Chavez the "Bolivarian gentleman," Thomas Shannon, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemispheric Affairs, said he's made it clear that he doesn't see the value of any engagement with the United States. Returning from a trip last month to Brazil and Argentina, undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns said, "We don't obsess about Hugo Chavez."

one can criticize chavez for using such "colorful" language for how it plays into this game of who-seems-the-crazed-versus-gentlemanly stateman, but realities on the ground under chavez in venezuela--the real difference his government is making in the lives of the poor and lower middle classes--versus the true history of american intervention in latin america makes everything clear.

of course, this does not clear up the problem, since few people in mass society actually study any real history and thus for them, the media gets to paint the portrait. . .

not to mean, however, that i am personally opposed to chavez's rhetoric. . .

finally, if the US is not obsessing about chavez (i.e., about what he and his allies are successfully accomplishing today in latin america and against the Washington Consensus), why then did bush feel the need to state such things as the following:

"I don't think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people's lives. And so my trip is to explain, as clearly as I can, that our nation is generous and compassionate."