In any case, a few basic things. Venezuela is a major trading partner, and they are classified by Freedom House as "partly free"; there are serious human rights concerns but there are also some functioning democratic institutions. Then you have other major trading partners like China and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are, respectively, a theocratic monarchy and a communist state; both of which are not free and have even worse human rights problems. But have a presidential photo-op with leaders in those countries is fine...A central difference, of course, has been Chavez' bombastic anti-American rhetoric.Ah, yes. It is ironic that the very people who are so willing to deploy name-calling against anyone with whom they dislike are the least likely to take such treatment when it's thrown their way. Well, maybe it's not so ironic. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Over the past four decades, the GOP has basically argued for the creation of a quasi-ethnic identity--let's just call it "Americanist"--which the right has depicted as under siege from nefarious villains from outside who "hate our freedom" (untrue--bin Laden could give a rat's ass about our freedom, he mostly just hates Israel and us, mostly for our foreign policy), as well as from enemies from within, the notorious coastal elites who look down their noses at average Americans with their guns and God. None of this is particularly original, but just because there's a subculture in America that sees itself as the only legitimately American group--one that divides itself ethnically and culturally from the rest of America--doesn't mean that it has to be reflexively infuriated by the very existence of people that don't like us very much. That it does speaks more to the fear and anxiety that currently palsies the right than to the morality of dealing with questionable leaders in the world, which is absolutely necessary in the course of any nation.
Fernholz continues:
But it strikes me as funny that the Republicans calling for more "toughness" are basically arguing that we should get worked up because Chavez called us names -- come on, fellas, sticks and stones!Conservatives can dish it out, but they can't take it. It's as true domestically as internationally. We know this. Usually liberals don't even bother to try to stand against it, but when they do--as in this clip where Lawrence O'Donnell points out to Pat Buchanan the inconsistency of being both pro-life and pro-death penalty--the typical conservative response is to take differences in opinion very personally. This is, of course, a manifestation of a fundamental lack of faith in their vision of society and in America, and that is a pretty consistent defining trait of the right, one which has been exploited by many conservative politicians--Karl Rove played it masterfully--by making stuff like this seem like something worse than it was, something that hinted at some sort of diminishment of America, instead of just a handshake, which is what it was.
I'm of the belief that conservatives have little chance of changing the world until they can drop the petty fears and paranoia. I suspect it's internalized too deeply to get out any time soon, and that's why I was hopeful that Mike Huckabee would be the type of hopeful Republican leader--possessed of some level of intellectual honesty and some sense of social justice--to turn things around for the GOP in a way that would be better for everyone. Unfortunately, he turned out to be just another Republican hack, clucking about the Chavez handshake along with the rest of them.
