Medea Benjamin posts this nice but predictable story, "Why Hugo Chavez Won a Landslide Victory". Maybe she's right, maybe Chavez is just overwhelmingly popular. But her article isn't that convincing. She only interviews one mother from the barrios. Everything else is vague generalizations.

I believe Chavez is doing good things for his people, but I still have misgivings that he is setting himself up to be a despot. (and others do to - see this post to the quite good Caracas Chronicles blog) A benevolent despot, perhaps, like one could debate that Castro has been. Yes, Cuba has several good features under Castro, but the fact remains that he is a dictator, who has been in power for almost 50 years.

Do we really want a benevolent philosopher-king, ala Plato? Is that the world progressives want, ruled by smiling all-powerful dictators who feed babies all the milk they need?

On the other hand, maybe the referendum was on-the-level. Are there term limits in Venezuela? the thing to watch is what happens in the next election, and the next. How long will Chavez legally remain in power?

I've been thinking a lot lately about process versus product, and I think this relates to that. A system for running society should itself be fair and just - the process must be good, not just the product. In a way the product is the head of state and his policies. Sure, the trains run on time and the babies get fed and people learn to read, but if there's no process in place for people giving themselves these things, then what happens when the philospher king dies, or changes his mind? One cannot justify the abuses of power by the nice effects of some of that power.