By Kathleen Kern

In The March of Folly, historian Barbara Tuchman examined the propensity of the powerful to pursue policies contrary to their self-interest. The criteria for true political folly included: 1) Policies must be perceived as counterproductive in their own time, not only by hindsight; 2) Alternative courses of action must be available; and 3) The policies should be that of a group, not an individual leader.

She applied these criteria to the Trojan war, the corrupt popes who paved the way for the Reformation, King George III’s policies toward the American colonies and U.S. policy in Vietnam.

I have thought of Tuchman’s book several times as I have watched the efforts of the Venezuelan elite to oust President Hugo Chavez over the last few years. Overwhelmingly re-elected in 2000, Chavez continued programs that redistributed oil wealth to the approximately 80 percent of Venezuelans who live in poverty. These programs were, of course, unpopular with the Venezuelan elite and with the U.S. government, which gets 20 percent of its oil from Venezuela. (Just once, I’d like to hear my government express support for a Latin American leader who tries to improve the lives of the poor.)

Since Chavez’s re-election, the Venezuelan elite, with the help of the United States, have sought to remove him from office. After a failed military coup in 2002, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets demanding his reinstatement. A critical mass of the Venezuelan military also demanded that the elite respect the electoral process.

The elite ignored this evidence of support for Chavez. Not able to get rid of Chavez in the traditional manner of Latin American aristocrats, the Venezuelan elite began demanding a referendum on Chavez’s policies. They also continued a propaganda war. Since the elite own almost all of the news outlets, they made opposition to Chavez appear more widespread than it really was and made Chavez seem like more of an authoritarian than he really was. They inflated the numbers of anti-Chavez demonstrations and mostly ignored the much larger pro-Chavez demonstrations.

Unfortunately, the U.S. media have largely parroted the Venezuelan media. I have yet to hear National Public Radio interview someone representing the majority of Venezuelans that support Chavez.

As the Aug. 15 referendum on Chavez’s policies drew near, Tuchman’s criteria for folly seemed ever more applicable. The elite I heard on NPR all confidently expected that the majority of Venezuelans would vote against him. I suspect they believed this, despite evidence to the contrary, because they have no contact with the majority of Venezuelans who support Chavez — including 2,000 evangelical churches who announced they were praying for Chavez to receive “divine protection” against removal from office.

When 59 percent of Venezuelans defeated the referendum several weeks ago, the deluded elite cried foul, despite the fact that poll monitors — including Atlanta 2003 Mennonite convention speaker Jimmy Carter — declared the voting free and fair.

My own government has participated in the follies of the Venezuelan elite who stubbornly ignore the wishes of most Venezuelans. President Bush supported the 2002 coup attempt. John Kerry does not promise much better, having accused Chavez of “breaking the rules of democracy.”

Jesus teaches that in the kingdom of God, the poor will have special merit. The very least we can do now is respect the sovereignty of the governments they elect, even if we disagree with the policies of their elected leaders. To do otherwise is also folly.