Frequent commentor r.johnson couldn't post here so he posted over at my blog. He and Dustin would seem to agree on several of the points. Here are his comments:

Expat, I tried posting this over at Good Will Hinton, but my captcha validation never works. I can't even send an email notifying anyone of the problem because it requires a captcha validation.

Here is the comment:
Like it or not, as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."

I find it ironic that, while the post states this isn't about 'liberalism or progressivism' but about totalitarianism, conservatives use the post to take shots at liberals. Old habits die hard.

While I was not able to read the article underlying the post, I could not help but notice that Expat denounces Chavez's tactics as not being progressive. I am not sure if there are set criteria for determining what are acceptable 'progressive' tactics, versus unacceptable tactics, for attempting a more equitable distribution of wealth, but I suspect that no methods will ever be free of criticism, especially when one is viewing changes from a society that embraces free market economies.

And that's where I think Expat paints with too broad of a brush: "Hugo Chavez ...shares nothing in common with liberalism and progressivism in America." Fair enough, so why the need to denounce Chavez (from an American perspective) and call for his removal of power? Because he is not an American and does not hold highly that which we claim to love so dearly? That is Imperialism, and just as offensive as a totalitarian government that suppresses its citizens.

Expat, this goes back to a conversation we had several years ago, and whether it is 'better' to live under a totalitarian government, like Bhutan, were every citizen can meet with the King, or in a democracy, where the majority can effectively ensure that the minority's voice is not heard. de Tocqueville described it as 'the tyranny of the majority' and the last few years of republican rule have shown it at its worst. Still we cling to the idea that we have freedom and choice in our government, largely because we are free to vote every few years.

The same is true in Venezuela. Chavez was elected in 1998. He ran on a platform of reforms, and following the election, he changed the constitution in a number of ways. Critics like to focus on the change of the presidential term from five years to six, but few point out that Chavez inserted a provision in the constitution which allows for presidential recall elections, greater autonomy for judges, etc. When the constitution was adopted, new elections were called for and Chavez won reelection in 2000. In 2002, there was a coup attempt, supported by the US, which is not exactly a democratic idea or progressive idea, but it failed none the less. Opposition groups, rather than mount a military effort to remove Chavez, then utilized the very presidential recall provision of the Venezuelan constitution that Chavez had proposed. If failed and like it or not, it was a sign of democracy at work. Chavez was then reelected in 2006, again a sign of democracy at work.

I am not sure what you are referring to in 'Bush's power grab', but I can think of a few examples where our government has turned over its powers to Bush, the Iraq war resolution being one. Just last week, Bush issued a new directive (expanding on the directives of Bush 41 and Clinton), that gives the administration greater control in issuing and enforcing regulations. Why is it that we are so quick to ascribe a malevolent intent to the actions of Chavez, while ascribing a noble or benevolent intent to the actions of Bush?

A fine question and one I don't really have an answer for right now.