Robertson Calls for Chávez Assasination

Pat Robertson is the host of the 700 Club TV show on the Christian Broadcasting Network and is the founder of the Christian Coalition of America. You can get much more information about Robertson on the Internet, such as his Wikipedia page.

On the August 27, 2005 broadcast of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson called for the assasination of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez. The key points Robertson makes are:

Here's the text.

Questions

  1. If Chávez was overthrown in a popular coup, why is he back in power?
  2. Do you agree that Chávez has destroyed the Venezuelan economy?
  3. What does Robertson mean by launching pad for Communist infiltration? Do you think the Chávez government is Communist?
  4. Is there evidence that Venezuela is a haven for Muslim extremism?
  5. Are you aware of the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine? If not, do your research by Googling for it. Does the Monroe Doctrine apply to the situation in Venezuela?
  6. If Robertson admits that Chávez is not a threat to Venezuelan oil shipments to the United States, why do you think he thinks the U.S. government should force Chávez from power?
  7. Is Chávez a strong-arm dictator?
  8. What do you think about a prominent Christian religious leader calling for the assasination of the president of another country?
  9. Why do you think Robertson is so concerned about Hugo Chávez when none of his complaints are related to Christianity or religion?
  10. Does any of this make you think more about separation of church and state issues?
  11. Do you think Pat Robertson is a reliable source of news?

Answers

The following answers are here so you can get an idea of how others think about the above questions. If your thinking differs, it does not mean that you're wrong. It may mean that you should do more research to convince yourself that your thinking is valid.

Answer 1 - Popular Coup

A coup d'etat is usually defined as the overthrow of a government by the military or a political group (or both) and does not involve the mass uprising of the country's citizens. A mass uprising of the citizenry would be called a revolution, such as the American Revolution, Russian Revolution, and the French Revolution. This makes Robertson's popular coup term a little odd. However, Robertson is not the first to use the term. Others have used it to refer to a coup d'etat that was popular with the people afterwards.

In Venezuela's case though, the coup d'etat failed. Chávez was returned to power within 48 hours. The reason? The coup was massively unpopular with the citizenry.

It's inconceivable that Robertson doesn't know this. In the world of spin, stating the exact opposite of reality is a technique that often works - especially when your supporters either have little interest in facts or when their interests are in opposition to the facts. Can you think of other examples of people who've used this technique successfully?

Answer 2 - Venezuelan economy

From the CIA Factbook: Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for roughly 90% of export earnings, more than 50% of the federal budget revenues, and around 30% of GDP.

This means that Venezuela's economy is victim of global fluctuating oil prices as are other oil-producing nations. Leaders of these nations often have little control other than to cooperate with OPEC policies and initiatives. Venezuela is part of OPEC and during Chávez' term of office has cooperated with OPEC, including cutting back production to boost oil prices. He's done nothing to sabotage Venezuela's oil revenues.

If Venezuela's economy was in ruins, you wouldn't expect economic growth. In 2006, economic growth reached about 9 percent.

Note: Robertson made his comments in 2005. More recent news stories about Venezuela's government spending on social programs increasing inflation were not a factor in 2005.

Prior to Chávez becoming president, many or most wealthy Venezuelan citizens and companies escaped paying their fair share of taxes. This ended when Chávez took power - tax collection increased by more than 20 percent. Venezuela collected an additional $4.6 billion in tax revenue. Taxes is one of the primary reasons why Chávez is disliked by Venezuela's wealthy.

When Chávez took office, Venezuela raised its minimum wage by about 20 percent because many of its lower class workers couldn't support themselves on their pitiful salaries. This has made Chávez more popular with the working class but has alienated business and the wealthy.

How does this look from the United States? In 2007, the U.S. 110th Congress (the Democrat-controlled Congress) tried to raise the minimum wage but met with Republican opposition. The Republicans demanded that any increase in minimum wage must be countered with tax cuts for businesses. To Republicans, Chávez has committed the worst of crimes - he increased taxes (by curbinging tax evasion) AND raised the minimum wage!

If Venezuela flourishes under these conditions, it could be a disastrous precedent for any society that maintains a permanent underclass for the benefit of the upperclass. Such societies would not want Venezuela to be an example for the rest of the world. They must do everything they can to oust Chávez and restore "order".

It's easy to see why the current U.S. administration is anti-Chávez. It's more difficult to understand why Pat Robertson would be against a better way of life for the people of Venezuela - especially given that it's a 98 percent Christian nation. Two explanations seem possible:

  1. Pat Robertson is a Evangelical Christian - most Venezuelans are Roman Catholic. Evangelicals like Robertson don't think of Roman Catholics as being Christian enough.
  2. Robertson and the Republican Party are in a mutual defense pact and Robertson is holding up his part of the bargain.

There's no evidence that Venezuela's economy has been destroyed. At the moment, it's booming.

Answer 3 - Communist Government

Robertson's statement about Communist infiltration ("he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and and Muslim extremism all over the continent") seems to say that Chávez is a Communist and his goal is to turn all South American countries into Communist states.

Venezuela is a democracy and Hugo Chávez was elected by popular vote - 62.9%. Chávez is a Socialist - not a Communist. Robertson knows that Americans are conditioned from school age to think that capitalism is good and anything else is bad. Many Americans don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism but they know that Communism is very bad and it doesn't work (Soviet Union). So, Robertson substitutes Communism to make his point.

Answer 4 - Muslim extremism

Venezuela is a Christian country - 96 percent of the population are Roman Catholic and 2 percent are Protestant. This leaves 2 percent - a small portion of which are Islamic. With percentages this small, Venezuela is an unlikely place for Islamic/Muslim extremists. However, a U.S. News and World Report article called Terror Close to Home suggests that "Chávez is flirting with terrorism".

Although this is by no means an authoritative source, this blog downplays the U.S. News and World Report article. The author makes these points:

Before we condemn Venezuela, let's remember that:

  1. Our national and state governments provided the 9/11 hijackers with documents.
  2. We have shut down networks financing Islamic terrorism based here in the US.
  3. At least 19 terrorists hid among us for some time before launching the worst terrorist attack in our history.

NewsThink didn't research this claim by Pat Robertson because there's not enough evidence to consider this credible, even though the U.S. News and World Report did.

Answer 5 - Monroe Doctrine

On December 2, 1823, U.S. president James Monroe addressed Congress and proclaimed that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the affairs of the nations of the Americas. Later administrations extended the doctrine to any foreign power - not just European. You can read more about the Monroe Doctrine here and all U.S. presidential doctrines here.

Unless Pat Robertson believes that Hugo Chávez is acting on behalf of a foreign power, the Monroe Doctrine does not apply to the situation in Venezuela.

Venezuela was liberated from Spanish rule in 1811 by Simón Bolívar. Like many people in Latin America, Bolívar is one of Chávez' heros. It's folly to think that Chávez would want Venezuela to be a client state of a foreign power. Besides, what foreign power would that be and for what purpose?

Robertson has it wrong. Chávez, like Bolívar, wants to free Venezuela from foreign interests and threats. What foreign power does Chávez feel most threatened by? The United States under George W. Bush who is supported by people like Robertson who control a sizable voting block that is easily swayed by spin.

If Robertson and his staff were more competent and knew presidential doctrines, his argument might have been more persuasive. The Kennedy doctrine says "The United States will oppose the formation of any Latin American Communist, Soviet-aligned government." Kennedy was referring to Cuba, of course. Johnson generalized it to "The U.S. will intervene in the Western Hemisphere to prevent a Communist threat to any government."

Given that Chávez is friendly with Cuba's Fidel Castro, Robertson could have made a case for Chávez being a Communist (guilt by association) and asking for U.S. intervention because of the Kennedy and Johnson doctrines. But he didn't.

Answer 6 - Oil Shipments

Robertson believes that Venezuela will continue to ship oil to the United States. Good. That's the opinion of everyone else. The United States can't use this as an excuse to invade.

Answer 7 - Strong-arm Dictator

Recent news stories refer to Chávez as a dictator because he wants to abolish term limits. He thinks he should stay in power as long as citizens continue to vote for him. Given the powerful interests, both at home and in the U.S., arrayed against him, Chávez likely believes that his successor will undo the positive changes accomplished under his rule. He wants to stay in power long enough to ensure that these changes are permanent.

Stories in the press counter this with spin that suggests he wants to be dictator for life. Anti-Chávez forces want you to think Fidel Castro, Ferdinand Marcos, and Sadam Hussein when you think of Chávez.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to three terms as U.S. president, Americans didn't feel that FDR was a dictator or the United States was turning Communist. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has no term limits - the Prime Minister serves until his party forces him out or his party is no longer in power. We don't think of the Prime Minister as a dictator or England as Communist. Why should we think of Venezuela and Hugo Chávez differently?

Answer 8 - Christian Religious Leader Calling for Assasination

How do the Ten Commandments apply to Pat Robertson's call for the assasination of Hugo Chávez? The Ten Commandments are pretty clear:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Ninth Commandment (King James Bible)

In this case, the neighbor is Mr. Chávez and Robertson is bearing false witness against him for the purpose of having him murdered.

Thou shalt not kill.
Sixth Commandment (King James Bible)

The Christian faith does not endorse the assasination of leaders of states for any reason. Perhaps it can be argued that it may be permissable during times of war, but the United States is not at war with Venezuela and it has no reason to be - absent Robertson's false witness.

Answer 9 - Robertson concerned about Chávez - no religious issues

Robertson knows that much of his support comes from Republicans. Eliminating Chávez helps the Republicans and helps Robertson.

Answer 10 - Separation of Church and State Issues

Robertson is putting the Church in the United States in jeopardy. By voicing strong political rhetoric on issues that have nothing to do with religion or Christianity, Robertson is stepping well over the line on the church and state divide. The church could have their special tax status revoked and there would be compelling reason to do so. Invading Venezuela and assasinating its leader is not in the best interests of the people of the United States.

If you think that any of the information on this page is incorrect and you have facts to support your claim, please let us know by email.

Additional Notes

When you're trying to figure out how to think about Pat Robertson, it may be helpful to take advantage of the Internet to get insight into how he thinks. Here's a video of Robertson speaking with staff during a break in a Larry King broadcast on CNN:

Given this paranoia, it's surprising that Robertson didn't accuse Chávez with being a homosexual.