This blog has alluded to President Marcos Pérez Jiménez on several occasions, such as here and here (the blog search bar will direct you to more). Hearing and reading about calls by the usual suspects to bar President Trump  from running again for office, reminds me of Venezuelan politicians’ visceral detestation of President Jiménez.

First, to get a taste of how Jiménez is treated by the elite media, let us very briefly contrast the standard accounts of Pérez Jiménez with those of Fidel Castro. The following quotes are the initial paragraph for Jiménez and Castro, respectively, as presented in Brittanica:

“Marcos Pérez Jiménez, (born April 25, 1914, Michelena, Venezuela — died September 20, 2001, Madrid, Spain), professional soldier and president (1952-58) of Venezuela whose regime was marked by extravagance, corruption, police oppression, and mounting unemployment.”

“Fidel Castro, in full Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, (born August 13, 1926, near Birán, Cuba–died November 25, 2016, Cuba), political leader of Cuba(1959–2008) who transformed his country into the first communist state in the Western Hemisphere. Castro became a symbol of communist revolution in Latin America. He held the title of premier until 1976 and then began a long tenure as president of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers. He handed over provisional power in July 2006 because of health problems and formally relinquished the presidency in February 2008.”

Is it just me, or does the second entry have a whiff of heroism to it as contrasted with the first?

Well, Brittanica reflects the standard treatment, which paints Jiménez as a corrupt ne’er-do-well, while Castro is portrayed as something of an epic figure, as opposed to the brutal Communist dictator who “succeeded” in transforming Cuba from a country with a “higher standard of living in 1958 than half of Europe, a larger middle class than Switzerland, a  more highly unionized work force than the U.S., more doctors and dentists per capita than Great Britain, more cars and televisions per capita than Canada or Germany….(Fontova).”

(I began distrusting the media during the Nixon years, even though I was not a Nixon fan. But it was the Reagan years that finally convinced me we could not believe the regular media. One of our founders, upon being asked what the 1787 Constitutional Convention had wrought, replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” A republic requires, among other things, hard work and study. That study requires gathering information and knowledge as one would dig for treasure. Being spoon fed by The New York Times won’t cut it.)

Jiménez enhanced Venezuela’s independence by promoting oil and ore concessions and improving or expanding the transportation and transit infrastructure. In brief, he catapulted Venezuela onto the mid-twentieth century. Caracas was modernized with skyscrapers, major public housing projects, and other initiatives, including the symbolic Humboldt Hotel overlooking the city. During his tenure, Venezuela built South America’s finest highway system, most of which is still in use into the 21st century, including spectacular freeways cutting through and winding around giant mountain ranges.

Venezuela was transformed into the most modern nation of South America: “modern” defined as excellent infrastructure, breathtaking skylines, and a rapidly growing middle class. In addition, during Jiménez’s tenure, about one million Europeans immigrated to Venezuela, from all countries, but principally Spain and Portugal. Many Americans came to work in Venezuela, primarily, but not exclusively, in the oil and ore industries. Recall that in the case of Cuba, tens of thousands emigrated. Other than disgruntled professors and assorted sympathizers, no one voluntarily immigrated to Cuba.

By the way, according to Brittanica (see above), the Jiménez “regime” was characterized by “mounting unemployment.” However, a million Europeans do not emigrate to a country with “mounting unemployment.” The truth is that employment was so plentiful that Jiménez opened the doors to immigration in order to fulfill the labor demand, which greatly exceeded supply.

(I must be charitable and diplomatic; therefore, I refuse to say that Brittanica and other elite editors are liars. I’ll just say that their assertions have little, if any basis in the facts of the matter.)

A plebiscite was held in December, 1957, which Jiménez won handily, but which opponents insisted was a rigged exercise. Full scale riots, with focal centers in the Universidad de Caracas, ensued, culminating in a military coup. Jiménez went into self-imposed exile in Miami Beach, in 1958, having received asylum from the United States. However, the Kennedy administration, extradited him back to Venezuela, vainly believing the United States federal government, for the first time in its history, could afford to break its promise of asylum in exchange for the applause of Venezuelan politicians. This was an asymmetrical swap: honor out; applause in. We succeeded with the former, weightier matter; failed with the latter, transitory one.

Jiménez was eventually convicted of theft and sentenced to 4 years, which had already been exceeded by the time of the sentencing, so he was released and emigrated to Spain from where he ran for the Senate in absentia and won  by overwhelming margins. However, alarmed politicians succeeded in overturning his election. In 1973 his supporters nominated him for the presidency. Stunned by his popularity, the political parties amended the constitution, in effect retroactively prohibiting him from running for president again.

He died in Spain in 2001, having never returned to Venezuela.

Whether you love him, hate him, or are indifferent to him, Marcos Pérez Jiménez was one of the most remarkable men in Venezuela’s history. This capsule summary of his tenure reminds us that the vindictive nature of politicians is not limited to Venezuelans who barred their political opponent from running for president. We now have American politicians seeking to do the same against President Trump.

The Venezuelan politicians succeeded. We shall see whether the American variety succeeds as well.