“The Roman Empire is luxurious, but it is filled with misery. It is dying but it laughs — moritus et ridet.” — Salvian (5th century)
As noted elsewhere, the title of this blog, The Pull of The Land, is borrowed from Whittaker Chambers of whom I’ve posted only once (Ghosts), where I noted my intentions to post more of or from him. This is the second such post.
Chambers was considered a pessimist who believed that in leaving Communism he was leaving the winning side to join the losing side. One need not share his melancholy to nevertheless correspond with or comprehend it. After all, Salvian would be considered an extremist today and yet he was not far from the truth, as a mere few decades later would confirm.
Chambers quoted Salvian in his essay on St. Benedict in 1952 and went on to write:
“What, in fact, was the civilization of the West? If it was Christendom, why had it turned its back on half its roots and meanings and become cheerfully ignorant of those who had embodied them? If it was not Christendom, what was it? And what were those values that it claimed to assert against the forces of active evil that beset it in the greatest crisis of history since the fall of Rome? Did the failure of the Western World to know what it was lie at the root of its spiritual despondency, its intellectual confusion, its moral chaos, the dissolving bonds of faith and loyalty within itself, its swift political decline in barely four decades from hegemony of the world to a demoralized rump of Europe little larger than it had been in the crash of the Roman West, and an America still disputing the nature of the crisis, its gravity, whether it existed at all, or what to do about it?”
In another context, he wrote that the conflict of the age is not really Communism vs Capitalism, but rather God vs atheism or, more precisely, submission to God vs submission to man personified by the state. Possessing a strong sense of history, Chambers understood that there is nothing new under the sun and he saw that Rome was beset by three great alienations which are present with us today as well: “They are the alienation of the spirit of man from traditional authority; his alienation from the idea of traditional order; and a crippling alienation that he feels at the point where civilization has deprived him of the joy of simple productive labor.”
He pointed to the parallels between AD 410 and 1952 when “three hundred million Russians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, East Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, and all the Christian Balkans, would tell you” the same “if they could lift their voices through the night of the new Dark Ages that have fallen on them.”
The fall of the Iron Curtain brought great changes to the political geography since Chambers wrote the above, however, not to the basic conflict: God or man? Hence, Chambers’ point still stands. And in such a conflict, we know Who the Victor is, although we may not be able to see His triumph at the moment.
But here is a hint: a sign of divine judgment on a people or nation is evidenced by the anomaly of such having rulers who do not love or appreciate them. In effect, of being ruled by their enemies: “…. they that hate you shall reign over you…. (Lev. 26:17)”. That can refer to rulers who are foreign to the nation or rulers who are internal to the nation.
In Rome we saw an empire often ruled by emperors whose cruelty is unimaginable. Gaius Suetonius wrote The Twelve Caesars in AD 121 and the events he records in his work, still considered a reliable primary source, often make chilling reading. Although some historians believe he was sensational and biased, other contemporary works, including works of art, substantiate his biographies in many essential points. Rome’s cruelty to Christians is well known and attested to (although increasingly ignored in today’s age of savagery and unnatural affections). One thing to note about Rome’s persecutions is that cruelty to Christians will eventually devolve to cruelty to all peoples. And such was the case in Rome.
In Venezuela, we have seen the anomaly of a large, once-prosperous country possessing the largest oil reserves in the entire world actually inviting a small basket-case island nation to take over their basic industries, intelligence services, internal security, and much, much more (I will be posting more about this in the future). All this was knowingly commanded to be so by “local” rulers who knew exactly what they were doing. One can say much about such rulers, but one cannot say that they love their nation or her people.
Examples, not as blatant but just as destructive, can be multiplied throughout the Americas and Europe.
To hate God is to hate man, for God is man’s Creator and Redeemer.
Now, having written the above, I will also say that although I recognize we may be seeing some difficult times that will likely go beyond our lifetimes, I do not share Chambers’ pessimism.
For I know Who wins and such a victory will one day be plain for all to see and acknowledge.
Caligula (AD 12-AD 41), was emperor AD 37 – AD 41. A most cruel, but not the only cruel, emperor. Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez (1954-2013) embraces his Cuban counterpart, Fidel Castro (1926-2016, but last seen alive July 11, 2009 when Evo Morales said he had met with him). Under Chavez and continuing under current strongman, Nicolás Maduro, Cuba took operational charge over most strategic sectors of Venezuela including the armed forces, social programs, identification and security, and much more, even her petroleum industry. Whittaker Chambers (1901-1961)
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.
Time Magazine (February 28, 1955) could not ignore the phenomenal results of Jimenez’s administration. Despite horrendous results whereby Cuba descended from unprecedented prosperity to island basket case and torture chamber, Fidel Castro is treated with reverence by our elite media. Caracas-La Guaira expressway under construction in the 50s. Tunnel construction Caracas-La Guira Expressway, circa 1952.
Venezuela is still Number One on the list of countries with the highest known oil reserves. According to WorldAtlas.com (link below), her production has fallen because of the decline in oil prices and because she did not “invest in the renovation of its obsolete oil extraction infrastructure.”
Second on the list is Saudi Arabia, which makes “it a strong ally to the United States, despite many [sic] blatantly problematic aspects of the country. Some of those include human rights violations and many international incidents.”
Readers of this blog know that I love the country of my birth and grieve for what she has been becoming. I have childhood friends there whom I dearly love and hold in the highest esteem, especially the few surviving friends of my own parents. However, I must say that to point out “blatantly problematic aspects” of Saudi Arabia while blithely ignoring the very real “blatantly problematic aspects” of Venezuela is irresponsible and is the type of reporting which has given cover to the catastrophe that has been unfolding there since the 1960’s and which accelerated dramatically since the Chavez regime.
Venezuela continues to be very rich in natural resources: not only is she the richest in oil reserves, but she is also supremely rich in other minerals (see here and also see under “Juan Vicente Gómez here) and yet many of her people are malnourished (I have personal knowledge of this), others have regressed to the use of donkeys because they cannot afford to buy rationed gasoline even at under $0.10 per gallon. Many thousands are now turning to fire for energy in their homes given the ongoing failures of the energy grid, often plunging them into utter darkness. Some reports say that the grid failed over 80,000 times (!) in 2019. Think of the impact on public transportation, hospitals, clinics. On everything needed for modern life.
The situation is so dire that the Venezuela refugee crisis is the largest ever recorded in the Americas.
Let that sink in for a moment. The largest ever recorded in the Americas. We’ve all read and heard about the despotic regimes of Gómez and Pérez Jimenez in Venezuela, Pinochet in Chile, the generals in Argentina, Stroessner in Paraguay, and others in Central America. But none of them — none — caused such magnitudes of peoples to flee their homelands in such massive numbers. None. The only one that comes close, as a proportion of her population, is Castro’s Cuba. The reader can deduce whatever similarities there may be between Cuba and Venezuela that would cause their peoples to leave their homes and head to unknown destinies through even less known, and frightening, seas and jungles.
Latest estimates are that about 6 Million Venezuelans have fled the country. That’s twenty percent of her population. See here.
How is it that a land so rich can be so poor? How is it that a land once hailed as the most stable democracy in South America is now a despotic regime where torture is commonplace (see here)?
As has been seen throughout this blog, the current problems did not begin with Chavez or Maduro.
Venezuela’s initiation into democratic rule took place in 1959, after a half century of unprecedented prosperity, mostly under General Juan Vicente Gómez, who in my childhood, an era of less political correctness, was often referred to as “the father of modern Venezuela.” He was a dictator but was not hailed as Castro was, even though he too was a dictator. The difference? Castro was one of the Socialist Beautiful People; Gómez was not.
Be that as it may, the long years under Gómez (in office from 1908 to 1935) were characterized by unparalleled stability and prosperity. This stability began years before the discovery of the first major oil reserves in Mene Grande (see here). Venezuela had a growing and prosperous middle class by the end of the Pérez Jimenez regime (see here), after which came the election of Rómulo Betancourt, generally acknowledged to be the country’s first democratically elected president.
So, Venezuela’s first democratically elected president was installed 140 years after the country’s declaration of independence. In sum, during the preceding (19th) century, Venezuela, like her neighbors, had been racked by revolutionary governments and bloodletting, and during the first half of the 20th century she had phenomenal growth and stability under authoritarian governments.
(The unfortunate fact is that South America’s wars for independence were not at all like North America’s. Unlike the North American colonists, the South American Criollos were enthralled by French Revolutionary ideas and sought the positions of power to which they believed they were entitled. This partly explains the long years of despotism and carnage, which is similar to post revolutionary France. If interested, see more on the differences between the United States and the Venezuelan Declarations of Independence here.)
As we have noted before (for example, see here) Betancourt, who had organized the Communist Party in Costa Rica in the 1930’s, but who had since shed his radical outspoken ideology and had migrated to a kinder, gentler democratic socialism, immediately set about to dismantle the structures of economic freedoms and low levels of taxation and regulations that had enabled the country to achieve such heights. In effect, his policies spurred the growth and intrusions of government, including nationalizations of major industries such as oil and iron ore. These reversals of economic liberties continued up to Chavez and Maduro where such policies did not change. They accelerated.
So the owners of industries in Venezuela are now the people. And, of course, when politicians say “the people,” that means The State and all those who, along with them, have the right political connections. And that has been catastrophic for Venezuela.
And so the country with the highest known oil reserves in the world is now a financial nightmare suffering shortages under political oppression, with many of her people in distress and, where able, voting with their feet by leaving.
Pray for the people of Venezuela.
For more on the power outages, see here (Spanish language article).
For the WorldAtlas report on oil reserves, see here.
Back to use of donkeys, mules, and horses. Colombian police stand before a multitude of Venezuelans seeking asylum. Juan Vicente Gómez (1857-1935), circa 1920 Marcos Pérez Jimenez (1914-2001), circa 1955 Fidel Castro (left), Rómulo Betancourt (center), in Caracas in 1959. Betancourt’s relationship with Castro ended shortly thereafter when Castro sought to foment guerrilla activity in Venezuela. Once one of the continent’s most prosperous countries, Venezuela is now plagued by frequent blackouts.
In the early 1960’s, two American Peace Corps volunteers driving in the city of Caracas inadvertently ran a Venezuelan National Guard checkpoint. They were immediately pursued by siren-blaring vehicles and motorcycles. Once they realized they were being chased, they pulled over and stepped out of their car with their hands in the air, only to be shot down in a hail of bullets. One died instantly, the other was in critical condition but was rushed to the hospital and eventually recovered.
Such was the nervousness in those days. Pérez Jiménez had been exiled and Rómulo Betancourt, a former Communist, had been elected president and immediately invited Fidel Castro for talks in Caracas. The talks did not go as anticipated, Castro being impatient for immediate Latin American revolutions, Betancourt having moderated somewhat and being more patient to wait for a revolution over time, wherein the state eventually took over most major private enterprises, including the oil and steel industries.
But Castro’s impatience blew up like an exploding cigar. Arms, ammunition, and explosives caches were found along the Venezuelan coast and easily traced back to Cuba and in November, 1961, Betancourt, very publicly, broke diplomatic relations with Cuba. Immediately, Communist guerrilla activity flared and intensified. Checkpoints were set up across the country, so much so that decades later, when stopped at checkpoints while visiting Latin American countries on business, I experienced no nervousness whatsoever, as I had become inured to such since childhood.
That was the atmosphere and the context in the early ’60s when the two hapless volunteers were shot down.
But the early 1960s were a piker compared to extra judicial deaths in Venezuela between January 2018 and May 2019: 6,856 according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. That’s more than the killings attributed to Augusto Pinochet’s 17-years in office. And many believe that the commission likely undercounted.
Of the top 20 “murder capitals” in the world, Venezuela has 4 (second only to Mexico) and Caracas is in third place, after Tijuana and Acapulco. If you have been following this blog, you have an idea how shocking this is when you recall that as late as the mid-20th century Venezuelans left their doors not only unlocked, but sometimes open to allow air to flow through on warm, humid nights.
Our earlier posts told of Richard Nixon’s visit in 1958 (Nixon) and the leftist fervent in Caracas university student bodies and their involvement in that close run thing (Universities). The United States National Security Council’s minutes after the Vice President’s return records some interesting insights by John Foster Dulles, the United States Secretary of State as to what might have ailed Venezuela in that era. The following is excerpted from the minutes in 1958, declassified decades later:
“Secretary Dulles went on to say that there was one more very important factor in the Latin American problem which the United States faced. This was the collapse of religion generally in Latin America. We all believe in this country that religion, with its emphasis on the rights and freedoms of the individual under God, is the very core of our democratic system and that it is also the greatest bulwark against atheistic communism. Unhappily … organized religion had practically no influence on the mass of the people as opposed to the aristocracy. Admittedly, said Secretary Dulles, he did not know what we could do about correcting this very grave situation, but it was certainly at the heart of our problem in Latin America.”
Secretary Dulles was on to something. Search for any listing of the top 50 murder capitals in the world, and you’ll find that all but 9 or 10 are in Latin America. However, you’ll also see a smattering of US cities in the lists. As the true religion wanes in the hearts of a people, their capacity for self-government and self-restraint, as well as their courage in restraining others by simply calling a spade a spade, so to say, also wanes. As to the very little crime in Venezuela up to the middle of the last century, it must be said that much of that was likely due to the mano dura of “benign dictatorships who promptly and at times ruthlessly dealt with crime. As Dulles might have put it: you either govern yourself, or you will be governed.
Even today, in Latin America, the mano dura approach is applauded by people of all philosophical stripes. For example, Coronavirus lockdown decrees (which are not different from those of a number of US state governors) would easily have been characterized as totalitarian not too many decades ago. But, whereas in the US there is genuine questioning and push back, including hard-hitting editorials and opinion columns, in Latin America it is amazing to see very little intellectual resistance, but rather applause because “sometimes such measures are necessary.”
Latin America flirted for a long time with, to use Dulles’ words, “atheistic communism”. There are hopeful signs of an awakening, which cannot come too soon. However, looking at our own dalliance with the living-without-God option, might we facing our own dark night?
In this Easter Season, let us all look to Him Who was lifted up and Who draws all peoples unto Him. Personal knowledge of Him gives us an understanding and an inclination to deny oneself thereby to control oneself. This, in turn, foments a growing appreciation for liberty under God and the eternal vigilance necessary to preserve it.
We have seen, necessarily at 20,000 feet, the encomienda and hacienda systems, the latter of which continued through the decades of revolutionary wars and the chaotic period leading up to the end of the 19th century.
If a land can experience déjà vu, then vast swathes of Venezuela certainly must have, as periods of turmoil and unrest were not unknown to her pre-Columbian history.
Scholars suggest that a major reason that advanced Indian civilizations such as the Aztec in Mexico, the Inca in Peru, and the Maya in Central America, did not materialize in Venezuela was the acute instability caused by the ferocious Caribs. They were a terror to extended areas of Venezuela, from the eastern foothills of the Andes, across the interminable llanos and hills, all the way to the Atlantic.
When the Spanish began their civilizing work there, they encountered a “backward” region unlike their experiences in other colonial regions.
There had been no opportunity for the Indians to settle anywhere and to develop into any semblance of a stable living arrangement. The Caribs themselves were totally anarchistic except when, for larger enterprises, they’d submit themselves to a chief; but that was always a temporary arrangement. As soon as the battle, expedition, or raid was over, off they’d go again on their own and with their own groups. They themselves left no permanent civilization, nor would they permit anyone else to do so.
It is no wonder that, in Venezuela, the Piranha (or Piraña) is known as Caribe, from Carib, who also gave the sea its name: Caribbean Sea (Mar Caribe, in Spanish). Their depredations in the pre-Columbian Caribbean are legendary. For more on the Caribe, see here.
Fast forward several centuries and, in the 19th century a terrible period of bloodletting and turmoil again wracked the country. Only this time it was not the Caribs, either in their human or fish incarnations. It was rather men inflamed by the siren call of egalitarian ideology, the same ideology that had left the land of France soaked in blood and its revolutionaries devouring one another.
It is a wonder that, throughout all the savage turmoil of the 19th century, the concept of land ownership still held sway. There had been confiscations of land from landowners who were deemed too pro-Spain, but overall, it was recognized that a confiscation, in effect, transferred legal title from one private party to another, whose right would be respected.
The Andinos — 1899-1958
Andinos are men who were cradled by the Andes Mountains in western Venezuela.
At the threshold of the 20th century, Cipriano Castro and his army occupied Caracas and took over the reins of government. He was the first of the Andinos and ruled from 1899 to 1909.
The beginning of the Andinos’ 59-year incumbency was inauspicious. Castro was as tyrannical and arbitrary as the man he deposed, Joaquín Crespo, who had managed to provoke England, resulting in a deeply resented arbitration decision by United States President Grover Cleveland. However, Castro managed to surpass his predecessor’s chutzpah by telling foreign businessmen who had suffered great losses due to domestic bedlam, in effect, to go pound sand.
This cavalier attitude was an open invitation for intervention by foreign powers who readily obliged by imposing a British-German-Italian naval blockade. And, for good measure, the Dutch attacked what little Venezuelan navy floated on the pond. This, in addition to internal revolts may have had a deleterious effect on Castro’s health and he travelled to Europe for treatment, from where he heard that his war minister, Juan Vicente Gómez, had taken power.
Juan Vicente Gómez — 1908-1935
And now we come to the second Andino, Juan Vicente Gómez, one of the most successful presidencies in Venezuelan history. We have touched on Gómez here and here.
He immediately removed the impasse with foreign governments through arbitration or, simply, contract fulfillment. By the end of 1909, Venezuela’s relations with the United States, France, Holland, and Colombia had been reestablished and her other external relations had been substantially normalized.
This is a series on ranchitos, however, we must pause briefly to look at the Gómez years and offer a perspective that is not usually found in the standard histories and Wikipedia entries.
The problem with Gómez was that he was not “democratically elected”, nor was he a communist or socialist. For more recent history, compare the opprobrium hurled at, say, Augusto Pinochet, to the press treatment of Fidel Castro during each respective rule. To further intensify the contrast, compare the reporting of the Chile miracle recovery under Pinochet to the reporting of the Cuban disaster under Castro, where “everybody had free healthcare and education.” If Pinochet had declared himself to be a Marxist Communist, he would have received better press.
In the case of Gómez, here is an extract from the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry:
“Political order attracted foreign petroleum investors….By 1928, Venezuela had become the world’s leading exporter of oil, and was second only to the United States in oil production. The oil industry brought the nation such benefits as high-paying jobs, subsidies to agriculture, expanded government revenues, and increased trade. The government oversaw construction of road networks, railroads, and port facilities. It also paid off the entire foreign debt and drastically reduced the large domestic debt. Yet the oil prosperity was unevenly distributed; most Venezuelans continued to live in poverty, and their health, housing, and education needs were ignored by the state. Meanwhile, Gómez and the top bureaucrats and army officers enriched themselves. The dictator became the nation’s wealthiest citizen, retaining power until his death, from natural causes, in 1935.”
John Guenther, the author of the “Inside” series published in the first half of the 20th century, based on his personal sources, said that Gómez tortured and killed his adversaries and treated Venezuela as his personal hacienda.
But, as usual, there is more to the story.
Gómez’s logo was Unión, Paz, y Trabajo (Unity, Peace, and Jobs). What he shrewdly captured in that logo was the longing of a people tired of senseless upheavals and desirous of the opportunity to raise their homes and businesses and rear their families unmolested by a tyrannical and arbitrary state. General Gómez determined to give them that.
A massive road network was planned and built, permitting, for the first time in her history, the communication, development, and sense of unity amongst the various extended regions of the country, which, until then, were totally isolated. The network included over 8,000 kilometers of paved highways, multiple bridges of engineering marvel, the expansion of ports and the construction of airports.
His cabinet and ministers included eminent men of that era, such as Dr. Santos Dominici, a brilliant medical pioneer who represented Venezuela in Germany, England, and the United States. Eleazar López Contreras, a military scholar and future president, and Rubén González Cárdenas, a educador whose reforms greatly improved the curricula in the Venezuelan school system, especially in the areas of history, geography, and civic duty. Countless elementary, high schools, and academies were founded and student participation increased from 25,000 in 1909 to 150,000 by 1934.
The confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church was eased, allowing numerous previously expelled congregations to return. Great personal security, such as was not seen in Venezuela since before the revolutionary wars, returned along with a widespread respect for private property (propiedad ajena).
Recognizing that Venezuela was rich in minerals but poor in technical expertise, the president negotiated concessions with foreign enterprises, bringing massive investments into the country. By the end of 1928, Venezuela had become the world’s second producer and the first exporter of petroleum.
Health was aggressively addressed, especially the high incidence of malaria in Venezuela (for more on malaria in Venezuela, see here). The National Health Office and Institute of Hygiene and Chemistry, Bacteriology, and Parasitology Laboratories opened in 1911 and a National Health Act was promulgated in 1912. During the 1920’s quinine was freely distributed in some regions.
Much more was done in social, economic, political, and cultural spheres, but enough has been mentioned to cast a bit of doubt on typical aspersions such as “[Venezuelan’s] needs were ignored by the state….” The stability of the early 20th century allowed growth, development, and general well-being in a country that had not seen such in well over a century. Even infant morality decreased.
In my childhood, I remember hearing a refrain, “Juan Vicente Gómez was the father of modern Venezuela.” That was en era uninhibited by today’s political correctness.
Eleazar López Contreras — 1935-1941
Already mentioned above as a member of the Gómez cabinet, he believed Venezuela, after decades of peace and prosperity, was ready for more political “activity” and also removed labor organizing restrictions. He modeled democratic transition by peacefully allowing himself to be succeeded by:
Isaias Medina Angarita — 1941-1945
Allowed more political activities and also granted new oil concessions, furthering another “petroleum boom.” However, the now more active politicians deposed him and took power, the first time a political party, AcciónDemocrática (Democratic Action) takes power in Venezuela. Rómulo Betancourt, a future president, leads a civilian-military junta.
Acción Democrática aggressively launches “reform” programs, including tax decrees and “land reform”. This provoked the more conservative and cooler heads to depose the junta.
Carlos Delgado Chalbaud — 1948-1951
A quiet man, he was assassinated by a personal opponent who in turn was also killed.
Marcos Pérez Jiménez — 1951-1958 (the last of the Andinos prior to democratic rule)
In the next post, we will conclude our review of the The Andinos and look at the transfer of power to Acción Democrática and Rómulo Betancourt, coinciding with the growth of ranchitos.
Cipriano Castro, the first of the Andinos, in power 1899-1908. He died in exile in 1924U.S. Newspaper reporting on the death of Juan Vicente Gómez in 1935.The Piranha (or Piraña). Also known as Caribe in Venezuela.Their ancestors in effect terrorized the islands of the Caribbean Sea and, earlier, Venezuela. Their acts included murder, rape, torture, and cannibalism.
