DW Venezuela 1200×1200

Living Through A Socialist Collapse: An Insider’s Account Of Venezuela’s Demise

Socialism

Venezuela

As conservatism splinters, Reaganism, it seems, is up next for attack. Sectors of the right are deeming it too antiquated, and, by that, they mean “too open to the world.” The late President Reagan’s brand of conservatism is not just socially conservative, it champions free markets at home, free trade with the world, and an America that’s a beacon of hope to the rest of the world and a safe haven to those who seek refuge. Reagan’s “populist” critics would have America <a href="https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawleys-speech-rethinking-americas-foreign-policy-consensus">isolate itself</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/gop-immigration-bill/550724/">shut its doors</a> to new immigrants, and <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/23/chamberlain-regulate-big-tech-to-protect-conservative-speech/">expand government control</a> over vast sectors of the economy. If populists like Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, and Oren Cass get a hold of the Republican party as they intend, America would stop being the prosperous, free nation it is today, and the world would become a darker place.
Ronald Reagan changed America and the world for the better. He was pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religion. But what distinguished him from other Republicans is what populists of the American right hate today: He consolidated support for free markets, trade, immigration, and a strong foreign policy.
It’s no secret that Reagan was a fan of tax cuts. On March 13th, 1985, as the Democratic-controlled Congress sought to raise taxes, he said “I have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase … Go ahead, make my day.”
“The best social program is a job” was his mantra, and because he knew that taxes <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w13756">discourage </a>investment and job creation, he sought to reduce them. The two tax bills he negotiated with Congress over his presidency cut taxes for all Americans, and especially for investors and business-owners. Combined with his deregulatory efforts, Reagan’s policies <a href="https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/62cfde42-3fbc-4b6e-b308-c78dd32515e6/president-reagan-s-economic-legacy-great-expansion-oct-2000.pdf">lifted</a> America out of a recession and launched it into one of the longest and strongest economic expansions in history, creating tens of millions of jobs.
Reagan recognized the dangerous influence of an all-powerful government. He understood that government control isn’t something you can opt out of, and that the government will eventually be led by politicians you fear — a warning the populists should heed as they push for government regulation of social media platforms and tech companies. You may want to use the government to protect conservatives on Twitter today, but tomorrow the Left will use that power to actively silence us through government means, too.
Reagan championed free trade with all but America’s enemies. “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations” he said in 1986. And he <a href="https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/62cfde42-3fbc-4b6e-b308-c78dd32515e6/president-reagan-s-economic-legacy-great-expansion-oct-2000.pdf">signed</a> many free trade agreements and set the <a href="https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-ronald-reagans-vision-realized">foundations</a> for NAFTA, which, despite all the unfair criticisms it received, was replaced with the USMCA — an only slightly modified version. 
Protectionism protects nothing but the profits of a few well-connected companies at the expense of the rest of the country. It’s not hard to understand that America can’t grow bananas or make cheap clothes, but we sure can produce amazing steak, technology, and much more. Free trade recognizes that every country, like every person, has unique talents and that we are better off when we each focus on doing what we do best.
Reagan supported the idea that anyone from any corner of the world should be able to come to America and become an American. He welcomed <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-annual-refugee-resettlement-ceilings-and-number-refugees-admitted-united">more refugees</a> than any other U.S. President, in part by <a href="http://niskanencenter.org/private-refugee-resettlement-in-u-s-history/#:~:text=Even%20after%20the%20federal%20government,parallel%20to%20federally%20funded%20efforts">allowing</a> Americans to sponsor refugees themselves, and targeted refugee policy to welcome people fleeing socialism. Reagan knew that those who seek to come to America seek freedom, not oppression; so we need not fear cultural change.  He understood that immigrants don’t take away jobs from Americans, but rather that they help create even more opportunities through their entrepreneurship and various skill sets. 
Rather than continue the failed appeasement policies of his predecessors, Reagan took a strong stance against America’s enemies and established new alliances with other countries to counter them. He won the arms race against the Soviet Union, bankrupting them and leading to the end of oppression for hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. He sought to help freedom-loving people across the world get rid of the murderous regimes that oppressed them. While critics focus on a few failures that every President has, they forget Reagan’s many foreign policy successes. For instance when he saved Grenada from a communist takeover in 1983, an operation so successful that Grenadines started celebrating <a href="https://www.legion.org/magazine/217617/thanksgiving-grenada">Thanksgiving day</a> on the anniversary of Reagan’s action. Reagan didn’t just keep America safe, he left the world a safer and freer place, too.
But populists like <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trump-has-changed-the-republicans-11598023026">Oren Cass</a> and Senator <a href="https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawleys-speech-rethinking-americas-foreign-policy-consensus">Josh Hawley</a> think the Republican party should abandon these long-held principles. They say Reaganism only suited the 1980s. It’s out of fashion. And, they argue, the only way to amass a “<a href="https://americancompass.org/the-commons/a-multi-ethnic-working-class-conservatism/">multi-ethnic working class coalition</a>” to win elections is to adopt their policies of government control over big companies, tariffs, shutting the door to immigrants, and isolationism.
Ironically, these so-called populists promote policies that aren’t very popular, since <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/286730/americans-vanishing-fear-foreign-trade.aspx">free trade</a> and <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/313106/americans-not-less-immigration-first-time.aspx">increased or constant immigration</a> are now supported by over 7 in 10 Americans. And the success of Reagan’s policies, economic and otherwise, wasn’t due to timing, but, rather, human nature. Freedom, it turns out, works just fine.
I first heard about Ronald Reagan as a 13-year old student in Venezuela, living through the high inflation, shortages, blackouts, crime and all the disasters caused by the socialist regime of Chavez and Maduro. Among all that darkness, to me and millions of Americans and citizens of the world, Reagan represented hope and everything we loved about America: unashamed support for freedom for everyone, everywhere. That’s what the Right should always stand for. The day they don’t is a dark day for us all.
<a href="http://www.danieldimartino.com">Daniel Di Martino</a> is a Young Voices Openness Fellow, a PhD in Economics candidate at Columbia University, and a freedom activist who fled Venezuela’s socialist regime. You can follow him on Twitter <a href="http://www.twitter.com/danieldimartino">here</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Ronald Reagan

Reaganism Should Be The Future, Not The Past

Donald Trump

Josh Hawley

Populism

Readers Pass

It was February 7, 1956 when the Vera Cruz Vessel sailed from the port of Vigo in northern Spain. Among its 800 passengers was my grandfather, Vicente Novo. Like everyone on that ship, he left everything behind in his homeland to pursue his dreams in a more prosperous country. In this land of opportunity, he and the other passengers found jobs, started businesses and raised families – all while sending money back to their hungry families in Europe.
But this newfound land of opportunity wasn’t the United States of America. It was my home country: Venezuela. 
It’s hard to believe now, but in 1950, Venezuela was the<a href="https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950"> fourth-richest</a> country on earth. Tragically, over the course of the next six decades, Venezuela was transformed from a prosperous nation of immigrants to a devastated and poor land full of people in need of refuge. 
Vicente hadn’t even finished elementary school when he immigrated to Venezuela. Yet, in that thriving nation, he found a job in a car garage that allowed him to save and send money back to his five siblings in Spain. And after years of diligently saving, he opened his own small parking garage, where he washed and parked cars.
My grandfather and the other voyagers on the Vera Cruz were <a href="https://eprints.ucm.es/2342/1/AH0012101.pdf">not alone</a>. From the 1940s through the 1970s, Venezuela was the destination of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Venezuela/Immigration-and-ethnic-composition">millions</a> of immigrants from <a href="https://eprints.ucm.es/2342/">Spain</a>, <a href="https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/06/10/the-portuguese-community-gives-up-on-the-venezuelan-dream/">Portugal</a>,<a href="http://wlcui.com/es/2013/12/10/llegada-de-los-libaneses-a-venezuela-prof-daniel-lahoud-uclv/"> Lebanon</a>,<a href="https://www.aljadid.com/content/arabs-making-their-mark-latin-america-generations-immigrants-colombia-venezuela-and-mexico"> Syria</a>, and a host of other nations. Just like America, Venezuela became a thriving melting pot, and middle-class status was achievable for those who worked hard for it – even if they had no education.
This prosperity was possible thanks to free markets. Venezuela protected private property, had low taxation, and little regulation. Venezuela’s borders were open for immigrants who came to work, and foreign investment was welcomed, leading to a booming economy. All of this happened under an otherwise authoritarian dictator, Marcos Pérez Jiménez.
However, after Venezuela became democratic in 1958, the people elected leaders who put the country on the path of socialism.
In 1976, then-President Carlos Andres Perez nationalized the oil industry, and Venezuela’s oil production plummeted by more than<a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/crude-oil-production"> 40%</a> over the next decade. Oil nationalization led to the expansion of welfare programs funded by the new volatile oil revenue. Despite this additional government revenue, the government kept getting in debt and started printing more money to pay for more welfare. This led to inflation and the establishment of price and currency controls, as well as the nationalization of key industries. That, in turn, led to joblessness and misery. Venezuela’s real wages declined and <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c554/bf92c278562e46e52c0550d492089200a727.pdf">GDP per capita</a>, which had been soaring since the 1950s, plateaued in the 1980s and 1990s.
My grandfather was a victim of these policies. His parking garage wasn’t profitable anymore because the government capped parking prices. Thankfully, though, he had been saving. With that money, he built a small four-apartment building where he lived and rented the other three units. But the government had to ruin this for him, too. It used eminent domain to expropriate his building under the excuse that it needed to build a hospital. Not only did the government give my grandfather a below-market rate, it never even built the hospital.
In the late 1990s, politicians were <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr9638">forced</a> to apply free-market policies by the International Monetary Fund. They welcomed private investment in the oil industry, re-privatized some industries they’d taken away, demolished price and currency controls, and even <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/government-budget">balanced</a> the budget. As a result, the economy improved, unemployment <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/VEN/venezuela/unemployment-rate">stabilized</a>, inflation <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi">slowed rapidly,</a> and oil production <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/crude-oil-production">surged</a>. But this proved to be too little too late. 
By the time election season rolled around, two years after these reforms, jobs were still scarce – and the Venezuelan people were outraged at the <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.551.6879&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">rampant corruption</a> among establishment politicians. So, in 1998, Venezuelans elected Hugo Chávez, a radical socialist candidate who promised to crush the wealthy and redistribute oil and wealth to the poor by giving “free” housing, healthcare, education, and food.
My grandfather remembers folks saying that “Venezuela isn’t Cuba,” as they dismissed warnings from wise citizens who said that Chavez’s socialist policies would usher in destruction.
Indeed, Chavez <a href="https://economics21.org/how-socialism-destroyed-venezuela">doubled down</a> on crushing business through regulation, price and currency controls, and nationalizing companies. His policies, and those of the current dictator Nicolas Maduro, have caused the greatest <a href="https://time.com/5789570/venezuelans-struggling-hunger-un/">humanitarian crisis</a> in the history of the Western Hemisphere. Nearly <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7604881/Venezuela-exodus-set-5-million-long-term-needs-grow-officials-say.html">5 million</a> Venezuelans have fled the country already, including my family.
There’s a saying in Venezuela that before socialism took hold of our country, “We were rich but we didn’t know it.” Many Venezuelans who initially supported socialism and those who didn’t vote at all have now recognized that truth the hard way.
My family’s story, and that of millions of other Venezuelans, should serve as a warning to all those who believe America is too prosperous and powerful to fail. Socialism can and will destroy this country – unless voters curb the recent wave of popularity it’s gained in the United States and prevent radical leaders from getting elected. 
The next time someone tells you that “America isn’t Venezuela,” remind them that we Venezuelans once said something all-too similar.
Daniel Di Martino<a href="http://www.twitter.com/danieldimartino"> (@DanielDiMartino</a>) is a research associate at the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise at the University of Kentucky, a Young Voices contributor, and a Dissident contributor.

The Sabana Grande

DIMARTINO: How Venezuela Went From A Rich Nation Of Immigrants, To A Hungry Nation Of Refugees

Hugo Chavez

Nicolas Maduro

Menu

Daniel DiMartino

Living Through A Socialist Collapse: An Insider’s Account Of Venezuela’s Demise

Reaganism Should Be The Future, Not The Past

DIMARTINO: How Venezuela Went From A Rich Nation Of Immigrants, To A Hungry Nation Of Refugees

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.