[lbo-talk] NYT: Chavez loses, 51% to 49%; Chavez does concede on TV

[Steven L. Robinson]

Fair enough. As a general rule, though, it would seem fair to say that unlimited tenure in office can have very negative effects (ranging from bureucratic conservatism to corruption to despotic tendencies). We need only look to the American trade union movement to see that unlimited tenure among the top union leaders may not be a good thing. SR

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Charles Brown" <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> 


> 
> 
> > Steven L. Robinson 
> I think it fair to say that the Chinese and Zimbaweans would have been 
> better off if they had put they put their respective revolutionary 
> leaders out to pasture. No better testimony to the benefit of term 
> limits exists than the experiences of the Great Leap Forward and the 
> Cultural Revolution. SR 
> 
> ^^^^^^^ 
> CB: It's also fair to say the Cubans or the Vietnamese were better off 
> because they didn't; or the US in the case of FDR. So, that's three 
> examples the other way. 
> 
> ^^^^^^^ 
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: "Charles Brown" 
> . History has taught that when we get 
> > a good one, it is best to keep that one, as they are rare. See Cuba , 
> 
> > for example. No need to take a chance to see if one equally good wins 
> 
> > the next time. 
> 
> ___________________________________ 
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk