Ricardo F. Morín Infinity 32 13 “ x 15 ¾” Oil on linen 2009
Ricardo F. Morín
February 16, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl.
Religious belief and democratic life often meet within diverse societies where traditions, rituals, and outward identities differ, even as individuals share deeper ethical concerns. People turn to religion for meaning and conscience, while democratic life asks them to live alongside others whose practices and expressions vary. Tension becomes visible when superficial distinctions shape perception more than shared ethical ground, and when claims of moral authority seek to govern the shared civic space of others.
Plurality is a constant feature of democratic life. Individuals speak, listen, and respond in public meetings, civic gatherings, online exchanges, and everyday encounters where limits and freedom of expression meet. Expression that invites response, allows disagreement, or makes room for reconsideration can sustain coexistence, while expression framed as accusation, exclusion, or moral finality can narrow it. Political life adjusts to shifting advantage and immediate circumstance, while religious conscience often draws individuals toward standards held to endure across conflicts. Individuals move between these two demands, rarely able to resolve the tension between them. Religious and political judgment can align while remaining open to disagreement, even as individuals draw from moral frameworks that shape their conduct and traditions.
Religious expression often appears in public life through appeals to fairness, responsibility, and the dignity of persons. Such expressions shape how individuals frame their claims without requiring agreement on doctrine. When religious language enters public conversation as part of a shared ethical vocabulary, it can widen recognition without demanding uniform belief. People may not agree on belief, yet they may recognize common ground in the use of moral language. At times, religious communities identify ethical similarities across traditions, allowing plurality to remain workable within that recognition. When partisan pressures reframe difference as threat, markers such as creed, race, or culture become dividing lines, and shared ground recedes from view.
Difficulty emerges when religious identity becomes inseparable from partisan alignment and when public language becomes structured around accusation rather than mutual examination of ideas. Under such conditions, freedom of expression is interpreted less as civic difference and more as personal rejection. Expression itself is treated as evidence of allegiance rather than as an invitation to examination.
Another condition appears when citizens continue to recognize one another as legitimate participants despite differences that remain unresolved. Religious conviction shapes conscience, while democratic life maintains a space in which competing claims can exist without coercion. Individuals move between these spheres, sometimes comfortably and sometimes with strain, adjusting boundaries, widening or narrowing participation, and renegotiating coexistence over time.
People continue to move between religious conviction and democratic participation without resolving the tension between them. Some draw boundaries more firmly; others widen the space for coexistence, and many shift between both over time. The tension remains visible not as a problem to eliminate, but as part of how individuals understand themselves, claim authority, and live alongside others within a shared civic world.
Ricardo Morin Silence III 22’ x 30” Watercolor, graphite, gesso, acrylic on paper 2010
Ricardo F. Morín
February 15, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
Rethinking Identity and Entitlement in Civic Life
1 The phrase “my people” draws lines. It signals allegiance before argument begins. It may express familiarity, shared memory, or recognition. Yet the same words separate one group from another. A boundary forms, often without intention. Those inside feel affirmed; those outside may feel unseen.
2 Such moments rarely begin as acts of exclusion. They arise from ordinary human impulses: the desire to protect what feels familiar, to defend what has been wounded, or to claim space where one has felt overlooked. But when identity becomes the primary language through which claims are made, conversations change. Disagreement becomes personal. Listening becomes strategic. The space where people meet as equals contracts.
3 Group identity has long provided people with strength and protection. It helps individuals recover dignity when they feel ignored or misunderstood, and it offers language through which shared experiences can be recognized. Yet the same force can also narrow perception. When group identity becomes the main lens through which people judge one another, ideas are weighed less on their merit and more on the speaker’s affiliation.
4 When ideas begin to be judged primarily through identity rather than merit, the change is often subtle. An exchange that begins openly can become defensive as participants look for signs of alignment or opposition. Words are weighed for allegiance. Questions are interpreted as challenges rather than invitations to examine ideas together. Over time, dialogue shifts from exploration toward defense of positions. Judgment shifts from the merit of an idea to the standing of the speaker.
5 Many people carry an expectation into public life that they will be treated consistently. Uneven rules are recognized quickly. When identity determines whose voice counts before ideas are heard, trust weakens not only among those excluded, but also among those unsure whether they are seen as individuals or as representatives of a category.
6 Problems deepen when identity stops being one part of a person’s experience and begins to overshadow all others. Public debate narrows. Arguments are interpreted as attacks on identity rather than disagreements over ideas. People feel compelled to defend positions not because they are persuaded by them, but because reconsidering publicly may be treated as betrayal. The result is not stronger community, but increasing rigidity, where listening carries risk and reconsideration feels unsafe.
7 People turn toward simplification and absolutism to reduce uncertainty and relieve the strain of complexity. This tendency does not permanently define human interaction; it marks moments when ambiguity feels intolerable and certainty appears easier to sustain. Certainty offers relief, but it reduces the space in which plurality can endure. The tension itself does not disappear; only the way people attempt to manage it changes.
8 Contemporary communication technologies accelerate the circulation and visibility of opinion. Expressions that promise certainty or provoke fear travel farther and faster; expressions that sustain ambiguity move more slowly. This circulation amplifies tendencies toward simplification, reinforcing what attracts attention rather than what withstands examination.
9 When identity becomes the basis for deciding who others are before dialogue takes shape, examination gives way to labeling. Nuance is set aside. Individuals become symbols of larger struggles, and ordinary encounters carry the weight of broader conflicts. Under these conditions, disagreement resembles confrontation even when intentions remain sincere.
10 Public life rests on an expectation that the same rules apply to all. Uneven application becomes visible when some voices are heard more readily than others or when identity determines credibility before ideas are considered. Under these conditions, conversation shifts from exchange toward competition for recognition, and the possibility of shared judgment becomes more difficult to sustain.
11 The tension does not belong to one group alone; this situation affects everyone who participates in public life. Each person seeks recognition while fearing misinterpretation. Attempts to resolve disagreement through persuasion alone often reach limits beyond individual control. Listening, under these conditions, does not erase distance but allows interaction to continue despite it.
12 Differences remain, and disagreement persists. The lines that divide do not disappear; they shift, harden, or soften as people respond to one another in ordinary encounters. Living together does not remove tension; living together reveals tension. No shared answer resolves the matter. Each person must decide how to respond and how to live alongside others within limits no one fully controls.
Ricardo F Morín Window I 8” x 10” Watercolor and ink on paper 2003
Ricardo F. Morín
February 18, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
1 Most people first recognize vulnerability not through abstract reflection but when ordinary functions change. Sleep becomes fragmented. Movement requires calculation. Attention shifts toward signals that once remained unnoticed. Human life begins not from stability but from exposure. The body exists within conditions it does not fully control and must continuously adapt to forces that exceed intention. Vulnerability is not an exception. It is a structural condition of being alive. Wellbeing does not remove this condition. It reorganizes how one lives within it.
2 Attempts to explain healing often rely on simplified narratives of control, positivity, or emotional purification. Such narratives overlook the complexity through which biological systems regulate themselves. Hormones, neural pathways, immune responses, and behavioral patterns operate through feedback rather than command. The organism adjusts through interaction, not through absolute mastery. Understanding this distinction allows healing to be viewed less as conquest over illness and more as participation in an ongoing process of regulation.
3 Mental practices such as meditation, visualization, or structured breathing may influence physiological states. Their value lies not in eliminating difficulty but in altering how perception interacts with bodily response. Attention can change tension, breathing patterns can modify autonomic responses, and emotional framing can influence how stress signals are interpreted. These practices do not replace biological realities. They operate within existing physiological processes.
4 Many discussions of emotional life rely on familiar language about resentment or anger without examining how such patterns function in practice. Emotional fixation narrows perception because it reduces the range of possible interpretations available to the mind. When attention becomes rigid, the body often reflects that rigidity through muscular contraction, altered breathing, or disrupted sleep. Recognizing this does not deny legitimate grievances. It clarifies how sustained cognitive patterns shape physiological experience. What appears biologically as regulation appears conceptually as participation.
5 Healing must also acknowledge limits. Not all illness can be traced to emotional origin, and not all suffering yields explanation. Biological variability, environmental exposure, and genetic inheritance create outcomes that cannot be reduced to intention or belief. Humility recognizes that the absence of explanation neither invalidates the search for meaning nor guarantees it.
6 Contemporary medical technology introduces a further dimension into this landscape. Adaptive systems capable of measuring neural activity and adjusting stimulation in real time demonstrate that regulation is inherently dynamic. The nervous system functions through continuous feedback loops. Closed loop neuromodulation technologies reveal this principle by making adjustment visible and measurable. Rather than blocking pain entirely, such systems alter how signals are transmitted and interpreted, and allow the body to reorganize patterns that have become fixed through chronic strain.
7 Technology in this context does not replace the organism. It participates alongside it. The device measures electrical responses, modifies stimulation within clinical parameters, and supports gradual adaptation rather than immediate elimination of discomfort. This reflects a shift in how regulation is understood. Healing increasingly involves collaboration between biological systems and external adaptive tools. The boundary between internal regulation and technological assistance becomes relational rather than oppositional.
8 Because of this shift, improvement may appear indirectly. Functional changes such as more consistent sleep, increased movement, or reduced hesitation in daily tasks often emerge before subjective perception of pain changes significantly. The nervous system learns through repetition across time rather than through instant resolution. Observing patterns over days or weeks becomes more meaningful than evaluating isolated moments.
9 The language of self healing therefore requires revision. Healing does not imply independence from vulnerability. It involves learning to inhabit vulnerability with greater precision, supported by practices, relationships, and technologies that expand the range of possible responses. Faith, meditation, medical science, and personal discipline may each contribute, not as competing explanations but as complementary modes of engagement with the unknown.
10 Experience itself does not provide ultimate meaning. Meaning arises from how experience is integrated into awareness. When experience is treated as proof of certainty, rigidity follows. When experience is held as information rather than identity, adaptation remains possible. The aim is not to silence the mind or eliminate difficulty, but to allow perception to remain flexible enough to respond to change.
11 Healing, then, is neither purely psychological nor purely technological. It is the ongoing negotiation between organism and environment, perception and physiology, vulnerability and adaptation. Modern tools may refine this negotiation by providing new forms of feedback, yet the underlying condition remains unchanged. Human beings continue to live within limits while developing new ways to respond to them. The task is not to escape vulnerability but to regulate within it.
Ricardo F. Morín Golden Ratios Each 22″x30″= 66″h x 30″w overall Watercolor on paper 2005
Ricardo F. Morín
February 9, 20026
Oakland Park, Fl
Contemporary financial structures increasingly present themselves in ways that are difficult to follow in clear terms. Mechanisms grow more layered. Explanations become more technical. Yet the basic logic governing value, risk, and consequence becomes harder to see. Confidence continues to be expected even as intelligibility diminishes.
A financial system remains intelligible when certain realities stay visible. These include how value is produced, how money moves, where risk accumulates, and under what conditions failure occurs. When these elements require specialized decoding, explanation loses grounding. Language multiplies detail without reducing uncertainty. Distance replaces understanding.
Appearance and substance begin to separate. Elaborate vocabulary, institutional endorsement, and technological framing signal sophistication without necessarily clarifying outcomes. Terms such as “innovation,” “efficiency,” or “algorithmic design” circulate widely while underlying mechanisms remain indistinct. Repetition of familiar language gradually replaces demonstration. Recognition begins to replace examination.
Opacity aligns with structural incentives. Systems that are difficult to interpret shift decision-making power toward those who design, structure, or mediate them. As clarity diminishes, authority migrates toward interpretation rather than transparency. The process does not require explicit coordination. It emerges through incentives that reinforce one another. Complexity generates fees. Early positioning captures advantage. Intermediaries profit from activity regardless of long-term result. Institutions convert technical difficulty into legitimacy. Political actors attach themselves to systems framed as progress. Reducing opacity would redistribute power and reward, so opacity persists.
Regulatory structures and deregulation cycles play a central role in enabling this condition. Periods of financial liberalization encourage innovation in securitization, transferability of debt, and layered ownership structures. Oversight frameworks often lag behind new instruments. Documentation practices adapt to speed and scale instead of clarity. Legal enforceability remains intact even when transparency weakens. Over time, financial rights become separated from the original lending relationship, allowing obligations to survive in fragmented or redistributed forms.
Within this environment, financial artifacts may continue to circulate long after their original context appears settled. Mortgage debt provides a clear example. Loans may be bundled, transferred, securitized, or reassigned many times. Documentation fragments across institutions. Legal rights remain active even when practical awareness fades. In some cases, dormant liens or secondary loans re-enter enforcement through resale or reassignment. These are sometimes described as “zombie mortgages.” The mechanism itself operates within legal frameworks, yet its effects can remain largely invisible to property owners who believed obligations were resolved or inactive. As market values shift, investors may revive these claims to extract value embedded in historical contracts. Financial stability becomes vulnerable to instruments rooted in past transactions that are difficult to trace or reconstruct.
This pattern reflects a broader dynamic. Financial markets explore value through instruments that can outlive the clarity of their origin. Securitization and repeated transfer chains allow ownership and enforcement rights to separate from direct relationships between borrower and lender. When opacity governs the movement of such instruments, consequences may appear disconnected from visible cause. Security becomes contingent not only on present circumstances but also on layers of financial history that re-emerge when incentives align.
This pattern recurs across periods of financial expansion. New instruments appear. Language expands around them. Legitimacy forms before comprehension stabilizes. Technologies change. The structural rhythm remains. Explanation grows while clarity recedes.
Certain signals accompany this shift. The source of value becomes difficult to trace to tangible activity. Profit aligns more closely with expansion than with endurance. Compensation rewards timing or position rather than sustained outcome. Reputation substitutes for explanation. Risk disperses into technical language, making consequence harder to locate.
Authority increasingly rests on prestige rather than clear explanation. Definitions shift when questioned. Simplicity is treated as misunderstanding. Explanation becomes something that must be accepted rather than understood. Confidence remains even when clarity is missing.
The effects are visible. Profit gathers where control over structure exists. Those who design or manage complex financial systems capture most of the gains. Others experience the system through its consequences rather than through direct participation in its design. Extraordinary wealth accumulates among a small number of actors while financial insecurity spreads more widely. This concentration is often defended by the belief that gains at the top will eventually benefit everyone else.
Some structures are intentionally built as pyramids, relying directly on new inflows to sustain earlier gains. Others arrive at similar dynamics without explicit design. Incentives reward expansion, early positioning, and continual growth. Over time the system begins to depend on upward concentration and continued inflow to maintain stability. The result resembles pyramidal logic even when it was not formally constructed as a pyramid.
This resemblance rarely appears openly. It adopts familiar language. It presents itself through accepted financial forms, technical explanations, or narratives of innovation and progress. Repetition of these forms makes the structure appear natural. Recognition replaces scrutiny. The underlying dependence on continued expansion becomes harder to see because it looks like what has come before.
Opacity and scale reinforce this movement. As financial instruments move across institutions and markets, the connection between cause and outcome becomes harder to trace. Old obligations reappear. New risks emerge from past transactions. Gains concentrate. Losses disperse.
The gap between explanation and understanding remains. Confidence continues to be expected even when clarity is uneven. The structure continues to operate within that gap.
Ricardo F. Morín New York Series, Nº 11 54″ x 84″ Oil on canvas 1989
Ricardo F Morín
January 1, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
The work began within a relationship marked by companionship and solidarity. Attention to language, discipline, and restraint developed through shared effort rather than assertion of authority. Standards were learned through proximity, conversation, and time. Whatever shape the writing later assumed did not arise in isolation; it took form within sustained exchange oriented toward craft.
For a time, that arrangement held. Growth moved in a common direction. Guidance clarified rather than constrained. Correction sharpened rather than narrowed. At that stage, there was no reason to imagine that continuation would require anything other than more work.
As the writing developed, friction appeared without a clear source. Questions emerged that did not settle easily. Revisions accumulated without resolving what they were meant to address. What had once felt like refinement began to feel like adjustment, though the difference was not immediately clear. The work continued, but with more hesitation.
Gratitude complicated recognition. What had been received was evident and could not be denied. To question the present form of the relation felt premature, even ungrateful. Endurance seemed preferable to interruption, especially while uncertainty could still be explained as part of growth.
Over time, small signs accumulated. Decisions were postponed. Directions shifted after agreement. Suggestions were acknowledged but returned unchanged. The writing slowed. Nothing dramatic occurred, but progress no longer felt proportionate to effort.
Attempts were made to restore balance. Clarifications were offered. Adjustments were accepted. The hope was that refinement of terms might recover the earlier ease of movement. Instead, the same tension reappeared, differently framed, without resolving what had prompted it.
At a certain point, the difficulty could no longer be treated as temporary. Continuing began to require forms of accommodation that altered how judgment operated while writing. Choices were made to preserve the relation rather than the work. What was being protected became harder to name.
Recognition did not arrive as certainty. It arrived as a limit. There were things the work could no longer do without distortion. There were directions it could no longer take without resistance that did not diminish over time.
Rupture followed hesitation, delay, and resistance. It did not resolve anything cleanly. It ended a form of continuity that had once been formative. What was relinquished was not gratitude, but dependence. What remained was the work itself, now proceeding without mediation.
The cost of rupture was not conflict, but exposure. Standards had to be held without reinforcement. Decisions could no longer be deferred. Failure, if it came, would no longer be shared.
Nothing in the rupture erased what had been learned. It marked the point at which learning could no longer continue in the same form. What followed was not freedom in the abstract, but authorship in the strict sense: judgment carried without shelter.
Ricardo F. Morín My Nest 24′”x30″ Oil on linen 1999
Ricardo F. Morín
January 1, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
Help was not offered casually. It was offered over time, shaped by history, familiarity, and a belief that loyalty required staying present when circumstances were unsettled. Unclear commitments were accepted with the expectation that steadiness might compensate for instability, and that patience would allow clarity to arrive where it had not yet appeared.
As time passed, those commitments became harder to anticipate. Plans shifted after they were accepted. Expectations changed without being stated. What had been agreed to one week was revised the next. Each adjustment was absorbed rather than challenged. Meetings no longer produced decisions. Agreements no longer survived the week. The effort to remain fair became an effort to remain adaptable. What was not confronted was carried.
There was hesitation in naming what was occurring. Doing so felt severe. It risked appearing uncharitable or impatient. Silence often seemed preferable to objection, not because nothing was seen, but because what was seen resisted easy articulation. Silence, once a form of restraint, had ceased to clarify anything. Endurance appeared safer than judgment.
Gradually, the effects of that endurance became visible. Loyalty did not stabilize the situation. It prolonged it. The more uncertainty was accommodated, the more it became the organizing condition. Commitments lost their edges. Responsibility dispersed. Care, extended without limit, ceased to correct anything and instead made instability easier to sustain.
At one point, a friend chose a different posture. He remained attentive, but at a distance. He did not intervene repeatedly or attempt to steady what showed no sign of holding. At the time, that distance was easy to misread. Commitment, as it was then understood, appeared to require proximity. Restraint looked like withdrawal.
Only later did the significance of that posture become clear. What had appeared passive was a form of orientation. Limits had been recognized earlier, and conduct adjusted accordingly. Distance had not signaled indifference, but an understanding that presence, under unstable conditions, does not always improve outcomes. The difference lay not in intention, but in timing.
This recognition unsettled earlier assumptions. Proximity had been mistaken for responsibility. Endurance had been treated as virtue without asking whether it was sustaining anything beyond the appearance of care. What felt like loyalty had, in part, become permission. The most difficult admission was not about the actions of others, but about the role played in allowing those actions to continue without consequence.
Distance did not follow immediately. It came after repeated attempts to restore proportion, after explanations failed to hold, and after silence ceased to clarify anything. Withdrawing was not a rejection of concern. It was the only remaining way to prevent concern from being consumed by unpredictability. It was a way of preserving judgment, preventing concern from being consumed by unpredictability, and leaving open the possibility that conditions might yet change
Refusal, understood in this way, is not dramatic. It does not accuse or announce itself. It does not seek recognition. It withdraws consent quietly and allows arrangements either to stabilize or to reveal their own limits. What ends is not care, but participation in conditions that require self-deception to endure.
This form of refusal is not moral superiority. It is responsibility turned inward. It begins when remaining present requires abandoning one’s own judgment, and when loyalty, left unchecked, undermines what it was meant to protect. Silence, at that point, does not evade obligation. It restores coherence.
The act is restrained. Its consequences are durable. By stepping back, one ceases to supply the energy on which instability depends. What remains intact is judgment without foreclosing the possibility of renewal should proportion be restored. What is relinquished is the belief that endurance is always ethical—and refusal becomes the means by which clarity, rather than rupture, is maintained.
Ricardo F. Morín Landscape II 18″ x 24″ Oil on board 2000
Ricardo F. Morín
February 1, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl.
The word activism now functions in public language as a device for disqualification rather than description. It appears when someone protests, reports, or questions how power is being exercised. The word does not explain what occurred or whether rules were followed. It assigns suspicion to the person who speaks. Once the word enters a sentence, attention shifts from facts to motive, and inquiry is halted before it can proceed.
This linguistic use of activism depends on presenting the existing order as beyond legitimate question. What already exists is described as normal, lawful, and necessary. What challenges it is labeled activism. The structure of the sentence assumes that authority does not need to justify itself, while those affected by authority do. Language thus distributes legitimacy in advance and shields power from explanation.
Recent executive orders on immigration make this mechanism concrete and visible. Policies once described as border enforcement have been extended deep into the interior of the country. Federal agents now operate in cities, towns, workplaces, and private homes far from any border. This shift is not merely about location. It changes who is exposed to the power of the State and under what assumptions.
Interior immigration enforcement now treats distinct categories of people as interchangeable in practice. The stated objective is to arrest people with criminal records and to take custody of those already detained. At the same time, operations are designed to collect anyone present, nearby, or loosely associated. Non-criminal residents are taken alongside those accused of crimes. Long-term residents, elderly people, workers with families, and even citizens are drawn into the same encounters. Legal distinctions remain on paper but collapse in execution.
This operational blending is presented by authorities as coherent, but its coherence is asserted rather than demonstrated. Arresting a person convicted of a violent offense and detaining a neighbor with no criminal history are described as parts of a single mission. The language suggests unity and purpose. In reality, different objectives are combined for scale, not clarity. The result is that no one can know where enforcement ends, and uncertainty itself becomes the governing condition.
Profiling supplies the practical method by which interior enforcement sustains itself. Away from the border, agents cannot rely on crossings or documented violations. They rely instead on appearance, accent, location, or association. People are stopped not because of what they have done, but because of what they are assumed to be. Citizenship, residency, and legality cease to function as reliable protections at the moment of encounter.
Community response emerges when these practices become visible in daily life. In places such as Montana, residents have watched neighbors taken from their homes in early hours, elderly people removed while barely dressed, children detained alongside adults, and towns unsettled by large federal deployments. In other parts of the country, citizens have died during enforcement operations. As such events repeat, they cease to appear exceptional and begin to register as conditions people are expected to endure.
Public protest arises from this recognition of harm rather than from ideological performance. People gather, speak, and demand answers because something familiar has been crossed. Their response is rooted in what they have seen and experienced. Yet this response is often dismissed as activism, a term that avoids addressing the conduct that provoked it and instead questions whether reaction itself was permissible.
The label activism redirects responsibility away from state action and toward civic response. The word does not ask whether enforcement was lawful, proportionate, or humane. It asks whether people should have objected. In doing so, the conduct of authority recedes from scrutiny while dissent becomes the subject of judgment. Accountability is reversed.
The same linguistic device is applied to journalism that documents these events. When reporters record raids, publish testimony, or show images of arrests, the work is sometimes dismissed as activist reporting. The accusation is not that the facts are false, but that they were assembled with improper intent. Accuracy is displaced by suspicion, and the act of documentation itself is treated as a breach.
This pattern of language gradually alters how democracy is understood. Democratic life depends on questioning authority, reviewing decisions, and objecting when harm occurs. Under the grammar of activism, these actions are treated as disruptions. Quiet acceptance is praised. Scrutiny is framed as excess. Stability is elevated above fairness.
The ethical consequence of this shift is the denial of ordinary civic agency. When workers, parents, and neighbors are told that speaking up makes them activists, they are no longer addressed as reasoning citizens. They are treated as obstacles to be managed. Authority ceases to explain itself and instead asserts continuity as its own justification.
A narrowing definition of national belonging advances alongside this linguistic shift. Belonging is measured by silence. Loyalty is measured by compliance. Difference is treated as threat. Supremacy enters not through open declaration, but through repetition, as people are asked again and again to accept what they are no longer permitted to question.
A plural society cannot endure under a grammar that treats challenge as deviance. Such a society does not depend on shared origin, culture, or uniform belief. It depends on the recognition that no single group owns the meaning of the nation. When language is used to dismiss those who expose harm or demand explanation, democracy is not defended. It is quietly redefined against the people it exists to serve.
Resilience is often introduced as a descriptive term. It names a capacity observed under pressure, a tendency to endure when conditions cannot immediately be altered. In this sense, resilience appears neutral, even commendable. It signals survival where collapse was possible, continuity where interruption was expected.
Over time, however, resilience ceases to be merely observed and begins to be praised. What was once noted becomes celebrated. Endurance is elevated into virtue, and the ability to persist under strain is held up as evidence of strength. In this shift, attention subtly moves away from the conditions that necessitated endurance in the first place.
Once resilience is praised, it becomes expectable. The language of admiration gives way to the language of obligation. What some managed to do under duress is gradually treated as what all should do. Endurance stops being exceptional and becomes normative. The capacity to withstand replaces the question of why endurance is required.
At this point, resilience performs a quiet inversion. Conditions remain intact, while responsibility migrates toward those exposed to them. Structures are left unexamined as individuals are encouraged to adapt. Adjustment is relocated from systems to subjects. What cannot be repaired is to be endured.
This inversion carries a temporal dimension. Resilience is framed as forward-looking strength, a promise that persistence will eventually be rewarded. Harm is deferred rather than addressed. Recovery is invoked in place of repair, and time is asked to absorb what policy or structure does not resolve.
The ethical weight of this shift is unevenly distributed. Those with the least capacity to alter their circumstances are most frequently called upon to be resilient. Those with the greatest power to change conditions are least exposed to the demands of adaptation. Resilience, though praised as universal, is imposed asymmetrically.
As resilience becomes an expectation, dissent softens rather than disappears. Complaint is not forbidden, but it is recoded. Questioning conditions is treated as impatience. Refusal to endure is framed as deficiency. Endurance itself becomes a measure of maturity, and silence is mistaken for consent.
What resilience is, then, is a capacity to endure conditions not of one’s making. It is a descriptive fact of human behavior under pressure. It names survival where alternatives are limited.
What resilience is not is an ethic. It is not a justification for harm, nor evidence that conditions are acceptable. The ability to endure does not confer legitimacy on what is endured.
Ricardo Morín Bulwark Formerly titled Buffalo Series, Nº 3 Oil on linen, 60 × 88 in. 1980 Exhibited: Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center, Buffalo, New York, May 1980 Destroyed while in third-party custody; extant as digital archival record only.
*
Ricardo F. Morin
December 23, 2025
Kissimmee, Fl
*
I did not encounter the boundaries that would later govern my writing either through instruction or doctrine, but through a remark made in passing by my father when I was still a child. He stated, without hesitation or elaboration, that he could not imagine existing under a political system that threatened individual liberty and private autonomy, and that life under such conditions would no longer be a life he could inhabit. The formulation was extreme, yet even then it was clear that it was not intended as a proposal, a threat, or a performance. It functioned instead as a boundary: an indication of where survival, once stripped of dignity, would no longer merit the name of living.
The force of that remark did not reside in its literal content, but in the clarity with which it established a limit. Extreme statements often draw attention by excess, but this one operated differently. It did not seek reaction or allegiance. It closed a door. What it marked was the point at which judgment ceased to be negotiable—not because compromise becomes difficult, but because continuation itself loses coherence. What it marked was not expression but diagnosis. It identified a threshold beyond which endurance would amount to acquiescence in one’s own negation.
That distinction—between living and merely persisting—would take years to acquire its full weight. One can remain alive and yet no longer inhabit the conditions under which action, responsibility, and choice remain intelligible. The body endures; the terms of authorship do not. What is surrendered in such cases is not comfort or advantage, but authorship over one’s own conduct: the capacity to remain the source and bearer of one’s actions.
Only later did historical irony give that childhood memory a broader frame. My father died one year before Venezuela entered a prolonged political order that normalized civic humiliation and displaced individual responsibility.This coincidence does not confer foresight or vindication.It merely underscores the nature of the limit he articulated.He did not claim to predict outcomes or to possess superior insight. He identified a condition he would not inhabit, regardless of how common, administratively justified, or socially enforced it might become.
What was transmitted through that remark was not an ideology, nor even a political position, but a refusal. It was a refusal to treat dignity as contingent, and a refusal to accept adaptation as inherently neutral. Such refusals are not dramatic. They do not announce themselves as virtues. They operate quietly, shaping what one will not do, what one will not say, and what one will not permit to pass through one’s actions in exchange for continuity, safety, or approval.
Writing, I have come to understand, is not exempt from the constraints that govern action. Symbolic form does nor suspend responsibility. Language acts. It frames possibilities, distributes responsibility, and licenses certain responses while it forecloses others. To write without regard for what one’s words enable is to treat expression and conduct as if they belonged to different orders. They do not. The same boundary that governs action governs language: one must not inhabit forms that require the habitual abandonment of autonomy.
Authorial responsability does not entail moral exhibition or the performance of virtue. Responsibility in writing does not consist in adopting the correct posture or aligning with approved conclusions. It consists in refusing methods that rely on coercion, humiliation, or rhetorical pressure in place of clarity. It requires attention not only to what is asserted, but to what is permitted to continue through tone, implication, and omission. Precision here is not a stylistic preference; it is a moral discipline.
Restraint, in this sense, is not passivity but a method of authorship. It is a form of interruption in the circulation of what one does not consent to carry forward. To decline to amplify what one does not consent to carry is an act of selection, and an exercise of agency. In an environment where excess, outrage, and reactive urgency are often mistaken for seriousness, restraint becomes a way of maintaining authorship over one’s participation. Restraint limits reach, but it preserves coherence between what is said and what is lived.
Such restrain inevitably carries a cost. Urgency is more than speed; it is the condition under which reflection itself begins to appear as a liability. Reflection serves as a procedural safeguard of agency and authorship—and, with them, of ethical responsibility—even when circumstances cannot be governed and one is compelled to choose within constraint. Restraint resists urgency, narrows reach, and foregoes certain forms of recognition. These losses are not incidental; they are constitutive. To accept all available registers or platforms in the name of relevance is to treat survival as the highest good. The boundary articulated long ago indicates otherwise: that there are conditions under which continuation exacts a price too high to pay.
Authorial responsibility, then, is not a matter of expression but of alignment between language and action. It asks whether one’s language inhabits the same ethical terrain as one’s conduct. It asks whether the forms one adopts require compromises one would refuse in action. The obligation is not to persuade or to prevail, but to remain answerable to the limits one has acknowledged.
What remains is not a doctrine but a stance: a stance standing without dramatization, without escape, and without concession to forms that promise endurance at the expense of dignity. Such a posture does not announce itself as resistance, nor does it seek exemption from consequence. It holds its ground without appeal. In doing so, it affirms that authorship—like autonomy—begins where certain lines are no longer crossed.
*
What remains unaddressed is the more fragile condition beneath authorship itself: the way thinking precedes command, and at times repositions the author before any stance can be assumed.
The memory of my father appears as a moving target—not an idea slipping out of control, but it is a standard shifting under my feet while I was still advancing. I did not invite it in the sense of intention or plan. Nor did I resist it. I noticed it moving before I could decide what it demanded.
That experience is unsettling because it violates a comforting assumption: that thought is something we deploy, rather than something that displaces us.
The uncertainty about whether I had invited it is itself a sign that I was not instrumentalizing my thinking. When thought is summoned as a tool, it remains fixed. When it emerges in response to something that matters, it moves, because it is adjusting to reality rather than arranging it. That movement feels like a loss of control only if authorship is understood as command.
I allowed the discomfort of not knowing whether I had summoned what was now demanding attention only if authorship is understood as control. This was resistance under motion, not paralysis of judgment. The question arises only when thinking is still alive enough to be displaced.
The target moved because it was attached to the terrain of perception, not to the self doing the perceiving.
Ricardo F. Morín Irrationality, Propaganda, and Tribalism CGI 2026
Ricardo F. Morín
January21, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl.
1. A political claim ordinarily enters public life through institutions. A law is debated, enacted, interpreted, contested. A speech is delivered from a known office, before a defined audience, subject to reply and record. Authority, in these cases, arises from responsibility and constraint.
2. The text examined here satisfies none of these conditions.
3. The text attributes to an unnamed broadcast the power to alter legal status. The text presents a speaker not as a citizen who speaks, but as a conscience that pronounces. The text declares effects that no statute, no executive order, and no court possesses the authority to produce. The text announces national assent in the absence of any forum capable of granting assent.
4. No enactment appears. No interpretation occurs. No review is possible.
5. Nothing in this sequence is argued. Nothing in this sequence is demonstrated. Nothing in this sequence is capable of verification.
6. Authority is not derived from office, law, or responsibility. Authority is assigned by narrative arrangement.
7. The speaker is granted moral standing by recognition alone. The law is displaced by spectacle. The audience is positioned as witness to a verdict that precedes deliberation. Silence is treated as confirmation. Stillness is treated as consent.
8. What appears as denunciation functions as substitution.
9. The place of institutions is occupied by a voice. The place of argument is occupied by proclamation. The place of judgment is occupied by reaction.
10. The result is not persuasion. The result is conversion.
11. Citizens are not addressed as agents capable of contesting claims. Citizens are addressed as spectators invited to receive a moral scene whose meaning has been fixed in advance.
12. When invented testimony is received as political record, the boundary between event and wish disappears. When spectacle is treated as verdict, correction loses authority. When conscience is produced as performance, no institution remains capable of constraining conscience.
13. This is not misinformation in the ordinary sense.
14. This phenomenon is the replacement of judgment by fabricated authority.
15. Authority ordinarily attaches to an office before authority attaches to a voice, because office supplies the limits under which speech can claim consequence. A court exists, so a judge speaks. A chamber exists, so a legislator speaks. An administration exists, so an executive speaks. In each case standing precedes utterance, and the public can locate responsibility by locating the forum in which the claim is made.
16. The text examined here reverses that order. The text presents a voice whose standing is not grounded in any office that can be named, any jurisdiction that can be defined, or any forum that can be recognized. No delegation is stated. No mandate is visible. No responsibility is assumed. Yet the voice speaks as if entitled to pronounce on matters whose force depends, in ordinary civic life, on enactment, interpretation, and review.
17. This reversal matters because office establishes the scope under which a claim may operate, jurisdiction fixes the reach of effects, and procedure subjects both scope and reach to contest and record. A claim that arises through these constraints can be challenged because standing can be challenged. The claim here does not arise through constraint; the claim arises through reception. Standing depends on recognition rather than jurisdiction, and recognition is not a civic category that admits examination.
18. One can dispute a mandate. One can deny a court’s jurisdiction. One can invoke procedure and require reply. Recognition offers no equivalent instrument. Recognition confers authority without specifying scope, and recognition allows a voice to present itself as conscience without accepting the obligations that make conscience accountable in public life.
19. The effect is not merely that a voice speaks outside office. The effect is that the role of office is replaced. In a system where standing precedes speech, speech can be limited because the forum can be limited. In a system where standing follows speech, speech expands until something external imposes a boundary.
20. The text relies on no such boundary. The text presents moral standing as complete at the moment of utterance, and the text treats reception as confirmation. The audience is positioned less as a public capable of contest than as a witness to a pronouncement whose authority is presumed rather than earned.
21. In that arrangement the claim to speak carries consequence without jurisdiction, and authority appears where no institution can be identified as a source of authority.
22. Authority that does not arise from office cannot rely on procedure. Procedure requires forum. Forum requires jurisdiction. Jurisdiction requires mandate. None is present here.
23. The claim therefore does not proceed by sequence. The claim proceeds without premises, without grounds, and without anticipation of reply. The statement does not argue. The statement announces.
24. What would ordinarily require enactment is declared complete. What would ordinarily require interpretation is pronounced settled. What would ordinarily require review is presented as final. Verdict precedes forum.
25. This reversal alters the function of speech itself. Speech no longer seeks assent through reasoning. Speech produces assent by declaration. Judgment no longer follows deliberation. Judgment is installed before deliberation can occur.
26. Once proclamation is received as verdict, proof becomes irrelevant.
27. Once argument is removed from the sequence, assent no longer arises from judgment. Assent arises from recognition. The claim does not ask to be examined. The claim asks to be received. The force of the claim depends less on what the claim establishes than on whom the claim addresses.
28. The audience is not invited to consider whether the verdict follows from law, or whether the authority invoked possesses standing to pronounce. The audience is invited to recognize the audience in the verdict.
29. This shift alters the function of agreement. In deliberative settings, assent follows contest. One accepts a conclusion because one has weighed a claim against alternatives. Here, assent precedes any such weighing. The verdict arrives already formed, and reception supplies confirmation.
30. Agreement no longer signals conviction, but affiliation, a posture defined less by conviction than by position.
31. Recognition, in this arrangement, performs the work that argument once performed. To accept the claim is to affirm membership in a moral position already defined. The verdict does not bind because the verdict is correct. The verdict binds because the verdict identifies.
32. Those who receive the verdict do not do so as judges of coherence, but as participants in the posture the verdict confers. The claim succeeds not by persuading opponents, but by consolidating those already disposed to accept the claim.
33. This function explains the absence of procedure. Deliberation would introduce fracture. Contest would introduce differentiation. Review would expose divergence. None serves the purpose at hand.
34. The claim therefore bypasses every stage at which disagreement could appear. The claim offers instead a completed judgment whose primary effect is to sort recognition from refusal.
35. The result is not belief in the ordinary sense, but affiliation, a posture defined less by conviction than by position. To assent is to take position within a moral alignment whose boundaries are drawn by reception itself. Those who accept are confirmed. Those who hesitate are marked.
36. Authority, in this form, does not govern through law. Authority governs through identification.
37. Once standing is conferred by reception, the remaining limits cannot hold.
38. Once authority is produced in this manner, substitution becomes unavoidable. In this arrangement office yields to presence, jurisdiction yields to recognition, procedure yields to proclamation, and judgment yields to reaction, until no limit remains capable of arresting the expansion that follows.
39. Each replacement removes a limit. Each replacement widens scope. Each replacement dissolves responsibility.
40. What remains is a form of authority that cannot be contested because no forum remains in which contest can occur.
41. The consequence for citizenship follows directly. A citizen ordinarily participates in judgment by weighing claims, contesting standing, and invoking procedure. Here, that role disappears. The citizen is no longer positioned as a participant in deliberation. The citizen is positioned as a recipient of verdict.
42. Agency yields to reception, judgment yields to alignment, and responsibility yields to loyalty, until disagreement itself can no longer appear as a civic act.
43. In this posture disagreement ceases to be a civic act. Disagreement becomes a breach of affiliation. Hesitation becomes disloyalty. Correction becomes defection.
44. Once judgment is displaced in this way, repair becomes impossible. Correction presupposes a forum. Review presupposes jurisdiction. Reply presupposes standing. None remains available.
45. A verdict that arrives without forum cannot be recalled to contest. An authority that arises without office cannot be subjected to review. A claim that governs through recognition alone cannot be corrected without threatening membership itself.
46. The persistence of fabrication follows not from confusion, but from function. Fabrication endures because fabrication stabilizes alignment. Fabrication circulates because fabrication confirms position. Fabrication resists correction because correction would dissolve the posture fabrication sustains.
47. Authority, once detached from office and constraint, does not disappear. Authority reappears in altered form. Verdict is separated from forum. Conscience is separated from responsibility. Assent is separated from deliberation.
48. What remains is a claim to govern without jurisdiction.
49. This is not the corruption of judgment. This is displacement.
50. Judgment is no longer exercised. Judgment is produced.
Reflections from previous chapters eventually lead to a more historical inquiry, in which the following archive, Chronicles of Hugo Chávez, becomes another lens through which I approach the Venezuelan experience.
Chapter VI
*
Chronicles of Hugo Chávez
~
1
Hugo Chávez, who spearheaded the Bolivarian Revolution, was born on July 28, 1954, in Sabaneta, Venezuela. He died on March 5, 2013, at 4:25 p.m. VET (8:55 p.m. UTC) in Caracas, at the age of 58. As the leader of the revolution, Chávez left a discernible imprint on Venezuela’s political history. To reconstruct this history is to revisit a landscape whose consequences continue to shape Venezuelan life.
At the core of Chavismo lies a deliberate fusion of nationalism, centralized power, and military involvement in politics. This fusion shaped his vision for a new Venezuela, one that would be fiercely independent and proudly socialist.
~
Hugo Chávez at age 11, sixth grade, 1965 (Photo: Reuters).
2
Hugo Chávez’s childhood was spent in a small town in Los Llanos, in the northwestern state of Barinas. This region has a history of indigenous chiefdoms (i.e., “leaderships,” “dominions,” or “rules”) dating back to pre-Columbian times. [1] Chávez was the second of six brothers, and his parents struggled to provide for the large family. As a result, he and his older brother Adán were sent to live with their paternal grandmother, Rosa Inés, in the city of Barinas. After her death, Chávez honored his grandmother’s memory with a poem; it concludes with a stanza that reveals the depth of their bond:
Entonces, / abrirías tus brazos/ y me abrazarías/ cual tiempo de infante/ y me arrullarías/ con tu tierno canto/ y me llevarías/ por otros lugares/ a lanzar un grito/ que nunca se apague.[2]
[Author’s translation: Then, /you would open your arms /and draw me in /as if returned to childhood /and you would steady me /with your tender voice /and you would carry me /to other places /to release a cry /that would not be extinguished].
3
In his second year of high school, Chávez encountered two influential teachers, José Esteban Ruiz Guevara and Douglas Ignacio Bravo Mora, both of whom provided guidance outside the regular curriculum. [3][4] They introduced Chávez to Marxism-Leninism as a theoretical framework, sparking his fascination with the Cuban Revolution and its principles—a turning point more visible in retrospect than it could have been in the moment.
4
At 17, Chávez enrolled in the Academia Militar de Venezuela at Fuerte Tiuna in Caracas, where he hoped to balance military training with his passion for baseball. He dreamed of becoming a left-handed pitcher, but his abilities did not match his ambition. Despite his initial lack of interest in military life, Chávez persisted in his training, graduating from the academy in 1975 near the bottom of his class.
5
Chávez’s military career began as a second lieutenant; he was tasked with capturing leftist guerrillas. As he pursued them, he found himself identifying with their cause and believed they fought for a better life. But by 1977, Chávez was prepared to abandon his military career and join the guerrillas. Seeking guidance, he turned to his brother Adán, who persuaded him to remain in the military by insisting, “We need you there.” [5] Chávez now felt a sense of purpose and understood his mission as a calling. In 1982, he and his closest military associates formed the Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement-200: they aimed to spread their interpretation of Marxism within the armed forces and ultimately hoped to stage a coup d’état. [6]
6
On February 4, 1992, Lieutenant Chávez and his military allies launched a revolt against the government of President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Their rebellion, however, was swiftly quashed. Surrounded and outnumbered, Chávez surrendered at the Cuartel de la Montaña, the military history museum in Caracas, near the presidential palace, on the condition that he be allowed to address his companions via television. He urged them to lay down their arms and to avoid further bloodshed. He proclaimed, « Compañeros, lamentablemente por ahora los objetivos que nos planteamos no fueron logrados . . . » [Author’s translation:“Comrades, unfortunately, our objectives have not been achieved… yet,”].[7] The broadcast marked the beginning of his political ascent.His words resonated across the nation and sowed the seeds of his political future.
~
Chávez announces his arrest on national television and urges insurgent troops to surrender.
7
In 1994, newly elected President Rafael Caldera Rodríguez pardoned him. [8] With this second chance, Chávez founded the Movimiento V República (MVR) in 1997 and rallied like-minded socialists to his cause. [9] Through a campaign centered on populist appeals, he secured an electoral victory at age 44.
8
In his first year as President, Chávez enjoyed an 80% approval rating. His policies sought to eradicate corruption in the government, to expand social programs for the poor, and to redistribute national wealth. Jorge Olavarría de Tezanos Pinto, initially a supporter, emerged by the end of the elections as a prominent voice of the opposition. Olavarría accused Chávez of undermining Venezuela’s democracy through his appointment of military officers to governmental positions. [10] At the same time, Chávez was drafting a new constitution, which allowed him to place military officers in all branches of government. The new constitution, ratified on December 15, 1999, paved the way for the “mega elections” of 2000, in which Chávez secured a term of six years. Although his party failed to gain full control of the Asamblea Nacional (National Assembly), it passed laws by decree through the mechanism of the Leyes Habilitantes (Enabling Laws). [11][12] Meanwhile, Chávez initiated reforms to reorganize the State‘sinstitutional structure, but the constitution’s requirements were not met. The appointment of judges to the new Corte Suprema de Justicia [CSJ]was carried out without rigor and raised concerns about its legitimacy and competence. Cecilia Sosa Gómez, the outgoing Corte Suprema de Justicia president, declared the rule of law “buried” and the court “self-dissolved.” [13][14]
9
Although some Venezuelans saw Chávez as a refreshing alternative to the country’s unstable democratic system, which had been dominated by three parties since 1958, many others expressed concern as the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) consolidated power and became the sole governing party. [15] Legislative and executive powers were increasingly centralized, and the narrowing of judicial guarantees limited citizens’ participation in the democratic process. Chávez’s close ties with Fidel Castro and his desire to model Venezuela after Cuba’s system—dubbed VeneCuba—raised alarm. [16] He silenced independent radio broadcasters, and he antagonized the United States and other Western nations. Instead, he strengthened ties with Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Meanwhile, domestically, his approval rating had plummeted to 30%, and anti-Chávez demonstrations became a regular occurrence.
10
On April 11, 2002, a massive demonstration of more than a million people converged on the presidential palace to demand President Chávez’s resignation. The protest turned violent when agents of the National Guard and masked paramilitaries opened fire on the demonstrators. [17] The tragic event—the Puente Llaguno massacre—sparked a military uprising that led to Chávez’s arrest and to the installation of a transitional government under Pedro Francisco Carmona Estanga. [18] Carmona’s leadership, however, was short-lived; he swiftly suspended the Constitution, dissolved the Asamblea Nacional and the Corte Suprema, and dismissed various officials. Within forty-eight hours, the army withdrew its support for Carmona. The vice president, Diosdado Cabello Rondón, was reinstated as president and promptly restored Chávez to power. [19]
11
The failed coup d’état enabled Chávez to purge his inner circle and to intensify his conflict with the opposition. In December 2002, Venezuela’s opposition retaliated with a nationwide strike aimed at forcing Chávez’s resignation. The strike targeted the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), which generated roughly 80% of the country’s export revenues. [20] Chávez responded by dismissing its 38,000 employees and replacing them with loyalists. By February 2003, the strike had dissipated, and Chávez had once again secured control over the country’s oil revenues.
12
From 2003 to 2004, the opposition launched a referendum to oust Chávez as president, but soaring oil revenues, which financed social programs, bolstered Chávez’s support among lower-income sectors. [21] By the end of 2004, his popularity had rebounded, and the referendum was soundly defeated. In December 2005, the opposition boycotted the elections to the National Assembly and protested against the Consejo Nacional Electoral (National Electoral Council) (CNE). [22] As anticipated in view of the opposition boycott, Chávez’s coalition capitalized on the absence of an effective opposition and strengthened its grip on the Assembly. [23] By that point, legislative control rested almost entirely with Chávez’s coalition.What followed was not a departure from this trajectory, but its extension through formal policy.
13
In December 2006, Chávez secured a third presidential term, a victory that expanded the scope of executive initiative. He nationalized key industries—gold, electricity, telecommunications, gas, steel, mining, agriculture, and banking—along with numerous smaller entities.[24][25][26][27][28][29] Chávez also introduced a package of constitutional amendments designed to expand the powers of the executive and to extend its control over the Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV). In a controversial move, he unilaterally altered property rights and allowed the state to seize private real estate without judicial oversight. Furthermore, he proposed becoming president for life. In December 2007, however, the National Assembly narrowly rejected the package of sweeping reforms.
14
In February 2009, Chávez reintroduced his controversial proposals and succeeded in advancing them. Following strategic counsel from Cuba, he escalated the crackdown on dissent.[30] He ordered the arrest of elected opponents and shut down all private television stations.
15
In June 2011, Chávez announced that he would undergo surgery in Cuba to remove a tumor, a development that sparked confusion and concern throughout the country.[31] As his health came under increasing scrutiny, more voters began to question his fitness for office. Yet, in 2012, despite his fragile health, Chávez campaigned against Henrique Capriles and secured a surprise presidential victory.[32]
~
Chávez during the electoral campaign in February 2012.
16
In December 2012, Chávez underwent his fourth surgery in Cuba. Before departing Venezuela, he announced his plan for transition and designated Vice President Nicolás Maduro as his successor, alongside a powerful troika that included Diosdado Cabello [military chief] and Rafael Darío Ramírez Carreño [administrator of PDVSA].[33][34][35] Following the surgery, Chávez was transferred on December 11 to the Hospital Militar Universitario Dr. Carlos Arvelo (attached to the Universidad Militar Bolivariana de Venezuela, or UMBV) in Caracas, where he remained incommunicado, further fueling speculation and rumors. Some government officials dismissed reports of assassination, while others, including former Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz, claimed he had already died on December 28.[36] Maduro’s cabinet vehemently refuted these allegations and insisted that no crime had been committed. Amidst the uncertainty, Maduro asked the National Assembly to postpone the inaugurationindefinitely. This further intensified political tensions.
17
The National Assembly acquiesced to Maduro and voted to postpone the inauguration. Chávez succumbed to his illness on March 5. His body was embalmed in three separate stages without benefit of autopsy, which further fueled suspicions and conspiracy theories. Thirty days later, Maduro entered office amid sustained political uncertainty.[37] The implications of this transition extend beyond chronology; they shape the conditions examined in the chapters that follow in this series, which comprises 19 chapters, miscellaneous rubrics, and an appendix.
~
Endnotes:
§ 2
[1] Charles S. Spencer and Elsa M. Redmond, Prehispanic Causeways and Regional Politics in the Llanos of Barinas, Venezuela (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). Abstract: “…relacionados con la dinámica política de la organización cacical durante la fase Gaván Tardía.” Published in Latin American Antiquity, vol. 9, no. 2 (June 1998): 95-110. https://doi.org/10.2307/971989
[4] L’Atelier des Archive, “Interview du révolutionnaire: Douglas Bravo au Venezuela [circa 1960]” (Transcript: “… conceptos injuriosos en contra de la revolución cubana …” [timestamp 1;11-14]), YouTube, October 14, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cx2D5VM8VM
§ 5
[5] “Hugo Chavez Interview,”YouTube, transcript excerpt and time stamp unavailable: Original quote in Spanish (translated by the author): “. . . , if not, maybe I’ll leave the Army, no, you can’t leave, Adam told me so, no, we need you there, but who needs me?” Retrieved October 12, 2023.
[9] Gustavo Coronel, “Corruption, Mismanagement, and Abuse of Power in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela,” Center for Global Liberty & Prosperity: Development Policy Analysis, no. 2 (CATO Institute, November 27, 2006). https://www.issuelab.org/resources/2539/2539.pdf.
[11] Mario J. García-Serra, “The ‘Enabling Law’: The Demise of the Separation of Powers in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela,” University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, vol.32, no. 2, (Spring – Summer, 2001): 265-293. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40176554
[37] “Cuerpo de Chávez fue tratado tres veces para ser conservado: … intervenido con inyecciones de formol para que pudiera ser velado,” El Nacional De Venezuela – Gda, Enero 27, 2024, 05:50, actualizado Marzo 22, 2013, 20:51. https://www.eltiempo.com/amp/archivo/documento/CMS-12708339
This essay examines trickle‑down not as an economic theory but as an axiom. It asks when a contested hypothesis ceases to require demonstration and begins to operate as a standing justification. At that point, it no longer explains outcomes. It authorizes them.
Trickle‑down is commonly presented as a mechanism through which accumulation generates general benefit. Concentration is framed as provisional, inequality as temporary, and reward as ultimately shared.
These claims shift attention away from verification and toward expectation. Promise substitutes for proof. What is described as distribution depends on prior withholding. Benefit is said to flow only after it has been secured elsewhere.
A mechanism that requires inequality in order to justify equality nullifies its own claim. The logic depends on deferral. Those positioned to wait are not those positioned to decide. The contradiction becomes operative when patience is assigned unevenly. Those asked to trust the longest are those least able to absorb delay. Those who benefit earliest are not exposed to failure in the same measure. Risk is not shared. Time is not reciprocal.
Trickle‑down does not compel through force. It governs through assurance. It asks that inequality be endured in the present in exchange for a benefit that cannot be demanded.
What trickle‑down is, then, is a narrative that stabilizes concentration by postponing accountability. What it is not is a distributive mechanism or a mutual ethic.
When promise replaces demonstration, trickle‑down ceases to be examined and begins to function as an axiom.
Ricardo F. Morin Eschatology Watercolor, gouache, oil sticks, white correction fluid, and black ink on paper 14″ x 20″ 2004
Ricardo F. Morín
January 11, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
1. Civilizations periodically describe their present as uniquely perilous. Such claims are rarely grounded in historical comparison or institutional analysis. They arise instead from a failure of scale: the inability to distinguish disruption from collapse, uncertainty from termination, and incoherence from apocalypse.
2. Moments of genuine civilizational danger are not hypothetical. The Black Death removed a third of Europe’s population. The Thirty Years’ War devastated entire regions. The twentieth century combined industrialized warfare, genocide, and the advent of nuclear annihilation. These events did not require prophetic language to be understood as catastrophic. Their magnitude was measurable. Their effects were material. Their causes were traceable.
3. Apocalyptic rhetoric appears not when danger is greatest, but when comprehension falters. It converts uncertainty into moral drama. When political processes appear opaque, when outcomes resist prediction, and when authority behaves without an intelligible pattern, explanation withdraws. In its place enters eschatology: a narrative that simplifies complexity, assigns absolute blame, and promises closure.
4. The figure of the Antichrist belongs to this register. It is not an analytical category. It is a symbolic condensation of fear. By locating total danger in a single person, eschatological thinking relieves societies of the obligation to examine institutions, incentives, and limits. It replaces causal inquiry with revelation.
5. Such framing also distorts responsibility. Civilizations do not disintegrate because of individuals alone. They deteriorate through cumulative failures of governance, adaptation, and legitimacy. These processes unfold unevenly, often reversibly, and without finality. They do not announce themselves with signs. They do not culminate on schedule.
6. Eschatology thrives where explanation retreats. It offers emotional certainty where analysis requires patience. It persuades by promising an end to ambiguity, not by clarifying causes. By transforming political disorder into cosmic struggle, it diverts attention away from conditions that can be examined and toward myths that cannot be corrected.
7. The danger of apocalyptic thinking is not that it exaggerates risk, but that it misdirects attention. It trains citizens to search for omens rather than causes, villains rather than conditions, destiny rather than decisions. In doing so, it deepens the very helplessness it claims to describe.
8. What the present requires is not prophecy, but proportion. Not moral theater, but discernment. Not the language of revelation, but the discipline of understanding how power operates, where it fails, and how it can be constrained.
9. Where explanation returns, superstition recedes. Where clarity is restored, apocalypse loses its hold.
Ricardo F. Morín Viability Watercolor frottage and white corrector on drafting vellum 20″x30″ 2005
1. The question is often posed as to why certain corrupt regimes become objects of political action while others, no less compromised, do not. At first glance, this appears to demand a comparative moral explanation. In fact, it does not. The difficulty lies not in the absence of information, but in the assumption that such actions are guided by a coherent and generalizable system of principles.
2. What can be observed is not the application of a principle across cases, but decisions taken one case at a time. Political action does not follow a rule that can be applied in advance to different regimes. For that reason, comparisons between Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or Argentina obscure more than they clarify. They assume a standard of decision-making that is not, in practice, a guiding action.
3. The actions examined here are those taken by Donald Trump in his capacity as a political actor. His name is introduced not to explain behavior through personality or intention, but to locate responsibility. The analysis proceeds from observable decisions and the circumstances in which those decisions were taken, rather than from suppositions about character, motive, or disposition.
4. The more relevant question is therefore not why some regimes are confronted and others ignored, but under what circumstances a country presents few obstacles to action, and which immediate interests align to make that action feasible. This reframing shifts the analysis away from moral judgment and toward observable circumstances.
5. Understood in these terms, the issue admits a response—not as a rule, but as an account of how decisions are made in specific cases. There is no way to infer, from the level of corruption alone, whether action will occur. There is, however, a way to explain why, in particular circumstances, action proceeds.
6. In the Venezuelan case, several conditions converge.
7. First, immediate external resistance is limited. Venezuela lacks allies willing to impose material, military, or economic consequences in response to pressure or limited intervention.
8. Second, state institutions do not act in a coordinated manner. Administrative agencies, security forces, and political authorities do not reliably operate under a single command, reducing the ability to mount a unified response and making external action easier to pursue.
9. Third, Venezuela can be publicly described as an exceptional case—marked by collapse, criminal conduct, and administrative failure—which allows actions to be presented to domestic audiences without invoking a general principle that would need to apply elsewhere.
10. Fourth, economic interests operate through short-term negotiation rather than long-term alignment. Venezuelan oil, under sanctions and administrative disorder, can be folded into ad hoc bargaining without requiring stable commitments or enduring partnerships.
11. Finally, pressure on Venezuela does not trigger immediate disruption to major markets or strategic balances. Unlike cases involving Saudi Arabia or Russia, action does not risk cascading economic or military responses.
12. None of these factors amounts to a moral explanation or a guiding doctrine. Taken together, they describe when an administration acts through foreign policy: not because corruption is greater, but because resistance is limited, interests converge quickly, and a domestic account of the action can be sustained—conditions absent in many cases of equally severe corruption.
13. This does not explain the world. It explains a decision.
This essay treats inflation not as a technical variable but as an axiom. It asks when inflation ceases to appear as a policy outcome and begins to function as a background assumption. At that point, it no longer argues its case. It is endured.
Inflation is commonly described as neutral. It is said to affect all equally, to arise impersonally, and to correct excesses over time. These descriptions grant it the status of a natural condition rather than a decision mediated by institutions. In doing so, they suspend ethical inquiry.
What presents itself as general is, in practice, asymmetrical. Inflation redistributes value across time. Those who can defer consumption, hold assets, or hedge exposure are not affected in the same manner as those whose lives are indexed to wages, rent, or fixed obligations. A condition that produces predictable inequality while presenting itself as neutral contradicts its own description.
The contradiction deepens when inflation is framed as inevitable. Inevitability removes agency from decision while preserving its effects. Responsibility dissolves into explanation. Adjustment is demanded without consent, and patience is prescribed as virtue. The ethical tension does not lie in sacrifice itself, but in the absence of reciprocity. Those who decide are not exposed in the same temporal frame as those who absorb the cost.
Inflation operates quietly. It does not compel through force but through normalization. It is accepted because it is explained, and it persists because it is treated as unavoidable. What inflation is, then, is a distributive mechanism embedded in time. What it is not is neutral, impersonal, or shared equally.
The moment this distinction is obscured, inflation ceases to be examined and begins to rule as an axiom.
Ricardo F. Morín Erasures Watercolor rub-offs on Japanese tissue paper 14″x20″ 2005
Ricardo F. Morín
January 10, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
*
1.
Public discussion often treats corruption as a series of discrete scandals attached to identifiable individuals. That framing is misleading. Investigative reporting and judicial records increasingly show that, particularly in the Venezuelan case, responsibility is displaced through repeatable actions that allow illicit benefit while obscuring accountability.
2.
The PBS Frontline documentary examining the rise and role of Alex Saab provides a clear point of entry. Saab did not function as a policymaker or symbolic representative. According to United States indictments and sustained investigative reporting, he acted as a testaferro—a fraudulent front man—through whom contracts, assets, and payments were routed to conceal the true beneficiaries.
3.
The diagnostic importance of Saab lies not in his personal profile but in the action he performed. A testaferro is not a neutral intermediary. He lends his name so that authority may receive benefit while denying responsibility for the consequences of its decisions. The contractual signatory does not indicate decision-making authority.
4.
This action appears repeatedly in Venezuela across multiple domains: oil sales conducted through intermediaries, food import programs delivering overpriced or tainted goods, housing projects funded and left incomplete, and financial transfers designed to evade sanctions and scrutiny. Each domain differs in form, but the same action recurs: authorization is granted, benefit accrues, and responsibility is displaced.
5.
The same displacement of responsibility appears in the use of irregular armed groups that exercise coercion without formal attribution. Their actions do not require demonstrable command. The absence of a traceable chain of authority is not incidental but integral: force is applied while authorship remains deniable.
6.
At this stage, individual corruption gives way to criminal conduct sustained over time. United States prosecutors have alleged that these financial and logistical actions coincide with narcotics trafficking and money laundering attributed to senior civilian and military officials, including Nicolás Maduro. These allegations rest on claims of coordination, protection, and benefit.
7.
What U.S. indictments and investigative journalism describe as the Cartel de los Soles does not depend on the existence of a unified chain of command. The term refers to a condition in which drug trafficking depends on permission, tolerance, or protection by state authorities rather than independent criminal initiative.
8.
Under this account, Saab is neither anomaly nor mastermind. He is a replaceable participant whose removal does not interrupt the conduct described. The persistence of the activity depends on substitution, not on loyalty or hierarchy.
9.
This clarification resolves a recurrent confusion in public debate. Describing these actions does not constitute moral judgment or ideological hostility. It identifies delegated fraud through which authority preserves outward legitimacy while transferring legal exposure to intermediaries.
10.
When these actions extend across ministries, borders, and markets and are sustained by coercive power, they exceed ordinary corruption. They constitute organized criminal conduct exercised with the capacity of the State, regardless of whether a classic cartel form is present.
11.
The significance of the Frontline investigation is not that it adds another episode to a familiar narrative. It shows how the use of front men allows this conduct to persist over time. What follows from this recognition is not vindication but clarity about why accountability cannot be achieved by removing individuals alone.
Ricardo F. Morín An Agreement to Disagree Watercolor, gouache, whiteout and black ink on paper 14″x20″ 2005
Ricardo F. Morín
January 9, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
Some antagonisms call not for vindication, but for clarity
*
Our exchange revealed not a disagreement to be resolved, but a misalignment that could not be repaired through further argument. What initially appeared as an analytical difference gradually disclosed a deeper divergence in how understanding itself was approached. At that point, explanation no longer clarified and began to obscure.
There are moments in life when antagonistic relationships must be confronted not to prevail, but to discern limits. Not every challenge is an invitation to engage, and not every assertion of authority merits reply. When discourse shifts from inquiry to self-assertion, the task is no longer persuasion, but recognition—of what can be shared, what cannot, and when distance becomes a form of integrity rather than withdrawal.
Disengagement, understood in these terms, is not an abdication of reason, nor a retreat from rigor. It is an acknowledgment that intellectual authority does not arise from moral superiority, from the accumulation of sources, or from the insistence on being recognized as correct. Authority that cannot tolerate limits undermines itself by the very posture it adopts.
Disengagement, then, is neither silence nor concession. It is a turning away that carries weight: liberating and disappointing, real and poignant. It offers no solace, yet affirms life itself by refusing to persist in distortion. What remains is not victory, but truth preserved through restraint.
Authority intolerant of limits succumbs to hubris for its own sake.
Ricardo F. Morín Portrait of a President III Watercolor, gouache, black ink, and white corrector on paper 14″x20″ 2003
Ricardo F. Morín
January 7, 2026
Oakland Park, Fl
1.
The present moment does not register as a crisis of ideology, but as a crisis of sequence. What is being tested is not the content of declared principles, but the order in which authority, review, and justification are made to occur. Decisions are advanced before the conditions that would ordinarily authorize them have been articulated, and coherence is asked to follow action rather than govern it. This inversion does not abolish law, institutions, or legitimacy. It displaces them. What once determined whether action should proceed now intervenes after action has already been declared.
2.
In Venezuela, this inversion becomes visible through the widening separation between legitimacy and enforceable authority. Electoral victory, moral credibility, and international recognition continue to exist, but they no longer determine who is treated as operable. Engagement instead centers on those capable of compelling compliance in the present tense. Authority is identified not through mandate, but through continuity with the administrative, financial, and coercive mechanisms that currently exert control. The effect is not confusion but selection. Those able to deliver immediate outcomes are elevated as interlocutors regardless of ethical record, while those whose legitimacy lacks immediate enforcement capacity are bypassed.
3.
This preference has been articulated through assessment rather than implication. Reporting on a classified briefing presented to Donald Trump indicates that U.S. intelligence concluded that figures drawn from within the existing Maduro apparatus were best positioned to assume control if Maduro were removed. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was identified not because of democratic standing or public credibility, but because of her continuity with the administrative, financial, and extractive mechanisms that continue to function within Venezuela. Her experience overseeing the oil sector and engaging directly with commercial actors was treated as evidence of reliability in practice rather than legitimacy in principle. What was evaluated was not character, but enforceability. Criminal implication did not disqualify; it indicated command of the systems through which compliance could be compelled. Opposition figures whose authority derived from electoral legitimacy but lacked immediate control over those mechanisms were treated as non-operable. The selection privileged negotiability under pressure.
4.
This mode of selection is not confined to a single theater or moment. It recurs wherever authority is exercised ahead of coordination. Operability outweighs normative qualification. Authority is derived from the capacity to transact, enforce, and stabilize outcomes in compressed timeframes. Legitimacy is acknowledged but does not determine engagement. What governs is the ability to act now and to absorb consequence later.
5.
The same inversion appears in Ukraine under different conditions. Public declarations affecting military assistance, diplomatic posture, and negotiation have been issued without prior coordination with allies or institutions tasked with planning and review. These statements do not clarify direction in advance; they compel response after the fact. Allies recalibrate commitments once consequences are already in motion. Planning follows assertion. Coordination adjusts to announcement. The question is not whether support exists, but whether its terms are introduced before or after the processes that would ordinarily govern them.
6.
This ordering is also visible within the American system itself. On multiple occasions over several years, Donald Trump has acted on the basis of assurances issued by Vladimir Putin despite the existence of contrary assessments produced by U.S. intelligence agencies. Those institutions were not dismantled or silenced. Briefings continued. Analysis persisted. What changed was their position in time. Intelligence no longer governed whether action proceeded; it reconciled itself to commitments already made. Verification trailed assertion. Agencies designed to anticipate risk were required to manage consequences they had not authorized.
7.
Once this ordering becomes perceptible, it does not remain confined to decision-makers. Institutions, allies, and adversaries adjust their behavior accordingly. Diplomatic actors treat public declarations as operative even when their durability is uncertain. Agencies tasked with planning model scenarios around positions that may shift without notice. Allies hesitate between waiting for clarification and acting to protect their own exposure. Adversaries are instructed not by declared policy, but by the demonstrated sequence: that commitments may precede review, that reversals may follow assertion, and that coherence cannot be assumed in advance.
8.
What emerges is not paralysis, but recalibration. Systems continue to function by absorbing volatility as a standing condition. Stability is no longer produced by predictability, but by the capacity to adjust rapidly to decisions introduced before their governing terms have been settled. This adaptation does not resolve the inversion; it normalizes it. Governance continues, but its coordinating force weakens. Motion persists without measure.
9.
The consequence of this pattern bears directly on how authority and legitimacy relate to one another. Legitimacy continues to be articulated through elections, alliances, and formal acknowledgment. Authority, however, is exercised through immediacy—through the ability to set terms in motion that others must then accommodate. This does not negate legitimacy; it sidelines it. Authority no longer requires justification in order to operate. Legitimacy survives as language, while authority consolidates through sequence.
10.
When authority is exercised independently of legitimacy, governance may still function, but it ceases to persuade. Decisions are carried forward not because they are accepted, but because they are already underway. Review becomes accommodation. Law becomes explanation after action rather than guidance before it. The danger here is not lawlessness, but displacement. Constraint remains formally intact while losing its capacity to govern timing.
11.
This condition does not resolve into immediate collapse. It endures. Constitutional systems assume cooperation without being able to compel it in advance. They rely on restraint exercised voluntarily, sequentially, and often against immediate interest. When that restraint falters, institutions remain standing but lose coordinating force. Authority fills the gap left by cooperation, often in the name of continuity. What persists is governance without convergence, power without persuasion, and action without settled measure.
The Monroe Doctrine is often treated as a historical policy. It operates, however, as something more elemental: an axiom. In this form, it no longer argues its case. It establishes the conditions under which argument is permitted. An axiom does not persuade. It assumes.
When the Monroe Doctrine functions as an axiom, it ceases to appear as a contingent claim about hemispheric order and becomes an unspoken premise about who may decide, when intervention is justified, and what forms of consent count as sufficient. What requires examination is not the doctrine as written, but the axiom as it circulates.
The Monroe Axiom asserts unilateral authority while presenting itself as regional responsibility. It presumes that stability in the Western Hemisphere depends on U.S. primacy, and that this primacy does not require reciprocal authorization. Consent is not sought; necessity is declared. Decision precedes deliberation.
Attempts to rehabilitate the Monroe Doctrine by assigning it a benevolent purpose do not alter its structure. Such revisions change tone, not authorization. A claim of unilateral authority does not become mutual through intention. Benevolence serves as reassurance offered after power has been exercised, not as a limit operating before it. Political fatigue may explain acquiescence, but it does not supply authorization. What is endured is not endorsed.
In its contemporary articulation, the axiom does not declare dominance openly. Instead, it presents itself as reluctant, unavoidable, or benevolent. Intervention is framed not as choice, but as consequence. Exhaustion replaces consent. Democracy is invoked not as a process to be preserved, but as an outcome promised in advance. Once inevitability replaces argument, the axiom becomes self-sealing. Opposition is no longer disagreement; it is reclassified as denial.
The Monroe Axiom fails the test of reciprocity. A principle that justifies intervention outward but rejects reversal is not a principle. It is asymmetry protected by habit. When unilateral authority no longer justifies itself, normative language ceases to clarify and begins to anesthetize.
Hegemony does not normally operate through open domination. It operates through consent. Power becomes durable not because it is feared, but because it is accepted as legitimate. The central mechanism is not repression, but agreement: the willingness to recognize an authority as natural, necessary, or unavoidable.
In this condition, governance no longer depends primarily on force. It depends on institutions, economic structures, technical systems, and narratives that define what appears normal and reasonable. Over time, these arrangements narrow what can be questioned. Authority no longer justifies itself. It comes to define the terms under which justification occurs.
What emerges is a form of rule whose primary objective is continuity rather than the public good. Stability becomes the overriding value. Accountability becomes subordinate to preservation. The preservation of existing arrangements takes precedence over the purposes those arrangements were meant to serve.
Such systems do not collapse through confrontation. They weaken when consent withdraws. The decisive change occurs when people no longer believe the narratives that sustain authority, no longer accept the inevitability of existing structures, and no longer participate in their maintenance. At that point, power is forced to justify itself. And once justification becomes necessary, hegemony has begun to fail.
*
On Self-Authorizing Executive Judgment
*
As hegemonic justification weakens, authority shifts from consensual legitimacy to executive judgment. What an axiom enables at the level of doctrine, executive practice completes at the level of justification. Authority no longer presents itself as procedurally derived. It presents itself as self-authorizing. Decisions are framed as judgments rather than actions subject to institutional review. The language of prudence—stability, timing, coordination—serves not as an articulated framework, but as a justificatory surface applied after the fact.
In this mode, power does not describe a process by which decisions were tested, constrained, or evaluated. It describes internal certainty. Judgment is treated as sufficient warrant. Review is recast as delay. Constraint is reframed as irresponsibility. The executive becomes both actor and auditor, collapsing the distinction between discretion exercised within a republic and sovereignty asserted by an individual. What persists is not the absence of the law, but a reordering of when the law is permitted to speak.
This transformation does not reject democratic language. It inhabits it. At that point, justification is treated as unnecessary. Authority no longer explains itself to institutions. It explains itself to itself.
This displacement does not stop at intervention. It extends into how moral authority is articulated in relation to executive power.
What once appeared as rhetorical excess has been confirmed as formal executive communication. In a documented text exchange with Norway’s prime minister, later shared by the Norwegian government, Donald Trump linked his failure to receive the Nobel Peace Prize to a withdrawal of moral restraint and a reassertion of territorial entitlement. He stated that because Norway had “decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 wars,” he no longer felt obliged “to think purely of peace,” and could instead focus on what was “good and proper for the United States of America.” From that premise, he dismissed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland as historically arbitrary, asserted an equivalent U.S. claim, and concluded that “the world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland.”
This is not a metaphorical slippage of tone; it is an axiomatic substitution enacted in plain language. Moral recognition becomes a precondition for continued restraint. Legal sovereignty is reframed as folklore. Collective security obligations under NATO are inverted into a debt relationship owed to executive initiative. The structure of justification no longer proceeds from treaty, the law, or institutional reciprocity, but from unilateral narrative authority. The episode does not illustrate a policy position; it reveals a mode of reasoning in which executive power ceases to argue its case and declares the conditions under which argument itself will be recognized.
*
A recent procedural illustration of this logic appears in the treatment of Venezuela’s 2024 electoral outcome. That election produced a determinate locus of constitutional legitimacy grounded in publicly documented tallies, corroborated by international observation, and reinforced by prior external recognition of the opposition coalition represented by María Corina Machado’s party. Together, these elements constituted a juridical fact: authority derived from electoral procedure rather than from bilateral negotiation or executive preference.
Subsequent engagement by the United States executive branch with Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s acting executive did not contest that electoral outcome. It displaced the outcome operationally. This displacement did not arise from a competing evidentiary claim about the vote count or from a legally articulated challenge to the election’s validity. It arose from an external strategic preference for transactional stability over constitutional continuity. Recognition was detached from electoral legitimacy and reassigned on the basis of expedient functionality.
This maneuver reflects a category error with institutional consequences. Diplomatic leverage authorizes negotiation, pressure, and conditional engagement. Policy discretion authorizes the selection of strategies aligned with national interests. Neither authorizes redefinition of the internal locus of sovereignty within another State. By treating these domains as interchangeable, U.S. executive policy practice converted foreign-policy discretion into a surrogate sovereignty-assigning authority. What was presented as pragmatic statecraft functioned as jurisdictional substitution.
The displacement cannot be stabilized by invoking realism. Realism explains why States behave instrumentally. It does not supply a legal warrant for nullifying electoral outcomes. The American executive branch did not demonstrate that the 2024 Venezuelan election failed to generate legitimate authority. It demonstrated that the authority produced by that election was operationally inconvenient for the strategy pursued by the American administration. In institutional terms, this constitutes not correction but override of another country’s sovereignty.
The structural consequence extends beyond Venezuelan governance. When electoral legitimacy is superseded by bilateral endorsement, elections cease to function as determinative acts and become advisory signals contingent on foreign approval. Sovereignty is no longer derived from domestic mandate but from external recognition calibrated to strategic utility. Authority shifts from constitutional process to diplomatic transaction.
This transformation does not announce domination. It normalizes it. Recognition becomes an instrument for reallocating jurisdiction. Intervention becomes a method for reassigning legitimacy.
On Recognition Substitution and Jurisdictional Drift
In this register, moral authority no longer functions as an external constraint on power. Distinction ceases to operate as a limit placed on authority and becomes an accessory of it. When moral standing is derived from proximity to executive certainty, independence dissolves without coercion. What appears as endorsement is, structurally, a transfer of judgment from the moral sphere to the political one.
The failure of the Monroe Axiom is not confined to its original doctrinal form. It persists because the axiom no longer needs to appear as doctrine. Its logic circulates in a different register, one that does not argue for unilateral authority but presupposes it by altering the terms under which legitimacy is evaluated.
In this register, political conflict is no longer treated as a relation among agents operating under shared constraints. It is reclassified as a condition to be managed rather than a position to be answered. Once this shift occurs, reciprocity no longer functions as a test of legitimacy. Action is justified not by reversibility but by asserted necessity.
Within this framework, intervention is no longer judged against reversible standards. It is judged against urgency. Delay becomes negligence. Restraint becomes complicity. The language of limits gives way to the language of care, and coercive force is presented not as domination but as treatment. The axiom is not rejected. It becomes unnecessary.
This shift produces asymmetry. Where reciprocity once constrained legitimacy, diagnosis now authorizes action. The governing question is no longer whether an act could be defended word for word if positions were reversed, but whether the condition has been declared terminal. Once that declaration is made, consent becomes secondary, proportionality becomes implicit, and accountability is deferred to an undefined recovery phase.
This transformation has a structural consequence. When political communities are redescribed as incapacitated, authority no longer justifies itself in relation to equals but in relation to asserted necessity. Measures that would otherwise require justification are absorbed into administration.
Authority proceeds by classification rather than justification. Once legitimacy is grounded in declared condition, the criteria for ending intervention no longer operate in advance.
Under this displaced logic, material claims can be advanced without appearing as seizures, and control can be asserted without being named as such. What follows is not an exception to the axiom but one of its most concrete expressions.
Under this logic, nationalization is no longer interpreted as a sovereign act. What had been established within Venezuelan territory, regulated by Venezuelan authority, and later incorporated into the Venezuelan law is reclassified as an asset whose ownership is said to precede Venezuelan authority. Past participation is invoked not as historical involvement but as proof of continuing entitlement. Time is not treated as a boundary but as confirmation.
Once this redefinition is accepted, the decline of Venezuela’s oil industry is no longer understood as a domestic failure affecting Venezuelans. It is described as damage to U.S. interests. Mismanagement inside Venezuela is translated into harm to the United States. Venezuela’s inability to maintain its industry becomes evidence that it should no longer control it.
From there, the reasoning shifts. The claim is restated in corrective terms. Control is framed as reestablishment of a prior condition rather than initiation of a new one. What is transferred is described as something that never ceased to belong elsewhere. Performance replaces consent as the measure of legitimacy. Ownership becomes conditional, evaluated against outcomes rather than jurisdiction.
The argument adopts the language of vulnerability. Disruption within Venezuela is described as exposure elsewhere. Energy production is treated as a condition of stability rather than an object of agreement. What had been governed through jurisdiction is presented as a requirement of continuity. Under this framing, intervention aligns with prevention. Choice becomes indistinguishable from obligation.
In this sequence, ownership is no longer treated as a settled legal condition. Jurisdiction is referenced, insofar as outcomes meet external expectations. Control persists while its legal basis becomes contingent.
Claims initially framed as interests are restated as standing expectations. Those expectations are treated as conditions that must be met in advance of consent.
Venezuela’s transition and Ukraine’s survival now constitute a single test: whether power can be constrained without illusion, and whether the United States can act coherently even when its president cannot perceive coherence himself.
This text does not argue for a policy or predict an outcome. It marks the threshold at which coherence ceases to be discretionary and becomes a condition of survival.
The United States cannot act in one theater in a way that invalidates the principles it claims to defend in another. If sovereignty, territorial integrity, institutional continuity, and legal accountability are treated as binding in Ukraine, they cannot become flexible, provisional, or strategically inconvenient in Venezuela. And the reverse must also hold: if those principles are treated as binding in Venezuela, they cannot be relaxed, reinterpreted, or selectively applied in Ukraine. Once that line is crossed in either direction, coherence collapses—not only rhetorically, but structurally. Power ceases to stabilize outcomes and instead begins to manage decay.
This is not a moral claim; it is a functional one. Modern power does not fail because it lacks force, but because it loses internal consistency. When the same instruments—sanctions, indictments, military pressure, diplomatic recognition—are applied according to circumstance rather than principle, they no longer constrain adversaries. They instruct them. Russia and China do not need to prevail militarily if they can demonstrate that legality itself is selective, contingent, and subject to reinterpretation by whoever holds advantage in the moment.
For this reason, no transition can rest on personalization. Trust between leaders is not a substitute for verification, nor can rapport replace institutions. This vulnerability is well known in personality-driven diplomacy and has been particularly visible under Donald Trump in his repeated misreading of Vladimir Putin. Yet the deeper danger is not psychological; it is procedural. Policy that depends on who speaks to whom cannot survive stress. Only policy that remains legible when personalities are removed can endure.
Nor can outcomes be declared before institutions exist to carry them. Territorial control without civilian authority is not stability. Elections conducted without enforceable security guarantees are not legitimacy. Resource access without escrow, audit, and legal review is not recovery, but extraction under a different name. When the United States accepts results without structures, it postpones collapse rather than preventing it.
Equally corrosive is legal improvisation. Law applied after action—indictments justified retroactively, sanctions reshaped to accommodate faits accomplis—does not constrain power; it performs it. Once legality becomes explanatory rather than directive, it loses its disciplining force. Adversaries learn that rules are narrative instruments, not boundaries.
Finally, there can be no tolerance for proxy preservation. A transition that leaves intact militias, shadow financiers, or coercive intermediaries is not a transition at all. It is a redistribution of risk that guarantees future rupture. External backers may be delayed, constrained, or audited, but they cannot be placated through ambiguity without undermining the entire process.
The test is stark and unforgiving. If an action taken in either Venezuela or Ukraine could not be defended, word for word, if taken in the other—or if a compromise tolerated in one would be condemned if replicated in the other—then the axiom has already been broken.
What must therefore remain true, in both places at once, is this: power must submit to the same standard it invokes—without exception, without personalization, and without retreat into expediency disguised as realism.
*
Authority Where Legitimacy Has Not Yet Converged
*
This section does not assess democratic legitimacy or political merit. It observes how authority is presently constituted and enforced when coherence is under stress.
A question posed during a press conference—regarding the opposition coalition led by María Corina Machado and the electoral victory of Edmundo González Urrutia—elicited a dismissive response from President Donald Trump. Asked why a transitional leadership would not center on that coalition, he replied that there was “no respect for her,” implying an absence of authority within the country.
Taken at face value, the remark appears personal. Read diagnostically, it exposes a more consequential distinction: legitimacy does not presently translate into authority inside Venezuela. The same distinction—between legitimacy and enforceable authority—has shaped Ukraine’s resistance to Russian invasion, where legitimacy was established internally but had to be defended materially against external aggression.
Electoral victory, international recognition, and moral credibility confer legitimacy. They do not, by themselves, confer enforceable power. Authority, as it exists on the ground, flows from the capacity to compel compliance—whether through control of coercive institutions, resource chokepoints, or the operational machinery of the state. In Ukraine, that authority is exercised defensively to preserve an already legitimate sovereign order against external aggression. In Venezuela, it persists independently of electoral outcome, sustained by institutions and mechanisms detached from legitimacy.
In this sense, the question raised by Trump’s remark is not whether Machado’s coalition is legitimate, but what presently lends authority within the country—and who is capable of enforcing decisions, preventing fragmentation, or compelling compliance. The answer is neither rhetorical nor normative. It is about how authority is currently constituted and exercised under present conditions.
Recent commentary surrounding U.S. engagement with Venezuelan actors has made this distinction operational rather than abstract. The marginalization of María Corina Machado has not turned on questions of democratic legitimacy, electoral mandate, or international recognition. It has turned on her unwillingness to participate in transactional arrangements with the existing technocratic and financial strata that currently exercise control within the State. In contrast, figures such as the Vice President Delcy Rodríguez are treated as viable interlocutors precisely because they command enforceable authority through continuity with those mechanisms—coercive, financial, and administrative—that persist independent of legitimacy. Criminality, in this logic, is not disqualifying. It is evidence of control. What is being selected for is not moral credibility, but negotiability under pressure.
This distinction matters because transitions that confuse legitimacy with authority tend to collapse into disorder or entrenchment. Authority negotiated without legitimacy produces repression. Legitimacy asserted without authority produces paralysis. Durable transition requires that the two converge—but they do not begin from the same place, nor do they converge through the same means.
In Ukraine, legitimacy and authority are aligned but strained by external aggression; in Venezuela, authority persists in the absence of legitimacy. Treating these conditions as morally or procedurally equivalent obscures the obligations they impose. When support is conditioned more heavily where legitimacy is intact than where it is absent, coherence gives way to ethical imbalance.
Trump’s comment does not clarify U.S. strategy. It does, however, expose the fault line along which policy now risks fracturing: whether authority is assessed and transformed in relation to legitimacy, or accommodated independently of it in the name of order. The choice is not neutral. It determines whether power reinforces or undermines the principles it invokes.
The distinction between legitimacy and authority does not negate the requirement of coherence. It sharpens it. When coherence is abandoned selectively, collapse is no longer an accident of transition but a consequence of duplicity.
“New York Love Letters” was written in the aftermath of my younger sister’s death. In our early adulthood, as I confronted the certainty of dying from AIDS, I learned of her diagnosis of schizophrenia. Our lives became bonded through different forms of vulnerability and endurance. Her survival became inseparable from my own. Over time, I came to define part of myself through the emotional, intellectual, and material support I provided her. When she died at sixty-nine and I found myself stable at seventy-one, I experienced not only grief, but the loss of a role that had shaped my identity. It was at that moment that writing became a means of survival. What follows emerged from that necessity.
First Letter: How Did I End Up in Manhattan?
I lived in Manhattan from 1982 to 2021, though I hadn’t planned to stay. Initially, it was meant to be temporary—a waiting point before Jurek’s return. But then he told me he was staying in Berlin. His decision, not mine, anchored me in the city. And when I learned that death had taken him, grief replaced waiting, and Manhattan became something else—perhaps a substitute, perhaps a necessity.
We had admired each other. Our conversations shaped me, deepened my understanding of art, and reinforced the creative instincts that guided me. As in every meaningful relationship, our exchanges defined us. He had a profound sense of what high art was, and his perspective challenged me to see beyond my own. Even after he was gone, his influence remained, though absence is a poor companion for inspiration.
Still, I had to find my place within Manhattan—amid its creative currents, its relentless demands, and its contradictions.
My academic foundation had been in fine arts, and I was veering into theater, much as I had years earlier in Venezuela. During the time Jurek and I were together, I moved from the experimental environment of the Art Department at the State University of New York at Buffalo (Bethune Hall) to the world of theatrical conventions at the Yale School of Drama’s Design Department. In between, I traveled with Jurek through Europe and attended set design seminars at the Salzburg International School of Arts.
At Yale’s Design Department welcoming new students, the chairman referred to my arrival as being via Salzburg—a remark delivered amidst what seemed to me like convivial bemusement. It lingered with me for years—whether as admiration or something else, I never fully understood. Instead of questioning the observation, I shifted the conversation to Albert Spaulding Cook’s influence in Buffalo, whose writings had guided my decision to bridge fine arts and theater—shifting from my understanding of what art meant to me to Cook’s particular regard for the designer’s interpretative role in service of the playwright. The response from the group was quick—and revealing. A couple of professors reacted not to my objectives, but to the mention of Cook himself, as they questioned whether he had ever been in Buffalo. I knew perfectly well he had and chose not to argue. Soon enough, I sensed a quiet resistance to ideas that didn’t align with prevailing norms—perhaps a reflection of the school’s priorities, though I never fully determined where I stood within them. After my second year, the chairman inquired if I wished to continue.
For the three years of the Master’s program, I did not find the formal rigor I had expected, yet I stayed the course. My aspirations in the fine arts remained intact, but my footing in the world depended on my role as a set designer—expected to conform to an interpretative craft rather than pursue art on my own terms. The program emphasized adherence to established standards over the cultivation of new approaches, a structure that felt at odds with my own desire to elevate set design—transforming it into an art form capable of standing alongside the finer, more expressive arts rather than relegating it to a supporting role. The principal counselor, of course, would never have admitted this. Whether my approach unsettled him or simply diverged from his expectations, I could never be sure. But I remained guided by instinct rather than precedent, much as I had been drawn to fine arts in the first place. He remained in the position until his late eighties before he died. I sometimes wonder how our arguments sat with him over the years—if they ever did at all.
Second Letter: Ten Years Later.
In Manhattan, the roads of set design and painting intersected, but neither provided stability or clear success. Professional networks seemed in disarray. From Broadway (where I worked as a principal assistant) to the experimental stages of Off-Off-Broadway, the struggle remained the same. Both the personal and professional aspects I found unsettling. Also, these were the years marked by the AIDS crisis, a time that left an indelible mark on me. I navigated these years, though they left their mark.
Walking through the galleries and streets of Manhattan in the 1980s felt like navigating a maze with no exit. There was the buzz of new ideas and the promise of fortune, yet every corner led to another dead end, much like my work in set design. Broadway was a field of intense competition, and Off-Off-Broadway unfolded in forgotten warehouses. Every path and every encounter suggested possibility, but in practice few could sustain themselves within an environment defined by labor precarity, relentless intensity, and limited compensation.
The lack of opportunities to establish myself as a designer mirrored my exclusion from galleries. Both signified exclusion, the denial of a real chance to build a reputation. Some doors never opened, others slammed shut before I could step through. A well-known Broadway designer would often introduce me both as an associate and a great artist, but never allowed me to compete with him. The income I managed to secure was precarious at best. Competition was intense, often driven by commercial interest over cultural ones. In like manner, galleries were run by grifters eager to exploit talent, while artistic directors prioritized profit over innovation. The promise of stardom—even if fleeting—often proved to be unattainable. Survival dictated my choices and forced me to navigate my limitations rather than transcend them.
In a city that constantly reinvented itself, where the streets were painted with the colors of addiction and struggle, it seemed as though no one was ever whole. The fractured sidewalks beneath me reflected my own disjointed ambitions. There were days I couldn’t even recognize the neighborhoods I once called home. In places where life was reduced to survival—where crack vials littered the sidewalks and people stumbled through their days—how could I hope to thrive, let alone create something lasting?
Set design in the world of spectacle was arduous, and the pay was meager—yet I did it out of love for the craft. At one point, a clever producer remarked that enjoying my work as much as I did seemed incompatible with the notion of being compensated for it. Eventually, I turned to commercial design for security; I took on work in film documentaries and the toy industry. But even there, professionalism was no guarantee of respect or fairness. The same challenges persisted. The Actors Fund of America and Visual AIDS provided important support during difficult times; they offered a space to remember those lost and reflect on artistic struggles.
In the early years, Manhattan’s pulse beat through the night in the form of whispered secrets between strangers, drawn together by the need for touch that didn’t require commitment. There was a safety in that anonymity, and yet it was a hollow shield against what I truly sought—something beyond the next fleeting encounter, beyond the walls of a bar or an apartment rented for the night. It was a city where love seemed to evaporate the moment it took form, and independence felt more like isolation than freedom.
As I struggled in the professional world, I found that the absence of fulfillment in my work mirrored the absence of love in my personal life. Both were a reflection of a larger void I had yet to name. Instability extended beyond work. Friendships and love affairs unraveled just as easily. Many friends I had known and loved were lost to AIDS; and deepened my sense of isolation. More than any professional setback, it was the absence of love that left the deepest void. I continued to wrestle with questions of purpose, which remained unresolved after years of reflection. The search for answers became its own struggle—just as illusive as success in a world with high demands.
The smell of decay and the sounds of sirens were never far behind. In neighborhoods where homeless families lived in the shadows of once-glorious buildings, survival came at any cost—whether it was a desperate hand reaching for money or a corner turned into something darker. There was a coldness to the city’s march forward, as if everything was disposable. My art, my efforts, my desires—they all seemed to be tangled in that same vicious cycle of consumption and neglect.
Third Letter: When I Met BBT
BBT’s intellect and honesty shaped my life in ways I didn’t fully grasp at first. I found myself drawn to his company and sought the creative nourishment that seemed lacking elsewhere. At the time, I felt I could withstand the challenges I faced—my health, affected by AIDS, careers that had not fully developed, and relationships that lacked commitment or mutual understanding. Several friends, overwhelmed by their own battles, took their own lives. This period was made worse by a climate that felt stifling and unfulfilling. I still missed Jurek, who had chosen Berlin to die away from me. New York had shown me the complexities of love amidst significant challenges: Indeed, Manhattan was a difficult place to find love and afford a career in the arts, yet it excited me.
Billy kept me from withdrawing completely; he offered both intellectual companionship and a belief in my creative potential.
But it was not always a relationship without tension. At times, Billy’s insistence on structure seemed more a reflection of his own deep-rooted uncertainties than just a call for discipline. I began to see that in his attempts to push me toward mastery, he was navigating his own struggles with self-doubt. We were both in this together—each trying to prove something, not just to the world, but to ourselves. There were moments where I resisted his guidance, and there were moments he resisted mine, but that tension, though uncomfortable, became a part of what kept us connected. In these uncomfortable truths, I realized we weren’t adversaries, but rather fellow travelers, each trying to find our place in a world that didn’t always make sense.
Creativity was my anchor, a means of channeling my energy into something meaningful. In the worst of times, I still found solace in it: A brush against canvas, a sentence coming together—proof that creation, that life itself, was still possible. Painting had been my life companion, but when a mentor from my younger years recently set aside his brushes to write, I wondered:Why couldn’t I? Billy helped me recognize my potential as a writer, a path I had first considered in childhood while listening to my father dictate letters to his secretary. At sixteen, a grammarian told me I was not just a painter but had the potential for a unique voice, though he often struggled to grasp what I was trying to say.
Fourth Letter: The Dark Side
Fifty-one years of struggle and resilience as an immigrant shaped my perspective. My father once called one of my New York apartments unpleasant and vowed never to return. But in that same space, I found moments of connection amidst difficult circumstances.
That contrast never left me: What others saw as squalor, I experienced as a space of potential. Even in tough situations, love found a way to exist.
Manhattan, in its rawness, revealed to me the price of progress and the silence of those left behind. I, too, was a casualty of that silence, wandering through the streets in search of something to fill the spaces that had grown hollow. Manhattan was more than just a backdrop; it was both my adversary and my accomplice. It challenged and sustained me in equal measure. It shaped my struggles, but it also revealed moments of meaning, sometimes in unexpected ways.
Romance came in my forties, an attempt at finding commitment, but it didn’t resonate in the way I hoped. When my sense of autonomy was at risk, I preferred solitude. Silence settled between the walls—a quiet ritual of distance even from my own passions.
Fifth Letter: Validations and Assaults
I remember both validations and assaults, from familiar faces and strangers alike. Yet even in misunderstandings, in accidental encounters—regardless of their nature—I found meaning. I was learning from all of them.
At some point, I wrote a letter to a Cardinal, an attempt to articulate inequity versus victimization within our world. It was an exercise in verbal gymnastics, a way of deciphering the reality I inhabited. Later, I embedded this letter into a composite painting entitled INRI: Its header spelled it out in a collage of one-dollar bills, which I had secured permanently out of fear of defacement.
A museum invited me to take part in a major exhibit celebrating Artists in the Marketplace—but only if I replaced INRI with another painting, one inspired by a fax I had sent a Paris Newsweek correspondent. That fax was a reflection of my concerns—about art, about struggle, and about the very marketplace the exhibit aimed to showcase. The correspondent had replied with a postcard depicting an ancient Egyptian painting of a man being eaten by a mule. A curious response, but fitting in its own way, so i made it part of the painting.
However, I had already committed the Fax painting to a Midtown gallery. I declined the museum’s request unless they agreed to exhibit INRI instead. The museum’s curator hesitated, unable to fully grasp its meaning. In the end, I didn’t participate. Her welcoming remark at the opening was: “You are quite a trooper to attend”—as though showing up despite the situation was an act of perseverance. Yet, perhaps it wasn’t as trivial as it seemed.
Galleries, too, operated within their own opaque structures. They took work on consignment, claiming 40% of the sale price, yet seldom disclosed who the buyers were. One painting I sold vanished into anonymity, with only a vague assurance that it had been “placed well.” There was no contract for the buyer, no record of negotiation beyond a verbal agreement—an arrangement that often left artists vulnerable, dependent on the gallery’s discretion. Selling art, I learned, was as much about trust as it was about how to negotiate talent.
On a different occasion, when a gallery’s partners split they proposed taking my work to London for their new venture. How could I trust them?
There were other two incidents that came to mind, bringing both frustration and a sense of irony. A California production at the Queen’s Kaufman Studios displaced four of my largest format paintings, which I had offered to rent. A co-producer had initially remarked that my paintings appeared to be worth millions, yet the storage staff discarded them. Their negligence took over a year to be compensated with a meager portion of their value, after a prolonged dispute between appraisers. Then, a corporate art advisor sold one of my paintings and failed to pay me the full 60% of the agreed-upon amount. The same volunteer lawyer who represented me allowed her to pay in installments over a year. Yet, had it not been for these events, I would not have been able to cover the costs of experimental drugs not covered by insurance. At one point, my insurance was suspended due to a lack of union contracts, as I was working as a freelancer without union affiliation.
In later years, a gallery in Denmark took interest in signing me up for a two year contract that required producing 20 paintings per month and compensating only for the cost of materials. I said flatly: No, thank you, and the director felt offended at how I negotiated the terms.
Then, I brought 25 years of my paintings back to Venezuela, which are now in storage—though uncertain of their condition, I am willing to let my family sell them at any price, as long as the paintings survive—while the work that evolved 18 years later I sold at auction—starting at $1 a piece.
These moments may seem separate, yet I recognize their connection: My creative choices and my resistance to imposed conditions—were they simply acts of defiance, or did they reveal something deeper? How much of my struggle, my insistence on meaning, and my reluctance to compromise, was tied to the absence of love? Did the absence of love make compromise feel like self-betrayal? Or, how did love (or its absence), shape my perception of validation and rejection?—I still ponder.
Sixth Letter: The Pursuit of Love and Validation
If I have a unique vision as a visual artist, then the opportunities that slipped through my hands were never mine to hold. My hands had nothing to do with that conflict. It was my destiny.
The circuitous nature of experience—the way despondency transforms into art, how a fax of despair or a letter becomes a painting—reminds me that creation and loss have always been intertwined. Manhattan wasn’t just a backdrop; it provoked, shaped, and at times, even dictated meaning.
Much reflection on the past is nothing more than an exercise in futility. Destiny reminds us how determined our lives are by incomprehensible forces. Agency, with regard to what has already occurred, can feel like an illusion. We live in an age of disbelief and speculation, where distrust and conflagration cohabit with the hysteria of minds seeking certainty in uncertainty. For these minds, life becomes a tool of gossip and an affirmation of fear. These are minds of prejudice and selfishness, incapable of conceiving of a future that does not align with their own discomforts. It is a syndrome of obscurantism, where paranoia and reactionary fear prevail over reason. Epistemological confinement reinforces a state in which contradictions are dismissed rather than examined, and doubt is exploited as evidence of conspiracy. It is the rejection of complexity in favor of dogma, an attachment to certainty that turns ignorance into conviction and speculation into doctrine. We do not change the past by dissecting it—we only sharpen our awareness of how little control we had in the first place. Balancing uncertainty is a fool’s errand. The only grace of dignity left to us mortals is in accepting our limitations—not as defeat, but as clarity. There is no contradiction in that acceptance. If anything, it allows for a different kind of agency—not in altering what was, but in deciding how to exist within what remains.
My story isn’t only about the pursuit of love but about what love—whether found, lost, or absent—left in its wake. Creativity was never separate from longing; it emerged from it, filled its voids, and, in some ways, became love’s most enduring form.
Perhaps these connections don’t need to be stated outright. They exist in the spaces between—between art and survival, between the lives I intersected with and those who vanished, between the city that bruised me and the city that made me.
Seventh Letter: David
When I finally met David, my husband, my life began to shift. We have now been together for twenty-five years, ten of them married. Before I met him, I had already resigned myself to the idea that being a couple was not possible. Then I discovered that he loved me truly and understood me with great depth. Without intending to, his love healed every emotional scar and freed me from obsession. His love allowed me to discover a stillness that I can return to in an instant—just as I always did before, but now we shared it. Even when challenged by life’s vicissitudes, I am assured of one thing: I am loved—loved in a pure, soulful way.
But love is not an act of erasure, nor is it simply the inverse of longing. The temptation to see my life in contrast—to say that struggle preceded love, that absence defined its arrival—feels, in some ways, like an illusion. Contrast can make meaning vivid, but it can also distort it. It can create division where there should be unity. I have learned that love does not invalidate the past; it reveals it in fuller detail. What came before was not an empty prelude to David’s presence. It was real, lived, and filled with its own weight.
My story isn’t a simple arc from darkness to light. It’s more like a series of echoes, where past and present constantly inform each other. The creative energy of silence—something I can return to in an instant—suggests a kind of equilibrium. It was always there, alongside my struggles. David’s love didn’t create it, but gave me the trust to fully inhabit it.
That distinction is crucial. If I were to define my happiness now in opposition to my past, I would be committing the same error that shaped much of my younger years—seeking meaning through contrast rather than through presence. The anchoring point I found in David’s love does not stand against what came before, but within it. Love does not negate struggle; it allows struggle to exist without consuming everything else.
Though the world is filled with imperfections and uncertainties, love transcends them—not as a counter-force, but as something capable of holding contradictions without dissolving them into opposites. Struggles don’t diminish the richness of one’s life; they give it texture, depth. And fulfillment, I now understand, is not found in simple resolutions but in the trust we cultivate. Love does not divide. It does not draw lines between before and after. It does not make meaning contingent upon contrast. Instead, it allows everything to exist at once, in the same breath.
My career in art and set design has followed its own path—one of persistence rather than mass recognition. My work has been exhibited, supported, and studied, but its true measure is in its endurance.
*
Ricardo Federico Morín Tortolero
February 21, 2025; Oakland Park, Florida
~
Author’s Note:
For those interested in the professional trajectory behind the experiences shared in New York Love Letters, the following Appendix provides a brief overview of my work in fine arts and set design.
Appendix
Fine Arts:Ricardo Morín, born in Venezuela (1954), has been exhibited in both solo and group shows, and has received support from Visual AIDS and the Venezuelan government. Morín has also collaborated on a multidisciplinary art/anthropology research project and worked as an adjunct professor at Pratt Institute. For more detailed information, visit https://ricardomorin.com/Bio.html
Set-Design:Ricardo Morín has worked as both principal set-design assistant for Broadway designers of musicals, dramas, and ballets and as an independent designer for various Off-Off Broadway plays and musicals.For more detailed information, visit https://ricardomorin.com/PDF/Theater-Resume.pdf
Pragmatism is often introduced as realism. It presents itself as sobriety, maturity, and an aversion to illusion. It speaks in the language of what is workable rather than what is desirable. In doing so, pragmatism claims distance from ideology while it reproduces those outcomes.
Over time, pragmatism ceases to describe a method and begins to function as a posture. It becomes a way of signaling seriousness. Principles are reframed as luxuries, and conviction is recoded as rigidity. Ethical limits are not rejected outright. They are treated as impractical.
Following resilience, pragmatism completes the turn from endurance to acceptance. Where resilience asks subjects to adapt, pragmatism asks them to agree that adaptation is reasonable. Acceptance is praised as intelligence rather than surrender. To object is to misunderstand how the world works.
As pragmatism takes hold, alternatives begin to narrow. Choices are reduced to what can be implemented immediately. The possible gives way to the manageable. What cannot be implemented within existing constraints is dismissed as irrelevant.
Pragmatism does not deny ethics. It postpones them. At the level of justification, it becomes a way of saying not now. Delay substitutes for refusal. Deferral replaces judgment. Both shift limits from decision into timing.
The consequences of this posture are unevenly distributed. Those insulated from outcomes are most often positioned to define what counts as pragmatic. Those exposed to the effects are asked to live with the decision. Pragmatism travels downward, while consequence does not travel upward.
Pragmatism governs by tone rather than by argument. It favors calm over urgency and composure over insistence. Passion is treated as disqualifying, while restraint is taken as evidence of reason. In this way, pragmatism closes debate without explicitly doing so.
What pragmatism is, then, is a method for choosing among constrained options. It is a response to limitation. It is a tool.
What pragmatism is not is an ethic. It is not a justification for abandoning limits. It is not evidence that what is available is sufficient.
“Geometric Allegory” digital painting 2023 by Ricardo Morin (American visual artist born in Venezuela–1954)
*
Ricardo F. Morín
Oakland Park, F.
December 12, 2025
Author’s Note:
The preceding chapters established a standard by which political life may be assessed. They did not propose an ideal government as a program, nor did they advance virtue as a moral aspiration detached from circumstance. They articulated, instead, a set of constraints—justice, restraint, and judgment—without which governance loses proportion and language loses meaning.
The chapters that follow examine how those constraints were displaced. They do not proceed from intention or ideology, but from accumulation. Political resentment, once mobilized as a source of legitimacy, became a governing instrument rather than a condition to be addressed. Military authority, long embedded in Venezuela’s institutional history, ceased to function as a stabilizing force and assumed a constitutive role in political identity. Party structures, rather than mediating between society and the State, hardened into asymmetries that neutralized opposition and converted pluralism into fragmentation.
These developments did not arise in isolation, nor were they the product of a single figure or moment. They emerged through a convergence of affect, coercion, and institutional design. The disappointment examined here is not emotional in nature. It is structural: a consequence of ideals retained as symbols after their operative limits had been removed.
“Part II” traces these mechanisms in sequence. What appears is not a rupture from the ethical geometry outlined earlier, but its progressive distortion. Virtue persists in language while constraint disappears in practice. Governance continues to speak in universal terms even as power concentrates and accountability dissolves. The result is not merely authoritarianism, but a political order in which disappointment becomes systemic—produced, sustained, and normalized.
*
Chapter IX
~
The First Sign
*
On Political and Social Resentment
1
From the ashes of Venezuela’s fractured democracy arose a bitter sentiment:a resentment that reshaped the political and social fabric of the nation. Political and social resentment, born of inequality, historical grievances, and unfulfilled promises, became the primary currency of Hugo Chávez’s rhetoric and policies. This undercurrent of discontent allowed Chávez to rally the dispossessed under the banner of his Bolivarian Revolution, which reframed a nation’s despair as the foundation of his movement.
2
Chávez’s speeches evoked the memories of colonial exploitation and 20th-century corruption; they cast the elite as Venezuela’s oppressors. The enduring inequality between rural and urban areas, the oil-rich elite, and impoverished communities was central to this narrative. Through fiery oratory, Chávez positioned himself as the voice of the marginalized, promising economic justice and empowerment. [1]
3
Yet, behind the veneer of inclusion and equity lay policies that ultimately betrayed these ideals. The social programs known as Misiones, though impactful in the short term, were not sustainable. Funded by volatile oil revenues, these initiatives addressed symptoms rather than structural causes and ultimately deepened Venezuela’s dependency on oil wealth and the state’s centralized control. [2]
4
Despite their initial popularity, these policies created new inequalities. Access to state benefits became contingent on political loyalty and fostered division and mistrust among the very populations Chávez had vowed to uplift. Corruption and inefficiency plagued these programs, leaving many promises unfulfilled and further polarized Venezuelan society.
5
The Cult of Personality
*
Chávez’s charisma played a critical role in channeling resentment into political capital. His larger-than-life persona blurred the boundary between leader and nation; he transformed dissent into perceived betrayal of patriotism. This cult of personality, portraying critics as enemies of progress, allowed him to centralize power with little resistance.
6
As Chapter VI, Chronicles of Hugo Chávez, demonstrated, Chávez presented himself as the champion of the people, while his approach undermined pluralism and fostered a climate of fear and conformity. This dynamic cemented his control but weakened democratic institutions. His frequent invocation of historical grievances acted as a smokescreen for growing authoritarianism.
7
Exploiting Division
*
The Bolivarian Revolution thrived on cultural division, deliberately stoking class, racial, and regional tensions to consolidate power. Amplifying resentment and ensuring loyalty among his base, Chávez’s rhetoric of “us versus them” weaponized existing fractures in Venezuelan society. By cultivating distrust, his regime inhibited collective action across class or political lines and fractured the potential for broad-based scrutiny by a legitimate opposition.
8
This strategy also extended to the private sector. Expropriations, price controls, and the vilification of business leaders dismantled private enterprise and reinforced dependence on the State. These actions exacerbated economic decline, displaced blame onto perceived enemies of the revolution, and perpetuated cycles of resentment. [3]
9
Its Allure
*
Chávez’s manipulation of resentment was not simply a response to inequality but an exploitation of it. By harnessing historical and contemporary grievances, he galvanized a movement that promised to heal Venezuela’s wounds while simultaneously deepening its divisions. The promise of unity and progress became a pretext for authoritarianism; it left behind a legacy of mistrust, unmet expectations, and fractured institutions.[4]
10
When resentment is allowed to govern a nation, it may consume the very structures meant to protect it. Although Chávez offered hope to the disillusioned, his revolution ultimately amplified the very injustices it claimed to address.
~
Endnotes—Chapter IX
[1]Luis Vicente León,Chávez: La Revolución No Será Televisada (Caracas: Editorial Planeta, 2008) 112-127.
[2]Luis Vicente León, Misiones Sociales: Un Gobierno de Dependencia? (Caracas: Editorial Alfa, 2011) 45-59.
[3]Michael F. A. Sargeant,The Venezuelan Military Under Chávez: Political Influence and Militarization(New York: Columbia University Press, 2013) 150-165.
[4]Gustavo Coronel, Venezuela: The Collapse of a Democracy (Miami: Editorial Santillana, 2015) 203-220.
~
*
Chapter X
*
The Second Sign
~
Emblem of the Bolivarian Army.
The Solid Pillar of Power: The Military Force
1
The dynamics outlined in earlier chapters reveal how the military functioned not merely as an institution but as an axis of political identity. Military rule has shaped Venezuela’s identity since its independence in 1811—see Appendix: 19th and 20th-century Constitutions. This endurance stems not only from political necessity but from a deeply ingrained belief in military dominance—a force that has long stifled Venezuela’s progress. For nearly two centuries, from the early republic to the present, the military has been the backbone of Venezuela’s governance, shaped by a succession of caudillos—each with distinct ambitions yet bound by reliance on military authority. Long cast as the steady hand in political turbulence, the military remains a rigid scaffold encasing Venezuela’s political landscape. Chávez’s rise and his reconfiguration of military influence must be understood within this context. As his predecessors had done, Chávez sought to harness military power within a new vision of State control and to intertwine military and political authority in ways that reinforced Venezuela’s autocratic rule.
2
In the wake of independence, Venezuela grappled with instability as military leaders—at times disciplined and at times opportunistic—imposed order in a fractured State. The first decades were marked by struggles between competing factions, from the rivalry between Simón Bolívar and José Antonio Páez to later military-led conflicts, including the struggles of the Blue Federalists in the 1860s and Cipriano Castro’s rise at the turn of the 20th century. Yet, the military’s rigid hierarchy and capacity for decisive action secured its position as the nation’s dominant force. Soldiers dictated national policies and shaped Venezuela’s fate from barracks and battlefields, not from parliamentary halls. Civilian governance, fragmented and short-lived, repeatedly failed to unify the country amid ongoing strife.
3
This legacy endures in General en Jefe Vladimir Padrino López and General en Jefe Diosdado Cabello, who embody the military’s entrenched presence in Venezuela’s political structure. Padrino López, as Minister of Defense, represents the continuity of military influence within the State. His strategic alliance with Nicolás Maduro, grounded in unwavering loyalty and ideological alignment with Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution, cements his role as a linchpin of the regime’s survival. Diosdado Cabello, who straddles both military and civilian power, leverages his military background to reinforce the government’s authority. Together, they embody the enduring fusion of discipline, ambition, and coercive power.
4
Vladimir Padrino López is widely regarded as a highly disciplined and pragmatic individual. He combines the traits of a loyal military officer with the political acumen necessary to navigate Venezuela’s volatile political landscape. He presents himself as a defender of institutional order and frequently emphasizes the military’s role as a stabilizing force in Venezuela. However, beneath this outward professionalism lies a figure integral to the Maduro regime’s political survival. Padrino López’s loyalty to Maduro has been central to the regime’s endurance. His calculated diplomacy, unlike the confrontational style of other officials, positions him as a pragmatic actor, particularly in dealing with international actors. He balances his public military role with behind-the-scenes influence and leverages his position to navigate internal power struggles. His emphasis on anti-imperialism and nationalism solidifies his standing within the military and political elite.
5
Padrino’s alleged role in the regime’s repression has made him controversial. He has been accused of involvement in systemic military corruption and illicit activities, including drug trafficking and illegal mining. These allegations raise concerns about his complicity in the regime’s criminal activities. His actions reflect calculated pragmatism: he presents himself as a pillar of stability, yet his actual influence remains ambiguous. Some analysts suggest that he could emerge as a power broker in times of crisis.
6
As we analyze the present power structures and their ties to Chávez’s legacy, we must examine the broader historical forces at play. Though often regarded as the architect of Venezuela’s autocratic system, Chávez both emerged from and reinforced the country’s longstanding traditions of militarism and populism. His rise was not an isolated event but the culmination of nearly two centuries of political and social currents. To focus solely on him is to overlook the historical forces that enabled and shaped his rule. Understanding Venezuela’s path to autocracy requires recognizing its political evolution—see Appendix: Constitutional Evolution in the 19th to 20th Centuries.
~
*
Chapter XI
*
The Third Sign
~
The Asymmetry of Political Parties
1
Since the late 20th century, Venezuela’s political landscape has undergone significant transformation, driven by persistent socio-economic instability that disproportionately affected the middle and lower classes. The democratic system established in 1958 was initially defined by a two-party duopoly—Acción Democrática (AD) and Partido Social Cristiano (COPEI)—instituted under the Pacto de Punto Fijo to stabilize democratic governance through alternating power-sharing (see item 26—Constitution of 1961—Appendix, A-1). [1][2][3] Over time, however, this duopoly increasingly monopolized the political arena and marginalized other voices, especially those of socialist and leftist groups. This exclusion not only suppressed pluralistic participation but also deepened discontent among Venezuela’s disadvantaged populations—a factor that ultimately contributed to the system’s collapse. [4]
2
Economic mismanagement, inequality, and political corruption during the 1980s and 1990s further discredited the two-party system. A widening debt crisis, coupled with falling oil prices, exacerbated social inequalities.[5][6] The Caracazo riots of 1989 marked a decisive rupture by exposing the growing gulf between the ruling elite and the general population and signaling the end of the old political order.[7] These riots, which erupted in response to austerity measures imposed by the International Monetary Fund, revealed deep political and social fractures in Venezuelan society. [8]
3
In the aftermath of these systemic failures and societal fractures, Hugo Chávez’s Movimiento V República (MVR) emerged in 1999 as a dominant force, offering populist rhetoric and pledges of wealth redistribution fueled by oil revenues. The Movimiento V República eventually transformed into the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) in 2007. This transition not only solidified the political left’s dominance but also reduced internal factionalism that could more effectively enforce its policies. [9][10][11]
4
Chávez’s death in 2013 left a power vacuum, and Nicolás Maduro’s rise to power was contested within the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela. Factionalism, particularly between military and civilian wings, complicated governance. Maduro’s consolidation of power relied on autocratic legalism—a practice involving the manipulation of the constitution, judicial subversion, and the exploitation of elections to sustain a democratic façade. Extralegal tactics, however, (such as repression, media censorship, and the co-optation of all branches of government) became essential means by which the regime maintained control. [12][13][14]
5
Though new opposition parties emerged, the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela continued to dominate the political landscape. Fragmentation became a defining obstacle for opposition parties, with internal disagreements over strategy and competing visions for engagement with the regime. The Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela‘s strategy for weakening opposition parties persisted through judicial and electoral manipulation and the promotion of splinter groups, which led to a continued weakening of democratic resistance.
6
The opposition parties struggled to present a united front: a vulnerability that both Chávez and Maduro’s governments actively exploited. This partly explains the opposition’s failure in presenting itself as an effective alternative. Pivotal moments in Venezuela’s political crises were the 2004 recall referendum (when Chávez narrowly survived his recall) and the Ruling 156 by the Tribunal Supremo de Justicia in 2017 (which stripped the opposition-controlled Asamblea Nacional of its powers)—events that further deepened political tensions.[15][16][17]
7
As the political landscape became increasingly fragmented, opposition leaders attempted to develop alternative strategies, and new opposition parties emerged. Altogether, at one point, there were 49 parties (see Appendix: Item B). Despite this expansion, the ruling party has maintained its dominance, while the opposition is still in disarray. Political splintering has become a defining barrier for the opposition in mounting a challenge against the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela and has led to repeated failures in electoral and non-electoral arenas: internal divisions over strategy mean that some factions advocate dialogue while others push for more confrontational approaches. The Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela has played a role through its policy of “divide and rule.” By co-opting certain opposition leaders, creating splinter groups, and using judicial and electoral mechanisms to weaken opposition parties, the regime has effectively neutralized potential threats to its dominance.
~
Endnotes—Chapter XI
[1] Martz, John D., Acción Democrática. Evolution of a Modern Political Party in Venezuela, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966). Provides a detailed history of the Democratic Action (AD) party in a PhD thesis on Venezuela. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182168-46.4.468 .
[2] Ellner, Steve, “Venezuelan Revisionist Political History, 1908-1958: New Motives and Criteria for Analyzing the Past” (Latin American ResearchReview: The Latin American Studies Association, 30, no. 2, 1995), 91-121. This article offers critical context for the history of the Social Christian COPEI Party. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2503835 .
[3] Handlin, Samuel Paltiel, “The Politics of Polarization: Legitimacy Crises, Left Political Mobilization, and Party System Divergence in South America” (PhD diss., Political Science: University of California, Berkeley, Fall 2011), 8, 39-48, 54, 59, 73, 79, 81-86, 91-93, 95, 116, 168, 172.
[4] Myers, David J. “The Struggle to Legitimate Political Regimes in Venezuela: From Pérez Jiménez to Maduro” (Latin American Research Review: Cambridge University Press, October 23, 2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.25222/larr.240 .
[6] Corrales, Javier, Fixing Democracy: The Venezuela Crisis and Global Lessons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 99-133.
[7] López Maya, Margarita “The Venezuelan Caracazo of 1989: Popular Protest and Institutional Weakness,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 2003), 35, 117–137. DOI: 10.1017/S0022216X02006673
[10] Marta Harnecker, Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution: Hugo Chávez Talks to Marta Harnecker (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2005), 45-7.
[11] Barry Cannon, Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 101-3.
[12] Gregory Wilpert, Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chávez Government (London: Verso Books, 2007), 102-04.
[13] Javier Corrales, and MIchael Penfold, Dragon in the Tropics: Hugo Chávez and the Political Economy of Revolution in Venezuela (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2011), 19-24, 30-34.
[15] Gustavo Delfino and Guillermo Salas, “Analysis of the 2004 Venezuela Referendum: The Official Results Versus the Petition Signatures,” (Project Euclid, November 2011). DOI: 10.1214/08-STS263
Consensus is often introduced as agreement freely reached. It appears as the resolution of conflict and the suspension of dispute. It signals stability where division was visible and closure where uncertainty remained. In this sense, consensus presents itself as a collective achievement.
Over time, however, consensus ceases to describe an outcome and begins to function as a presumption. Agreement is no longer demonstrated but asserted. Unity is declared before dissent has been addressed. The appearance of accord replaces the work of deliberation.
Once consensus is presumed, disagreement changes status. It is no longer part of the process but an interruption of it. Objection is reframed as obstruction, and hesitation is treated as irresponsibility. Participation becomes conditional on alignment.
Consensus narrows the field of acceptable speech without issuing prohibitions. Positions are not banned, but they are rendered procedurally untimely. Questions are not silenced, but they are judged to have arrived too late. The space for dissent contracts without visible force.
This contraction carries a temporal logic. Consensus is framed as something already achieved, even when its effects are still unfolding. Time is invoked to justify closure. What remains unresolved is deferred in the name of moving forward.
The ethical weight of consensus is unevenly distributed. Those empowered to declare agreement are least exposed to its consequences. Those who bear the effects are asked to accept that the matter is settled. Closure travels downward, while authorship does not travel upward.
Consensus governs by atmosphere rather than argument. It relies on tone, repetition, and the appearance of unanimity. To dissent is not forbidden, but it is marked as unnecessary. Silence is mistaken for assent.
What consensus is, then, is a condition in which disagreement is treated as already resolved. It names closure rather than understanding. It stabilizes outcomes by limiting further inquiry.
What consensus is not is unanimity freely reached. It is not evidence that competing claims have been reconciled. It is not proof that dissent has lost relevance.
“Geometric Allegory” digital painting 2023 by Ricardo Morin (American visual artist born in Venezuela–1954)
Author’s Note:
This installment marks a transition in the Unmasking Disappointment series. The chapters that follow move from symbolic orientation to institutional diagnosis—from the ethical measures by which governance may be assessed to the historical mechanisms through which those measures were steadily displaced.
The opening chapters do not propose an ideal government as a program, nor do they advance allegory as metaphysical instruction. They establish, instead, a standard of measure. Without some articulation of justice, restraint, and judgment as relational constraints, disappointment risks collapsing into mere grievance or retrospective outrage. Allegory appears here not as escape from political reality, but as a means of identifying when political language has been emptied of substance.
The chapters that follow trace how resentment, military authority, and party asymmetry gradually supplanted those constraints in Venezuela. What emerges is not a singular rupture but an accumulation: ideals invoked without limit, institutions mobilized without restraint, and power exercised without symmetry. Disappointment, in this sense, is not an emotional response but a structural outcome—one produced when virtue survives only as symbol, no longer as practice.
*
On ethical geometry before political distortion
Chapter VII
The Allegorical Mode
Resistance to authority often makes use of symbolism that requires interpretation and thereby detaches meaning from responsibility. In the spirit of Plato, I propose that the true philosopher is an inverted allegorist. Rather than merely deciphering symbols, the philosopher distinguishes between what signifies and what governs.
Symbols and allegories are not mere reflections of the material world but serve as gateways to something beyond it. Allegory functions as recognition only where symbols have ceased to orient conduct—an orientation toward that with which the philosopher strives to align.
~
*
Chapter VIII
*
The Ideal Government and the Power of Virtue
~
Allégorie de la Géométrie by French Baroque artist Laurent de La Hyre [1606-56], oil painting circa 1649 (40 7/8 x 86 1/8 in.) – Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Museum purchase, Roscoe and Margaret Oakes Income Fund.
~
Allégorie de la Géométrie, by Laurent de La Hyre (1649), evokes a conception of ideal government understood as a geometry of virtues, in which balance depends on proportion rather than invocation. Justice, temperance, and wisdom form a triad whose significance lies not in their enumeration but in the relations they establish. As in geometry, stability is maintained only so long as those proportions hold.
Just as the philosopher moves beyond symbols toward discernment, so too must governance be assessed by standards not governed by the whims of power. In the spirit of Plato’s Forms, an ideal government reflects justice, temperance, and wisdom—principles that do not fluctuate with circumstance. Such a government stands in contrast to politics organized around power alone.
The concept of virtue in governance transcends moral abstraction; it operates as a relational condition between rulers and the governed. Virtue does not belong exclusively to either, but emerges in the form that relation takes and the limits it sustains. Where virtue operates, governance is not organized around the accumulation of power but around constraints that regulate its exercise—justice to restrict arbitrariness, temperance to contain excess, and wisdom to discipline decision.
Government understood as a form structured by virtue exposes abuses of power not as exceptional deviations but as structural failures. When symbols such as equity or plurality are detached from their regulating functions, they become available for use as instruments of control. Where virtue retains an operative role, such symbols cease to obscure power and resume their function as limits on its exercise.
Chavismo, as it emerged under Hugo Chávez and continued under Nicolás Maduro, stands in direct contrast to these conditions. Although the regime relied extensively on the language of justice and equity, those references ceased to function as constraints on power. Symbols associated with virtue were detached from their regulating roles and redeployed as mechanisms of legitimization. Governance thus persisted in the vocabulary of virtue while operating without its limiting functions.
Virtuous governance assumes the form of a balanced structure: one not governed by the current of power but constrained by justice. Such a system does not privilege the will of the ruler over the common good, nor does it rely on appeals that fluctuate with circumstance. Where these constraints hold, order becomes possible—not as aspiration, but as condition.
Observations On Perception 
