The BBC reports that Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, "has announced plans to change to Venezuela's constitution, allowing him to stand for office indefinitely." Chavez is limited by Venezuela's constitution to serving two six-year terms. His tenure as president would be up in 2012, but in the tradition of dictators, he has decided that it's best for the country that he rule indefinitely.

There's a belief among leftists that Chavez, heir to the Beard of Fidel Castro, is the one person in the world who is man enough to stand up to the United States. Never mind that he's also crazy. He has dinner-dates with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Robert Mugabe, for crying out loud. Does he think he will be taken seriously in world politics if he hangs out with those losers?

Chavez and his supporters insist that this is necessary to inaugurate his "21st-century socialism," but this futuristic title belies a very old motivation: power! All communist countries have gotten stuck at the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase because once leaders have power, they're unwilling to surrender it. "I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela today," said Chavez. Really? Because I can think of a bunch more, and all of them involve leaders stepping down once their terms are over. If Chavez really wanted a new-age socialism, he would do what other socialist countries have failed to do: namely, engage in a peaceful transition of power using free and fair elections. Chavez's unwillingness to step aside is cause for alarm, as this is Stage One of dictatorship. It appears that Latin America is heading down the same road it took in the 1970s and '80s, only instead of U.S.-installed and supported dicatorships, we have popular dictatorships.

But, as I've often said, the freedom to choose involves the freedom to choose badly.