Edit: to whoever downvoted, here's Chavez next to Chomsky, "one of the intellectuals who fights the imperial hegemony of the elite that rules the United States": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3kvvZfdpE
He isn't some foreign affairs expert. He made the decision to support Chavez based on the information he (and we) had access to at that time, much of which painted Chavez favorably.
We, of course, came to know later that the house was rotting on the inside. But that's just hindsight
I'd say that there isn't as big a language barrier in understanding Indian politics. The English language media landscape in the country is thriving and there is a massive, vibrant internet presence.
India's democratic roots also mean that information is far more transparent.
To be fair, it's generally much easier to find someone who understands what one particular form of injustice looks like than it is to find someone who knows what actual justice looks like.
Well, to be fair, many American right-wing politicians have supported worse, including Saddam Hussein and Saudi royalties. If we discredit political pundits based on who they sided with, the only people remaining would be total misanthropes. Or those who never said anything so far. Maybe that's for the better...
I assume the Saudi reference is in relation to recent NYT articles. That's fair. But since you bring up Saddam, it is more correct to say that he enjoyed majority left wing support, not right.
There's plenty of offenders in American politics, regardless of party. Coloring your comment that way makes it seem less valid.
Edit: to whoever downvoted, here's Chavez next to Chomsky, "one of the intellectuals who fights the imperial hegemony of the elite that rules the United States": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3kvvZfdpE