Diosdado Cabello, the influential Secretary General of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), has intensified his rhetoric against the country’s political opposition, labeling them as “paid lackeys” lacking in moral standing. During a recent broadcast of his long-running political program, Con el Mazo Dando, Cabello accused opposition figures of operating under a coordinated plan to destabilize the government through falsehoods and disinformation.
The attack comes amid a period of heightened political tension in Venezuela, where the government and opposition remain locked in a struggle for legitimacy. Cabello, a central figure in the administration of Nicolás Maduro, used the platform to dismiss recent reports and rumors concerning his own well-being, suggesting that these narratives are manufactured by foreign-funded interests.
Speaking during episode 566 of the show, Cabello focused on the concept of “palangristas”—a Venezuelan term referring to sycophants or those who act as paid instruments for others—to describe the current state of the opposition. He argued that the criticisms directed at him are not organic but are part of a strategic effort to erode public trust in the ruling party.
The “Palangrista” Accusation and Moral Legitimacy
Cabello’s critique centered on the idea that the opposition has abandoned genuine political conviction in favor of financial incentives. He asserted that the narratives used against him are “paid for,” urging his audience not to believe that such claims are the result of independent thought.
“No tienen moral, es lo que ocurre, toda esa oposición palangrista no tiene moral; todo eso es pago no vayan a creer que eso fue que a alguien se le ocurrió, no, eso es parte del plan que tienen ellos,” Cabello stated during the broadcast.
By framing the opposition as “palangristas,” Cabello seeks to delegitimize their claims by shifting the conversation from policy or governance to the personal integrity and funding of his critics. This tactic is a recurring theme in PSUV communications, which frequently allege that opposition movements are proxies for foreign powers, particularly the United States.
Combatting Disinformation and Death Rumors
A significant portion of the broadcast was dedicated to addressing specific rumors regarding Cabello’s health and status. The PSUV leader expressed frustration over reports suggesting he had disappeared or passed away, claiming that such stories have circulated frequently in recent weeks.
Cabello questioned how his detractors could “invent a lie” about his person, only for him to appear on screen shortly after to debunk it. He noted with irony that he had been “killed about ten times” in the last two weeks by these reports, arguing that the inability of the opposition to retract these claims proves their lack of ethics.
According to Cabello, the primary objective of these rumors is to “demoralize and divide” the Chavista base. He called on his supporters to remain steadfast and united, emphasizing that the government’s strength lies in a discourse “united to the truth.”
The Role of ‘Con el Mazo Dando’ in State Communication
The program Con el Mazo Dando serves as more than just a political commentary show; We see a primary tool for the PSUV to communicate directly with its base and signal the government’s priorities. Through this medium, Cabello often reveals internal party directives, announces new policy shifts, and identifies “enemies of the state.”
The show’s format—combining aggressive rhetoric with the presentation of “evidence” against political rivals—is designed to create a sense of transparency for supporters while intimidating opponents. By utilizing the program to address rumors and attack the opposition’s morality, Cabello reinforces the narrative of a besieged government fighting against a deceptive external and internal enemy.
The impact of this rhetoric is felt across the Venezuelan political landscape, contributing to a climate of extreme polarization. For the government, these attacks are framed as necessary defenses of the “Bolivarian Revolution.” For the opposition and human rights observers, such language often precedes a crackdown on dissent or the targeting of specific political activists.
The following table outlines the core components of Cabello’s current rhetorical strategy as presented in the latest broadcast:
| Target | Primary Accusation | Stated Objective of Opponent | Proposed Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political Opposition | Lack of morals; “Palangristas” | Demoralize and divide the people | Strengthen unity and truth |
| Media/Rumor Mills | Fabricating death reports | Destabilize government leadership | Direct verification via official channels |
| Foreign Interests | Funding paid narratives | Execution of a “plan” against PSUV | Resistance and party loyalty |
Broader Implications for Venezuelan Stability
The insistence that the opposition is “paid” and “without morals” serves to narrow the space for political negotiation. When the opposition is framed not as a legitimate political alternative but as a paid mercenary force, the possibility of diplomatic compromise diminishes. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of the Venezuelan government to maintain control by painting all dissent as treason.
Cabello’s call for the PSUV to “strengthen” itself suggests that the party is preparing for a period of increased internal and external pressure. The emphasis on unity is often a precursor to party purges or a tightening of ideological discipline within the ranks.
As Venezuela continues to navigate its complex political crisis, the rhetoric employed by figures like Cabello remains a critical indicator of the government’s willingness—or lack thereof—to engage in a pluralistic political process. The focus on “morality” and “truth” in his discourse is designed to project a sense of righteousness and inevitability regarding the PSUV’s hold on power.
The next major checkpoint for the ruling party will be the upcoming internal party assemblies, where the PSUV is expected to further consolidate its strategy for the coming months and refine its messaging against the opposition.
Do you believe political rhetoric in Venezuela is shifting toward more personal attacks, or is this a continuation of long-standing strategies? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
