Bush and "Democracy"

George Bush is a champion of democracy all across the world.
But you've got to pick the leader Bush wants, or else face the consequences. Actually, I doubt Bush really knows much about what his hero Reagan did to this poor country 20 years ago. He probably couldn't tell you the difference between a Sandinista and a Sunni.

So why can't we tolerate Daniel Ortega coming to power in Nicaragua? The explanation in the '80s was that the Sandinistas would allow Nicaragua to become a Soviet outpost in our sphere of influence. Today, the claim is that leftist regimes like Chavez and Castro are rotten apples that are going to spoil the whole barrel in Latin America.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about Chavez. Or Castro.

But I think the point here is that despite Bush's rhetoric on democracy promotion, either in the Middle East or worldwide, the fundamental character of U.S. foreign policy has not changed since World War II -- aside from a more hawkish, unilateral approach under Bush. I'm sure Washington would love to see a stable, popularly elected, democratic government come to power in Iraq. But what if the Iraqis elected a Daniel Ortega? Or more relevant to their region, what if they elected a shi'ite, Iranian style, theocrat hostile to Israel and the West? That clearly wouldn't be the right kind of democracy.