From a surprising source (the WaPo) an editorial about dictators and double standards.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

The communist governments of eastern Europe
led the way for democratic governments.

The south american dictatorships have
wandered from weak democracies
to strong democracies to Hugo Chavez.

Of course funny thing about Democracy.
It means having to accept that the people
of a nation may vote in Leaders the
Neo-Con's hate.

Remember the Hamas election in Palestine?

I wonder what Jeanne Kirkpatick would
say about all that?

The communist governments of eastern Europe
led the way for democratic governments.

What color was the sky on the planet on which that occurred?

I see why you put up with him now Rand, that has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen written by anyone.

I'm curious. Is Rand trying to say that it was somehow OK that we (CIA) overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, and supported (Kissinger particularly) the reign of terror that followed?

What exactly is the underlying argument Rand thinks is worth posting here? Is it the economic benefit (in the long term) of right wing dictatorships?

Well, how 'bout we just start with what Rand actually published (and not try to do all that mind reading and stuff). He said, "The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick...argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies... Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.".

So, as I read it, Rand is saying that Chile is being ruled by a deomcratically elected leader and Cuba is ruled by a Dictator that came to power via brute force. Please show me how that is wrong (you know, using facts and not just a bunch of hyperbole and stuff).

Tom W--

You're obviously asking too much of leftist cretins.

Yeah, well, I'll provide a far better target for your resident leftist cretins. Let 'em try this thought on for size:

Not everyone acts instinctively for the greater good. What some people naturally do is, in fact, so bad for everyone else that it's better for all of us if they die. Maybe those are the people Pinochet killed and tortured. Maybe that's why Chile is doing OK -- maybe he found the worst, most diseased elements of his society and killed them off. (I can easily believe a country the size of Chile had of order 5000-10,000 of them, about the size of Pinochet's butcher bill.)

Furthermore, maybe the most harmful, most diseased elements of a society, whose natural actions will keep us all down for generations and generations, are simply those who admire Marx, Stalin, Castro, and an unending line of murderous charlatans going back to Eden. Maybe ideas matter a lot, and maybe those particular ideas are particularly virulent and evil, even if the people holding them are sweet and nice. Maybe if you simply start killing folks who adhere to those ideas you end up doing your society a favor, however bloody and horrifying it is. Just like the wolves do the antelope herd a real favor when they hunt down and kill the diseased animals, even if the diseased ones are cute and cuddly innocent babies.

Surely that proposition is enough to give any leftist apoplexy.

Personally, I don't have the stomach for acting on such a brutal proposition, even if I knew it to be true. But that's why I'm not a leader. Sometimes leaders have to make hideous triage decisions if the tribe is to survive and prosper.

Are you sure that "anonymous" isn't just a version of SmarterChild?

Simberg

East Germany made the transition from Socialism
to Capitalism without the help of the CIA or the
US Army.

Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, latvia, estonia, lithuania
somehow joined the EU.

It's an evolutionary process. It works in fits, starts
and doesn't spread with bayonets, it prefers the press
and the computer.

Anonymoron, all of those countries became Democracy's via the Cold War policies of Ronald Reagan. So yes, the CIA had a big hand in the eventual outcome as did the 1980's US military buildup. The communist rulers didn't pave the way for democracy, they were simply overcome and over powered by polices of the ultimate ring wing war mongering capitalist.

Her dichotomy is flawed.

* Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956 did try to liberalize of their own accord, and were prevented by Soviet military intervention.

* How many other right-wing dictatorships in Latin America--Stroessner in Paraguay, Rios Montt in Guatemala--didn't end so nicely?