U.S. Support For Latin American Democracy

Tracy Wilkinson and Patrick J. McDonnell write at The Los Angeles Times that the Trump administration supports democracy depending on who is in power. They start by comparing Honduras and Bolivia:

But when it came to the U.S. response in each place, the Trump administration appeared less concerned about fraud than another question: Was the leader in question friend or foe?

This is true, but it is also universally true for the entire history of the United States.* I mean, I guess it bears repeating if people actually think the U.S. has a generally applicable policy. You can find these dyads everywhere and they are ideological. Generally it is "country perceived as leftist and anti-American" versus "country perceived as conservative and pro-American."

"Bad" presidents are manipulating the system and need to be brought to justice. "Good" presidents are fighting off internal subversion. You can even get dyads of the same person. The 1992 attempted coup in Venezuela was bad but the briefly successful coup in 2002 was good. In the former, Hugo Chávez was subverting the democratic order. In the latter, he deserved what he got because he wasn't responding to the opposition. In the 1980s, Manuel Noriega was a good guy while Daniel Ortega was the bad guy. The U.S. talked a lot about democracy while supporting the Brazilian dictatorship and attacking the Chilean democracy. It might even be a good class exercise to come up with more such groupings.

I certainly don't mean this to excuse Donald Trump, who has screwed up Latin America policy more than I imagined possible. But let's not pretend past presidents were not guilty of this. Self-interest is at the core of U.S. policy always.

* I am sticking with Latin American examples, but elsewhere just start with U.S. support for Saudi Arabia.