I'm a little late on this so I'm piggy-backing on a Coming Anarchy post. I've already noted my frustration over the Pinochet/Castro comparison or lack thereof. What it has been interesting to see is both the WaPost and WSJ refute LAT's knee-jerk dismissal of Jeane Kirkpatrick's thesis in "Dictatorships and Double Standards." Over at CA Curzon quoted WaPost, here's a piece:
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.WSJ came to a similar conclusion:
Pinochet proved the truth of Jeane Kirkpatrick's Cold War distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, with the former far more likely to evolve into freer places. That the international left still gives Castro higher marks is something for democrats everywhere to ponder. The popular notion that the U.S. sanctioned the coup or condoned Pinochet's torture also hasn't held up under historical scrutiny.
