Yesterday, Nelson Cunningham, one of the panelists at a Hudson Institute conference on Latin America’s “Radical Populism Challenge” commented that it is better that the presidential campaign and debates don’t even mention the region. He said that speaking of Latin America would only bring bad news: illegal immigration and drug-trafficking.

As a Latin American myself, I could not disagree more. The region is one of the United States’ most important commercial partners, with U.S. exports valued at more than $150 billion a year, almost as much as its exports to the European Union, as Inter American Dialogue President Peter Hakim notes.

A more balanced argument was delivered by Jaime Daremblum, director of Hudson’s Center for Latin American Studies, who moderated the panel, but didn’t argue with the speaker. In his article, “What Will the Election Mean for Latin America?,” he shows how the 9/11 terrorist attacks pushed Latin America to the background of the U.S. foreign policy discussion. Meanwhile, Russia is gaining ground exploring oil fields in Venezuela.

The same controversial panelist also commented that Senator Barack Obama, if he becomes President, would probably enjoy future good relationship with Latin America—because of his Indonesian background. It is not clear how his Indonesian experience can increase his interest in a region he didn’t consider visiting during his international campaign.

Read the full story

Further to my earlier post on Latin America, The Wall Street Journal’s Mary O’Grady points to a good way for the U.S. to deal with loudmouth thugs like Hugo Chavez:

Hugo Chávez provoked nary a peep from the Bush administration when he recently welcomed Russian fighter jets to an air base in the state of Aragua. For a man desperate to prove his importance, nothing could have been more insulting than the yawn in Washington when the Russians touched down in Venezuela.

Indeed, which makes the American politicians who choose to pal around with Chavez’s lackeys all the more pathetic.

Oh, Happy Day! And it certainly is for all those who value freedom, responsibility and the true free market in which individuals are free to profit from their risks on the condition that they don’t stick the rest of us with their losses.

It’s not hyperbole to say the Republican and Democratic backbenchers who defied both parties’ leadership to defeat this $700 billion package of Wall Street socialism literally saved America. Whatever their reasons, this defeat (or rather victory for freedom), means that America is much less likely to turn into France, Venezuela, or the old Soviet Union, as this bailout/nationalization package would have set us on the road to becoming.

Several great speeches on the Right and Left were given. Democrats Brad Sherman of California and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon gave powerful speeches against corporate giveaways. And conservative leaders of the Republican Study Committee — such as Jeb Hensarling, Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, and of course Ron Paul — spoke about how government intervention was largely the cause of this predicament, but the bailout would doom arguments for the free market form here on out. The idea of the government making this kind of outlay to high-flying risk takers just didn’t jibe with members, and certainly not with the American people.

Read the full story