Cato Versus Barack

The Cato Institute's Latin America director, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, is unimpressed with what he sees from Barack Obama. He especially dislikes the proactive proposals in his Latin America speech a few weeks ago, from the new alliance for the Americas to deeper counter-narcotics cooperation. 

There's been much talk about how Latin American has been ignoed by the Bush administration and that, as a result, we need greater involvement from Washington in the region. This is simply false. The prosperity and the democracy ultimately depend on the Latin Americans themselves and the policies that we implement...McCain seems to understand this. Obama still doesn't. 

I agree with the first part, and I wish more people were saying it. The bit about Washington needing to be more concerned with Latin America is a tired refrain. A good portion of Latin Americans would find fault with Washington regardless of its level of interaction, and the goal should be to avoid missteps rather than just generally to become more involved. Certain issues require more direct attention, but it's a mistake for people to think that more attention will remedy all of Washington's problems in Latin America.

However, I don't agree that this recognition mandates a vote for McCain. I didn't particularly love Obama's Miami speech either, but the man remains a virtual blank slate on Latin America. To a point, the same remains the case for McCain, despite his long track record with the region. The requirements and prerogatives of the presidency will dictate each man's policy in the western hemisphere much more than a few ideas tossed out out in a campaign speech. As W illustrates, a candidate's affinity for Latin America is hardly an indicator of what kind of impact he will have on the region. As such, the vote should go to the man who's governing philosophy is more appealing.