Yglesias, in analyzing U.S.-Latin American foreign relations in the wake of the Summit of the Americas, says this:At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth, the choice of the word "interests" seems like the problem. Our direct interests in Latin America are (obviously) many, as Erik Loomis points out. I wonder if by "interests", Yglesias means that the potential that the world's next catastrophe surges from Latin America is very small, which is why it doesn't get a lot of attention. If that's the case, that idea --that interests is roughly synonymous with potential problems and putting out fires is paramount-- in and of itself seems to be borne of a Cold War mentality. Then again, maybe I've gone a bit far in my reinterpretation.At the end of the day, our interests in Latin America are pretty limitedWhoa. Now, in the sake of proper context, he's saying we need to get beyond a Cold War paradigm for thinking about Latin America. But nonetheless, America's relations with Latin America are incredibly important. Trade, immigration, drugs, American investments in the region, regional security, natural resources--all of these issues are huge.
Whatever the case, this demonstrates that the most insuperable gap in foreign policy isn't right versus left, but those who have an interest in Latin America versus those who don't.