Confounding Ideology

One odd aspect of the Honduras coup, which probably owes more to the remoteness of the nation than anything else, is the number of unpredictable fault lines it has opened up around rather arcane questions. Was it a coup? Was it legal? Was it Zelaya's fault? Does it benefit Chávez? Is Chávez leading the world reaction? Has the Obama administration's response been strong or swift enough? Lots of disagreement.

Political leanings aren't a particularly good predictor of one's answer to these questions. In Iran, for comparison's sake, opinions on the major issues (especially, Should Obama be doing more?) are more closely tied to one's politics. In Honduras, ideology has been confounded, hence the sight of solidly liberal (and solidly common-sensical) Erik Loomis trading shots with what I presume to be leftist commentators. I for one was not ready for anything so challenging from Honduras, much like el Tri on April 1.

However, the one thing I think virtually everyone can agree upon is that the Wall Street Journal's prescription, that the US should vocally oppose Zelaya's reinstallation of president, is insane. Whatever the causes of the coup, such a policy would put the US at odds with (I believe) every single government that has commented on the matter, it would make our voice on this issue less democratic than those of Álvaro Uribe and Hugo Chávez, and it would prolong the chaotic uncertainty in the country.