Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet killed 3,000 Chileans, tortured another 29,000, and forced 200,000 into exile. But according to the Washington Post, that's all hunky-dory, because he left Chile with a booming free-market economy. Can't make omelets, and all that. Plus it justifies Jeane Kirkpatrick's support of authoritarian regimes:
It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.
Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.
By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.
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.
None of this makes any sense, of course: Pinochet forced socialist Salvador Allende out of office, and was succeeded by a democracy. Socialist Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua forced right-wing strongman Anastasio Somoza out of office, and was succeeded by a democracy. And exactly what did Allende do to Chile that justified a fraction of Pinochet's vicious repression, anyway? (Couldn't help but notice that backhanded slap from the WaPo: it was really Allende's fault. Suuuuure.)
But the main thing is, no amount of economic benefits justify torture and murder. None. By suggesting that they do, the Washington Post has joined the ranks of the moral lepers. They are appalling and repugnant.