"Liberal economics" is what they call it there. We call it unrestrained capitalism--free trade, no social spending, and no corporate regulation--which, according to Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, was foisted upon Latin America in the 1970's and 1980's. In the case of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina, the implementation of this radical policy was backed by totalitarian force. Thousands died to make Latin America safe for the disastrous policies of Milton Friedman.

The Washington Post has a story today about the different approaches McCain and Obama would take toward Latin America. With McCain, it's same old same old. "It's easy with McCain -- he's clearly going to pursue, without exceptions, the Bush administration line, including the policy toward Cuba," Lund said in an interview.

The Post notes that McCain has been to Latin America several times, and took a strong part in the policy debates of the 1980's. Sure, he's been there a lot, visiting the oligarchs, and partying at their mansions. And yes, he was involved in the policy debates of the 1980's, where he supported the very policies that contributed to violence and poverty all over Latin America. Said Obama:

"After decades pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda that advances democracy, security and opportunity from the bottom up," Obama said. "That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City and the shrinking of the distance between Miami and Havana."

I'm hoping that the "top-down reform" he's talking about refers to the "Chicago economics" that was foisted upon the region at the point of a gun because that is exactly what needs to change in Latin America.