The American president shouldn't be a champion of "democracy," but a champion of individual rights and freedom. Like I said in an earlier post, a majority vote to elect a totalitarian dictator would not be valid. Whether this applies to Chavez specifically, remains to be seen. The point is, just because a government has been "elected" does not necessarily place the mantle of moral legitimacy upon it.

Unfortunately, most of our current political leaders, including Bush, do not seem to have the philosophical depth or savvy to address this concept at this level, so it's probably safest for all concerned if we just make a habit of staying out of other nations' business unless they do something to seriously damage us.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.