Clinton's whole rationalization for threatening the use of American military might to force General Cedras--who had rescued Haiti from Aristide the first time--into exile, was that Aristide had been Democratically elected. It is Frum, who has suddenly pushed himself forward as the champion of the idea of our using our military to impose Democracy on other peoples. I have long opposed that idea. See Democracy In The Third World, where I recently pulled together threads of an argument that I have been making for over 40 years.
I am not fixated on Mr. Frum. He is a convenient subject, to illustrate the absurdity of the dangerous ideas that he has chosen to advocate. Frum and Haiti come together in today's news, and I choose to exploit that confluence to make a point: David Frum To Haiti Project.
William Flax
Okay, so the parallel you have set up is between Aristide's having been "Democratically elected", and the "Democracy" pushed by Frum.
My disagreement stems from the fact that (real) democracy is far more than just one election. So (1) military force to re-install a Democratically-elected person, and (2) military force to install democracy, are not necessarily the same thing, nor are the principles which may underlie the two.
I have no idea what David Frum thinks about Aristide by the way, nor do I care very much.