Jumby: Now that is a truly tough question. Honestly, I don’t that know that I have truly worked through those years. Not trying to be evasive, but I can see both sides of the issue, and there is not a clear cut black versus white take on things.
Let me give you an example. Danny Ortega and the Sandinistas deposed Tacho Somoza, resident dictator of Nicaragua, in 1979. Somoza was inarguably a bad guy. Ortega, however, comes to power and immediately reneges on his promise of free elections (which didn’t take place for 11 years). He militarizes Nicaragua to the point where they have a larger standing army than Mexico, a country six times larger. He brings in Soviet and Cuban military advisors and sets about “exporting” revolution to the rest of Central America. So while Somoza was bad, Ortega was worse and wound up being kicked out of office the first time he allowed free elections (in 1990).
The US has brought the necessary capital and technological capability to help these countries develop their resources, but we have done so at a great price to the people of those countries. We have supported some pretty unsavory individuals and governments, and have sacrificed a lot of our soul in the process. However, I do believe the other side is/was worse, and left with a choice between someone like Castro or someone like Batista, I would choose Batista.
I’m a capitalist, too, and I agree with Bismarck’s dictum, “Whoever wishes to retain their respect for either laws or sausages should refrain from watching either being made”. Paraphrasing that slightly I would opine that paying too much close attention to the maintenance of American power and hegemony (although I will stop short of the word “empire”) might make you a little queasy.
