WHY IS THE WORLD MORE CONCERNED with Musharraf’s coup than with Hugo Chavez’s emerging dicatatorship? Because enemies of the United States, like Chavez, get a pass.

UPDATE: Tom Maguire says it’s the nukes. Well, that would be a good reason, but I’m not hearing it so much from the people complaining about the lack of democracy. And it’s not clear that Musharraf’s coup is going to make the nukes less secure, is it? As opposed to treating Musharraf like we did the Shah?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Anne Applebaum on why actors and models want to hang with Hugo Chavez. “The Western weakness for other people’s revolutionary violence, the belief in the glamour and benevolence of foreign dictators, and the insistence on seeing both through the prism of Western political debates are still very much with us.”

MORE: Tom Maguire emails: “I am certain that you personally think Pakistan is currently more important than Venezuela – I base that on the number of Pakistan links in the last few days vis a vis Venezuela.” Well, yes, but I was talking about the moral condemnation.

Related thoughts here.

STILL MORE: Jon Kay takes a more positive view: “There is one important difference: in Pakistan, there’s a real chance of bringing Pakistan to the democratic fold with the pressure cooker. I sure don’t see any such chance in Venezuela.” But read the first comment for a more cynical take. Excerpt: “That explanation doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me, since it’s not just the amount but the tone of the coverage. Maybe the Economist voices the appropriate concern, but my impression of coverage of Chavez is that it’s generally neutral to positive: accounts of some Hollywood nitwit or other’s giving Chavez a photo op, uncritically passing on Chavez’s diatribes against Bush and the US, thumb-suckers that regard resurgent leftism in South America as a generally hopeful sign.”