November 28th, 1980, as the story goes, one month after Ronald Reagan was elected as president of the United States and Jimmy Carter’s presidency ended, riots broke out in Haiti and the military turned against certain citizen groups that had questioned the leadership there. One explanation for this change was the overarching focus of the United States presidency from that of human rights (Carter), to more Republican interests matching those of Reagan. (The Agronomist) The leadership at the time percieved that they no longer had to "play at" numan rights to wim US aid money. This change in perception is noted as a possible contributor to violence in Haiti in the 1980’s.

The perception in question here is that democrats share perspectives that are congruent with human rights and tolerance and that Republicans share perspectives that are not always congruent with these. That is not to say that Republicans are not tolerant and do not want human to have rights, but only to say that their perspective does not consistently align with these principles. Take for example the Republican focus on the sacred nature of marriage- "between a man and a woman”- is this a perspective that describes tolerance and rights for all humans?

A Republican may argue that alot about the world has changes since the 80's and that this story from our past is little more than a sidebar to many of the events that took place in Haiti in its recent history. However, if that were the case, what can republicans say about the Bush years.

Of course there are problems that both parties, as well as the ruling minority in the United States, must answer. That discussion would take some time, to be sure. Thus the best question to ask is why have a perspective on human rights and tolerance that must be qualified at all? Why is our perspective not simply that we have an interest in “the human” within human rights? I believe the short answer is that self-interests are always the shortest rout to intolerance.