In the past five years, the swaggering Texan has inspired a leftward surge that is uniting Latin America and threatening to knock Che Guevara right off all those natty t-shirts.

When Che's ill-fated insurgency ended in the jungles of Bolivia with his death in 1967, his vision of a single, unified, socialist continent remained utterly unfulfilled. U.S.-backed right-wing military dictators would rule much of Latin America over the ensuing two decades, and many of Che's followers would be tortured and killed in efforts to overthrow them.

As democracy returned to the region at the end of the Cold War, most Latin American governments rushed to embrace the "Washington consensus" -- market-oriented liberalization policies that cut social spending and privatized national industries in order to pay down national debts. But the formula, pushed on the region by successive American presidents, largely failed to deliver the goods and left entire governments bankrupt and beholden to foreign lenders. For Latin America's angry, marginalized, impoverished masses, already-threadbare social safety nets only unraveled further.

"The macroeconomic proposals of the Washington consensus have not been working," says Guillermo Delgado, professor of Latin American Studies at UC Santa Cruz. "That model was supposed to create prosperity and, after so many years, such prosperity has not been seen and class polarization has grown deeper."

Sensing an opportunity, new social and political movements in the region began marshalling their forces. Then George W. Bush came along, combining Yankee hubris with a Che-worthy radicalizing touch.

Bush has since presided over one of the most significant political re-alignments in the history of the Western Hemisphere. By this summer, every major Latin American nation but Colombia is likely to be run by elected leaders with stronger backgrounds in Marx than free markets. If Cold War-era "domino theory" has been a bust in the Middle East, it's working with textbook precision in Latin America.

Late last year, voters overwhelmingly elected former coca-grower Evo Morales, the founder of Bolivia's "Movement Toward Socialism" party, who fancies himself a "nightmare" for the Bush administration. Then, in January, Chilean voters chose socialist candidate Michele Bachelet, a torture victim of the Pinochet regime, as the nation's first woman president. Leftists now rule as well in Venezuela, Uruguay, Brazil, and Argentina, and are leading in upcoming elections in both Peru and Mexico, the region's electoral grand prize. Even recycled Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega -- "a hoodlum," according to Roger Noriega, formerly the U.S.'s top Latin America official -- appears poised for a comeback when Nicaraguan voters go to the polls in November.

Though Latin America's national borders won't melt away anytime soon, Che's vision of pan-Latin cooperation has already begun to materialize. Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina recently announced a $20 billion plan to build a trans-national gas pipeline through the Amazon. Chile has opened dialogue with landlocked Bolivia, easing a long-simmering feud over seaport access that stretches back more than a century. Cuba, that tropical bête noire of the White House, still uses doctor diplomacy and sends physicians all over the region -- only now, it receives billions of dollars worth of Venezuelan oil in return. And Mercosur, a South American common market dominated by Brazil, has emerged as a rival to the faltering U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Mercosur member states blocked ratification of the FTAA at the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Argentina. When Bush arrived to deliver a speech at the conference, he was greeted by mobs of angry street protestors who burned American flags, a Burger King, and unflattering effigies in his likeness.

"Fascist Bush!" they chanted, "you are the terrorist!"

Fencing Off the "Backyard"?

Bush's overwhelming unpopularity in Latin America is especially disappointing given that he put Latin American relations at the top of his foreign-policy agenda after taking office. No other U.S. president had gone to Latin America for his first visit abroad, and even after 9/11, Bush maintained that the United States "has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico." At every turn, he'd trot out his twangy Spanish in order to burnish his Latin cred.

Since then, Latin America has only drifted further south. Support for the U.S. war in Iraq is notably abysmal. Only a handful of countries in the region backed the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein and all were minor players with the exception of Colombia, the fifth-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. That Washington is willing to spend lavishly on drug eradication in the Andean region but little on development or public health has not been lost on the new ascendant left, either.

In a recent Zogby poll, fewer than 20% of Latin American elites (typically the most politically conservative voters in the region) gave Bush a favorable approval rating. Only 6% said Bush's policies were better than those of his predecessors.

Some analysts have attributed Latin America's political shift to U.S. foreign policy negligence, arguing that, because the Bush administration is so consumed with Iraq, American officials are now incapable of wielding effective diplomatic influence in the region.

"After 9/11, Washington effectively lost interest in Latin America," writes Peter Hakim, President of Inter-American Dialogue, in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs. "Since then, the attention the United States has paid to the region has been sporadic and narrowly targeted at particularly troubling or urgent situations."

This interpretation suggests Bush has been a kind of inattentive steward, too busy riding that mountain bike to notice the mutiny going on beneath his nose. Worse yet, Hakim believes the United States has neither the resources nor the will to alter the course.

But Latin America's leftward shift stems from more than White House distraction. It's not that the United States is acting aloof with its neighbors; rather, we're the worst-behaved homeowner on the block. We fly the biggest flag, make the loudest demands, and on top of it all, we don't even like having guests over. Sure, the United States has treated Latin America as its "backyard" for two hundred years -- but now, Bush's own party wants to fence it off.

House Republicans recently approved a plan to erect a 2,000-mile, Israeli-style barrier that would wall off Mexico and the rest of Latin America. The plan isn't expected to survive a Senate vote, but it sums up the current state of north-south relations quite well. And it's been a godsend for the presidential campaign of left-wing Mexico City Mayor Manuel Lopez Obrador, the leading candidate in the July 2nd elections and a frequent Bush critic.

For Lopez Obrador, the border fence proposal is proof that NAFTA is faltering and that outgoing President Vicente Fox was on the wrong end of the rope in his faux-ranchero friendship with Bush. Fox had staked his presidential reputation on securing an immigration accord with the Bush administration, and his failure has made excellent fodder for Lopez Obrador's campaign. His election victory in July would leave the last domino leaning right on Washington's doorstep.

Helping Hugo

The Bush administration has been most frazzled by the growing regional influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whom Donald Rumsfeld recently likened to Hitler. Chavez has his own nickname for Bush -- "Mr. Danger" -- and he's effectively shaped the American president into his political foil.

As Bush pushes the region away, Chavez pulls. The Venezuelan leader has fashioned himself into a kind of Latin American Robin Hood, raking in tanker-loads of petrodollars in order to bankroll massive social programs and regional integration schemes. He's provided oil at subsidized rates to poor countries throughout the Caribbean, even sending discounted winter heating oil to low-income residents in Boston and the Bronx -- an act of mockery as much as aid. The Bush administration's tacit endorsement of a 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chavez has left the U.S.'s rhetoric about respect for democracy ringing hypocritical.

At the World Social Forum in Caracas in January, Chavez t-shirts were reportedly de rigueur, along with all the other standard-fare knickknacks of rebellion: Castro-hats, Zapatista stickers, and anything red with Che on it. By comparison, Bush apparel was in short supply.

Granted, he did show up on a few banners and posters that weren't slated for immolation, like one that read "Chavez yes, Bush no!" But twenty years from now, who knows? Latin America may be much better off then. And perhaps he'll finally get the "Gracias Bush" he deserves -- with his own face on a silkscreen.

Nick Miroff is a student at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. He has reported from Latin America for National Public Radio, Mother Jones, and the Oakland Tribune.

We have an $8.363 trillion debt because the Bush Administration spends money as if there'll be no tomorrow. And they have a rather cavalier attitude about all their expenses; they don't want to pay for them. Their constant refrain is, "put it on my tab." When the tab comes due, there's not enough money in the US treasury to pay for it-remember those tax cuts that Republicans are so fond of-and so the government has to borrow money.

You may ask why don't we just refuse to pay? What if Congress refused to raise the debt limit? Wouldn't that teach bad George a lesson? Perhaps, but it would also mean that the Feds couldn't send checks to Social Security and Medicare recipients, not to mention victims of Hurricane Katrina. What's worse is that it would send a signal to the world that the US is no longer a credit-worthy client. Interest rates would shoot up, costing the US government, and you and me, a lot more to borrow money.

There are two schools of thought about our debts: One, represented by certain economists, and that old swifty, VP Dick Cheney, argues that the national debt, and the Bush Administrations annual deficits, don't really matter so long as they are a reasonable percentage of the gross national product. I won't bore you with the technical details, other than to say they're the sorts that economists love to ponder. This group says, in effect, don't worry, be happy.

The other group, represented by people who have their wits about them, folks like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, argues that a day of reckoning is just around the corner. This has two faces: one actuarial and the other political.

I'll be brief about the actuarial problem. There are these folks called "baby boomers" who are about to retire. When they do, they will expect services such as Social Security and Medicare; services that already cost us more than $1 trillion each year. The additional service recipients will dramatically increase annual Social Security and Medicare costs and probably our national debt.

So what? Why don't we just keep borrowing? It's worked for the Bush Administration, why won't work it work indefinitely?

It might work indefinitely if we were borrowing from a politically neutral source, like The Bank of Heaven, but we aren't. Sixty percent of the debt is privately held; countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Japan hold one third. There is an increasing danger that our debt holders will wake up one day and declare, "You Americans are on a non-stop spending spree. We're not going to pay for it any more."

Of course, they wouldn't cut us off completely. They'd be like our parents, they'd continue to loan us money, but with stringent conditions attached; like no going out after dark, and much higher interest rates. The problem is that these conditions would affect everything in our economy. They'd result in a drastic reduction in public services such as education and health care.

The other obvious problem is that we have dicey relationships with some of our creditors, like China and Saudi Arabia. So, if we threatened them militarily-I know that's hard to imagine, but bear with me-they might respond by refusing to buy more of our bonds and selling those they have on the open market. This would immediately raise interest rates and, some say, cause runaway inflation. DNC chair Howard Dean recently characterized this problem as "a national security failure" of the Bush Administration.

The larger problem is that it's not just the Bush Administration that likes to party as if there is no tomorrow, it's the American people. As a group we spend more than we earn. Americans have a negative personal savings rate; we cover our tabs by taking out home equity loans. This propensity to borrow shows up everywhere in our economy. Last year our imports were 57 percent more than our exports.

So it's not just the Bush Administration. Here's the ugly truth: those party animals in the White House are reflective of a national psyche that spends as if there is no day of reckoning. If you're one of those apocalyptic Christians who believe that the rapture is going to occur momentarily, then this may make sense. But, for the rest of us, it's a problem.

When the day of reckoning comes then, at the least, we're going to have to pay more for everything because all interest rates will jump up. Meanwhile, government services will be dramatically reduced. We'll experience America's morning after that will go on for a painfully long time.

In the meantime, America has to compete with other countries like India and China, and the European Community who have national mottos somewhat different from "Let's party" and "Let's kick some butt with our military." These countries have mottos like "Let's have the most advanced manufacturing capability in the world," "Let's become the world leader in telecommunications," and "Lets have the most skilled work force."

Remember, they can see us on TV. They're all watching. Marveling at our collective debt wish. Party on, you crazy gringos.

The police identified the shooter as Aaron Kyle Huff, who moved to Seattle about four years ago from Montana, and shared an apartment with his identical twin brother Kane.

The police said Huff had attended a rave dance called "Better Off Undead" on Friday night at Seattle's Capitol Hill Arts Center. That event had heavy security, but some people continued the party at a home on Capitol Hill and Huff had been invited.

Some of the partygoers told the police that Huff left the after-party about 7:00 a.m. Saturday and returned minutes later wearing bandoliers of ammunition and carrying a 12-gauge pistol-grip shotgun and a handgun. He fired on the 30 young partygoers gathered in the house, and when a police officer arrived and confronted him, he turned one of the weapons on himself.

It was Seattle's deadliest crime in more than 20 years.

Witnesses interviewed by police said Huff was quiet and self-effacing at the party and acted calm and deliberate during the shootings, firing off bullets and saying something like "there's plenty for everyone."

The deputy chief particularly noted the amount of firepower Huff had with him. He had more than 300 rounds of ammunition, and the detectives seized additional weapons from the apartment he shared with his twin brother.

"My speculation is that this was not a sudden attack. He came heavily armed with additional ammunition ... clearly intent on doing homicidal mayhem in a killing spree," Seattle Deputy Police Chief Clark Kimerer said at a news conference.