Brad Short writes:

You’re right, but with one caveat:
In the end, we should not give up the idea that
democracy is PART of liberalism, that is, beings with
dignity who have a right to think for themselves,
organize their own lives and accumulate and aquire
property according to their own plan for the pursuit
of the happiness of themselves and the rest of
mankind, ALSO IF THEY ARE PART OF A STATE should have
that freedom expressed in their being part of that
State. That act of “expression” is what we call
voting and debating and democracy.
But obviously it is only one part. If you aren’t
free at all, for year after year, and then there is
some elction, where you could, let’s say because it is
a secret ballot, vote for the opposition guy, that one
moment doesn’t make you all of a sudden “free.” And
the more important parts of liberalism are probably,
as you say, rule of law, inalienable rights, property
rights, rather than free and fair elections.
Though I don’t think Pinochet really protected the
rule of law or inalienable rights either, he simply
violated these things less (MUCH less) than Castro.

Me: I don’t really disagree with any of that. I think it’s a matter of emphasis. We emphasize democracy too much and liberalism too little. As for Pinochet, that’s a longer argument. But again, I think Brad’s right. But I wasn’t speaking categorically, I was expressing a preference for one essentially tyrannical regime over another. It seems Short agrees one was prefereable to the other, but neither were admirable given the alternative of a liberal democratic regime like America.