No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.
Bad to elect Islamists? The opposition to Islamism in the Middle East aren't classical liberals... they're nationalistic socialists largely propped up by a military powerbase. You might consider that preferable to the Taliban, but not all Islamists are Taliban. In fact the closest thing to classical liberals in some of these countries
are the Islamist parties.
Compare Turkey and Malaysia under the governance of Islamists to Saddam's Iraq or Assad's Syria. It should be noted that the only real advocacy or implementation of free market reforms in the Middle East have been done by Islamists(AKP in Turkey, Ennahda in Tunisia), while the secularist socialists are invariably the vanguards of stagnant socialist/corporatist systems.
