Joel, your post takes me back. The New York Times is saying that the Castro dictatorship’s arrests will “amplify the criticisms” of Obama’s political opponents in the United States. They are begging the Castros not to hand the likes of us “ammunition.”
The Times said exactly the same things during the Cold War — certainly during the Reagan presidency. Every time the Kremlin did something gross, the Times said, “This will only strengthen the hand of Reagan and the hard-liners.” Alternatively, they said, “It will strengthen conservatives on both sides” — the Soviet and the American.
Remember that one, anyone?
Some bullets:
‐Mauricio Claver-Carone writes, “Instead of releasing 53 political prisoners,” the Castro dictatorship has done something else. “This past week we’ve seen the arrest (and re-arrest) of democracy activists and political prisoners.”
‐The Cuba Archive has a list of “45 Documented Deaths Attributed to the Cuban State in 2014”: here.
‐In the past few weeks, I’ve seen something I’ve seen my entire life — at least since college, when I became interested in Cuba, and in the American Left’s defenses of the Castro dictatorship.
Whenever you express a desire for freedom and democracy in Cuba — or even non-murderousness — they say, “You long for the days of the Batista dictatorship.” They want you to make a choice: Batista or the Castros. That choice is easy, of course: Batista was a lamb compared with these wolves.
For confirmation, you can ask Fidel Castro, who was imprisoned under Batista. He lived the life of Riley. He had large, comfortable quarters; full mail privileges; conjugal visits; daily exercise and sports; excellent food; two baths a day . . . He said in a letter, “They’re going to make me think I’m on vacation.”
But that is not the choice — Batista versus the Castros. Much of the world, including Latin America, has democratized since 1959. Even the Soviet bloc has democratized! But not Cuba.
Don’t take this Batista bait that the Left always dangles, chillen. Over the years, when I have interviewed democracy activists, the Left has responded that these are “Batista stooges.” (Or they are gusanos, worms, which is the Communists’ term for opponents of the dictatorship.)
Most of the time, the dissidents I have interviewed were born after the fall of the Batista dictatorship. All they have known is the Castros.
Remember this, too: Many of the best and bravest democrats fought against Batista and then were imprisoned, tortured, and killed by the Communists.
‐My entire life, I have heard that U.S. policy on Cuba hasn’t “worked.” That’s an interesting word, “worked.” What does it mean? “Toppled the dictatorship”?
I have broached this question of U.S. policy and “working” with many Cuban dissidents. My question will go something like this: “A lot of my fellow Americans, including on the right, say that our policy hasn’t ‘worked.’ The Castros are still there. What do you say to that?”
Often, their answer is, “At least you haven’t helped them. At least you haven’t propped them up — unlike the Europeans and most everyone else. At least you haven’t given them the cash or credits that they need as oxygen. You can be proud of that.”
I know I shouldn’t get into this, but I’m in a reckless mood: We have long said that our drug policy — the banning of drugs — hasn’t “worked.” By that, I think we mean that people are still buying, selling, and using drugs.
This may be simplistic, but I have had the following thought, since early days: People commit murder, rape, and theft. Are our laws against murder, rape, and theft not “working”? Should we rescind them? Does a law work or not work according to whether people obey it?
I think that, if we want to argue in favor of drug legalization, we should go ahead and do so — without reference to this business of “working.”
Our immigration laws haven’t “worked,” have they? Does that mean we should open the border? I mean, formally? No!
‐I know that Mary O’Grady’s columns are behind a paywall. But I recommend that you beg, borrow, or steal this column, which deals with the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Here is a lady who knows.
‐Tomorrow is the 56th anniversary of the Communist seizure of Cuba.
‐One thing Obama’s foreign policy lacks, I think, is a moral dimension. He has this in common with hard-bitten Kissingerians. I wonder how each side feels about that.
‐If I were in a position to question Obama, and he were in a candid mood, I’d like to ask him, “Whom do you admire more? Netanyahu or the Castros? George W. Bush or Fidel? Reagan or Fidel?”
I might be slightly afraid to ask.
‐Would Obama officials ever scorn the Castros as “chickenshits”?