My friend and frequent interlocutor BB has this in response to my last post:
This is what I like most about blogging. I may disagree with Blarney Bob on a lot of things, but he keeps me on my toes and asks very provocative questions. Well, I am once again thankful for being provoked.
BB: I took no position on the question of normalization. I am tempted by the argument that normalization would undermine the regime, but so far I have not given into temptation. But I am hardly sure you are wrong.
It is true that the U.S. has supported more unsavory regimes than Cuba. Stalin against Hitler comes to mind. If you think, as I do, that that was the right call at the time, you have to agree that such decisions are part of the necessities of foreign policy.
Even if your comparison of Bush policies with Castro were not absurd, you would have to recognize that it works both ways. If you dislike Bush for his policies, you would have to dislike Castro at least as much. The Congressional Black Caucus members who went to Cuba indeed hate Bush, but they don't dislike Castro at all. They admire him. He is a household hero to one of them. They fawn over him. That this is pathological was the point of my post.
Your comparison is in fact absurd. The Bush Administration will be held to account for its conduct of the war on terror. There were surely some nasty things done, and maybe President Obama should move to put someone on trial for them. He ain't gonna. If all the facts are laid out in public, the New York Times will be appalled (if it still exists). But most Americans might go the other way, figuring that applying "strong medicines" as Machiavelli put it, was the right thing to do. I doubt that the Obama Administration will want to put this to the test. Better to leave vague charges of torture hanging in the air. Besides, all the signs are that Obama doesn't want to give up any of the executive powers that Bush claimed. See Czar Obama at Slate. I predict no trials.
But whatever sins the Bush Administration committed in its efforts to protect Americans against terrorism, he didn't arrest a single domestic critic. No Democrats or journalists were subject to show trials. Bush didn't round up homosexuals. He didn't make it a crime to lend out books that were not approved by the Department of Homeland Security. So far as I know, millions of Americans haven't taken to the sea to escape the Bush Regime. When Dubya lost a case before the High Court he accepted the decision and worked around it. If he had lost the 2004 election, he would have gone home to Texas four years earlier. So I don't think it the least bit hypocritical of me to like Bush more than Castro.
Nice blog. I am glad to see you are still at NSU.
You are the best.
Kire
Posted by: Kire Popov | Saturday, April 11, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Kire!
What a great pleasure it is to hear from you. I haven't forgotten my favorite Macedonian. Send me an e-mail and let me know what you are up to. My address is at the top. And thanks for the kind words.
Posted by: KB | Monday, April 13, 2009 at 12:46 AM
I've been thinking about Cuba... and about the decline of Communism in general.
P.J. O'Rourke once said that the fall of Communism in East Germany didn't happen because of guns and bombs, but rather it was Coca-Cola and Walkmans. We inundated the East Germans with our goods, they realized theirs sucked and they were hooked.
The 40-plus year embargo on Cuba doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, especially since the regime is still there, popular as ever. But if we could bring in our Coca-Cola and iPods (hey, it's the 21st Century), we can cause Castro to fall down and go boom.
Posted by: jackrabit1 | Monday, April 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM