Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

But the point was that Castro has outlasted the policies of that list of presidents -- anyone reading the strip could see that. Or, then again, perhaps not. Nevertheless, it seemed pretty clear that was what Toles was saying.

If you really want an example from today's Post of the need to have a better press corps, read Howard Kurtz' article. Or better yet, the article about the reported detention and abuse of Iraqi children. Oh, wait. They didn't print that last story.

Um, if our policy goal were to get rid of Castro, isn't Toles point correct? I mean, the situation is less like that of a human-and-goldfish situation and more like that of a next-door neighbor who owns his own house and plays loud music all day outlasting the people in your house who have a maximum one-year lease arrangement. I mean, in the long term, it would be good to get rid of the loud music guy. The fact that everyone leaves after a year doesn't alter the fact that he's still there, year after year, despite our "best" efforts. Perhaps a policy change IS in order.

It does seem a bit of a stretch to devote criticism to a cartoon. Toles made no pretense of sophistication or unique wisdom; he's just trying to be amusingly ironic, and he is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/tolestom/

Oh, for the record, I play my music extremely loud and have outlasted 4 housemates over the past 3 years. So I'm altering my "loud music" guy to be "crack dealing neighbor" to make him more unappealing. And more appropriate to DC, as well!

I don't get the point of the objection to Toles, and to the "outlasted X presidents" observation generally. People who declare themselves to be dictators for life often do not last that much longer than elected Presidents do, because they are deposed. I haven't seen statistics, but would guess that the average length of rule of a dictator wouldn't be that different than the average length of rule of a President.

Mmm. I am not sure I understand this debate correctly, partly because I couldn't find a link to the original Washington Post article.

I don't think it's so dumb to point out that US policies have failed to help oust Fidel Castro. It seems pretty obvious to me that providing an external ennemy is the best way to prop up a dictator and give him all necessary excuses to clamp down on the little political and civil liberties there are in such regimes.

After all, even in the US, that's been our experience post-911. Republicans have even had the indecency to say that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for Al-Qaeda, and it's not like they have shied from curbing American civil liberties in the name of national security.

Back to Cuba, what the hell has limiting personal contacts between Cubans and Cuban Americans supposed to do with bringing down Castro? After all, remittances to Cuban are a perpetual reminder to Cubans that they live in a state of unecessary poverty and that all that Cuban Americans care about is their well-being (ahem.)

Yes, Fidel is still president because there are no elections, but there is a good chance that there would have already been elections if the US didn't make a point of turning him into the defendor of Cuba's national pride and sovereignty. Just because a policy is helpful to win Florida doesn't mean it's sensible policy for the US and Cuba...

The same thing can be said about Arafat. Had he not be ostracized, and had free elections been allowed in Palestine, he would probably already been voted out of office or, at least, been substantially weakened politically. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has half a brain and a minimum knowledge of the region. And so, naturally, I am brought to ask whether the true purpose of his sidelining isn't in fact to keep him in power. In turn, as long as he is as the helm, Israel can take him as an excuse to say that "there is noone to negociate with."

Similarly, what would be Florida's politics if there was nomore Cuban issue? How boring! A good Cuban is an oppressed Cuban, I suppose. And now let's go back to helping Al-Qaeda's funding drive and recruitment efforts. And while at it, let's boost the price of soft drugs to help the finances of international drug cratels. And, let's help overthrow a democratic regime here and there for diner. Thank you, good night. :-D

Plus the whole thing is about a bleeping cartoon where the writer has to find a way to maximum impact with minimum space. "A lot of presidents" does give the feel of a lot of time passing in a more, I dunno, poetic/artistic way than just say "Hey, I've been here for 40 years!! Nyah nyah nyah!!"

One good way of understanding what 40 years means in political space is, I'm sorry, but to look at the procession of leaders of the #1 nation over that period.

I understand the Professors empathy for this as part of his crusade for better, more factual newspapers.

I have no problem with the claim that this is a bad way of framing Castro's tenure (although I obviously disagree) but you're crazy if you want to, let alone think you will succeed, in extending this crusade to the editorial cartoons.

Yeah, but if I wanted to kill my goldfish and liberate the guppies, I could probably get the task done. That THIS goldfish has lived to a ripe old age, has given me the middle fin BIG TIME, and given the guppies decent education and health care at the price of their freedom tells me there is probably a problem with my approach.

I have friends who have been harassed by the US government for academic ties with Cuban professors. Perhaps this has somewhat influenced my opinion of American policy on this issue....

A prerequisite for any society claiming moral superiority over another is to actually demonstrate it.

"A prerequisite for any society claiming moral superiority over another is to actually demonstrate it."

Fortunately the US actually does demonstrate moral superiority over Cuba, that just isn't saying much.

It's less interesting that Castro has outlasted U.S. presidents. It _IS_, to me, more interesting that he has outlasted (in the sense of held power longer) than Batista.

Batista ran Cuba like a Tammany ward boss from 1933 to 1940. He ran, in rather normal democratic elections, for power in 1940, winning (with a coalition of political parties including Communists supporting him.) and ran again 1944, when he lost and peacefully surrendered power. (No doubt even then Batista plotted a comebacy, but the transfer of power to elected rivals is a feat Fidel Castro has not attempted...) Batista "retired" briefly to Florida, but won a Cuban Senate seat in '48, and ran again for president in '52. He won -- well, he won in a military coup, since the election was NOT going his way. Two years later, he again held elections -- fraudulent ones, but elections. A year after that, he was feeling so secure in his power he released a bunch of political prisoners -- among them: Castro. That was a mistake from his perspective, and for the next five years he battled to hold onto power. He was finally deposed in 1959, some 26 years after taking power.

Fidel Castro has had uninterrupted control of Cuba nearly 18 years longer than Batista had.

Castro has never had a coalition of parties behind him.

Castro has never lost an election and then been re-elected.

Castro has not built, with Soviet support, the infrastructure that Batista built with Mafia support.

Castro has, in most respects, been the very model of a modern banana-republic tinplated dictator; making Batista, the "U.S. puppet" and "accomplice-to-crime" look rather enlightened by comparison.

But Castro was and is a Communist, and that makes it all okay ...

Viva la Revolution!

An former Cuban now Floridian gent told me that in Cuba, it's common knowlege that Castro has several nuclear devices he refused to returned to the Soviets when they removed their missles. He was also profiled as someome who would detonate them in Cuba rather than surrender his country to an American attack. Having said that, I hope he continues to "outlive" American presidents. With cowboy "W" and sidekick "Jeb", it's not Castro we have to worry about.

Rich,

In fact dictators as a class tend to hold office quite a long time before being deposed, it one of the perks of being a dictator. Further, political isolation tends to be their best friend--the most isolated countries often have the longest-standing dictators.

It proves that in Cuba it is more difficult to
assinate presidents than here.

Pouncer:

"Castro has, in most respects, been the very model of a modern banana-republic tinplated dictator; making Batista, the "U.S. puppet" and "accomplice-to-crime" look rather enlightened by comparison."

I know too little about Batista to argue the comparison; I was five when Castro came into power, and haven't made a study of his predecessor.

But despite Castro's obvious human-rights abuses, he does differ from the classic banana-republic dictator in substantial ways. For instance:

From all accounts I've heard, Cubans as a population are well educated - not just the elites, but all Cubans who have grown up under Castro.

And while Cuba's infrastructure may be crumbling, the sort of genuine poverty and squalor present in quantity in most Latin American countries seems to be largely absent from Cuba.

These facts unquestionably put a lot of room between Castro and the dozens of Latin American 'strongmen' that have come and gone during my lifetime.

That doesn't justify Castro, but to lump him in with objectionable characters to whom he bears little resemblance just muddies the waters.

What Castro most resembles, IMHO, is that fictional entity, the 'benevolent dictator'. Historically, the right rather than the left has most often made the case for benevolent dictatorship as a form of government; I personally don't believe such justification exists, because one ultimately remains a dictator by unbenevolent means. But the figure of speech is meant to apply to those who use their dictatorial power to run the country in a manner that (aside from denying self-determination to their people) is aimed at benefiting the people, and succeeds in part because of the dictator's willingness to be ruthless.

Castro comes about as close to fitting the bill as anyone I can think of. Like I said, I don't see that as justifying his autocratic rule and suppression of dissent; ultimately, people should have the right to self-determination, and the Cubans are about as ready for that challenge as any people, anywhere, anytime, have ever been.

"But Castro was and is a Communist, and that makes it all okay ..."

Well, Pouncer, exactly who says "that makes it all okay" ? I'm sure you can find some lefty professors, but if you can find five members of Congress, or even one U.S. Senator, who will say that, I'd be surprised. My point is that this isn't an accepted POV even in the leftward reaches of the Democratic Party.

The question is, why do we treat Castro differently from other dictators? There was a certain logic to it when he represented an arm of the Soviet Bloc, a mere 90 miles from our shores. But now, what's our excuse? We recognize Putin's Russia and all of the other former Soviet republics (some of which are genuinely nasty dictatorships at present), we recognize Burma, Zimbabwe, the People's Republic of China, and a whole bunch of other nasties. But not Cuba. Aside from the Cuban-exile vote, what's the deal?

I thought Tom Toles strip was very good. The point is easy to grasp: US policy towards Cuba has failed for 40 years...

Any Latin American knows that...

"I haven't seen statistics, but would guess that the average length of rule of a dictator wouldn't be that different than the average length of rule of a President."

The average length of rule of a U.S. president is probably 6-7 years (with FDR alone pushing up the average by about 1/3 year).

Fidel Castro has been dictating for 45 years.

Saddam Hussein dictated for 24 years. (And he and his sons probably would have dictated for 24 more years, if G.W. Bush had never become President.)

Kim Il Sung dictated for about 46 years, and his son has been dictating for the last 10. Kim Jong Il seems very likely to dictate for at least another 10 years, if not 20. Or 30.

Papa Doc Duvalier dictated for 14 years (ended only by his death). His son ruled for 15 more years.

Moamar Khadafy has been dictating for the last 35 years.

I'd say the overwhelming evidence is that dictators stay in power far longer than U.S. Presidents.

>>Fortunately the US actually does demonstrate moral superiority over Cuba, that just isn't saying much.<<

Gee, I must have missed the part where Cuba invaded Iraq and killed thousands of its citizens on the basis of cooked intelligence, or where Cuba funded death squads and psychotic dictators in Central America who killed hundreds of thousands of peasants with U.S. weapons and backing, or where Cuba killed 2 or 3 million Vietnamese in carpet-bombing campaigns, but then I haven't been paying much attention to world history for the past 60 years or so.

That's some moral superiority, all right.

My stock comment on Batista: "How bad do you have to be for people to think Fidel Castro is a step *up*?"

"We recognize Putin's Russia..."

Putin has actually stood in an election, with a real opponent. Further, he came to power by the choice of someone (Yeltsin) who had actually stood in an election.

Castro most certainly has not stood in any election.

Look at Freedom House's freedom rankings for Russia versus Cuba. It isn't even close. Russia current has a pair of 5's (on a scale from 1 to 7, where 7 is the worst). Cuba currently has a pair of 7's...and Cuba has never had a ***single*** "5" since the rankings started in 1972.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/allscore04.xls

Over the last half century, Cuba may very well be the least free country on the whole planet, according to freedom rankings by impartial observers (e.g. Freedom House). And it is unquestionably in the worst 5.

"Gee, I must have missed the part where Cuba invaded Iraq and killed thousands of its citizens..."

...to depose a dictator who had killed over 1 million Iraqi citizens (if you include the conscripts that died in the wars with Iran and Kuwait).

Mark Bahner wrote, " 'Gee, I must have missed the part where Cuba invaded Iraq and killed thousands of its citizens...'

"...to depose a dictator who had killed over 1 million Iraqi citizens (if you include the conscripts that died in the wars with Iran and Kuwait)."

Except one needs to look at *future* benefits---this is akin to viewing things on the margin and not looking at sunk costs. It seemed pretty unlikely that Hussein was going to pull those stunts again anytime soon. (Not to mention that (a) the US tilted toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, (b) the US betrayed the Kurds after they rebelled, (c) the US betrayed the Sh'ia after they rebelled.)

Oh, and who deposed the regime in Cambodia that murdered 1-3 million Cambodians? The Vietnamese commies...

I read through this thread hoping someone would say "yes, he is saying that dictators outlast elected presidents, and this is significant because X." I have not seen that, because it is like saying, "Red, is a different color than blue. It just is." Well. So what. And why is that funny, and what point is it trying to make? If Toles thinks US sanctions towards Cuba are wrong why does not he say so? He could be saying they are wrong because they are too harsh and we should have free trade with Cuba and let it end up like China; or he could be saying we should just nuke Cuba; but this is all pure speculation as all he has done is say a complete tautology. And I agree it is stupid and pointless to say that dictators stay in power longer than elected people in a system that holds regular elections. Furthermore I have noticed that since 9/11 Toles and several other editorial cartoonists stopped being very funny and became fond of repeating self-righteous sounding tautologies like the above. Another side effect of 9/11 besides US invasion of an unrelated Middle Eastern country.

And not forgetting that three US presidents had plans to assassinate him, including using the Mafia.

"And while Cuba's infrastructure may be crumbling, the sort of genuine poverty and squalor present in quantity in most Latin American countries seems to be largely absent from Cuba."

Ah. Crumbling infrastructure, imitation poverty and counterfeit squalor, then. I agree to stipulate that.

"it's common knowlege that Castro has several nuclear devices he refused to returned to the Soviets when they removed their missles"

Don't you have to "re-charge" warheads somehow every couple of years? There's a lot of heavy traffic in Berkshire in England that suggests so. Obviously Castro can't do that.

"Over the last half century, Cuba may very well be the least free country on the whole planet, according to freedom rankings by impartial observers (e.g. Freedom House). And it is unquestionably in the worst 5."

I think that Freedom House may be emphasising the freedom involved in, say, starting a radio station and underrating the freedom involved in, say, not being sold into slavery. There is a number of countries which still have slaves. More than 5.

A few years back, Steno Sue burned the author of a critical e-mail by forwarding it to his boss with the comment, "Do you know what he's doing on company time?" (My doppelganger Dr. Limerick wrote a great 4-stanza limerick commorating this journalistic milestone.)

As far as I'm concerned, she has forfeited any benefit of the doubt. If she "confused" Iran with Iraq, it was either deliberate on her part, or willful refusal to think about the misdirection on the RNC press handout she was copying.

"I think that Freedom House may be emphasising the freedom involved in, say, starting a radio station and underrating the freedom involved in, say, not being sold into slavery. There is a number of countries which still have slaves. More than 5."

Mauritania and Sudan are two that I know of. My understanding is that slavery is re-appearing in the Sudan, after it was essentially eliminated.

A key aspect of Cuba is that it's an island, so it's a lot easier to imprison people than a in a country that might share borders.

"liberal" writes, "Except one needs to look at *future* benefits---this is akin to viewing things on the margin and not looking at sunk costs. It seemed pretty unlikely that Hussein was going to pull those stunts again anytime soon."

From a 60 Minutes interview of Madeleine Albright, dated May 12, 1996:

http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Even if Leslie Stahl's number is too high by a factor of 10, that's still 50,000 children that died during the ~5 years of sanctions. That's 10,000 children per year. (And that's only children. And that's assuming Leslie Stahl was too high by a factor of 10; it would be ~100,000 children per year if she was correct.)

Also, regarding "those stunts"...I agree he probably would not have waged war against any of his neighbors. But the fact is that Iraq's economy was collapsing (not in the North, where he didn't have control, but in the parts he did control). So children and the old and sick would have died at a progressively faster rate.

"liberal" continues, Not to mention that (a) the US tilted toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, (b) the US betrayed the Kurds after they rebelled, (c) the US betrayed the Sh'ia after they rebelled.)

Yeah, "liberal," it was all the U.S.'s fault that Saddam slaughtered the Kurds and Shia. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it. Nor, of course, any of the U.S.'s allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, Germany, etc.) It was all the U.S.'s fault. Of course.

"Oh, and who deposed the regime in Cambodia that murdered 1-3 million Cambodians? The Vietnamese commies..."

Yeah, why don't you go to Vietnam, "liberal"? I've heard it's a Worker's Paradise. (Except they appear to have become infected with capitalism...so maybe Cuba or North Korea would be more to your liking.)

good information please support dental health month

5457 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

6398 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

1349 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

7172 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com