Fidel Castro is dead. One of the most infamous, fundamental human rights-infringing, incorrigibly wicked, murderous, tyrannical thugs of the past half century is no longer with us, and the world is a better place. I am reluctant to speculate above my pay grade and definitively opine as to the final destination of Castro’s soul, but I do suspect Sen. Tom Cotton is probably on the right track here:
Sen. Tom Cotton says Fidel Castro is in hell. pic.twitter.com/oZN3r4e1NH
— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) November 26, 2016
History will not judge Castro’s legacy kindly. He invariably jailed, tortured, forcibly confined in Soviet-style gulags, and/or murdered—yes, murdered—tens of thousands of vociferous critics and political opponents. He trampled all over Cubans’ economic freedoms, nationalizing sundry industries whilst willfully plunging his own populace into destitution by inveterately applying discredited illiberal economic malarkey and voluntarily isolating his own island nation from the free world. He had no use for Cubans’ political freedoms, as he transmogrified Cuba into a one-party Communist dictatorship. His record on civil liberties was perhaps the worst of the domestic bunch: he made no effort to provide for a free press, censored the Internet and airwaves alike, could not have cared in the least bit for providing due process for those accused of wrongdoing, severely cracked down on freedom of religious expression, and had a truly miserable record in dealing with Cuba’s homosexuals. On the foreign front, besides playing a direct role in taking the world closer to the brink of full-out nuclear war than it had ever before been, he played a leading role in abetting rogue regimes from Moscow to Tehran to Pyongyang in their attempts to elude various oversights and/or sanctions. He invariably directly supported legitimate terrorist militias, such as Iran’s Levant-based proxy Shi’ite terror group, Hezbollah.
Fidel Castro was not a “complex” or “controversial” figure. By almost any objectively measurable metric, under his reign, the people of Cuba became more impoverished, less free, less likely to succeed, and more estranged from the rest of the world. He was, quite simply, a very, very bad man.
History will remember Fidel Castro as an evil, murderous dictator who inflicted misery & suffering on his own people pic.twitter.com/Y7207S6qVD
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) November 26, 2016
Things Fidel Castro made it illegal for people created with dignity to do:
-own a boat
— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) November 26, 2016
— Bret Stephens (@BretStephensNYT) November 26, 2016
Fidel Castro's death cannot bring back his thousands of victims, nor can it bring comfort to their families: https://t.co/hYue5mi69M
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) November 26, 2016
— Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (@RosLehtinen) November 26, 2016
Fidel Castro was an evil monster vomited forth from hell to torment the people of Cuba. Don't sugarcoat it, don't pretend. Face it. Evil.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) November 26, 2016
And yet, in the most easily predictable historical development since erstwhile Man v. Food star Adam Richman faced a stern cardiologist excoriation and then went full vegan on us, the global Left has reacted to the news of Castro’s death exactly as we all thought it might. The Los Angles Times, in what appears to now be a deleted tweet, referred to the late Castro as one might normally refer to Joel Osteen: “charismatic.” Qatari-funded pro-Islamism media outfit Al Jazeera called Castro a “legend.” Already, I knew this boded poorly for the rest of weekend.
Sure enough, the reaction from the woebegone MSM and global Left (but I repeat myself) to the news of Castro’s ultimate demise has been far, far worse than even I thought it could be.
Barack Obama issued a pathetic statement in which he willfully whitewashed away Castro’s brutally repressive domestic agenda, his decades-long visceral hatred of the United States and his concomitant support for many of our existential geopolitical foes, and his tens of thousands of politically imprisoned and murdered victims.
Obama's statement on Fidel is so anodyne that it sanitizes his atrocities and terrible place in history pic.twitter.com/jeDhI9sDbS
— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) November 26, 2016
Honestly, President Obama would have been better off saying NOTHING about the death of Castro than characterizing Castro's rule in this way. https://t.co/Xr1PjVOmxE
— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) November 26, 2016
Never to be outdone, Hamas-loving moral ignoramus Jimmy Carter put out an even more atrocious statement than did Obama.
Is this a real statement or a parody? Because if this is a real statement from the PM of Canada it is shameful & embarrassing. https://t.co/lFXeqU7Ws0
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) November 26, 2016
Across the pond, Jew-hating economically illiterate socialistic insane asylum escapee Jeremy Corbyn of the U.K.’s Labour Party had, at least at its specific juncture, the single most shameful statement of the weekend.
And yet there was more! Jeane-Claude Juncker, President of the Brussels-based European Commission, called Castro a “hero to many.”
— Jean-Claude Juncker (@JunckerEU) November 26, 2016
Juncker’s sovereignty-underming, Western values-bashing, dictator-empowering co-conspirator in Turtle Bay, Ban Ki-moon, evinced his now-trademark moral dilapidation by referring to Castro as a “strong voice for social justice.”
— UN Spokesperson (@UN_Spokesperson) November 26, 2016
The New York Times, ever the gate-keeeper for supercilious Upper West Side and hipster Williamsburg opinion alike, was sure to quote one of its reader commenters for the proposition that Castro was “inspirational” and, in essence, a “social justice warrior.”
— The New York Times (@nytimes) November 26, 2016
Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire. Presente!
— Dr. Jill Stein🌻 (@DrJillStein) November 27, 2016
Gross. So gross.
All in all, it is enough to make one want to gouge an eyeball out. “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out,” conservative provocateur David Horowitz likes to say, and post-Karl Marx/Woodrow Wilson Leftist social thought has, indeed, effectively purged itself of any vestigial semblance of a more classically liberal Thomas Paine/John Stuart Mill-like “live and let live” mindset. One can only wonder how these same folks—the Justin Trudeaus and Jill Steins of the world—feel about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Assad, and the Ayatollah Khamenei.
It should go without saying that anyone carping about Donald Trump’s authoritarian-inclined rhetorical excesses—a phenomenon that I have consistently noted at this site for nearly a year now—whilst simultaneously whitewashing away or ignoring Castro’s long list of abhorrent atrocities is a brazen hypocrite of the highest possible order who has forfeited his/her right to be taken seriously in the court of public opinion.
In texting with a friend yesterday morning, the friend reminded me that this, perhaps above all else, is what it is about us conservatives that differentiates us from those on the Left. This is how I phrased the point in my maiden conservative blog post for RedState back in August 2014:
We fight because the Left, in all its morally relativistic, anti-Judeo-Christian, and Islamophilic doldrums, proffers [ ] remarkably specious and wholly untenable moral equivalence[s]…We fight because we alone have the moral clarity to recognize good and recognize evil…
We conservatives believe in objective truth and tend to see the world through more of a Manichaean lens. And the reason we inevitably receive such pushback from Leftists for articulating such a morally precise Weltanschauung is, as Dennis Prager memorably once put it in explaining why it is that Barack Obama so detests Benjamin Netanyahu:
Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.
That is really all there is to it. In American Sniper parlance, these morally confused Leftists comprise the hapless sheep of the world stage. So be it. But the onus is on conservatives, just as it always has been, to stand above the fray and lead as the world’s sheepdogs:
Always praise good when something is objectively good. Always condemn evil when something is objectively evil. Always strive to assist good and to defeat evil.
In the case of Fidel Castro, his legacy will be historically judged as remarkably clear. There is no confusion, and there is no need for much in the way of nuance. He was an evil man, and the world is better off without his iniquitousness wreaking havoc in this realm. Shame on those on the Left who have beclowned themselves by failing to exercise either the will or the fortitude required to affirm this very basic truth.