I hesitate to get into an inter-magazine pissing match, but I just couldn't let this post by The New Republic's James Kirchick go unanswered. Kirchick takes aim at the Nation's latest issue, which contains a symposium on Cuba, its future and the problems with US policy towards it. Kirchick's critique is two-fold. First, he finds the entire choice of topic and presentation musty, boring and predictable. "Leave it to the Nation," he writes, "that stalwart fount of 'unconventional wisdom since 1865,' to offer a platform to a dictatorship's toady." Well, let's remember that this comes on the website of a magazine that did everything in its power to push the US into a war that its own former editor now describes as a "disaster" and "tragic," and which has resulted in the deaths of tens, most likely hundreds, of thousands of innocent civilians. So Mr. Kirchick may want to check himself before calling out The Nation, a magazine that got the single most pressing foreign policy question of our times right. (And, it should be noted, has published numerous articles critical of the Castro regime in the fast few years alone, including in the very issue that Kirchick criticizes.)

As for his substantive critique, it is this: Because Cuba is ruled by a dictator, any representative of the government is by definition a "toady," spouting "disreputable opinions." His complaints, therefore, cannot have merit, and must be necessarily ignored by anyone who shares Mr. Kirchick's impeccable moral judgement. If this kind of logic seems familiar, it's because it is. It's the same logic that led the New Republic and the establishment to support a sanctions regime against Iraq that almost certainly killed more than a hundred thousand Iraqi children. You see, because Saddam was evil, his government's contention that the the sanctions were killing its civilians had to be wrong. And because Saddam was evil, his government's claim that it had, in fact, been disarmed, could not have been true, even after the UN weapons inspectors confirmed it.

F Scott Fitzgerald famously observed that the "the true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time." The Nation published an issue that contained both the voice of the Castro regime and those critical of it. It can be the case that the Cuban regime is a bad regime, and that it has entirely legitimate complaints to offer towards the US. But this is precisely what Kirchick finds so odious. His moral cosmology is that of the Bush administration which says that there are good guys and bad guys in this world, and we just don't talk with or listen to the bad guys until they stop being bad.

Or, to put it more bluntly, it is the moral cosmology of a child.

Comments (22)

1. The New Republic sucks sac.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 04/30/2007 @ 5:41pm

2. get 'em chris! rawwr!

   actually for all the awful things castro has done (like institute a stalinist regime), what preceded him had its "issues" too. several times over the last few decades castro has approached the usa about some form of normalization of relations. such would have led to walmarts in every city in cuba by now if not for a rabid minority of cuban americans in south florida (many of whom came from the supporters of the brutal right wing dictator who preceded the brutal left wing dictator now dying) whose political influence far outweighs their numbers...

   stupid shoot-selves-in-foot right wing concrete objectivist thinkers...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 5:52pm

3. you know, if those arrogant, stubborn, hothead south florida cubans (widely detested throughout the latin american world) had not gotten in the way of normalization of relations, who knows? some settlement could have been reached, including perhaps some restitution, they could come and go to cuba all they want, buying it back up with all the money they made over here AND own a gigantic chunk of some of the priciest real estate on the planet...

   but no...castro was too tough. got away with flipping us the bird for decades...and the miami cubans were too tough for their own good.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 6:23pm

4. Qui es mas macho? Bush o Castro?

   Posted by Sousa at 04/30/2007 @ 7:52pm

5. Posted by SOUSA 04/30/2007 @ 7:52pm

   chavez es el gran huevon de hoy dia. y a me no me molesta ni un poquitito ahora. necesitamos un enemigo americano...economicamente y en los asuntos sociales. la competicion es bueno, no?

   viva don hugo... el huevon anti corporatista de las americas!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 8:03pm

6. sousa es portuguese, no?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2007 @ 8:04pm

7. Mr Hayes, come on...

   For nearly 40 years, Cuba has been an "inspiration" for those on the Left who dreamed of the microcosm socialist fantasy of the post-Stalin Marxist up-rising in the Western Hemisphere, which results in a "workers' paradise" with free health care and free education and...okay...well....a tad bit of oppression but that's just because of the American embargo and if Jack Kennedy had lived it would have been all different!!!

   There is dishonesty on the Right about Cuba....But the thing is there's a lot of dishonesty from those on the Left... who CLAIM that "if we lift the embargo, we'll do more to break the Cuban dictatorship than what we've done with it"...and argue AT THE SAME TIME that "Why do we trade with China and not Cuba?!?!?"

   Okay...fair enuf...I support lifting the embargo, because it's a waste of effort. But don't LIE to us about how it will cause any changes in Cuba....if trade actually STRENGTHENED the dictatorship in China.

   Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 8:25pm

8. Sim, Sousa e Portugues! E os Portuguesos som muchissimo machos!

   Posted by Sousa at 04/30/2007 @ 9:39pm

9. Mas qui es mas macho? La Nacione o La Nueva Republica?

   Posted by Sousa at 04/30/2007 @ 9:40pm

10. "Okay...fair enuf...I support lifting the embargo, because it's a waste of effort. But don't LIE to us about how it will cause any changes in Cuba....if trade actually STRENGTHENED the dictatorship in China.

    Posted by MASK 04/30/2007 @ 8:25pm |

    On the other hand...the new people "coming up" throught the ranks in China are mostly US educated, US traveled and Us wise in how to do things...and those coming up in Cuba are...well, they aren't any coming up..there is no upward modern western educated leaders moving up at all in Cuba...they are already in Miami, waiting to go back when the great president for life finaly dies, or get themselves purged in one of Castros panics...

    If the entire world except the US has a normal relationship with Cuba(I heard Angola had a "normal" relationship at one time)why is Cuba such a backwards disaster of a place in the 2000s? It should be the vacation mecca of the Americas, a jewel of a modern paradise 90 miles from the most affluent society in the history of man..instead they electricity ..many times for hours in a day...whether they need it or not.

    Could it be Castro and his system?..nah, it is the Republicans fault..

    Any bets on how long those "awful nasty Cubans in South Florida" take the cash and turn the place around after the great one has assumed Carribean Temperature?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/01/2007 @ 12:34am

11. Tell ya what Chris: YOU talk to the bad guys. Let us cosmological kids know how it goes, OK?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/01/2007 @ 07:25am

12. Long ago, we had discussions of the human-rights situation in China. We tied trade agreements to progress in human rights. It wasn't that long ago; it was the early Nineties, I believe. But now, China has "most favored nation status" in all but name. Cuba, of course, gets "least favored nation status."

    For China, we offer all carrot and no stick, and we haven't even got the guts to yank the carrot away every now and then (maybe because now we're financially too deep in debt to China to dare try). For Cuba, we never offer a carrot, and Cuba gives us the finger because it doesn't expect any carrots from us.

    Wouldn't it be nice if we realized the good we could do if our trade policy were linked to human rights? If disinvestment brought down South Africa's apartheid, couldn't it work elsewhere?

    But disinvestment works only if there's investment to begin with. What about linking re-investment in Cuba to progress in human rights?

    Here's what I think is childish: Reducing our foreign policy toward un-democratic states to the two extremes of "most favored nation" on the one hand and either complete embargoes or raining bombs on the other. What about the in-between policies, the measured policies, the "conditional" trade agreements, which are most likely to encourage progress without bloodshed?

    My suspicion is that we don't have policies like that (at least, not any more) because our policies are now written by multinational corporations, which manifestly do not care about human rights and are happy either to profit from cozy deals with dictatorships or to get no-bid contracts to re-build them after they are bombed.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 05/01/2007 @ 08:09am

13. China has "most favored nation status" in all but name.

    They have it in name, set in stone by congress.

    I do find it amusing that China, which blows Cuba away in all communist areas (detention of citizens, occupation of land not belonging to it, threatening Taiwan, child labor, pollution of its air and water, crushing of dissent and jailing of religious leaders) gets a pass from the neo-cons.

    Go HU!!!

    Go Batista!!

    no communist, except for Castro, and no right wing dictator are bad, if they leave business alone. So sayeth the neo-cons.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/01/2007 @ 09:08am

14. BTW, think CHIMICHENGA will show up on this thread and repeat THIS statement?

    "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."---Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/20/2006 @ 2:07pm

    Posted by Mask at 05/01/2007 @ 09:12am

15. Buwahahaha:

    here we go. any bets on which party will have more "johns"?

    WASHINGTON -- Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias submitted his resignation Friday after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington escort service, multiple media outlets reported Friday.

    ABC's "Blotter" reported that Tobias told the network Thursday "he had several times called the 'Pamela Martin and Associates' escort service 'to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage.' Tobias, who is married, said there had been 'no sex,' and that recently he had been using another service 'with Central Americans' to provide massages."

    Nope, no sex. None. Just like Rev aHggard. Purely for massage and conversation.

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/01/2007 @ 09:14am

16. Posted by MASK 05/01/2007 @ 09:12am

    Your point?

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/01/2007 @ 09:16am

17. F Scott Fitzgerald famously observed that the "the true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time."

    And then there's the observation that the "true test of a Bushie's mind is the ability to hold zero contradictory ideas at all times."

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/01/2007 @ 09:30am

18. ...any bets on which party will have more "johns"?...

    Posted by CRABWALK 05/01/2007 @ 09:14am

    If the escort service employed Jeff Gannon, I'd have to bet Republican.

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/01/2007 @ 09:40am

19. Posted by CRABWALK 05/01/2007 @ 09:16am

    Well, CHIMI does claim expertise in matters of Central/South America...and he's no "rightie".

    So just curious as to whether our favorite anti-American ex-patriate in Medellin would make an appearence and repeat his opinion on support of an armed overthrow of Comrade Fidel.

    Posted by Mask at 05/01/2007 @ 10:10am

20. The current administration has taken the bipartisan and optional policy of using the ends to justify any means and made it the linchpin of their minority and extreme agenda. Keep calling them on it.

    Posted by sonburns57 at 05/03/2007 @ 10:27pm

21. The "Crossfire" argument rides again.

    If you publish material critical of Cuba, whether accurate or not, that immunizes from attack your material not critical of Cuba.

    Writing you publish about Cuba has consistently violated the standards and ethics we have a right to expect. Like other media, you seem to believe you can say anything about Cuba -- who's going to sue? The skepticism you bring to bear on all other governmental pronouncements go out the window when the subject is Cuba -- the area of government pronouncements most well known to be bought and paid for by interest groups.

    You talk, for instance, about "independent journalists" as though they were independent journalists, even though the U.S. government publishes material under their bylines that the quickest perusal would reveal was not written by a journalist.

    My retirement plan is a letter "Dear David Corn, I am a journalist. Honest! Send money."

    As far as I can ascertain, you have never published a description of the Cuban political system, but inaccurate characterizations turn up frequently. Have you even reviewed one of the books on the topic? It compares very favorably with the system you know best in, for example, extent of enfranchisement, participation of women or the quality of leadership it produces.

    Have you ever published a description of the uses envisioned for "dissident groups" in Mongoose or Zapata? Has anyone at the mag even read FRUS X?

    Oh, well. If you haven't had such thoughts before, you're probably impenetrable.

    Cass

    Posted by Cassandra at 05/04/2007 @ 7:16pm

22. There's Cuba, with the best human rights record in the Western Hemisphere, having ascribed to her "a tad bit of repression" by someone trying to be fair.

    There has not been a single extrajudicial execution, "disappeared" or case of torture since Castro entered Havana in 1959. When I first read of Castro making that claim, I challenged el exilio to refute it -- note they would need only one case -- and in four years none has done so. They typically refer me to websites listing Castro's "murders" which, on examination, turn out to be Bay of Pigs casualties, people drowned in the Strait, people who died in custody of natural causes ... nary a murder.

    Or they refer me to Human Rights orgs who appear to have been coopted or heavily infiltrated by el exilio -- even when reporting that U.N. inspections of U.S. charges have found no evidence to support them, for example, HRW in the very same paragraph uses language that more or less signals "Nonetheless, though they've been proven innocent, we refuse to believe it." (1989 country report)

    HRW or Amnesty produced a report that said prison conditions were so bad they were "tantamount" to torture. They specifically cited a prisoner who'd been bitten by mosquitoes, a prisoner who had been taken to a prison official's air-conditioned office straight from the summer heat of the prisoners' cells, the lights being left on at night. Their sources are dissidents' families.

    The Cuban American National Foundation, political wing of Cuban American terrorists, produced a letter ostensibly from a political prisoner to the UN HRC exposing the terrible conditions under which she was detained: the drain was blocked in the laundry room, she didn't like the food, and it was impossible to avoid people with peasant backgrounds since they made up most of the staff.

    If they could have done better, they would have.

    I also take note of the large number of people who have been convicted of assassination plots against Castro who have served their time and are walking around alive and well.

    Posted by Cassandra at 05/04/2007 @ 7:42pm