Love with the perfect dictator

[Abdul Alhazred]

Love with the perfect dictator (http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080220_83043_83043&page=1)
Mark Steyn in Macleans (Canada)

I'll post a teaser, but I recommend reading the whole thing (2 pages) before discussion.

What's wrong with this picture?

"Saying he is no longer healthy enough to hold office, Cuban leader Fidel Castro has announced he will not seek re-election after 49 years in power" — the Miami Herald.

Hmm. Castro didn't really have to "seek" re-election, did he? He's a — what's the word? Oh, yeah — "dictator." If he "seeks" re-election, he's pretty much guaranteed to find it — assuming for the purposes of argument you can be "re-elected" if you've never been freely or fairly elected in the first place.

...

Not primarily about Castro, but about love of dictators in the west in general.

...

Democracy, said Churchill, was the worst form of government except for all the others. It is, in fact, the best form of government for small government — for a rotating political class constrained by a sense of what is achievable in free societies. But, if your plans are bigger than that, then you need a freer hand. The totalitarian temptation lurks within every big idea, even the fluffily benign-sounding ones, and it will only grow in the years ahead.

[Tricky]

Love with the perfect dictator
Did somebody call me?

[DanishDynamite]

Love with the perfect dictator (http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080220_83043_83043&page=1)
Mark Steyn in Macleans (Canada)

I'll post a teaser, but I recommend reading the whole thing (2 pages) before discussion.



Not primarily about Castro, but about love of dictators in the west in general.
What was you question?

[Abdul Alhazred]

No particular question, just sharing something I found of interest.

I see you've come back to the old neighborhood.

[DanishDynamite]

No particular question, just sharing something I found of interest.
Okay. Makes it hard to make a substantial reply though.
I see you've come back to the old neighborhood.
Sporadically. I'm still looking for a better place.

[JoeEllison]

Is this about how right-wingers love and prop up dictators? Because that would be an honest and accurate portrayal of reality.

[DanishDynamite]

Is this about how right-wingers love and prop up dictators? Because that would be an honest and accurate portrayal of reality.You would need to ask the OP starter what this is about as it isn't clear to me yet either.

[Abdul Alhazred]

As I understand it, a concerted effort to promote dictatorship in free countries, as distinct from merely doing business with them.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Like the business of pretending that various dictators really aren't.

Read the article. It's not just about Communists.

[DanishDynamite]

Like the business of pretending that various dictators really aren't.

Read the article. It's not just about Communists.
I skimmed the article. The question still remains....what question are asking by posting this article?

[scratchy]

Read the article. It's not just about Communists.
Yes, there were som arabs mentioned there also. But not much about the long line of right wing dictators, who didnt have to settle with just some nice chantings from leftwingers, but instead enjoyed military, finacial and political support from western governements through the years. But, on the other hand, they were all "ours", even if they were many times more murderous than Fidel Castro ever has been. So thats all fine.

[egslim]

But there beats in the liberal breast a strange passion for normalizing dictatorships.
What a load of codswallop. He complains about some "liberals" becoming all emotional over a dictator, while ignoring the military and economic support to other dictators from right wing hawks. Generally speaking, shedding tears does a lot less damage than handing out guns. Pot, meet kettle.

He also makes the rather obvious observation that unfree elections aren't free.

But his most ridiculous assertion is that: Democracy [...] is, in fact, the best form of government for small government — for a rotating political class constrained by a sense of what is achievable in free societies.
The reality is that democracy means doling out favours to the electorate. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has grown since the introduction of democracy.

[gtc]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP has grown since the introduction of democracy.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP has also grown in those countries where Democracy is notable only by its absence.

[Bikewer]

About 25 years ago, I bought a bunch of naughty comic books from Last Gasp comics. For my order, they threw in a bunch of "Friendly Dictator" trading cards. These had portraits of the concerned individuals, as well as a capsule biography on the back.
Pinochet, Haile Selassie, a few others.
A long tradition...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Who said it was something new? It's topical because Castro is being eulogized (and whitewashed) all over again following his retirement.

[Abdul Alhazred]

And cynically doing business with dictatorships is not the same as promoting that we should be more like them.

Get back to me when you hear an American politician say that we should be more like (for example) Saudi Arabia.

[TsarBomba]

The reality is that democracy means doling out favours to the electorate. Government spending as a percentage of GDP has grown since the introduction of democracy.

So the answer is . . . . what? Does this meant that you think that it is preferable to get rid of democracy? And in its place you install . . . what?

[egslim]

So the answer is . . . . what?
The answer is that democracy is not the best form for small government, which was the claim I responded to.

At a minimum democracy requires elaborate systems to protect people's rights, provide fair elections and ensure justice for all. That is in addition to the favours doled out to the electorate I mentioned previously.

Does this meant that you think that it is preferable to get rid of democracy?
On the contrary, it means I think the goal of small government is obsolete. The last 200 years have demonstrated that small government systems like absolute monarchies and aristocracies are inferior to big governments like democracy, communism and more advanced form of dictatorships, of which democracy has proved most succesful. Which is why those small government systems have all but disappeared.

And that also answers gtc's observation.

[gtc]

The answer is that democracy is not the best form for small government, which was the claim I responded to.

At a minimum democracy requires elaborate systems to protect people's rights, provide fair elections and ensure justice for all. That is in addition to the favours doled out to the electorate I mentioned previously.


On the contrary, it means I think the goal of small government is obsolete. The last 200 years have demonstrated that small government systems like absolute monarchies and aristocracies are inferior to big governments like democracy, communism and more advanced form of dictatorships, of which democracy has proved most succesful. Which is why those small government systems have all but disappeared.

And that also answers gtc's observation.

Not really, as your argument seems to boil down to the idea that government expenditure has increased as the size of governments has increased.

Surely democracy doesn't need more elaborate systems (to protect people's rights and to provide justice for all) than the other systems you have mentioned?

[TsarBomba]

On the contrary, it means I think the goal of small government is obsolete. The last 200 years have demonstrated that small government systems like absolute monarchies and aristocracies are inferior to big governments like democracy, communism and more advanced form of dictatorships, of which democracy has proved most succesful. Which is why those small government systems have all but disappeared.

And that also answers gtc's observation.

Maybe it depends on what you mean by a "small government." Every democratic (or pseudo-democratic) state that I am aware of has multiple layers of government, from local, to regional (i.e. provinces in Canada, states in the U.S., prefectures in Japan, etc.), to national. The reason for this is that big governments are unresponsive to local needs and conditions, so local--and democratic--government is needed. Without local government, most democratic societies would implode rather quickly.

So I guess I still do not understand the point of what you are trying to say.

[gtc]

I think he is referring to the functions of a government rather than the geographical area or the number of people served.

So, all else being equal, a government that doesn't regulate the health industry will be smaller than one that does.

[egslim]

I think he is referring to the functions of a government rather than the geographical area or the number of people served.

So, all else being equal, a government that doesn't regulate the health industry will be smaller than one that does.
Exactly. And regardless of whether those regulations are on a state or federal level.

Surely democracy doesn't need more elaborate systems (to protect people's rights and to provide justice for all) than the other systems you have mentioned?
Yes, it does. A basic criminal justice system has no rights for the accused, and a single judge who can basically decide whatever he either likes or is paid for. But the criminal justice system in a modern democracy is far more elaborate. It has appeal courts, all kinds of regulations and procedures to protect the defendant's rights and oversight measures in place. Corrupt judges will be prosecuted. All those things are both time consuming and costly.
The simple matter of organizing elections while ensuring their fairness is also a rather complex task that is not required in a hereditary absolute monarchy. Since a democracy in addition has all the functions of such a monarchy it is a bigger form of government.

The job of tax collector used to be one that had to be bought, with the collector collecting both the state's and his own income at his own discretion. Inefficient, unfair, and able to provide only little tax income. The IRS improves on all those, but it is a far more costly system. Again you have bigger government.

[Abdul Alhazred]

More stuff, specifically about Castro's Cuba.

Castro’s Cuba was no place for a socialist like me (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/514326/castroandx2019s-cuba-was-no-place-for-a-socialist-like-me.thtml) The Spectator (UK)

It’s a country where the vast majority live in poverty, while a tiny, corrupt elite live in luxury. It’s a place where, 14 years after South Africa abolished apartheid, a form of it still operates. And it’s a country where you can be threatened with prison not just for criticising the country’s leadership, but also for querying a medical bill.

Welcome to Cuba, the ‘socialist’ paradise built by that great egalitarian Fidel Castro, who after 49 years at the helm has finally decided to hand over power — in the manner of a true democrat — to his brother Raúl.

My wife and I, as unreconstructed paleo-lefties who support Clause Four, free school meals and NHS dental provision, had long wanted to visit Castro’s Cuba. All the people whose views we respect had said that the Caribbean island was a progressive model whose policies on education and healthcare ought to be copied throughout the world. We went there last April desperately wanting to like the place — after all, if George W. Bush and other right-wing nasties hated Cuba so much, then the country must be on the right tracks.

But we returned home terribly disillusioned. Neither of us had been to a country which was so utterly decrepit.

...

[dudalb]

Is this about how right-wingers love and prop up dictators? Because that would be an honest and accurate portrayal of reality.

Oh,and the American Left has not supported it's share of dictators, including a certain Joe Stalin.
And this was before WW2,where you could make the argument of necessity.

Joe Ellison;s ability to see nothing but good on the left wing of the political spectrum and nothing but Bad on the Right Wing continues to amaze me.
You really hate anybody who is not on the political Left, Don't you Joe?

[Darth Rotor]

More stuff, specifically about Castro's Cuba.

Castro’s Cuba was no place for a socialist like me (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/514326/castroandx2019s-cuba-was-no-place-for-a-socialist-like-me.thtml) The Spectator (UK)
But we returned home terribly disillusioned. Neither of us had been to a country which was so utterly decrepit.

Guess they'd never been to Djibouti (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/dj.html).

DR

[dudalb]

Guess they'd never been to Djibouti (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/dj.html).

DR


Or Zimbabwe. Robert Mugube makes Castro look like a freaking Economic Genius.

[dudalb]

BTW I am in favor of lifting the US embargo on Cuba. That would make the Castro Regime (which is what it still is) either open up Cuba to US Tourism,which would be fatal to it (once the average Cuban gets a glance at how the US lives what chance would Communsim have/),or put severe restrictions on Cuba's economic dealings with US which would be even worse since now they could not blame the Yankee Embargo for their economic ills.

[WildCat]

What a load of codswallop. He complains about some "liberals" becoming all emotional over a dictator, while ignoring the military and economic support to other dictators from right wing hawks.
Interesting. You consider FDR, JFK, and Jimmy Carter "right-wing hawks"?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Djibouti has a tourist industry?