As everyone probably knows by now, Fidel Castro, age 90, died on Friday. Castro was the architect of the communist revolution in Cuba, which was responsible for ending the cruel reign of dictator Batista, in 1959. Castro then proceeded to became Cuba’s leader, and served as such for nearly five decades. He only relinquished power in 2006 when his health started deteriorating. Since then, his brother, Raul Castro, has continued implementing his communist desires and designs.
As is the custom after the death of such an influential and iconic political figure, politicians and public personalities alike are commenting on his life and legacy. It is precisely this commentary that evokes my curiosity. Unlike the death of other influential and iconic figures, such as Nelson Mandela, or Mohammed Ali, Fidel’s death seems to be an extremely polarising event. His entire legacy seems to be condemned or praised purely on the basis of political orientation.
Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minster of Canada and leader of the Liberal Party, issued a statement praising Castro and expressing his condolences towards the Cuban people. He breezily swept aside Castro’s multitude of human rights abuses, by acknowledging that Castro also doubles up as a controversial figure, not just a great friend. He did not state why Castro was controversial, preferring to continue praising him than give an accurate picture of the man. But lucky for Justin Trudeau, he was not alone. In Britain, the leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, also praised Castro. He referred to him as a “champion of social justice” and hailed his “heroism”, while dismissing Castro’s extrajudicial killings and oppressive dictatorship as mere “flaws”. It is certainly odd hearing someone refer to the random murder of people as just a flaw; in the same way I consider rudeness to be just a “flaw”. Jill Stein, leader of the Greens Party in America, also praised Castro. Although she has demanded a recount of the votes in three states of America (just to ensure democracy is working and there was no tampering - even though there is no evidence to suggest there was), she doesn’t seem to mind that Castro always got 100% of the vote over his 49 year rule. Colin Kaepernick, the football activist for black Americans, also praised Castro, without bothering to assess the situation of blacks under Castro’s rule (here’s a hint - it’s not good). The Black Lives Matter movement also gave a statement, which hailed Castro as essentially the saviour of the human race, whilst omitting the fact that there is incredible racial inequality in Cuba due to Castro’s dictatorship. Obama, being a little more sensible than those inching towards the regressive left, preferred to neither praise nor condemn Castro. Instead, he felt that history would be the ultimate judge of Castro’s legacy. I don’t fully understand how history can be the ultimate judge, as “history” does not have any judge making capabilities (we do), but at least Obama did not praise Castro to the point that it sounded like it was done under duress.
It is interesting that Castro’s most vocal fanboys in the West all lay on the outer edges of the left. Perhaps it was because Castro had all the right views on all the right things. He was anti-capitalist, strongly against the U.S, and a thorough believer in government controlled everything. These are all things greatly applauded by the left. Castro also did not allow any deviation from the political ideology of the establishment, he was oppressive towards Christians, completely suppressed the press, ran a one-party government, and again, was a great believer in the government controlling every aspect of your life. These things are also greatly applauded by those on the left.
For the left has long rejected the classical liberal values that it was based on. They no longer listen to the people. Instead, they baulk at what the people have to say, for they know better. Whenever a referendum regarding the EU goes the wrong way (e.g. Ukraine referendum, EU constitution and many more), those on the left ignore it. As the Brexit and American elections showed, those on the left are willing to undermine the whole democratic process to ensure that their view, and only their view prevails. They abhor the idea that people have diverse political views, to the point that they try to silence them through show trials and the Heckler’s veto. They impose creepy programs onto the education system, and call you names if you don’t conform. The left does everything in its power to silence and overturn views that it finds unpalatable.
The left doesn’t praise Castro despite his crushingly anti-free speech policies. They do it because they also wish their view was the only one heard and spoken.
Note: The book “The left’s romance with tyranny” by Jamie Glazov provides a detailed account of this phenomena with A grade research and citations.