Cuban Army Polo

How true, Cusack, how true. With what absurd insouciance did we allow that favored isle to fall away from our influence and indeed control. A weak hesitation saw it fall instead to the ravening and pitiless wolves of the international Left, who, now at the extreme and miserable end of their hideous overlordship, leave behind a ruined country and a dis-spirited people.
How amusing it would be if, like the Hungary you featured some weeks ago, a newly liberated Cuba were to restore its soldiers to their rightful position as guardians of ordered liberty and ornaments of diplomatic ceremony.

“Control”!!?

Control? Certainly. Cuba is within the sphere of America’s vital interests: you know, little matters like national self preservation.
All that has been old hat for decades now of course, and the result is that the USA I grew up in now longer exists, and will soon be a matter for scholarly tomes rather than flesh and blood passions. Nations are born, flourish, and die. America has simply come to this last melancholy stage rather more quickly than it might have done. Leftism is the culprit, and it has many victims still on its list.

I’d be interested to hear how Andrew (an admirer of Ron Paul, and, as far as I can tell, not a big fan of American efforts to “control” other countries) might respond.

Are you suggesting that America’s arrival at “this last melancholy stage” has something to do with Cuba’s leftism? Not a great deal, if any.

The reality is that so-called conservatives have had as much to do with America’s decline over the past fifty years as so-called liberals.

There’s quite enough blame to go around, if that’s what you’re looking for.

While I think the Spanish-American War was a terrible mistake, I have to concede that Cuba would be much better off had FDR not given up the US’s stated right of interference in Cuban affairs.

America’s arrival at “this last melancholy stage” certainly has to do with the imposition of the Communist regime upon Cuba. (“Cuba’s leftism” is an erroneous phrase; Cuba is not leftist, merely its government is.) Such an imposition was only possible thanks to FDR’s renunciation.

How much wiser America was when she worried about Cuba rather than poking around Georgia in the Caucasus. (Russia’s version of Cuba, that is; Only — to continue the analogy — Putin’s Bay of Pigs invasion was a stunning success).

“The reality is that so-called conservatives have had as much to do with America’s decline over the past fifty years as so-called liberals.”

Undoubtedly true, but of course America’s “conservatives” are liberals, so it’s a moot point. An old Knickerbocker like Mr. van Nostrand is obviously someone of the old order, rather than a “conservative”, so attacks on so-called conservatism will wound him like attacks on Troskyism would wound a Stalinist (which is to say not at all).

Bravo, Mr Cusack. You understand a great deal, surprisingly so for a man of your tender years.
Conservative this Old Knickerbocker certainly is: what he is not is a “neo-conservative”, that is, an interventionist abroad (which means Europe and Asia, not of course our own backyard). America’s first great mistake (after the disaster of the War Between the States of course) was to get involved in the First World War. From these two disasters all of the others have derived, from foreign adventurism to uncontrolled immigration to democratic evangelism. The Founding Fathers, all of them, would loathe and despise the whole of the modern consensus, and would equally reject Bush Jr and Obama Jr, as no more than two sides of the same debased coin.

I’d certainly like to hear exactly how communism in Cuba has much to do with America’s current condition.

Andrew, based on reading you for several years now, I’m surprised to hear you suggest America has a “right” to interfere with the affairs of any other country.

Backyard, or not, Cuba is no different from Europe and Asia (or Mexico and Canada, for that matter) in that it is decidedly not part of the United States of America.

On the other hand, I absolutely agree with B.T. Van Nostrand that the Founding Fathers, all of them, would loathe and despise the modern consensus and equally reject both Bush Jr and Obama. As they would reject all American interventionism and colonialism.

I also agree it was a great mistake for America to enter the First World War and that the ills of foreign adventurism and democratic evangelism have many of their roots in that disaster. As to whether or not they are rooted in the Civil War, well, that’s less clear.

The current “last melancholy stage” America finds itself in is due to many factors — political, economic, social, ideological, and even technological. Of course one must agree “Nations are born, flourish, and die.” America may very well be in its death throes. But to simply diagnose “leftism” as the fatal disease is to ignore a myraid of other factors.

One thing is clear (I hope this lands me in agreement with you) terms such as “left” and “right”, “conservative” and “liberal”, have little real meaning these days, if they ever did.

“kd”: I think we use the word “leftism” differently. You seem to use it as a purely political term, while I see it as a useful way of describing the whole of what ails the West. I recommend to you that magisterial, if quirky book “Leftism” by Erik v Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Read it all, and do not neglect the footnotes, where much of the quirkiness is to be found.

Yes, I use the word as a politcal term. Frankly speaking, I’ve never heard it used otherwise. So, yes, I will definitely follow your recommendation. Thanks!

PS: I like your emphasis on footnotes. They can be essential. Too many of us pass them up.

“I’m surprised to hear you suggest America has a “right” to interfere with the affairs of any other country”

Perhaps you misunderstand me: I was not arguing that the U.S. had a moral right to interfere, merely pointing out that a bilateral accord between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba established a legal right of interference. It is this legal right to interfere which FDR surrendered.

An analogous situation today is that the United States has the right to interfere in Panama if it feels the security of the Panama Canal is threatened. This right was similarly established by bilateral accord with the Republic of Panama.

I must give a very hearty second to Mr. Van Nostrand’s recommendation of the work of Kuehnelt-Leddihn. His footnotes alone have often dispatched me on days upon days worth of research.

Thanks for clearing that up, Andrew.

Right now I’ve got two good books on my reading table — “The Rest is Noise, Listening to the Twentieth Century” by Alex Ross, and “Spring, Heat, Rains: A South Indian Diary” by David Shulman. I’ll add Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Leftism.”

A blog where, in the commebt box of all places, people can dispute, clarify, and grow to understand each other’s thoughts. Most unusual–and kicked off with a photo of Cuba’s 1939 polo team.

May I second Steve M’s remark?
There is a gentle decency about most of those who frequent this little corner of the blogosphere which is both refreshing and perhaps slightly alarming. After all, how can we hope to beat back the forces of Moloch if we do not share at least something of their ruthlessness?

I don’t think it’s correct to say Casto had a “patrician” background. The Castros were prosperous sugar farmers. I’m pretty sure
his Fidel Castro’s father was a peasant from Galicia.