Moral Distinctions

On the issue of which dictator is worse, the WaPo has made clear their thoughts today with this. Meanwhile, over at the Corner, Jonah wonders exactly what it is he's been missing:

Do people really think that liberals have been sober-eyed moral realists about Castro from, say, Herbert Matthews' fawning coverage through, say, Oliver Stone's recent love-letter to Castro? I mean what am I missing? I don't have time to run through the soundbites of various scholar-statesmen from the Democratic leadership like Pat Leahy or various members of the Congressional Black Caucus. But come on! Hasn't some blogger compiled a good list of pro-Castroisms from the left? If not, someone should get on the stick.

And as for the second point, as someone who believes Communism really was as bad and dangerous as we conservatives said it was, I don't think I was being hypocritical at all. I think Pinochet was an S.O.B. as I said. I do think he is accountable for real crimes. But if we're going to compare the two, I think the case for Pinochet over Castro is a no-brainer, both as an instrument of foreign policy and as a moral choice between the two (and, if you take a look, you'll see the editors of the Washington Post agree with me). Both are bad choices, but one — on myriad levels, pragmatic and moral — is far worse than the other. Making meaningful distinctions is not hypocrisy, it's called "thinking."

Thoughts? Well, first off I didn't think the Post had it in 'em:

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

I for one will make no apologies for Pinochet. I don't particularly like dictators, even "ours." Yet, Jonah is correct and right: Both are bad choices, but one — on myriad levels, pragmatic and moral — is far worse than the other. Making meaningful distinctions is not hypocrisy, it's called "thinking."

He and everyone else who points to the meaningful difference isn't being hypocritical. They're just being honest.