Oxymorons

ox·y·mo·ron [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

Although this Newsday op-ed written by James Klurfeld does not fit the true definition of the word oxymoron, the article itself is quite moronic and contradictory. Outside of his obvious disdain for Bush (he claims Bush’s speech “smacks of Yankee arrogance”), he also feeds us the communist propaganda machine talking points like a real trooper, making the ruling elite in Cuba proud, I am sure.

But back to his oxymoronic op-ed. The writer would like you to understand this historical point:

“If we learned anything from the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and 1990s, it was that exposure to Western principles of openness and free markets were critical factors in eroding the already discredited Communist regimes there. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev says in his autobiography that one of the greatest influences on his own thinking came from his travels to Western Europe and Canada before he took power.”

By this statement, one would gather that history has shown us that what is really needed to bring democracy to Cuba is to open it up to Western principles and free markets. Doing so would bring down the communist regime in Cuba like it did in Eastern Europe.

But wait—he also wants you, the reader, to understand this historical point:

“After the Soviet Union fell and could no longer prop up Castro's government with huge subsidies, the regime almost went under. It was only by loosening state economic control that it was able to survive. That's when Western European countries and others, including China, began to make large economic investments in Cuba - investments that U.S. companies have missed out on.”

Wait a second. First you tell us that opening up the economy to Cuba is the silver bullet that will cure all its totalitarian ills, but then you explain to us how the castro government, after losing all those subsidies from the USSR, opened up its economy to Western European countries (in other words, DEMOCRATIC countries), and that is how it has been able to maintain its stranglehold on the Cuban people. In fact, your only lament is that the US missed out on all those juicy business opportunities.

So tell us, Mr. Klurfeld, which one is it? Does establishing trade with a despotic dictatorship hinder it or help it? You have done a great job of giving us two examples of the effects of engagement with oppressive regimes. Each one, however, had opposite effects.

I have to wonder if Mr. Klurfeld realizes just how oxymoronic his piece really is.

Posted by Alberto de la Cruz at October 26, 2007 05:30 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.babalublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/hut.cgi/6343

Comments

Post a comment