Via Instapundit comes Michael Moynihan’s reflections on Fidel Castro’s apology “for his revolution’s ‘excesses’ against gay Cubans“:
As [Mark] Hemingway notes, Castro’s persecution of gays (and black Cubans) hardly stopped in the 1970s, as this Reuters story suggests, with gay bars routinely shut down by the state security service and organizers of a 2008 gay pride march thrown in jail. But for this non-apology, designed to burnish his foul legacy, Foreign Policy magazine says that while Castro is “a bit late,” he nevertheless “deserves plaudits.” No he doesn’t. Nor did Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet deserves plaudits for his 1999 letter “lamenting” (and not apologizing) those killed during his reign—which, incidentally, no one in the media was willing to grant. And rightly so.
Great analogy. It seems that only leftist tyrants deserve plaudits when they apologize for torture and persecution while right-wingers can never (never, NEVER, NEVER) be forgiven for their wrongdoings.
When I first posted on the former dictator’s “apology,” some of our (left-of-center) readers were quick to acknowledge this admission of responsibility (with one indicating he believed the one-time leftist leader still had a ways to go).
Why do some folks on the left show a greater willingness to forgive a man who isolated, imprisoned and tortured gay people than a then-closeted gay man who advocated for traditional marriage? That man, Ken Mehlman, never harmed a single gay individual (save in the imagination of the gay left).
Seems to be a default reaction of all too many on the political left (including gay people) to show some sympathy for an anti-American tyrant — no matter his treatment of gay people. And they call us self-hating for generally supporting a party with an imperfect record on gay issues.
What do we call gay people who defend a leftist leader who persecutes gay people?
*or is that expression reserved for right-of-center homosexuals who support (or otherwise defend) the GOP?
NB: Changed title to keep it all on one line.