Here and here. Professor Bertram's response seems to me quite apt. Professor DeLong has a real complex about those to his left. Very odd.
UPDATE: Brad Delong is not only a sanctimonious jackass, he's an underhanded and dishonest slimeball. Professor DeLong sent me the following e-mail, in response to the original post, which I reproduce in its entirety (UPDATE: DeLong has now added some of the relevant context):
Dear Professor Leiter:
Perhaps you don't remember what Chris Bertram I wrote on the occasion of Fidel Castro's retirement? It began with a declaration that nobody on the left should welcome the retirement of the second-to-last Leninist dictator in the world:
"I haven’t looked yet, but I’ve no doubt that there’ll be lots of posts in the blogosphere saying “good riddance” to Fidel Castro (especially from “left” US bloggers like Brad DeLong who never miss the chance to distance themselves)."
It continued with a concession-in-advance that Castro was not perfect:
"And, of course, Castro ran a dictatorship that has, since 1959, committed its fair share of crimes, repressions, denials of democratic rights etc."
And then got to his main point: that this second-to-last Leninist dictator was a shining beacon of anti-capitalist hope to the world:
"Still, I’m reminded of A.J.P. Taylor writing somewhere or other (reference please, dear readers?) that what the capitalists and their lackeys really really hated about Soviet Russia was not its tyrannical nature but the fact that there was a whole chunk of the earth’s surface where they were no longer able to operate. Ditto Cuba, for a much smaller chunk. So let’s hear it for universal literacy and decent standards of health care. Let’s hear it for the Cubans who help defeat the South Africans and their allies in Angola and thereby prepared the end of apartheid. Let’s hear it for the middle-aged Cuban construction workers who held off the US forces for a while on Grenada. Let’s hear it for Elian Gonzalez. Let’s hear it for 49 years of defiance in the face of the US blockade. Hasta la victoria siempre!"
I can understand that people might approve of Chris Bertram I's claim that Castro and his tenure in office are to be celebrated rather than regretted, and that his retirement ought to be mourned rather than celebrated.
But I cannot understand how anybody who agrees with Chris Bertram II that the Leninist left is "washed up, marginal, authoritarian and unappealing" can still wish to endorse Chris Bertram I.
I urge you to reconsider...
Sincerely Yours,
J. Bradford DeLong
To which I replied:
Dear Professor DeLong:
Thanks for taking the time to write. I thought Chris Bertram’s response to you was correct, and I don’t have much to add to it: Castro did lots of good and humane things, despite being a dictator; but the bottom line is U.S. hatred of Castro had nothing to do with his being a dictator, but with his being an anti-capitalist, unlike his predecessor, the fascist Batista. I understand Chris to be a democratic socialist, more or less; he is certainly no Leninist or fan of Leninists, but he is also no fan of U.S. plutocracy or fake U.S. posturing about human rights and democracy. I do genuinely think it’s odd the way you respond to some to your left.
I appreciate your good work on Paul Ryan and the other disgraceful Republicans. But no need to pillory Chris Bertram unfairly.
Best wishes,
Brian Leiter
And which DeLong then represented like this, without noting any of the context, e.g., that he had elicited my response and that I was paraphrasing Professor Bertram's response. (UPDATE: As noted above, Professor DeLong has now added some of the pertinent context.) And without asking if he could post our e-mail correpondence. And without indicating his intent to post my answer. And without noting the aspects of Castro's rule that Bertram had praised, such as "universal literacy and decent standards of health care" as well as the Cuban role in helping to "defeat the South Africans and their allies in Angola and thereby prepared the end of apartheid."
I think the only conclusion is that DeLong is a dishonest scumbag. (I had reason to think that previously, especially given his treatment of my friend and colleague Judge Posner on prior occasions, but now it's confirmed.) And I'm trying to be as nice as a former New York litigator, who does not suffer dishonest scumbags gladly, can be under the circumstances.
ADDENDUM: Since Professor DeLong did add some context to our exchange, after I called attention to its absence, it may be that he is not really a dishonest scumbag, just a blogger who likes a cheap shot. (I confess to not being able to demarcate the categories clearly.) The puzzle here, remains, why he would do this to someone who was not, prior to this stunt, antagonistic to him. Was it only because I called him a "sanctimonious jackass"? But isn't everyone in the blogopshere? Goodness.
Recent Comments