The ideal of (political) right

[Inkdaub]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Right, most hunters are conservationists - it's just in the case of Roosevelt and the type of conservation he and his allies advocated, it is decidedly not a precept I'd describe as "environmentalist," which was my original point.  Kal mentioned cattle ranchers being worse than sports hunters.  Well, according to the National Park Service, Roosevelt was both and simply failed at the former:  

Roosevelt's - and most that were aligned with him - impetus for conservation was to preserve the romanticized 19th century "frontiersman" lifestyle.  Not only does that not make him an environmentalist in my book, in many ways it's quite the opposite.  Further, to circle back to why I replied in the first place, conservationism among the GOP essentially started and ended with his tenure as president.  Once Teddy abandoned the GOP Taft put the kibosh on any appeal or agenda among them that was interested in conservation.  There are later examples, sure, but they never really made much headway among the party leadership.

Yeah.  While I do think hunters tend toward conservation, they tend to not be environmentally friendly in other areas.  I don't have any numbers, but hunters I have known were the types to vote for conservation of natural areas...so they could take their guns there...but would view something like the bottle bill as an infringement.  They were also more likely to vote for  politicians who were directly opposed to any sort of environmental protection policy.  It's also true that factory farming/ranching is orders of magnitude worse.

Some of this is assumption based on polite conversation so I have to add that I'd really love it if I were wrong. 

[sologdin]

Quote

I don't think it needs to be cited with any studies or anything beyond recent history.  You got McConnell's infamous statement, the Tea Party, plus so much else I don't wish to recount.  Further you have after Romney lost in 2012 where there was a push - within the RNC - to redirect the party's message towards appealing to Hispanics.  Obviously that's not how it shook out.

we do further see the same revanchism in how the right targeted WJC. brock's blinded by the right details the efforts fairly plainly, as well as the sense that 1992's WJC win was unforgivable. they had an entitled attitude about it, as is normal for the rightwing.

how far back does this go? did they burn with zeal because of carter stripping ford of the presidency post-watergate? were they enraged by JFK's election? was FDR's election considered unforgivable? certainly it pissed off ayn rand.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, sologdin said:

we do further see the same revanchism in how the right targeted WJC. brock's blinded by the right details the efforts fairly plainly, as well as the sense that 1992's WJC win was unforgivable. they had an entitled attitude about it, as is normal for the rightwing.

how far back does this go? did they burn with zeal because of carter stripping ford of the presidency post-watergate? were they enraged by JFK's election? was FDR's election considered unforgivable? certainly it pissed off ayn rand.

That's true on Clinton.  Particularly the "lack of legitimacy" aspect I touched on - albeit they at least had a leg to stand on there (as opposed to Obama) in that he only got 43% in 1992 - 57% of the electorate voted for someone else.  As for how far back it went, I think the right got considerably more emboldened with Reagan, but I don't really know.  I obviously wasn't alive, and that's more a question for historians.  Empirically, I will say the beginning of a lot of trends from polarization to income inequality to the degrading of committee staff (and subsequent onset of revolving door lobbying) all started around the late 70s/early 80s.

[HoodedCrow]

I used to be law and order, then I got a little taste of American police, complete with absurd escalation, manhandling and lies. Now I am very keen on changes in unaccountable policing. If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. If I were black, I suppose that I might have been killed.

When you see it on video, it’s harder to deny, which is probably why the Trump goons are targeting journalists. Do right wingers support all that Nazi stuff?

My right wing, Trump supporting friends dropped Trump when he talked about injecting disinfectants. Too good at chemistry:) Their main beef was regulation. I would like more, especially on polluters, tax cheats, and police. 

I was wondering if it would help if protesters wore camouflage and helmets? You are not allowed to impersonate a police officer, like Mitt Romney did. But can they ban wearing camouflage? It would be helpful when gas and flashbangs go off.

Protesters could do a Spartacus maneuver!

 

[sologdin]

goons are targeting journalists

journalist as villain. free speech & press is for power, not for speaking truth to power.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

I once saw a poster here to say something along the lines that where conservatives want to be just left alone, progressives have to agitate for change. That simple dichotomy is the core difference between the right and left in my view.

I think of three sliding scales or lines.

1. Individuality versus communality.
2. Frugality and accumulation versus distribution.
3. Conservativism versus progressivism.

Humans are not rational actors and tend to have multiple motives, all of which they are not fully or at all aware, but we regardless tend to pursue our own interests. We all have our own agendas, may try to enforce our views and and prefer to maintain and protect our comfort zones. And we have trouble in understanding each other, as we are simply too different: we try connect by finding a common ground, but we understand everything from our own individual angles. Differences arise and cause confusion, especially when the other parties fail to affirm or simply reject our views. Sometimes over something minuscule, like a choice of words. Communication itself is impaired. It is, in short, simply a social dynamics of a tribe which nowadays is increasingly global and connected, over the the oceans, language barriers and different cultures thousands of years old, and mingling.

First line, individuality v. communality, is the struggle between the personal freedom and the responsibility/duties toward others. Should our own wishes take the priority? Are there any laws or norms we should respect? Why? Who makes those guidelines, and by what authority? Why should we have any group, community or society at all? Et cetera. Well, obviously, teams work. It is often beneficial to compromise with others in return for all they can offer. However, the peer pressure is a thing. People try to conform, and try to make others conform. Sometimes for their own personal motives, but also to ensure the unity of the group, to make sure that "we" as a group are ready for anything that might befall us. Those who fail to conform, sometimes without any reasonable fault of their own, may be ostracized and rejected. When this phenomenon goes too far, it becomes harmful. Individuals become hesitant to offer alternative viewpoints; the discussion whittles down; the Overton window moves, perhaps outright shrinks; and groupthink emerges. People self-censure, with overall loss of ideas and options. In the other end of the line is anarchism; in the other, well, erm, communism?

Second, the frugality/accumulation v. distribution. Simple. It comes down to need and greed. Those who have little want more, and those who have more want to keep what they have. It's a zero-sum game over resources. On the one hand, distributing recources to those who genuinely need them is often seen as ethical. Especially when the existing distribution of goods is grossly unfair. On the other hand, enforced equality in distribution runs into the death of initiative, drive and entrepreneurship. People are unwilling to make effort and commit unless it is for themselves and theirs. Not to mention that forced redistribution is reminiscent, and may be indistinguishable, from theft. There may also be very good reasons to resist redistribution of resources. Say, those who have them may legitimately want to save them for future. But then again, unfettered accumulation - read: capitalism - and unrestricted competition lead to problems as enterprises eat each other and reach new heights of power comparable to the national goverments. Some management is obviously required to ensure free competition and prevent the rise of private enterprises as de facto rulers of people.

And third, conservativism v. progressivism. Conservatism is, well, conservation. Wish to protect the status quo for whatever reason, or perhaps even bring back an older state of the affairs. There are good reasons to be conservative; most obvious being the adage of not fixing what isn't broken. Conservatives press the brakes: they do not necessarily see the need for change at all, or they are unsure or outright rejective of the solutions offered by progressives. This has the obvious benefit of the counterweight; not everything deserves to be implemented, and those propositions that will be should face scrutiny and hopefully constructive criticism. Progressivism, then, is the will for change, when people are unhappy with the current state of affairs and want something. Progressives are those who upset the status quo, who demand things and press ever further.

As I see it, what is typically called the political right is an amalgam of different combinations of the more individualist, frugal, and conservative positions. There are progressive right-wingers, for example. Some members of the National Coalition party here in Finland are what I would call an example, it's designation as conservative by Wikipedia nonwithstanding. A MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen resisted the designation of nuclear power with a Green label, for example, which I personally but perhaps misguidedly saw as a very Green position in line with their distaste of the nuclear power. Yep, I'm aware that I just used an instance of obstructionism as a way to associate someone with the progressives; that is because I typically consider the Greens to be progressive. MP Elina Lepomäki is another example, I recall her rejecting the conservative label somewhere. The current chairman Petteri Orpo has this thing in his resume.

There is also this thing about the wish of to have a strong leader; a longing for powerful and effective leadership. A very common sense notion when observed in isolation: if you have to have boss at all, better to have someone who is good at what s/he does, surely. It is however a notion that is horribly tainted by fascism, nazism and dictatorships in general. And sure, the power that is granted can be abused. This is something that logically belongs to the right, as the leadership involves asserting one view as superior over others, even if done beningly. If assertiveness is not involved, it's a negotiation and guidance. And asserting a view over others is tied to the individualism. Of course, while I may think it as the right-wing thing, asserting dominance in human relationship is an universal phenomenon and also happens among left-wingers. And of course, if people wish to delegate the leadership, that should be their right. It’s what we do in representative democracies all the time, anyway.

So what would be the ideal of a political right? A protection of personal liberty and property? A protection of status quo, or optionally an orderly and carefully managed transition when the change is seen as desirable? And of course, protection of interests. These are their goals. This is what they do.

The goal of the right is not to be robbed of the privileged position they enjoy. The goal of the left is to attain such position. So ideally the right should then seek to create an atmosphere and situation where people can generate wealth and wellbeing from about as equal footing as possible, but are then not punished for their success; where human resource is not wasted, but constructively salvaged as an investment to the future; where the human rights are respected, in line with the individual freedom; where people can, but are not forced to, to have input in the political processes; where the law enforcement is supported, educated, and as transparently managed as possible to ensure trust, as well as cooperation, tolerance and legitimacy; and so on.

The ideal of the right could be to incorporate the left in an acceptable way; to create win-win situations that, while enabling the preservation of their own values and interests, both harness the contribution of the left-wing thinking and avoid creating a discontented opponent willing to revolt. Such situations, when it comes to wealth, might require a continual economic growth for example. And here if not before we start running to the problems again. Because of the finite resources and climate crisis.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, TsarGrey said:

I once saw a poster here to say something along the lines that where conservatives want to be just left alone, progressives have to agitate for change. That simple dichotomy is the core difference between the right and left in my view.

I think of three sliding scales or lines.

1. Individuality versus communality.
2. Frugality and accumulation versus distribution.
3. Conservativism versus progressivism.

So what would be the ideal of a political right? A protection of personal liberty and property? A protection of status quo, or optionally an orderly and carefully managed transition when the change is seen as desirable? And of course, protection of interests. These are their goals. This is what they do.

 

To be really blunt, bull fucking shit. This is what the notion of right-libertarianism in the US is largely about, but it is not what the rightwing in the US has been about consistently for any length of time. Conservatives are significantly more likely to be nationalistic, to favor community values, to want to belong to churches and other organizations, and almost always seek to impose their rights on others even when it harms others. The frugality is what the right WANTS people to believe, but under rightwing government the debt has been significantly higher, and overall wealth has decreased. 

I appreciate that you're trying to make these things stick and have some beautiful idea of what they are about, but when the rubber hits the road this isn't it.

[DanteGabriel]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

Empirically, I will say the beginning of a lot of trends from polarization to income inequality to the degrading of committee staff (and subsequent onset of revolving door lobbying) all started around the late 70s/early 80s.

This is also the time period in which a "coup" occurred in the NRA and they started to change from a sportsmen's organization to the apocalyptic death cult they have become. Couple that with a dramatic political turn in Evangelical Christianity, and that time period really does seem to be a turning point in American political culture.

[Zorral]

36 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

This is also the time period in which a "coup" occurred in the NRA and they started to change from a sportsmen's organization to the apocalyptic death cult they have become. Couple that with a dramatic political turn in Evangelical Christianity, and that time period really does seem to be a turning point in American political culture.

This is also when the white working class turned right.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/books/review/the-hardhat-riot-david-paul-kuhn.html

Quote

 

THE HARDHAT RIOT
Nixon, New York City, and the Dawn of the White Working-Class Revolution
By David Paul Kuhn

The nation, we keep hearing on television and in social media blather, is politically divided as never before. Nonsense. The ostensibly united states have been disunited many, many times, and “The Hardhat Riot,” by David Paul Kuhn, vividly evokes an especially ugly moment half a century ago, when the misbegotten Vietnam War and a malformed notion of patriotism combined volatilely. They produced a blue-collar rampage whose effects still ripple, not the least of them being Donald Trump’s improbable ascension to the presidency.

Let’s remember what the United States was like in 1970: a country torn apart after years of political assassination, unpopular war, economic dislocation, race rioting and class disharmony. The last thing it needed in 1970 was more open fighting in the streets. But that’s what it got on May 8, days after President Richard Nixon had expanded America’s Southeast Asia misadventure into Cambodia and Ohio National Guardsmen shot dead four students during antiwar protests at Kent State University.

Kuhn, who has written before about white working-class Americans, builds his book on long-ago police records and witness statements to recreate in painful detail a May day of rage, menace and blood. Antiwar demonstrators had massed at Federal Hall and other Lower Manhattan locations, only to be set upon brutally, and cravenly, by hundreds of steamfitters, ironworkers, plumbers and other laborers from nearby construction sites like the nascent World Trade Center. Many of those men had served in past wars and viscerally despised the protesters as a bunch of pampered, longhaired, draft-dodging, flag-desecrating snotnoses.

[....]

Understanding hard-hat resentment, however, does not translate into excusing the violence that hundreds of them inflicted that May 8, the 25th anniversary of the Allied victory over Germany in World War II. Self-styled paragons of law and order, they became a mob, pounding and kicking any antiwar youngster they could grab, doing the same to bystanders who tried to stop the mayhem and justifying it in the name of America. Kuhn ably and amply documents the cowardly beating of women, the gratuitous cold-cocking of men and the storming of a shakily protected City Hall, where the mayor’s people, to the hard hats’ rage, had lowered the flag in honor of the Kent State dead.

“A tribal tension had infused downtown,” Kuhn observes. Among the tribes were the police, who were anything but New York’s finest that day. Mostly, they stood aside while the hard hats ran amok; examples of their nonfeasance abound. Some of them even egged on the thuggery. When a group of hard hats moved menacingly toward a Wall Street plaza, a patrolman shouted: “Give ’em hell, boys. Give ’em one for me!” Yet the police were never held accountable for failing to stop the marauding, and “few hard hats owned up to the extent of their violence.”

[....

 

]

[Jo498]

It seems that denying a general or theoretical distinction with recourse to what the US right is pretending to do vs what they are actually doing misses the original question about an "ideal" right/conservative party. Because such discrepancies are equally true of "Greens" or Social democrats in Europe who also don't always practice what they preach. Nevertheless I also find

1. Individuality versus communality.
2. Frugality and accumulation versus distribution.
3. Conservativism versus progressivism

only moderately helpful. The first point is not really right vs. left. but liberal vs. collectivist or communitarian. And the "old right" both in the sense of 19th century reactionaries and early 20th century fascist were not individualist in the liberal or libertarian sense. So it does not cut clearly between left and right because the modern left-liberal is highly individualist and so is the modern libertarian right. The second point also seems to idealized because frugality is the worst nightmare of modern capitalist society and rejection of frugality is shared by all major players. Historically, the point seems too general and unspecific. Most traditions/religions used to despise greed and extreme accumulation. Obviously, in almost any society in history most people had to be frugal to have a chance for survival and (re-)distribution was often central to many crises or reforms (because even the ones in power could not let half the populace starve or run risk of continous rebellions). Again, the more community oriented right would not be against (re-)distribution in principle although of course the criteria might be rather different (like preferring families to single mothers or sth. like that). The last point is also very vague. There is the almost trivial but true saying that everyone is a conservative about things he loves. And nobody wants good things to change. In many western societies we have now had 3-4 decades of worsening conditions for (most) employees and often also small businesses. Is someone who'd prefer the broadly social democratic consensus of the 1950s-80s to the actual financialised, tax-evading predator capitalism, cut-down welfare state etc. a "conservative"? Maybe, but it would not help a lot with distinction because these policies were more social democrat if viewed in a broader perspective.

I also think one that wrt nationalism one needs to differentiate. It seems clearly a "right wing" thing nowadays but this was of course not the case in the 19th century when nationalism was the progressive (often also democratic) movement against being merely part of an Empire (and often dominated by another ethnicity like Austrians or Turks). One could argue that nowadays not only Kurds but Catalans, Basques, Scots etc. are in a similar situation as 19th century Czechs or Poles. I have trouble denying even todays Poles a degree of nationalism I'd found suspicious with Brits or Germans. The former were on the receiving end of "western Imperalism", not wielding the club. One cannot and should not expect the former Eastern bloc countries with at least about 50 years of rather different history (often centuries of some kind of foreign oppression) compared to the US, France etc. to be in all respects on board with what current western globalist left-liberal deem correct.

[Alarich II]

I don't think there is anything like an political "ideal" right, left or center. I believe that one of the more important dividing lines is a preference of order (or small/incremental change) over abrupt (maybe radical) change which often translates into right=preservation of status quo (or only small changes) vs left=change (to the better, hopefully).

But if you look for example at Hungary under Orban or Germany under Hitler you can see that it is absolutely possible for right-wing movements to actually come into power with a promise of radical change (or Trump for that matter!), whereas for example the GDR under SED-rule or Cuba under the Castros are left-wing regimes fighting absolutely for the preservation of the status quo and the respective parties have basically become the pillars of the state bureaucracies.

[DaveSumm]

I always enjoy looking at this image from time to time, I’m not sure how much would be agreed with here, but it does a good job of laying out the principles without them sounding like inherently negative things.

[Heartofice]

50 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I always enjoy looking at this image from time to time, I’m not sure how much would be agreed with here, but it does a good job of laying out the principles without them sounding like inherently negative things.

I think it is on the whole I pretty decent shot at summing up both positions. Especially around the general beliefs - self sufficiency vs collective effort as a basis for understanding the world.
 

 While the whole ‘people become more right wing as they get older’ thing is becoming less true, there is a lot of sense in the idea that people become protective of the values they have lived with and don’t think change is necessary, and younger people are more reactionary and believe change needs to happen and happen now.

Having said all that, there is an element where left and right are not good distinctions any more. Many people are economically quite left wing while socially more right wing ( the labour government in the UK not really understanding that, and something the Tories are having to adapt to). 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

I always enjoy looking at this image from time to time, I’m not sure how much would be agreed with here, but it does a good job of laying out the principles without them sounding like inherently negative things.

Yeah, that image is not only reductionist but horseshit in a number of ways.  The most glaring of which is right at the top where the left "interferes" with "society and social lives" while the right does not.  Even the purist form of conservative ideology - like, Burkean - still obviously interferes with society and social lives.  The right isn't Thoreau going off to a pond to write a book.

The family --> adult thing is also particularly ludicrous, in which the right is "self-reliant" while the left end sup "fulfilled."  The success or lack thereof is rather orthoganal to ideological/partisan predispositions.  I don't know why that's even there. 

With the bubble on "beliefs," the "rights" dichotomy is ridiculous.  Both right and left believe in both rights and liberties (which is what they're talking about).  The difference is far more nuanced than saying the left is devoted to rights that "others must observe" while the right is devoted to liberties "others must not interfere."  Especially lately, the left is very interested in liberties that should not be infringed upon.  Plus, ya know, the ACLU has been around a long time and generally is pretty leftist.

Finally, the idea that the right enjoys "meritocracy" as a pillar is refuted by, like, the entirety of known human history.

[JoannaL]

One important issue for the right is also to be on the morally right side, you know "to do the RIGHT thing" , now, with time what the right thing is changes and with these changes the right wing parties change as well.

For example, the CDU in Germany was very anti gay rights 30 years ago, because it was the morally right thing (The C in C D U means Christian)

Now, to not discriminate against minorities is the morally right thing and so the CDU supports gay marriages and other minority rights.

So  the content, what is morally right, may change with the development of society (for the good or bad), but the desire to do the decent thing stays.

In this, I think, the right is far less principled than the left, which is always interested in equality as their main goal.

 

 

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, Alarich II said:

Cuba ... fighting absolutely for the preservation of the status quo

What status quo is that Cuba is fighting to preserve?  The status quo of being run from the USA via the mafia and the torturing dictators bought and paid for by the mob?  Run for the benefit of the USA corporations via United Fruit Company?  Run for the benefit of white privilege, again via the dictators whose power depended on US support and approval? 

In the meantime, Cuba has fought to crush covid-19 within its borders ... and won.  Cuba is fun to live in again.  People are going out.  They are having music and dancing.  They are planning all sorts of arts, entertainment and educational activities, and doing them now too, everything from educational conferences with professors in Europe and Latin America, broadcasting live a concert festival from Havana this last week.  Everybody in the US is frozen out from anything like this because DCC has burned down the US's relationships with every nation except Russia.

We are the laughing stock of the world and certainly the most non grata.  Nobody wants us.  He's got his wall.  We're locked in the mad house.  With him running the asylum.

 

[Jo498]

If Haidt is correct, conservative types care for a wider spectrum of moral/evaluative dimensions, so in theory they have it harder because they have to balance a larger number of moral obligations. In theory has to be stressed here, because most political parties, both so-called left and right are in practice opportunists, turncoats and Machiavellians. Merkel is probably the best contemporary example. Even disregarding how she turned from FDJ functionary to a successful career after 1989, she did 180° turns (to the "left") on at least two major (and probably lots of smaller) issues: nuclear power and immigration/multiculturalism. Such opportunism or the destruction of the welfare state by the social democrats (of course, only to "save it") or Hilary Clinton being more of a warhawk than most Republican candidates show that current parties are simply not captured by right/left tags and not even by splitting these tags up into half a dozen subcategories.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

If Haidt is correct, conservative types care for a wider spectrum of moral/evaluative dimensions, so in theory they have it harder because they have to balance a larger number of moral obligations. In theory has to be stressed here, because most political parties, both so-called left and right are in practice opportunists, turncoats and Machiavellians. Merkel is probably the best contemporary example. Even disregarding how she turned from FDJ functionary to a successful career after 1989, she did 180° turns (to the "left") on at least two major (and probably lots of smaller) issues: nuclear power and immigration/multiculturalism. Such opportunism or the destruction of the welfare state by the social democrats (of course, only to "save it") or Hilary Clinton being more of a warhawk than most Republican candidates show that current parties are simply not captured by right/left tags and not even by splitting these tags up into half a dozen subcategories.

To be clear, Haidt doesn't say it's a wider spectrum - it's that they care about evenly about the 5 basic moral viewpoints, whereas liberals tend to focus more on care/harm and fairness. But this doesn't say that liberals DON'T care about these things - they just aren't as important. And conservatives tend to focus on authority and purity 'more' than the other 3 as well.

[Zorral]

Just heard NPR respectfully put on the air the guy who informed us that violence has to unleashed against US cities' citizens protesting the treatment of BLM, and everybody else: "We don't object to people disagreeing with us about fascisim and white supremacy, it's when they get violent about it."

In other words, you don't like us disappearing you off the streets, killing you for existing, suck it up, don't you DARE fight back.

As Naomi Wolf, and this friend, see about neoliberalism and the incarnation of the right > facisism:

Quote

 

[  "This kind of raises a perspective on fascism, that it resembles colonialism. In the 40s, it literally was colonialism, just expressed as a revival of the Baltic Crusades, but openly promoted as colonialism. But also that it is a version of colonialism turned inward. The people of a colonial power, at least some of them, become the object of the colonial subject. Our fear that our homes may become a place where people are "disappeared" is partly also of the mockery that we might be different to the places where this has occurred historically and might still.

See also Klein, on disaster capitalism. When you don't have colonies to exploit directly, you sponsor fascist coups overseas then use your arms sales as a corporate nose-in-the-tent to get your general commercial interests prioritized -- as witness Pinochet's Chile, or post-USSR Russia. But eventually you run out of former colonies and defeated enemies to loot, so the temptation is to turn the same techniques loose at home, and that's where you get neoliberalism and it's big bully brother, modern fascism.

But fascism is fundamentally extractive rather than productive: it lines the pockets of cronies, but is terrible at actual wealth creation. Eventually it's out-competed by anyone who can organize and run logistics. Our real problem is that there's no "outside" any more -- it looks like a worldwide phenomenon today. But, paradoxically, fascists really hate each other and can't get on. And with COVID19 hammering international supply chains, the resulting fragmentation of the past 3-5 decades of integration may allow individual nations to begin fighting back against the internal threat.And it is a threat. In the century of peak population and cascading climate change, we can't afford to hand control over to demagogues who hold science in contempt, aren't interested in evidence-based policy, and are more interested in lining their own pockets than actually running things effectively. " ]

 

But -- there still can be profit, quite a lot in fact, financial and otherwise, as another person provided:

Quote

[ "The Belgian Congo was a shithole, but was a major source of income for the exploiters; they THOUGHT that they would lose out (hence Katanga and all that), but discovered that a dysfunctional country was as profitable as a subservient one. Since then, the policy has often been to create chaos rather than sponsor coups (Libya was a recent good example, and Syria another) and loot the corpse." ]

 

[Alarich II]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

What status quo is that Cuba is fighting to preserve? 

Their existing political system, what else do you understand by status quo?

Their revolutionary moment is over 60 years in the past, the communist party has won the revolution decades ago, they now want to preserve the fruits of their labour, and thus their objective has changed from revolution (attacking the status quo) to conservation (defending the new status quo), of course at the expense of certain rights like freedom of press, freedom of association etc.