Republicans: Obama must defend Christian values

Fletch said:

By all means, fill me in.

Click to expand...

Though Bastista was initially regarded as a progressive for his work in ameliorating worker/union rights in Cuba during the 40s, by the 1950s, he had switched tunes with the growing Cold War. In order to create better ties with Cuba's upper class he enforced anti-union/worker policies (in favor of a more capitalist approach) and completely ignored education, healthcare and civil rights (small government) of Cubans under what was then the most oppressive government in Cuban history. Batista's previous days as a progressive were gone and he become a powerful US ally in the region:

According to historian and author James S. Olson, the U.S. government essentially became a "co-conspirator" in the arrangement because of Batista's strong opposition to communism, which, in the rhetoric of the Cold War, seemed to maintain business stability and a pro-U.S. posture on the island.[7] Thus, in the view of Olson, "The U.S. government had no difficulty in dealing with him, even if he was a hopeless despot."[7] On October 6, 1960 Senator John F. Kennedy, in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Presidency, described Batista's relationship with the U.S. government and criticized the Eisenhower administration for supporting him:

Click to expand...

The fight against communism wasn't finished though, it wasn't just about the cold war, there was money in it for the US:

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a manner that antagonized the Cuban people, the U.S. government used its influence to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies, which "dominated the island's economy."[37] As a symbol of this relationship, ITT Corporation, an American-owned multinational telephone company, presented Batista with a Golden Telephone, as an "expression of gratitude" for the "excessive telephone rate increase" that Batista granted at the urging of the U.S. government.[37]

Click to expand...

In short, by standing against communism - which if you think about it doesn't make him much of a leftist - and endorsing a smaller government (with his disregard for social issues), Batista essentially skated from one side of the pond to the other. He went from being a relatively benign left wing social reformist to and an enforcer of right wing policies meant to silence any leftist. This however is his legacy as described by that communist lover JFK:

John F. Kennedy said:

"Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state—destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista—hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend—at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections."[37]

Click to expand...

Get it? Got it? Good.
________________________

I used the definition you posted, so if I'm not 'good at this stuff' it would be because you post crap links that make crap points. Just so you know, governments that 'want to maintain a system of economic/social equality' can only do so through the rule by physical force and the trampling of individual rights. Your simplistic world view seems to leave out those who wish a state to respect and defend the rights and liberties of the individual. You seem incapable of recognizing any form of government that doesn't oppress its population to achieve certain state ends. Whether a particular statist is of right or left wing is really irrelevant. Both are statists. Neither preferable to the other in the eyes of those whose political philosophy is centered upon individual rights. To you, what is important is state power and state 'rights'. The idea that such thinking is 'progressive' is laughable. It is as regressive and medieval as a thought can possibly get.

Click to expand...

No, you completely misunderstood the definitions. Any government right wing or left wing can use force to endorse its policies. Any government can endorse the positions of economic freedom. What defines left wing and right wing are their views on equality and inequality. The left, regardless of political context, seeks to create a system where social classes aren't strongly separated and wealth is generally shared. The right seeks to establish a political system where inequality is simply accepted and an effort is made to maintain it through policies that favor some economically and not others. This really is indisputable. How each views individual rights is really irrelevant. You couldn't find 5 left/right wing governments who have arrived at the same conclusion for individual rights on all issues.

Your little issues like individual rights are irrelevant to the definition of right wing and left wing on a worldwide scale. Mexico's PRI is trying to privatize education and natural resources (beaches, oil etc.) and yet at the same time it regularly pushes for raises to teachers/public employees in any of the dozens of unions that exist in the country. This same government also opposes abortion through law, and has passed laws protecting gays specifically and has entire libraries filled with laws regulating everything from food to the socks you wear. So where do you - in your infinitely black and white world - place it? Right wing because it supports anti-abortion policies and the free market? Or do we place left wing because it stands in favor of regulation, protecting gay rights and supports unions? No. Your definition of "individual rights" doesn't really mean much in any context.