Common Sense with Paul Jacob

During the late coronavirus epidemic, we were told to “lock down” and “mitigate” the spread of the infection by extreme “social distancing” for 15 days, to “flatten the curve” and thereby save the medical system. But most governors kept the lockdowns going for months and months longer.

Foreshadowing this, years before the leader of the Cuban Revolution dictated a 15-month emergency “democratic lockdown” that stretched on and on and on.

Initial Promise: After overthrowing Batista on January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro initially pledged “free elections” within a year.

Delays: On April 9, 1959, Castro announced a 15-month postponement, arguing that immediate elections could allow the old oligarchy to regain control. He later reassured the public that elections would be held within four years.

What Actually Transpired: Consolidating power, the new revolutionary government outlawed opposition parties, and instituted a single-party system. No competitive, multi-party elections occurred as originally promised.

Later Elections: In the 1976 constitutional referendum, followed by the 1978 election of the National Assembly of People’s Power, voting did occur. However, these elections were conducted with pre-approved Communist Party candidate lists rather than the free, competitive elections initially promised.

The country transitioned to a single-party socialist state under Communist Party control.

Now, as negotiations between the U.S. Government and Cuba continue, if rockily — after deposing Venezuela’s dictator, the U.S. prevented the island nation from receiving oil shipments, putting extreme pressure on an already-embargoed economy — it’s a perfect time to reflect on the failure that is the 66-year-old Revolution:

Alina Fernández Revuelta, daughter of former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, premiered a documentary on April 10 at the Miami Film Festival, bringing together personal testimony from generations of exiles grappling with displacement, shared trauma, and a search for freedom.

“Revolution’s Daughter” showcased several leading voices against the Cuban regime, including exiles, refugees, and former political prisoners, who all, like Castro’s daughter, said regime change in Cuba is overdue. It’s a sentiment shared by top U.S. officials.

“We are in circumstances in which there can be a change,” Revuelta said about Cuba on the red carpet prior to the premiere of the documentary for which she is also credited as an executive producer.

Troy Myers, “Fidel Castro’s Daughter Releases Documentary on Generational Impacts From Communist Cuba,” The Epoch Times (April 10, 2026).

The timing of the documentary was coincidental, the filmmakers said. “This came in a special moment. It wasn’t on purpose,” Fidel Castro’s daughter explained. “It’s just that the circumstances are helping the spread of the message.”

Paul Jacob explained the “Madman Theory” of “diplomacy” and warcraft on Wednesday:

Buried in his book about being a wheeler-dealer, Mr. Trump notoriously advances a notion eerily similar to Nixon’s Madman strategy. Trump likes to keep those with whom he is negotiating “guessing.”

He says this often. We cannot be shocked, then, if we’re all kept guessing about his Iran strategy.

But if President Trump has explained it, and confessed it — can it really work?

In The Washington Monthly we read a negative answer: “Our data pool may be small, but the available evidence suggests that presidential adherents of Madman Theory are more mad than great theorists.”

Robert Tait’s op-ed in The Guardian, on the same date, quoted the same H.R. Haldeman-Nixon explanation, and — after further history lessons — noted that as “victories go, it look distinctly pyrrhic — shades of Nixon and North Vietnam in 1972.”

Newsweek’s editorial worries that the madman ploy “by design, compresses time. It can produce rapid breakthroughs, but it leaves little room for prolonged stalemate.” And that, it appears, is what Iranians are prepared to play: the long game.

Liz Peek at The Hill, published two days later, expresses some incredulity at the critics’ negative reactions. “Amazingly, after a decade or more of dealing with the blustery businessman, Democrats are still clueless about how Trump operates. Have they not read The Art of the Deal? Do they not understand that the president always leads with maximalist demands and then, having shaken his adversary, withdraws to a more moderate and desired goal? Apparently not.

Democrats howling for the president’s head are also appallingly ignorant of history. Trump is not the first commander in chief to use dire threats to end a war. “Madman” Richard Nixon and former President Dwight Eisenhower forged that diplomatic path years ago.  

As it happens, Trump’s apocalyptic threats may have pushed the regime in Tehran — or what’s left of it — to agree to a ceasefire. His warning that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” was meant to terrify. It was, admittedly, excessive, as was his crude demand that the mullahs “Open the F—in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH!” Those demands, directed at officials in Tehran and posted to Truth Social, proved effective.

No one should be surprised that the mullahs, or the remaining heads of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, took Trump’s threats seriously. He has purposefully cultivated an aura of unpredictability. . . .

Ms. Peek concludes confidently: “Democrats’ sensibilities may be offended, but future generations will be grateful.”