Sometime in the 1950s, Fidel Castro earned a free pass from moral responsibility that endures to this day. Decades ago, he cut a romantic figure as an embattled revolutionary in the Cuban mountains, and that has been enough to keep him forever in the esteem of a slice of Hollywood celebrities, Democratic congressmen and the American left.

As Castro’s health fails – creating hopes that it is at least the beginning of the end of his rule – the world contemplates the exit of a man who has proven that it is possible to run a country like a military camp and still be beloved by self-styled liberals and progressives. The same people who decry a budding tyranny in the U.S. because the government now enjoys enhanced surveillance powers against terrorism suspects, celebrate and yuk it up with a ruler who jails anyone who disagrees with him.

Castro has long lived off his cachet as a revolutionary guerrilla. For much of the left, revolution has become less an idea than an image and a brand – a pistol, fatigues, facial hair and anti-imperialist rhetoric are the accoutrements of left-wing heroism. This has assured Che Guevara his iconic status, never mind the totalitarian content of his thought or the viciousness of his actions. Castro has tapped into the same brand. He doesn’t have Che’s allure of having died young, but longevity has had its own benefits.

Castro is the last revolutionary still standing. And his was a real revolution. Venezuela’s left-wing strongman Hugo Chavez pales in comparison. He offers only populist economics and an obnoxious travel itinerary. Castro delivered the real thing: the expropriation of all foreign property; an assault on private real estate; the exiling of the Cuban middle class; the militarization of society.

His revolution had the advantage of not being quite as embarrassing as the others. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all became indefensible even for the most credulous. At least the transgressions of Castro’s rule can almost be papered over with lies and wishful thinking.

It only adds to his prestige that he has managed it while defying the United States. Part of the American left is in love with the idea of American weakness, that we are a clumsy colossus whose actions always fail. And there is Castro – survivor of the Bay of Pigs and countless assassination attempts – a living exemplar of American ineffectualness. With a whiff of admiration, news accounts say that he has outlasted eight American presidents – who had the inconvenience, of course, of dealing with free elections.

The common defenses of Castro’s regime, that he has dramatically improved health care and literacy, are propaganda. Cuba already excelled in these areas prior to the revolution in 1959, and since then, all Latin American countries have been gaining, thanks to the diffusion of technology. It is obviously a canard that the way forward for developing nations is dictator-led command economies. Cuba’s economy has been limping ever since Castro took power, and now the country is a 1950s relic that can’t feed itself.

Ultimately, what probably attracts leftists to Castro is sheer power. He represents what the late writer John Francois-Revel called “the totalitarian temptation” – in this case, socialism with the ability to tell anyone who disagrees to “shut up.” Why else wouldn’t they instead celebrate all the former communists who have become Cuban dissidents? Or a jailed dissenter like Oscar Biscet who takes Martin Luther King Jr. as a model? Or all those men and women who risked so much to flee Cuba and live on the hope of a new birth of freedom in their native land?

They are the ones who deserved to be romanticized, who are the truly revolutionary idealists. But the Jack Nicholsons and Rep. Charlie Rangels and the trade unions pay no attention to them. One can only hope that one day the pro-Castro fever breaks and the memory of this egomaniacal thug shames his supporters from the grave.

Rich Lowry is a syndicated columnist. He can be reached via e-mail at: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

Copy the Story Link