Bernie Sanders continues to defend the achievements, trivial as they may be, of brutal and tyrannical governments, namely, Fidel Castro’s communist dictatorship in Cuba.

“When dictatorships, whether it is the Chinese or the Cubans, do something good,” Sanders said during Tuesday’s Democratic debate, Democrats ought “to acknowledge that.”

“Cuba made progress on education,” Sanders continued, drawing boos from the crowd. An angry Sanders responded, “Really? Really?”

The problem, of course, is that whatever good Castro accomplished, if you can even call it good, was completely outweighed by the fear and misery he spread throughout Cuba. Castro might have established a literacy program, as Sanders keeps saying, but it’s difficult to learn how to read when you’re looking over your shoulder, wondering if the government is going to imprison or execute you next.

If Sanders was ever concerned about the consequences of totalitarianism, he has done a poor job showing it.

His refusal to back down in last night's debate, however, might be a part of his broader political strategy. At this point in the race, Democratic voters want to see strength. Standing firm instead of caving could be Sanders’s attempt to give them that.

But it also reveals something about the way Sanders thinks about governance. He didn’t visit and defend Castro’s regime back in the 1980s by mistake. That was a calculated move. He wanted to draw attention to the benefits of socialism, so he sought out the less controversial elements of Castro’s government to whitewash the adverse effects of heavy-handed governance.

“I did not see a hungry child,” he said back in 1989 after a trip to Cuba. “I did not see any homeless people. Cuba today not only has free healthcare but very high-quality healthcare. ... The people we met had an almost religious affection [for Castro].”

Never mind that thousands of people died at Castro’s hands, or that tens of thousands became political prisoners. The only thing that mattered to Sanders, a proud socialist, is that Castro claimed to want the same things: industries united under the government’s umbrella, and an equal society for everyone. How that society was built, though, was and still is irrelevant to Sanders, as long as the moral message aligns with his.

For Sanders, the details have always been subservient to the vision. That’s why he’s willing to excuse the worst parts of Castro’s regime by praising its “best” elements. Even in his own presidential campaign, Sanders shies away from the details. He hesitates to give specific costs when asked about his policies and refuses to answer questions about how he’d work within our constitutional system.

Perhaps it’s time to consider that when Sanders talks about a revolution, he means it.