Obama's Disappointing Incrementalism on Cuba
Yesterday, I had coffee with a former three-star general who has outed himself as a political conservative in his post-military life. Joining us was a former conservative member of Congress, a conservative CEO, a top tier conservative organizer, and a conservative pundit. I discussed the Iraq War, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan/Pakistan, nukes, and Cuba with them.
The anger among the serious strategic-thinking conservatives about the state of the country, its foreign policy position, the value of the dollar, and the beleaguered military is serious -- and John McCain seems to have no idea how much frustration is boiling among conservative patriots with his saber-rattling about hundred year deployments and more wars in the "Koran-zone."
But one of the really interesting lines from the general and heartily agreed to by the conservative organizer and also the pundit was:
No one serious can support our policy towards Cuba. Fifty years of failure. We need to engage those people. Commerce and travel, exchange between their people and our people. . .well, you know what I mean. Cuba is an easy fix. Castro's brother, Raul, is lifting all sorts of restrictions on his public, and we're doing squat. If we want to steal Hugo Chavez's thunder in Latin America, then open up to Cubans and see where the currents take us. Can't get worse than the "zero" we have achieved thus far.
If serious conservatives can say this, why can't the serious Dems running for the White House?
I asked a serious person, Susan Rice, what she thought of our US-Cuba policy on a recent Obama campaign conference call. I respect Rice who is on leave from Brookings now while advising the Obama campaign. However, her response on the embargo seemed the same kind of triangulation on the issue that a calculating political cynic might offer -- not a campaign ready to crash through cynicism and more optimistically rewire and redraw the lines of how we think about U.S. foreign policy challenges.
I asked Rice if Obama -- who has been the most progressive among the three standing presidential candidates on US-Cuba policy -- would at least go back to the 'status quo' during the Bush administration in 2003. Before Bush tightened up the noose on Cuban-American family travel, remittances, and other exchanges, there was quite a bit of "non-tourist" travel to Cuba -- usually for educational and cultural reasons.
Rice's response was "no." She said that those kinds of openings for non-tourist travel would depend on Cuba having "fair and free elections", releasing political prisoners, adherence to human rights conventions, and the like.
This is out of the playbook of Republican Congresspersons Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers of South Florida. The notion that a nation isolated for decades from the U.S. will adopt norms of American style democracy in exchange for the benefits of non-tourist travel and other exchange is not realistic. America hasn't taken that course with China, with Vietnam, and now not even with North Korea.
Last year, I praised Obama's stance on Cuba and called it brave and that it reflected the future rather than the past. But if Obama is not even willing to return to the norm that existed for the first three years of the George W. Bush administration, then he and his team are suffering from an incrementalism of vision and opportunity that they need to quickly correct.
Interestingly, US-Cuba policy is changing without many folks noticing. First, Raul Castro has removed restrictions on the purchase of some computers, DVDs, video tapes, and DVD and video players. And this past week, he has removed all restriction on the sale and ownership of cell phones.
If I was running for President of the United States and had opened the door for a potential new course in US-Cuba relations, I'd say something about Raul Castro's moves. But as far as I can tell, Barack Obama and his team haven't moved a centimeter or said a word of late.
Quietly though, the Bush administration is diverting some funding away from US-based anti-Castro organizations. There is a quiet relaxation underway in US-Cuba relations that I fear highlighting because Bush might stop it -- and McCain would yell about it; Hillary Clinton would say "now is the wrong time"; and Obama might say not until we have a free and fair system of elections and a thriving democracy in Cuba.
But Obama doesn't even want to go back to the Bush administration's standard of non-tourist people to people exchange. Unacceptable.
Hillary Clinton is far more restrictive of course and would maintain a Cold War-hugging stance on Cuba at least until Florida votes were counted -- but at least her foreign policy adviser, Lee Feinstein, said that he'd be cool with the NY Philharmonic going to Cuba.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton just wouldn't go that far though he said they'd "give a hard look" at the possibility.
And yet I have no problem at all getting conservative national leader after conservative national leader to parrot former Colin Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson's famous line in GQ Magazine:
Our U.S.-Cuba policy is the stupidest policy on earth.
Maybe the Dems will eventually get there -- but the Democratic frontrunner's Cuba position seems to tilt too much towards the timid and less towards the bold. Changing US-Cuba relations is easy -- low-hanging fruit in the realm of things a president can do to telegraph to the world that a new era is beginning in American foreign policy.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
None of these retired military conservatives absolutely must win Florida to win the presidency in November. It's easy for people like us to say that changing our Cuba policy is a no-brainer. But is this the fight we want to have in Florida right now?
April 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Q.E.D.
April 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The anti-Castro hysteria is more bark then bite right now. I mean come on people. You ain't going to get your property back, or your riches. They're gone. Most of those screaming about it are doing so in the vague hope of restitution. I don't see that happening, nor do I think it should. The poor treatment of our neighbors south of Miami has been fueled not by any sort of idealism, but by selfish thinking.
The U.S. policy on Cuba has been a spectacular failure.
Sure, it would be nice to have a nominee that fessed up to that in public, but you're expecting politicians to show a backbone. It's just not likely.
April 1, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm awfully surprised to see this question even asked. Isn't the answer obvious? It may not be satisfying, but it is obvious.
A few "serious conservatives" speak to you about Cuba in anonymity and then you ask why Obama and Clinton don't do it publicly. Really?
April 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well; Clemons was just using it as a hook.
I'm sure he didn't think it had the slightest weight, either. It does, however, suggest he doesn't think much of TPMCafe members' intellectual and critical faculties.
April 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what day it is Loki Redux, and the fact that this is the first time I've ever agreed with you on anything is not lost on me. But I'll promise I'm not joking if you'll promise your comment was also serious.
As for the post itself, W T F?
Obama's position is slightly to the left of Clinton's. McCain probably wants more troops stationed at Gitmo for a full invasion. And the headline is "Obama's Disappointing Incrementalism on Cuba"? Is Cuba in the top ten most pressing issues facing this country right now? Don't get me wrong, I've thought our Cuba policy is ridiculous for as long as I can remember, and I would love to see it changed. But this doesn't even seem like the appropriate time to be talking about it. And an Obama-to-anyone else category will reveal one person is unafraid to talk to foreign leaders, the other is reluctant (Obama-Clinton) or one person is unafraid to talk to foreign leaders, the other changes the subject and talks about Obama's willingness to unilaterally strike at Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan, seemingly blissfully unaware that such a strike just took place to reported success (Obama-McCain).
Maybe Steve should be careful hanging out with conservatives. Barack Obama might just disappoint him all the way to the White House.
April 1, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor has it---there are more voters to be lost by relaxing sanctions than to be gained. But after election, the advantages of rapprochement are screamingly obvious.
Obama and staff will not be oblivious to the obvious, I predict, but they won't rush to the subject, either. And we can't blame them, after the rabid anti-Castro campaign of 50 years. Similarly, drug policy is insane, but a dangerous subject anyway.
April 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really question that. It seems to me that it's a myth, like many others.
Has there been any recent polling? Or are we operating on the attitudes of mostly dead ex-cubans from 40 years ago?
April 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll admit I have no recent numbers on the subject.
April 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may look into it later. I have plenty of "crazy-cuban" relatives, but they tend to be the older ones.
I think if there is change, it will be quietly done in increments as those vocalizing these aims are retiring.
I just don't see the same "outrage" in the younger generation.
April 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My daughter wanted to go to Cuba and I did some research and found it was still a huge headache, at a minimum. My kids would have no reason to maintain the embargo, and they're both Obama fans.
April 1, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's still pretty easy to do from Canada or the Caribbean.
I haven't, as it wouldn't be wise at this time. I do know people who have and plan on doing so when I only have myself to worry about.
:)
My father wanted me to show me the tiny hummingbirds. I would like to see them as well as where he grew up. Paradise, he called it.
April 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If serious conservatives can say this, why can't the serious Dems running for the White House?
You mean, why can't Hussein Obama X talk about warming relations with a Communist country? Because only Nixon can go to Havana, that's why. Or, more accurately, Zombie Nixon.
April 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't get him started on Nixon. The inevitable result is that he praises Nixon's foreign policy, I get mad and write up a rant about our history of abuses in Latin America and then he ignores me.
April 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's it. Where Cuba and US presidential politics intersect, the region of overlap is 93.2% about the swing state Florida and its invaluable electoral votes. The "serious conservatives" Steve has been talking to aren't running for anything.
April 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, more accurately, Zombie Nixon.
With Zombie Reagan, because of course he aided the Magic Dolphins in saving little Elian's life, which means he's in the neighborhood already.
By the way, have you heard the latest rumor, Berube? Obama X is secretly gangsta and I hear he's in negotiations with Marlow Stanfield to bring him in as Veep.
April 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
O shit, Berube - I just thought of something. If Obama X brings in Marlow Stanfield, we'll be cooked if Sen. Clinton decides to run with Zombie Omar - everyone loved Omar.
April 1, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a Cuban-American I wish you luck with that. The policy exists not because it makes sense, but because that is what we want the policy to be ... it is pretty easy for us to keep a stranglehold on it because to some extent we are a one-issue constituency.
Until Castro and the first generation of Cuban-Americans die off I doubt we will see any change in the policy.
April 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I visited Cuba in 2001 for 10 days and saw for myself the effects of the embargo. It simply defies logic that we punish Cubans with an embargo but are strong trading partners with China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with much, much, much worse human rights violations.
That being said, I think Obama's foreign policy approach will be the one to get us closest to eventual normal relations with Cuba whereas Clinton is just more of the same. As Steve says:
"Hillary Clinton is far more restrictive of course and would maintain a Cold War-hugging stance on Cuba at least until Florida votes were counted"
April 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they are being punished much, we sell them food and medicine these days and it's not like there aren't other nations that they can draw tourists from.
As far as their other needs go, what the heck does the U.S. produce anymore that they can't buy from another nation? Cars teevees computers you name it, some other nation produces it. If we buy all our crap from China what's stopping them from doing the same?
April 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before we condem Obama for a lack of courage, I would like to see a single Republican who will be running for an election in Southern Florida make a statement similar to those by these unnamed Republican officals. (Forgive me if I'm not totally impressed with Powell's Chief of Staff as an example of political courage on this issue. He is not on a ticket.)
The point is, there is both a political and policy aspect to relations with Cuba. Obama has already said he would meet with Castro without preconditions. Going any further would subject him to attacks that would undermine his position in the general election. He has said he will talk with Cuba. That is more than any president has doen. It holds open the possibility that many of the policy changes Clemmons wants will be implemented.
I just don't see the gain in hammering the candidate with the best position on Cuba for not going farther.
April 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this article. I am deeply disappointed. I used to take my students down to Cuba--they were blown away by the music, the dance, and Cuban hospitality. Our trips were outlawed by Bush in 2004. I'm disappointed and angered to hear that an Obama advisor favors the status quo.
Opening up to Cuba should be a no-brainer. Furthermore, a lot of Cuban-Americans are waiting to hear from a candidate with some cojones on this issue since they are tired of the rightwing bullying they've come to expect. The Obama camp deserves some heat on this.
April 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no bullying, we are not in the seventies where people got bombs placed under their cars.
The embargo has been maintained through successful application of mainstream political processes.
April 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about what Samantha Power has said publicly about Obama's stance toward Cuba:
Obama, she said, "was the first person to come out and say there has got to be a statue of limitations on a failed policy, and surely five decades is enough to know that this isn't working. So he favors allowing family travel and family remittances as the beginnings of a pathway to normalization."
April 1, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's eye opening to see the responses here of people who obviously are not used to seeing actual policy criticisms of their candidate.
Usually many of the above are busy complaining about how Hillary would do or say anything to win. I enjoy seeing what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
April 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The criticism is coming in from all sides, take cover Sinbad!
April 1, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, there is no shoe. Let me explain.
Obama's Cuba policy is measurably saner than Clinton's, which is one reason why Clinton has attacked him for it. And if Hussein Obama X were to go any further than he has (he's already called the embargo a failure, and speaks of normalizing relations), the folks at Fox and the Scaife Foundation would be more than happy to paint him as a Castro-loving Islamocommunist. (Maybe their new BFF Clinton would join in! I'm sure Phil Singer is already advocating this.) So it's very strange indeed that this post is titled Obama's disappointing incrementalism on Cuba, since Obama's disappointing incrementalism is 80% less disappointing than Clinton's disappointing same-old same-old.
April 1, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I went to Cuba in 2003 and I agree with urbanato.
Cuba trades with the REST OF THE WORLD. The only reason they don't have anything is because of their corrupt totalitarian government. The cleptocracy would stop if we oppened up the embargo, because then the government couldn't point and say "You have nothing, but that's because of those big bad Yankees." They'd be exposed as the frauds they are and ask for asylum in Venzuela.
If Obama did come out for normalization in the campaign, every crazy Cuban dreaming of a reconquesta would come out of the woodwork.
April 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
We may agree, but for different reasons perhaps.
The Cuban people have access to wonderful health care and education, both for free. At the same time, there are restrictions on free speech and the media that are unacceptable to me just as warentless wiretapping is unacceptable in this country.
Many Cubans have a view that I heard when I was there: "We are unhappy friends of the revolution." Cubans want to maintain their social saftey net and their control of Cuba's resources (from US corporations) but also want a thriving economy and freedom to travel and clear freedom of speech.
Any American who wants to understand more about modern Cuba must come to grips with the US's role in supporting dictators (Bastista) and corporate ownership of the island's resources. The tension between our countries is rooted in this history.
So I hope that: the embargo ends, Cubans maintain their social programs, Cubans do not sell off their natural resources to corporations, Cubans have more open elections and independent media, and certainly travel restrictions are abolished by both countries.
April 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Clemons,
How dare you have a headline such as this castigating Obama on his Cuba policy when Hillary is FAR MORE restrictive. Which you finally point out 3/4's of the way through this specious rant of yours.
Clemons you along with Krugman cannot be trusted on the issues that you earned respected as an expert on because of blinding partisianship. Krugman was a great economist until he decided that Clinton should be backed and Obama bashed.
You are the same on foreign policy. You do not agree with Hillary on foreign policy issues 75% of the time whether it is Cuba, continuing the war in Iraq, dealing with Pakistan or talking to Korea.
Yet you attempt to bash Obama who you agree with far more than Hillary.
Go buy Krugman a drink and commiserate with him because the both of you have tarnished your credibility as knowledgeable professionals with your continued screeds that are so torturous and twisted to even make sense to yourselfs in your rabid efforts to support Hillary at all costs.
April 1, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
vicissitudes-
i am an obama supporter as well as someone with two decades of experience in and around cuba. i've written to krugman asking him to try to be more balanced in his characterizations of the presidential candidate-- in other words, i agree with you that he has written, frequently unfairly, as a partisan (that's also what he gets paid to do). that said, kugman remains a good economist. clemons remains an important and skilled progressive/centrist voice on foreign affairs issues. simply because we may disagree with how they have applied their skill sets in regards to obama/clinton, that in no way warrants disregarding the quality of their skill set. i find it unnecessary to attack them personally because i think are being selective in their critiques (though i don't think clemons is inthe bag for clinton in the way that krugman is... i think clemons is trying to be gadfly here and actually wants obama to get through). but beyond the specific issues, it diminishes all of us who support obama, progressive politics, and critical discourse to attack them personally or question their skills. one of the best ways we can demonstrate our support for obama is to emulate his efforts to elevate the tenor and tone of our national dialogue... to, as he frequently says, disagree without being disagreeable.
peace
gkp
April 1, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The journalist does the reader a disservice with the headline. As V pointed out, the lede was buried, seemingly in an effort to come after Obama. Is it shocking that someone sitting at a table of conservatives prior to an election in which Florida will be critical would come after Obama for not having a liberal enough position? His position is to the left of McCain AND Clinton. You can have all the foreign policy chops in the world, but it's how you use them.
April 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right-wing Israel lobby is fiercely anti-Cuba. This goes back to the days when Castro was opening his country to PLO members in the 1970s. You can't even suggest that you want an even-handed policy towards Cuba without AIPAC coming after you with both barrels loaded.
Joe Lieberman won his Senate seat in 1988 against Lowell Weicker, in part, by trumpeting Weicker's openness towards Cuba. (Google Weicker, Lieberman, Cuba, etc.)
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz understands this very well, and that's why she's not campaigning against her anti-Castro Republican Congressmen from South Florida.
Being even-handed towards Cuba is like being even-handed toward the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. See where that position gets you in the media.
It would be nice if politicians like Clinton, Obama and Wasserman-Schultz weren't bullied into foreign policy positions that oppose America's interests. To be honest, it scares me.
April 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The good thing about Mr Clemmons's posts is that they accurately foreshadow the nonsense Amb. Wilson will be writing at the HuffPo three days before the Pennsylvania vote.
Now, Obama will talk with the Cuban leader, Hillary will send the NY Philharmonic but refuses to talk him, and this makes Obama and not Hillary the disappointment.
After the disingenuous distortions about Obama and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee for European affairs, the pattern in Mr. Clemmons's analyses is clear.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/on-dereliction-of-duty-and-the.php
April 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great link. That blog was dead on target. I have watched Clemons do this several times during the campaign season. I am fed up with his disengenuousness cloaked as expert criticism, when it is blatant partisianship.
Perhaps, the real underlying truth is that both Krugman and Clemons are ticked off that they are not members of Obama's advisor teams in their respective areas of expertise.
Nothing else makes sense. Hillary definitely is not to be praised on her economic policies or foreign policy positions. She lacks vision and both Clemons and Krugman know that. I figure they must owe the Clintons to have to be sycophants with regard to her stated positions on the economy and foreign policy given their pointed analysis highlights how her positions are not progressive nor particularly stategic in terms of the long term interests of the USA.
Thanks again for the link.
April 1, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks. It was with much chagrin that I wrote this posting.
April 1, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama and Clinton were raising money in Cuba, Fidel Castro apparently remarked on their common commitment to Cuba bashing and the embargo, saying something like, they're in south Florida, whaddya expect? And Ricardo Alarcon noted at the time Clinton (Bill, that is) signed Helms-Burton that it would be 20 years before the embargo was ended. That's about 2016.
But the function of the embargo is not to change Cuba's behavior. If it were, the US would have realized what a failure the policy was, oh, 40 years ago. The function of the embargo is to punish the Cuban people for supporting a government our government doesn't like. So the US will only end the embargo when the government realizes that the Cuban people ain't never gonna cry "uncle."
April 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks to me like Obama has his focus set on getting elected so that he might actually make needed policy changes rather than being on the trail to surface another of the many obvious policy idiocies that dominate government.
Obama's problem with Cuba has to be whether anything he says is a net vote-gainer or net vote-loser.
Nothing Steve said addresses what is at the moment the priority issue, which means that this simply isn't to time for Obama specifically to be addressing the issue.
Since I assume that Steve is sufficiently aware of the politics involved to know that, then this statement is clearly an effort to make sure the issue is on the table when it is time for a President Obama to possibly consider taking action on it.
2009 will be a good year for chucking out failed policies such as the Cuban policy - as long as their elimination doesn't derail serious Presidential initiatives the way the Gays-in-the-military issue damaged Clinton's effort to create National Health Care by weakening general support for Clinton.
April 1, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, why oh why isn't Obama risking political suicide during the most heavily scrutinized race in at least a generation when these people with essentially nothing to lose can take such a bold hypothetical stance on the subject without the burden of ever having to back it up?
What rubbish.
April 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ask why dems can't say this out loud. Well, your source was anonymous. Why can't he speak in public?
April 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please! This is stupid! We're in the middle of a political campaign here, and there's absolutely nothing to be gained from bringing up changes in our Cuba policy. Nothing!
All it would do is galvanize the far-right and the Cuban exiles to campaign against Obama. Do you see massive demonstrations by people favoring the liberalization of Cuban ties? No, I thought not.
But if you listen to one word from Barack Obama about his philosophy, his foreign policy ideas, etc., you can be absolutely certain he won't have a knee-jerk response to ANYTHING, including Cuba. Sorry, but this is the dumbest post I've seen at TPM in a while.
April 1, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But if you listen to one word from Barack Obama about his philosophy, his foreign policy ideas, etc., you can be absolutely certain he won't have a knee-jerk response to ANYTHING, including Cuba. Sorry, but this is the dumbest post I've seen at TPM in a while."
because it goes against what you expect to see.
April 1, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreign policy-wise not much will change with Obama or Hillary. We still have the axis-of-evil who run US foreign policy: Wall Street/Pentagon/Florida Cuban exiles--stick in AIPAC for a quartet-of-evil
April 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve forgot to mention that this group of conservatives will in any case be supporting McCain and just as they are unwilling to support Cuba publicly they will not insist on McCain doing so either. Another case of republican pods giving the democrats good advice.
April 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait until Obama wins.
THEN we can pressure him to change his stance on Cuba. I see no reason to believe he wouldn't be willing to normalize relations.
Rice's statements seem to be a little defensive, perhaps Obama thinks the "talking to our enemies" line hurt him politically?
April 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our Cuba policy is nothing but an old grudge against Castro we refuse to give up. It's consistent in that respect with our policy towards Iran (we still can't get over the overthrow of our man the Shah in 1979) and our policy, for 20 years after the war, toward Vietnam. The US doesn't like to admit its most idiotic policies are failures so it just pretends it's all the other guy's fault. Apparently holding a grudge is far more satisfying than learning from one's mistakes. Or maybe we just have two year olds running our foreign policy.
April 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama - Politics as usual
April 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
KUBA, si! YONKEE, no!
The Embargo is working, my friends!
April 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If serious conservatives can say this,"
Steve, the problem is that "serious conservatives" are not sayng this. Three unnamed people you had lunch with are saying this. For "serious conservatives" to be saying it they must say it and stand behind it.
Be honest, let the "serious conservatives" be on the record. Until then it is just your special brand of nonsense.
April 1, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I whole-heartedly agree with you about the continued foolishness of the U.S-Cuba Policy.
I have never agreed with my fellow Cuban brethren in South Florida.
I am disappointed to say the least in Senator Obama's approach to future relations with Cuba. However, he still has said the most progressive(clearly not)ideas about Cuba even though they are far too small.
I also agree that if he were to be more progressive in how he would work to change the current policy on Cuba, he should point to the policies Raoul Castro has recently implemented.
April 1, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, Steve. Obama is pandering for Cuban votes in South Florida.
Repeat after me:
Just. Another. Politician.
April 2, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Clemons argues that it is not realistic to expect a nation isolated for decades from the U.S. to adopt norms of American style democracy without the benefits of tourist travel from the USA.
How about norms of Canadian and European democracy? Gee, Canadians and Europeans [all pretty democratic regions of the world if you ask me] have been traveling to Cuba for years. According to Cuba's statistics, 2,000,000 tourists traveled to Cuba last year. And Cuba is no closer to becoming democratic today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Are we Americans so arrogant that we think that we are the only ones with the capacity to democratize a totalitarian regime simply by our own presence? I've traveled quite a bit and I've been to a few less-than-democratic countries and farthest from my thoughts have been spreading democracy to those countries. I don't know of too many of my friends who use their travel opportunities to spread American democracy around the world either.
By the way Mr. Clemons, if you consider Raul's lifting of a few commercial restrictions to be a sign of "reform" then you've set the bar pretty low. To me reform would be what Gorbechev did, something political akin to Perestroika.
April 2, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink