US Policy on Cuba after the Republican Sweep

Jesús Arboleya  (Progreso Weekly)

vote-685x342HAVANA TIMES- In the days prior to the midterm elections, a media campaign was launched, urging President Obama to change U.S. policy toward Cuba.

It is obvious that the promoters of that campaign could foresee that the results of the election would translate into a Republican victory, as indeed they did. So, the question arises:

How could the Republican victory influence this dynamics?

As I see it, very little. Before the Democrats lost control of the Senate, everybody knew that the President could not count on Congress to modify U.S. policy toward Cuba, so they were asking Obama to make use of his executive powers, something that they will continue to do in the immediate future.

In fact, as Álvaro Fernández and others have commented, the issue could become simpler for Obama, because of the weakening of pressures within his own party, given the replacement of Democrat Bob Menéndez as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Now, Obama’s main enemies will be the Republicans, but that will be a constant in all of his government’s actions. Therefore, the topic of Cuba is inserted into the political polarization that has characterized Obama’s administration and everything will depend on his willingness to act in this scenario.

For a long time now, Obama seems to have forgotten his intention to become “the president of all Americans” and seek some accommodation with the Republicans. Now, his options are more drastic: either he decides to act against his adversaries — with the political implications that this carries — or subordinates himself to their designs and becomes a “dead weight” in the nation’s politics, as some analysts predict.

The President’s level of unpopularity is seen as responsible for the electoral disaster suffered by the Democrats. It is true that this happens quite regularly in second presidential terms, but Obama’s case has other connotations because of the social impact his election originally made.

It remains to be seen if, aware of his historical responsibility, Obama is willing to revert the situation and wage battle, at least on the issues that define his “legacy” — not many of them, for sure.

Within this logic, the Cuban issue acquires some relevance. I say “some” because, compared with the enormous domestic and foreign problems facing U.S. policy, the topic of Cuba is of lesser importance.

However, it has a symbolic value that exceeds its real connotations and could help the President improve an image that has been seriously impaired by the lack of determination he has shown in many instances.

In fact, a policy change wouldn’t be a difficult decision, because:

  • even Republican sectors would support it;
  • a new policy would be welcomed by the international community, especially by Latin America, where the Summit of the Americas will be held next April with Cuba in attendance; and
  • a new policy would have a special impact on the state of Florida, with a view to the 2016 elections, something that constitutes a priority for the Democratic Party.

According to exit polls on Nov. 4, a majority of Cuban-Americans supported the Democratic candidate for governor, Charlie Crist (50-46 percent), which confirms a trend that was expressed in the 2010 presidential election.

Most analysts attribute that support to the differences between the contenders regarding the Cuban issue. In a comparison with the 2010 results, Republican Gov. Rick Scott lost 20 percentage points among Cuban-Americans and lost in all counties with a high concentration of Cuban-Americans. This could also be an indicator favoring the Democrats in the 2016 elections.

Although a Crist victory could have helped propel a change in policy toward Cuba, his defeat does not substantially alter the equation prior to the elections. The same happens in the case of Rep. Joe García (D-Fla.)

In the end, the opponents are the same as before, and it is doubtful that their influence will increase substantially thanks to the Republican victory.

Even more importantly, the Republican triumph does not alter the objective factors that justify the criticism aimed at the current U.S. policy toward Cuba.

It is a tired policy, incapable of achieving the objectives for which it was designed, counter to the United States’ own interests, and rejected by a majority of U.S. public opinion, including Cuban-Americans.

Nor does it alter the fact that Obama is the president who has been in the best position to change it, and probably the president who will benefit most by so doing.

To quote the title of an old Cuban radio series: “Fate is in his hands.”

                                                                                                          Retweet this post with the hashtag #USACuba


13 thoughts on “US Policy on Cuba after the Republican Sweep

  • November 12, 2014 at 6:10 pm
    Permalink

    I suppose if one considers the extreme, inhuman and bizarre ideology of the Castro regime part of the normal spectrum of political philosophy, the significant differences between the U.S. Democrats & Republicans might seem trivial.

    For what you view as a limitation, many Americans are thankful the US political system is not subjected to the violent extremes of many parts of the world.

  • November 11, 2014 at 11:35 am
    Permalink

    Practically speaking, in a country of 330 million people, there should be no surprise that the cost of campaigning and getting the message out effectively would be costly and require the patronage of wealthy supporters. The real problem is not the inclusion of the rich and powerful in American politics, it is the exclusion of the poor and vulnerable. When the voices of the rich drowns out the voices of the poor, the criticism of the system in the US is valid. Democrats make a greater effort to hear the voices of the poor. Republicans seem to believe that the rich can speak for the poor. There are significant differences between the two parties. While both rely on wealthy donors to get their message out, Democrats include in their message the voices of the poor in their agenda.

  • November 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
    Permalink

    The articel states, “According to exit polls on Nov. 4, a majority of Cuban-Americans supported the Democratic candidate for governor, Charlie Crist (50-46 percent), which confirms a trend that was expressed in the 2010 presidential election.”

    Yet, both of those claims are not true. Although certain activists tried to insert the meme that a majority of Cuban-Americans support lifting the embargo by producing election day “exit polls” to present that image, subsequent detailed studies have found that is not true.

    For example, on 2014, in the Hialeah precincts, where a majority of Cuban-Americans run the spectrum from first-wave to recent-arrivals, Scott won by over 65%. Meanwhile, further south, in the overwhelmingly Cuban-American precincts of Tamiami, Westchester and West Dade (known as “the 400s”), Scott also won handily. Moreover, in all of the majority Cuban-American precincts, turnout surpassed the county-wide average.

    In other words, not only did Cuban-Americans vote against Charlie Crist, but they did so more intensely than their peers.

  • November 11, 2014 at 10:29 am
    Permalink

    “To think that a Democrat will be any different from a Republican when they both serve their corporate masters is naïve in the extreme.”

    That is the only part of what John wrote that I can actually agree with. But Moses, I can agree with everythng that you wrote to John in reply. Absolutely spot on.

  • November 11, 2014 at 12:25 am
    Permalink

    You are mistaken to believe that the rich fear socialism/communism. It is being poor that they object to. In every socialist state that has every existed (enough with your personal description of socialism/communism), the end result is the taking of the wealth from the rich in a flaccid effort to redistribute to the poor. As noble as this cause may be, the real outcome has been that the rich got poor, the poor stayed poor and the socialist/communist leadership bought luxury dachas in Russia or houses on the beach in Varadero. To help you understand the difference between fear and objection, why don’t you give your house to the government for redistribution, accept a job only based loosely on your qualifications and mostly on who you know in government. While you are at it, see if you can sign up for dial-up internet service just for good measure. I am sure you will not do any of this. Is it from FEAR, as you suggest, or simply because you object to giving up what you have worked for so that some government/party hack can live better?

  • November 10, 2014 at 11:39 am
    Permalink

    Like always; The Communists are masters at making a victory (Or trying to make) out of a defeat.

  • November 10, 2014 at 9:15 am
    Permalink

    Obama serves the rich without whose financial backing he could not have won office.
    The rich fear democratic institutions such as socialism/communism/anarchy and U.S. foreign policy has been largely predicated upon suppressing democratic institutions since the U.S. invasion of the nascent Soviet Union in 1918 .
    That policy may be forgotten , ignored and buried by a complicit corporate media but it is still in force .
    There is no other rational explanation for the embargo and the 50 years of hostility against Cuba.
    To think that a Democrat will be any different from a Republican when they both serve their corporate masters is naïve in the extreme .
    I will not respond to unintelligent replies.

  • November 9, 2014 at 10:32 pm
    Permalink

    You should Google the term. Technically, it only applies to that period of a President’s administration after the successor has been elected and then end of his term.

  • November 9, 2014 at 8:47 pm
    Permalink

    It has nothing to do with Obama being a lame duck. Even if the Democrats has won majorities in both houses, Obama’s priorities do no include repealing Helms-Burton.

    Articles like the one above are self-deluding exercises in wishful thinking.

  • November 9, 2014 at 8:45 pm
    Permalink

    The Republican controlled Senate & House will be President Obama’s opposition, but not his “main enemies”. To characterize the political relationship as the author did above is to exaggerate the differences between US political parties and trivialize the complex nature of their political system.

    Obama has two years left in his term in office. That’s not a lot of time, politically speaking. Moreover, he is running low on political capital with which to pursue his policy objectives. Therefore, he will devote the remaining 26 months of his presidency to a very short list of priorities. Cobbling together some sort of deal on immigration reform, preserving Obamacare, and dealing with the Keystone KL pipeline are at the top of the list, along with managing US foreign affairs issues in the Middle East, Russia and the East China Sea. That’s all he has time for.

    Sorry to say this, but Cuba is somewhere about item #289 on Obama’s to-do list. And there is very little he can do about it anyway. One of the key clauses of the Helms-Burton Act is the provision which authorizes the legislative branch (Congress) to overturn any executive decision by the President to repeal any section of the act.

    Therefore, there will be no change unless and until the Cuban government takes significant steps toward political reform. (which Raul has ruled out).

  • November 9, 2014 at 11:41 am
    Permalink

    Like I said before, ‘Three words’ LAME DUCK OBAMA!

  • November 9, 2014 at 9:00 am
    Permalink

    Jesus’ explanation as why Obama would take on his Republican adversaries to help a communist regime is unclear. How does it benefit Obama’s agenda and his legacy? Jesus fails to mention what Cuba will do in return for a change in US policy. Given Obama’s plan to accomplish domestic agenda items such as raising the minimum wage, gun control, immigration and tax reform, and increasing the funding of America’s infrastructure, there is no political reason to make unilateral changes that put $$$ in the Castros pockets.

  • November 9, 2014 at 8:10 am
    Permalink

    Dream on…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *