A thaw in the forecast
Obama takes aim at a Cold War remnant
A thaw in the forecast
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Another day, another policy overhaul. President Obama said goodbye to the status quo yet again yesterday, flexing his executive authority to soften our traditionally hardline attitude toward communist Cuba. For the first time in decades (indeed, in the biggest policy shift since the ice age of the Cold War), Cuban-Americans can now visit the island as often as they want, and they can send money to their loved ones in whatever amounts they desire.
If you haven't been tracking our Cuba policy over the years - actually, there hasn't been much to follow, since the policy has been largely frozen since Fidel seized power 50 years ago - the Obama decrees on travel and money may not seem like such a big deal. But even these moves would have been unthinkable not that long ago; previous presidents didn't dare try to thaw any aspect of our Cold War stance, lest they suffer domestic political damage, particularly in the electorally pivotal state of Florida, where the populous Cuban-American community successfully punished any presidential candidate perceived to be a commie coddler.
But Obama's announcement is symptomatic of a fundamental shift in the Latino political calculus. The older Cuban-Americans in Miami, traditionally Republican, are still a force in the electorate - but not to the extent that they once were. They are joined now, on election day, by a growing number of younger Cuban ethnics who don't feel compelled to cast their ballots on the basis of the Fidel factor. For today's thirty-something Cuban-American, the events of 1959 are a distant, second-hand memory; they are far more likely than their elders to vote on the basis of the same issues that animate all Americans.
Moreover, there is apparently growing sentiment among Cuban-Americans for the kinds of policies that Obama announced yesterday. In 2007, a Florida academic poll discovered, for the first time in the survey's 18 years of queries, that a majority of the Miami Cubans favored an easing of the travel and money restrictions. (George W. Bush had actually toughened the travel restrictions in an '04 decree.) More than 60 percent favored a liberalized travel and money policy.
And not only is the Cuban-American community more ideologically diverse and apparently more tolerant these days, it is also less politically dominant within Florida's Latino electorate. In recent years, Latinos of Puerto Rican origin and Latinos of Central and South American origin have put down roots in great numbers, becoming citizens and putting their names on the voter rolls. (In 2008, Obama political operatives, recognizing in particular that Puerto Rican ethnics tend to vote Democratic, greatly aided this process by conducting voter registration campaigns.)
The results of these political shifts were evident last November. Obama won Florida by three percentage points overall - with considerable assistance from the state's Latinos, who favored him by a whopping 15 points. (Contrast that with 2004, when John Kerry lost the Florida Latinos by 12 points.) Obama didn't win the Cuban-American share of that electorate - he drew roughly 35 percent, far better than Kerry's '04 share - but Obama's massive statewide margin among Latinos is proof that the Cuban-American community no longer has the clout of yesteryear.
So with his domestic political flank covered, Obama can focus on the international politics. For instance, there are a number of left-wing Latin American governments that soured on Bush because of his tightened hardline stance toward Cuba; those governments have been courting China and Russia (and vice versa) on issues of trade and investment, and have been engaging in considerable anti-American rhetoric. Obama, by signaling the first step in a possibly extensive thaw in our Cuban policy, could potentially buoy our battered image in Latin America.
The big question, in the longer run, is whether Obama will indeed urge an extensive thaw and promote a normalization of relations. This would require shelving our decades-old trade embargo with Cuba - generally viewed as one of the untouchable third rails in American politics. (When Obama first ran for the Senate, he favored ending the embargo; as a presidential candidate, he did not.) The embargo clearly hasn't worked as intended; five decades ago, it was designed to economically isolate Fidel and precipitate his downfall. But there seems to be little appetite, within Obamaworld, to take this step in the foreseeable future, at least judging by how rarely the subject is broached.
But it's clear that the administration ideally intends to nudge us ever further away from the status quo. Yesterday, a National Security Council aide told the press that "U.S. policy toward Cuba is not frozen in time," and that the travel/money decree was "the place to start."
Obama apparently prefers to erase this final remnant of the Cold War in an incremental fashion - but, arguably, he need not be so cautious. A CNN poll reported last week that 71 percent of American favor the reestablishing of diplomatic relations with Cuba. A warm wind is at his back. The Obama long-range forecast is for a more extensive thaw.
-------
An observation about the pirate saga:
It's another symptom of our national parochialism that the Somali pirate epidemic in the Indian Ocean - which has been raging for several years, at great cost to international shipping and trade - never got much play in the American press until now. But we all know the reason, although many of us are loath to admit it: An international crisis doesn't really exist until an American is directly endangered.
Even though Captain Phillips is now safe, and the yellow ribbons have been untied, perhaps there is still interest in the broader story. If so, I recommend reading this. It was published in, of all places, GQ magazine - and written by the East Africa bureau chief of The New York Times. If newspapers die, this kind of piece will likely disappear.
Xi this is the sorry state the US is in now. Obama is spending so much money we are going to have to borrow it from Cuba.— jwad56- Loosening relations with Cuba is a good thing that's should have been done years ago. It's refreshing to have a man in the WH that has an open mind. Do not expect the same thing to happen regarding Iran or N. Korea though. Cuba is a small fish in comparison. Negotiate with Iran but don't trust them. We must always keep up our guard regarding countries that are run by extremists. Glad our extremists are out of power now (added that to fuel the fire hee hee, it's getting boring in here).— James TL
- We really just traded one extremist govt. for another:)— NEPhilly
- jwad: I still don't get it. they aren't attacking Republican-leaning Cuban Americans. They aren't trivializing them. How are they being "peeled off"? ... Why should older Cuban Americans be able to dictate foreign policy only because they are concentrated in a swing state? As far as this having been our policy for 50 years, it's undergone many changes over those 50 years. Some of the restrictions even lapsed under Carter but were brought back by Reagan. As far as polling, was it sheer conincidence that the rules were tightened in June of 2004, a presidential election year when Florida was again viewed a a key state?— still_independent
- still_independent I quote: "If you haven't been tracking our Cuba policy over the years - actually, there hasn't been much to follow, since the policy has been largely frozen since Fidel seized power 50 years ago". Anyway what is your beef with what I said? Democrats rule by polls? Now you are going to argue that Bush, the most unpopular president since Carter, made policy according to public opinion?— jwad56
- jwad: first of all, I don't care what DP wrote. Here's one for you: "The restrictions on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba lapsed on March 19, 1977; the regulation was renewable every six months, but President Jimmy Carter did not renew it and the regulation on spending U.S. dollars in Cuba was lifted shortly afterwards. President Ronald Reagan reinstated the trade embargo on April 19, 1982. There was also further refinement and restrictions in 1992 and 1996 - boy these keep coming up in election years, go figure (yes, it was Clinton that signed the second). As far as Bush, he may not govern by polls, but he DID frequently act to help Republicans win elections... In any case, my original beef was with you original post - "carve your enemy up into little pieces (this time the Cuban-American group) and destroy them." this isn't happening AT ALL. All DP is pinting out is that Latino opinion in general, and Cuban American opinion in particular, is no longer so strongly against the easing of reastrictions. How are the Cuban Americans being attacked?— still_independent
- Don't mess with Obama ye swabs! He'll keel haul your sorry a**es!— James TL
Why should we isolote ourselves from socialist regimes when the administration is striving to convert us to a socialist society? It's only logical in the messiah's vision of his new America. Start a steady drumbeat of class warfare, where the masses are taught that the wealthy are the enemy of our country (see Marx blueprint). Build a giant government that controls the banks and the free markets (force companies and banks to take a bail out, then tell them how to run their operations). Redistribute the wealth so that no one is wealthy and everyone is dependent upon the government. Now we have a government that controls the people instead of people who control the government. Worked for the Soviet Union.....for a while.- Do you really think Obama heads an extremist left wing government? I guess it's a matter of perception because I just can't see that (besides all the spending). Obama seems like a left leaning moderate to me.— James TL
Comment removed.- Fisher--the Obama banking explanation that you object to is boilerplate freshman economics. It is, incidentally, essentially the same thing that FDR said in his first 1933 fireside chat. Please take another look at your old textbooks. There is absolutely nothing political, ideological or controversial about his statement; it's essentially simple arithmetic.— liberal
- One of the more ridiculous assertions that staunch republicans constantly make is that Democrats govern according to the polls, while republicans follow their personal principles. I'd like somebody to explain Carl Rove's role on the basis of this assertion.— liberal
- jtl, that is what the President wants it to seem like:) That is how the President campaigned and was elected. The trick is watch how he governs! The spending is the point, with the stimulus, omnibus and budget outline he tips his hand. Exploding govt. growth, govt. control of banking, car companies, insurance companies, etc. The govt. asking for ability to take over company's, set pay levels, fire CEO's and name board members. The govt. forcing certain company;s to take the bailout funds, then change the rules after the fact. The govt. creating a huge bureaucracy to run the 'cap n trade' scheme proposed by the president! The govt. also creating another huge bureaucracy to run govt. mandated healthcare! With $1 trillion deficits, borrowed from the Chinese, yearly for at least the next 3 or 4 years! And 'cut' (yes he is calling it a cut) the deficit to $500 Bil for the next several years when the largest deficit until this year was $400 bill or so. That is radical in my view:)— NEPhilly
- What made Castro dangerous was his association with the Soviet Union, our implacable adversary in the Cold War. What rightwingers seem to forget is that the Soviet Union has been gone for almost 20 years. Therefore, CD, there can't be another "Cuban missile crisis." Please, somebody on the right, explain the rational basis for our current policies toward Cuba. You righties can't use the "human rights" argument since that's too touchy-feely bleeding heart for you guys.— liberal
- lib, who says Cuba can't or won't invite Russia back in to deploy bombers or missiles? The Venezuelans are already talking about it! So there certainly can be another missile crisis:) That being said, I think we should drop the embargo on Cuba as it has outlived its usefullness and just costs Americans jobs!— NEPhilly
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
