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.
Phrossty, its like you have to give the 'liberal' interpretation of what I say to have people understand it:) LOL! Thank you!— NEPhilly- No one was forced to take money under Obama (just geithner, paulson and bernanke), just the ones that did take the $$$ (and some did so just to give cover to those that needed it) had the rules changed on them retroactivley (by the stimulus bill of all things, just goes to show how much cr@p was in that thing) and when they try to give it back this administration gives them a hard time! If you are okay with that, just say it! IMHO, I think it wrong:)— NEPhilly
- still_independent: He hasn't. He won't. It's not NEPhilly's point (or the truth). I think his point is that CURRENTLY (under Obama) the banks that were forced (by GWB & Dem Paulson) to take TARP are not being allowed to repay. Thus, fanning the flames of Socialism takeover frenzy.— Phrossty
- I think you still haven't come up with a bank that was "forced" to take TARP funds under the Obama administration— still_independent
- still, the stimulus plan passing changed the TARP law, that is how! The stimulus was passed under Pres. Obama as an emergency and was barely read. Now we find out that the stimulus law changed the TARP law! I did not know that, did you? Banks that took the TARP $$$ had the rules changed retroactively by the stimulus law! Now these banks try to give it back to avoid the changes and the govt. gives them a hard time. Why, because the govt. wants to keep control of these banks is my guess and I have a problem with that! If these companies want to give the $$$ back they should be able to no retroactive strings attached. What do you think?— NEPhilly
- Relations with Cuba should be normalized - actually, this should have been done long ago. All the embargo has done is strengthen Castro's position for half a century. As the Grim Reaper will soon be paying Fidel and his brother a visit, now would be an opportune time to reverse this anomalous 50-year old grudge.— JC Denton
- I'd love to comment, but am currently in hiding. Since I have been associating with veterans returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan, people who are pro-life, belong to the NRA, want our immigration laws enforced and believe in states rights over federal control (as in the federal government forcing states to take stimulus money), I am, according to the Department of Homeland Security report, am right wing extremist. So we cannot use the term "Islamic Fascism", terrorist acts are "man made disasters", and the war on terror is now "overseas contingency operation". But gee, those returning vets, pro-lifers, anti-illegal immigration, states rights groups are all "right wing extremists". Guess big brothers is here after all.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent: I have no idea. I think it's neocon logic. If Obama continues Bush's failed policy (Gitmo, surveillance, TARP), then it's ALL that hypocrite Obama's fault as Bush's heart was in the right place but President B HUSSEIN Obama is a Socialist fraud born in Kenya planted by muslims to overthrow our way of life.... or something to that effect. (Oh, and GWB is owed an apology for all the bashing left wing loons did for GWB's support of torture, spying, nationalizing banks, bankrupting the nation, etc., etc.) Haven't you been paying attention?— Phrossty
- How stupid of the GoPers - not acknowledging the obvious about how many messes our president inherited from the miserable presidency of George W. Bush. We are slowly getting out of the Bush maliase - and we will be fine - AMERICA is resiliant.— ModerateMarge
- NEPhilly: the WSJ opinion piece only mentioned one unnamed bank, and that was under Bush. Phrosty's link also mentioned nine banks, but all under Bush. I'm not sure how this is all one giant plan by Obama.— still_independent
- Ark-But there is the fundamental problem with Democrats in general. They are only guided by polls and not principle. They merely change their positions to fit the whims of the latest focus group. They say one thing to a group of San francisco Liberals and quite another to gun toting Pennsylvanians.
Comment removed.- I can't wait to get some cuban cigars. Thanks President Obama!— chasing history
- Comrade Liberal: You have been to Cuba? I do remember you at the Communist Party meeting in 1975 in Stalingrad. I have been to Cuba to.— Comrade Noodlehead
- Comrade Obama wishes to unite with his fellow comrades in Cuba. Of course Comrade Polman is all for this! I see that Comrade Liberal and Comrade Pagoda are also for this. Great! We Communists will not rest to all capitalism is replaced with a workers utpoia!— Comrade Noodlehead
- CD75 "The S&P 500 was down over 2% today, a sign that Obama is doing a really bad job." What does this sign mean then? "Mission Accomplished"?— Freerojo
- Liberal- I don't think anyone is afraid of anything as far as a small step towards normalizing relations with Cuba. It was going to happen eventually. Just don't whine when jobs are outsourced there 10 years from now.
- Trying to force change in Cuba with economic sanctions failed long ago. It was pointless and stupid. Policy is - and would have been for the past 30 years - far better served through cultural conquest. Glad Obama took another step that way, hope he takes more.— sully64
- I've been to Cuba and anybody who is not a closed-minded lefty can see in a matter of hours that it's a failed socialist state. People are clearly better off in Mexico, which is in some ways the classic capitalist-exploitation paradigm. It seems to me that we should want as many people as possible to see this for themselves. What are we afraid of?— liberal
- Phrossty, more like the Dem Paulson, new Treas. Sectry. Tim Giethner and that liberal academic Ben Bernanke! We all know GWB wasn't smart enough to even understand what was going on:) I just saw on PBS a CEO of a bank (Sovereign I think) that applied to give back the Tarp $$$ because the rules were changed after the fact in the stimulus bill! I didn't know that the stimulus bill changed the Tarp law, but that is what this banker said on PBS tonight!— NEPhilly
- It's amusing how Polman sort of dances around the truth on Cuba. Americans could travel to Cuba when George Bush was president. American's could send $ 1200 per year to Cuba when Bush was President. All Obama is doing is lifting the restictions on travel and the amount of money that can be sent to relatives in Cuba. Castro confiscates 20% of the money that is sent there. I agree with what Obama is doing but not how Polman fails to tell the whole story in his editorial.
- The rest of the world trades with Cuba. We should trade with them and travel there and sign all their baseball players. That should get rid of the last excuse the Castro's have for their sorry state.
- I live in Miami and am very friendly, both socially and in business, with both older and younger Cubans-some of the older ones were actually involved in the Bay of Pigs, Cubana Fl 455, and were high ups in the CANF. The young ones definitely do not allow Cuba policy to affect their political decisions and even the old guard is letting go of the hardcore sentiments. The wealthier ones, old and young (who tend to be the ones who came over shortly after the revolution) care more about the things that we all care about, and the poorer ones (who tend to be newer immigrants) care more about putting food in their mouths and a roof over their head. There's no love for Fidel, but since Jorge Mas Canosa passed away back in the late 90's, the hardcore stance is much less prevalent.— donde
- Oops... That's for "still_independent," not "liberal." ("Liberal" probably knew all along that the forced nationalization of the US banking system was from Socialists GWB, Cheney & Greenspan.)— Phrossty
- liberal -- I recall a portion of the documentary on FRONTLINE that indicated Paulson *compelled* the 9 largest Wall Street banks to accept bailout money, like it or not. I was mildly surprised the bankers weren't allowed to choose, especially since this hostile, gov't takeover was on BUSH's watch. See October 13, 2008 entry on the link. ••• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/cron/— Phrossty
- The S&P 500 was down over 2% today, a sign that Obama is doing a really bad job.— CD75
- i'm sorry, to still not lib!— NEPhilly
- lib, a couple of links to help you out! The 2nd is from Stuart Varney of Wall Street Journal and is very good:) http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/11/25/banks-forced-to-take-bailout/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html— NEPhilly
- Normalize already, jeez. CD75- I see you are still getting all hot and lathered with the "messiah" usage. You are sooooooooooo original and witty to boot. I love when you try to bust on libs by pointing out Obama's similarities to Bush. So if Bush was right, are you now wrong? Oh forget it, just keep entertaining me with your laugh out loud silliness.— pagoda
- still, the fed. govt. forced banks that were solvent and in no need of funds to take the TARP money so the other banks that needed the $$$ weren't stigmatized!— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly : "The govt. forcing certain company;s to take the bailout funds" ???????— still_independent
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Comment removed.
- 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
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.- Don't mess with Obama ye swabs! He'll keel haul your sorry a**es!— James TL
- 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
- 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: 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
- We really just traded one extremist govt. for another:)— NEPhilly
- 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
- 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
- Comment removed.
- still_independent It's not the Cuban American enemy it's the Republican leaning Cuban Americans they are peeling off. Also I have no idea what the polling was the last several years but the policies have been in place for 50 so I don't see how that was poll driven. Lastly I could care less about the embargo it would probably be better to let everything flow and then they wouldn't need to rely on their government to give them everything. Funny how we here are moving toward relying on government for everything and yet we want them to move away from that isn't it? Anyway the point being this is the Democrat tactic: Policy by polling and dividing people into groups you can dominate.— jwad56
- CD75: actually, assuming by "the market" you mean DJIA, the market tanked at the open, basically recovered by 10:30 or so, then started sliding. It was already off ~75 points before the speech. Maybe the retail sales number had something to do with it?— still_independent
- jwad: exactly how are they "carving up" the Cuban American "enemy" into "little pieces"? Should our foreign policy positions over the past eight years have been dictated to us by the fear of offending a small but vocal Cuban minority in a state that the Republicans didn't want to lose in? You write derisively about "policy by polling", yet that's EXACTLY what our Cuban policy has been the last several years. In any case, what's the point of the embargo any more? Since 1975, it's been a one-nation embargo.— still_independent
- Obama gave his economic speech at 11:35 am today, and by an hour later the market tanked nearly 2%. Hmmm.— CD75
- "Although there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks – 'where's our bailout?' they ask -- the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth," he said.What Obama didn't say was I ran against this as been the failed policy of the last president and well, I am spending as much has he did in 8 years in one, but things will be fine. Give me my freedom and economic future back. Increasing the federal defict by 40% in one year is economic suicide. Stop the insane spending. Stop the bailouts, let's start making things which matter. Let's stop living the now we shop, and live for the sound future.— Fisher
- Come on let's get serious Cuba has $, we borrow money, therefore just another communist country we will be indebted.— Fisher
I wonder if the Castro brothers are going to ease their restrictions on Cubans traveling to America, or anything else for that matter? Probably not. I do hear that polls in Cuba show 100% support for anything the Castro's might want to do. It seems like Fidel has a "warm wind".— jmc- I bet more than 71% of the U.S. does not know what the Cuban missile crisis was or the Bay of Pigs. I bet 100% of the leftist media and the messiah's cheerleaders do not too.— CD75
- While Poman has his pom poms on cheering on the messiah, chew on this Polman: Obama supports Bush's warrantless wiretap program (of course the leftist media tries to cover this up). You said Bush violated the Constitution in many of your rants. Well, isn't your messiah now violating our rights? Or, do you owe Bush an apology because he was always right? What is your position Richard?— CD75
- What ever happened to Democrats with guts and who knew right from wrong? JFK and Truman must be rolling over in their graves.— CD75
- With the Castro brothers greatly weakened now is a great time to 'invade' Cuba with dollars, McDonalds and Walmarts:) They will never know what hit them, until their country is like ours overweight, lazy and feeling entitled to a good life without the hard work to earn it:) I keep waiting for the 'shared sacrifice' that the president said we all were going to pay! I fear that 'shared sacrifice' is code for higher taxes on energy (via cap n trade) and on healthcare (via nationalization), etc. as this is the only way to pay for everything the President has outlined. $1 Trillion per year deficits for as long as the eye can see are unsustainable (just ask the Chinese:) And when you cut that to $500 Billion per year, that is not cutting the deficit, no matter how nicely you say it! Just saying:)— NEPhilly
- Same old Democrat tactics. Run policy by polling, carve your enemy up into little pieces (this time the Cuban-American group) and destroy them.— jwad56
when will I be able to buy cuban cigars?— potus- I'm glad that one of the changes I voted for has come to pass. It is "U.S. policy toward [x] is not frozen in time." Fairly or not, I regarded GWB/McCain and the R's as backward looking rather than forward thinking.— Phrossty
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
