Florida CNN Debate - part 6
The long-established Republican response to this question is, summarized... we should continue the sanctions against Cuba and if possible, increase the intensity until the regime in Havana collapses, is overthrown or in some other way cries, 'Uncle!' and democracy is established. You might call this answer, the Establishment Republican answer.
This answer is believed to be popular among the Cuban immigrants in Florida. Perhaps it is. I'd say it's pandering but it's actually entirely consistent for Establishment Republicans to threaten force and impose sanctions against countries with leadership that is evil or illegitimate. To hear them tell it, Establishment Republicans are belligerent with these evil and illegitimate regimes because Establishment Republicans are principled. Well, some evil and illegitimate regimes. Not all of them. Now that I think about it, 'principled' may not be entirely accurate.
As I expected, three of the candidates gave some version of the Establishment Republican answer. They waxed eloquent about how they support and want to help the Cuban people, about how Obama is rewarding the evil Castro regime by relaxing travel restrictions, how Obama is ignoring Latin America, how they support Helms-Burton (one of them even attempted to claim credit for Helms-Burton), and how they want freedom for Cuba. Only one candidate gave a different answer. Who do you suppose that was?
Why, it must have been the 'non-establishment' and always unpredictable (Romney might even say, 'zany') Newt Gingrich, of course! Buzzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing. Please try again.
Ah, then it must have been 'non-establishment', sweater-vested Rick Santorum! Buzzzzzzzz! Wrong again. One more guess.
Hmmm... Well, Mitt Romney is the Establishment Republican candidate so surely he'd give an Establishment Republican answer. Dang! I'm stumped. Who was that other guy?
Have you noticed that there are quite a few of these 'only one candidate' situations in this campaign? Only one candidate has committed to cutting $1 trillion from the budget in the first year. Only one candidate actually voted against ObamaCare. Only one candidate has been entirely consistent on his approach to government interference in our healthcare and for that matter, the rest of our daily lives. Only one candidate has a different perspective on the effects and wisdom of drug prohibition. The list is long. Guess what? 99% of the time, that 'only one candidate' is Congressman Ron Paul. Hey! You might even say that Ron Paul is the 99% candidate.
But, back to U.S./Cuba relations... Granted, Congressman Paul's answer wasn't particularly eloquent. But, you know what? His answer was principled. It was clear that he doesn't spend a lot of time meditating on the minutiae of the U.S./Cuba relationship. He doesn't have to. He's spent his life meditating on the subtleties of liberty and the Constitution. And when some esoteric question arises, as usual, he applies the standards of liberty and the Constitution. By these standards, his answer made complete sense. It was even obvious. We should talk with Cuba, trade with them and stop committing and threatening acts of war.
Now that we've contrasted the platitudinous, Establishment Republican answer with the Congressman's principled answer, let's examine the practical effects of the Establishment Republican approach to U.S./Cuba relations. Perhaps we might be able to make a judgment on whether this approach has been a success or a failure.
So, what is the U.S. attempting to accomplish with this embargo? The embargo began in earnest in the early 1960's after Castro came to power and nationalized the property of U.S. citizens. The embargo underwent several adjustments and renewals in the 70's, 80's and 90's. To summarize the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the U.S. seeks "a peaceful transition to democracy" in Cuba and will "maintain sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights." In a nutshell, the U.S. government wants democracy in Cuba.
After three years of an Obama regime, Republicans are fond of asking the question, "How's that hope and change working out for ya'?". Well, I've got a question. How has 50 years of a trade embargo against Cuba worked out for the U.S. and the Cuban people? Last I looked, a Castro is still the dictator, gunboats still patrol the waters looking for aspiring emigrants and the Cuban people are horribly oppressed and impoverished. As usual, it's not the Castro regime but the people of Cuba, who we are ostensibly trying to help, that are feeling the sharp end of the busybody's good intentions stick.
What kind of dementia afflicts a person who can look at this policy and not see that it hasn't achieved its stated purpose? Is 50 years just not quite long enough? Then, after examining the waste and destruction they have wrought, they propose to prolong and, if possible, intensify it? I'm reminded of Einstein's definition of insanity.
And Rush Limbaugh and respected 'conservative' media everywhere call Congressman Paul, crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment