A Grand Illusion

We were one cheating cop away from winning the Hunt. But you wouldn’t find a cooler team.

… This is probably as good as it gets.

Who do you think knows best the reality of Cuba? Oscar Espinosa Chepe, arguing for the lifting of the travel ban to Cuba. It is the same rational argument many of us have made: isolationism only makes it easy for the tyranny to continue repressing the people.

La política estadounidense, sin quererlo, ha brindado durante decenios al absolutismo cubano la coartada para cultivar el nacionalismo, el miedo al “enemigo externo”, y la excusa para reprimir y justificar el desastre interno provocado por el propio sistema.

[...]

Estados Unidos el levantamiento de las prohibiciones a sus ciudadanos para visitar Cuba, algunos legisladores siguen sin comprender la importancia política del encuentro masivo de norteamericanos y cubanos, como un elemento sumamente valioso para demostrar las ventajas de la libertad para el pueblo cautivo de la Isla.

Ellos sólo perciben el hecho real del fomento de los ingresos por concepto de turismo, sin tener en consideración el factor político y humano, cuando en Cuba se desarrolla una gran toma de conciencia sobre la necesidad del cambio radical de un sistema que ha llevado la nación al desastre.

[...]

Algunos insisten en que el gobierno cubano emprenda cambios sustanciales antes de que Washington tome medidas liberalizadoras. No parecen comprender que en el gobierno cubano se mantienen fuertes personalidades sin el más mínimo interés por el mejoramiento de las relaciones con Estados Unidos, sino todo lo contrario. Necesitan que se mantenga el clima de hostilidad y, por las actuales condiciones críticas del país, que se acreciente, lo que promueven mediante provocaciones y actos hostiles.

We know hardliners won’t listen, but the rest of the world does.

… and no communists in China.

While class struggle and common ownership of property may have motivated the revolution, Mao’s heirs are more interested in outcomes than process. At least a dozen times, officials and businesspeople have quoted Deng Xiaoping’s line about not caring whether a cat is black and white, as long as it catches the mouse. Chinese structures—whether socioeconomic theories or apartment buildings—don’t have to be elegant; they just have to stand up. And so far, 30 years into the great China experiment, the elites are confident that the grafting of capitalism onto a state-controlled economy, overseen by a government controlled by a Communist Party, is standing up.

…have decided to extend us the same honor they extended to SFDB before: links from AGI to Babalu posts are being redirected to Shrub’s presidential library’s website.

Puerile, laughable and ineffectual (it doesn’t even work on every browser), but that’s hardliners for you. Not secure enough in their convictions to test them in a real battlefield of ideas. Instead they insult, bully, belittle, censor and ban anybody who doesn’t join their little Greek chorus. Just take a look at the comments in any of their posts. The last time I saw so many people toeing the party line it was in communist Cuba.

In contrast, Val Prieto and his friends have always been welcomed here and have taken advantage of that privilege extensively. That is exactly the purpose of a blog in my opinion, to foment the free debate of ideas no matter how antagonistic. Obviously they don’t think the same way, and it is obvious to any outside observer which one of these attitudes is really congruent with the ideals of a democratic society.

No matter. I’ll continue to take them to task, because I decided a while ago that Babalu’s hardliner views weren’t going to be the only English-language representative of Cubans and Cuban Americans in the blogosphere, and I’m joined by my co-bloggers in this effort. They aren’t even the majority anymore, and they won’t go unchallenged.

And from now on, I’ll just copy and paste the pertinent link in the text of the post, in case you want to see what I’m reacting to. They can close the door of their little house, but they can’t keep the world from peeking inside.

Ah, Yoani. Not only she cofounds the regime in Havana, she’s also becoming a thorn on the side of hardliners. The loudest voice from Havana refuses to conform to their script, first the original sin of returning to Cuba from Switzerland with her family (the horror, taking her son back, ala Elian), then expressing sympathetic views to Obama during the presidential campaign (brainwashed!), then unequivocally supporting the Juanes concert (spy!), then sending a message to the US Congress favoring the lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba (agent of influence!) and the cherry on top, asking seven questions of Obama -and getting responses!

It’s enough to make hardliners bang their heads against walls trying to figure out how to counteract this arriviste from Havana, and their responses range from the bilious (See here, but especially here) to the Cuban Liberty Council, which trying to scoop some Yoani magic for themselves, came out of irrelevance to give her their pompously-named award. And now, via the usual suspects, this plainly manipulative open letter to Yoani Sanchez, from Capitol Hill Cubans (aka Mauricio Claver-Carone, the hardliner du jour).

You are undoubtedly a heroine, not to mention the future of Cuba.

Regardless of any disagreement that we may have regarding U.S. policy towards Cuba, we certainly respect your right to voice that disagreement, as we’re confident you respect our right to disagree.

That is the diversity of our views (and the roots of a future democracy).

Well, putting aside the brown nosing, that’s certainly refreshing. A hardliner admitting not only that the future of Cuba will be in the hands of the Cubans in the island, but also praising diversity of views. Beats accusing opposing views of being naive, colaborationists, dialogueros or infatuated with Castro, like Ros-Lehtinen just did to Gen. McCaffrey.

When you were abducted and assaulted by the Castro regime’s thugs on November 6th, not one of the current 178 Members of Congress that have co-sponsored legislation to unconditionally lift tourism sanctions towards Cuba — nor its advocates — raised their voice in concern or condemnation.

Similarly, Friday’s physical attack by the regime’s thugs against your husband, Reinaldo, did not seem to disturb the conscience of those Members of Congress, nor their advocates. It was, once again, met with disturbing silence.

Yet, the same people that urged you to weigh-in on behalf of their views during last week’s Congressional hearing on US policy towards Cuba, have left no stone unturned, exerting all of their energy and efforts, to exploit your views for their political gain.

This is just laughable. Claver-Carone’s PAC spends tons of money in contributions to legislators trying to defeat the very initiatives Yoani supports -and he’s the one innocently on her side, with no political goal in mind? Following his logic, he’s even more guilty of contributing to the beatings suffered by Yoani and her husband. Their assailants were chanting against the embargo, and they cite it as the main reason why they have to repress free expression in the island.

Simply put, they seek to take advantage of our family’s diversity, in the hopes of hindering our united purpose.

What united purpose can Claver-Carone claim, when he is the one frantically spending all his efforts to continue a failed policy of isolation that’s been proven to benefit solely the Castro regime? Since when has unity of purpose mattered when it has come to tarnish and accuse any voice that’s not for isolationism, to belittle any effort other than stubborn confrontation, to defend policies that pit people against people, taking their cues from the same regime they profess to detest so much?

What this letter proves is that hardliners are deadly scared of the moderate alternatives and engagement. If it’s as ineffective as they profess it to be, then let us try it; the lack of results will be all the proof they need to continue arguing for isolation and they have certainly had their opportunity and blew it. But they don’t really care for Cuba, you see, their allegiance is to the Republican party and the plight of Cubans only matters to them as a vote collecting device. If there were to be a change in Cuba while Obama is president, they are liable to ask for it to be rolled back, just out of spite.

One more thing (and Claver-Carone knows this because he’s no dummy): the reason Yoani has achieved the credibility in the international stage is precisely because she doesn’t act like a hardliner.

—————————————————————-

Update: Babalublog censors incoming links from AGI. The linked posts are:

http://babalublog.com/2009/11/cuban-regime-dissidents-vs-cuban-regime-opponents-on-the-embargo/

http://babalublog.com/2009/11/a-message-for-yoani-sanchez/

She posed seven simple questions to both the president of the United States of America and to the leadership in Cuba.

Obama has responded and that is the link above. So far the Castros have not responded and never will.

This is what America really is: we open lines of communications, we tear down walls not build them up and we do not terrorize and torture our citizens (or anyone else).

Is there any question as to how to move forward? You empower the Cubans on the island to speak out against their inneffective and morally bankrupt government. You do not cut out the legs underneath them by making their situation worse so you can pinch your fat little cheeks in Miami and bask in your own moral superiority.

Yet some people still call her naive and question her sincerity while still pretending to work on behalf of the Cuban people even though their policies are at odds with each other.

The questions (click the link for Obama’s answers):

Questions for Raúl Castro, president of Cuba:

1. What negative influences on the ideological structure of the Cuban revolution might there be from an eventual improvement in relations with the United States?
2. You have demonstrated on several occasions your willingness to talk with the American government. Are you alone in this proposition? Have you discussed it with the other members of the Politburo to convince them of the need to talk? Does your brother Fidel Castro agree with regards to ending the conflict between the two governments?
3. You are seated at a table opposite Obama. What are the three major achievements you would wish to get from that conversation? What do you think would be the three major achievements that the American side would wish to get?
4. Can you list the concrete advantages the Cuban people would have in the present and in the future, if this long dispute between the two governments ended?
5. If the American side wanted to include a round of negotiations with the Cuban community in exile, members of opposition parties within the Island, and representatives of civil society, would you accept that proposal?
6. Do you think there is a real possibility that the current United States government would opt to use military force against Cuba?

Questions for Barack Obama, president of the United States:

1. For years Cuba has been a U.S. foreign policy issue as well as a domestic one, in particular because of the large Cuban American community. From your perspective, in which of the two categories should the Cuban issue fit?
2. Should your administration be willing to put an end to this dispute, would it recognize the legitimacy of the Raul Castro government as the only valid interlocutor in the eventual talks?
3. Has the U.S. government renounced the use of military force as a way to end the dispute?
4. Raúl Castro has said publicly that he is open to discuss any topic with the U.S. provided there is mutual respect and a level playing field. Is Raúl asking too much?
5. In a hypothetical U.S.- Cuba dialog, would you entertain participation from the Cuban exile community, the Cuba-based opposition groups and nascent Cuban civil society groups?
6. You strongly support the development of new communication and information technologies. But, Cubans continue to have limited access to the internet. How much of this is due to the U.S. embargo and how much of it is the responsibility of the Cuban government?
7. Would you be willing to travel to our country?

You can almost hear nutwingers heads’ blowing up.

Watch Brit Hume at the end who hasn’t found a single good argument supporting the trials in New York except for the Constitution which he isn’t that sure about.

Senator Robert Byrd:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Despite a slow start, Ross Douthat’s more recent columns and posts have been pretty reasonable.

On the recent wave of populism:

From Glenn Beck to the Tea Parties, much of the energy in the post-Bush G.O.P. is with people who have grasped, albeit sometimes in inchoate ways, that big government and big business are increasingly on one team, and the champions of free markets and limited government are on the other. But they don’t know what to do about it, and what they do seem to know — cutting taxes, and letting the rest take care of itself — is often non-responsive, not only to the problems the country faces, but to the problems they themselves have diagnosed.

The same issue was brought up in this New Yorker article (Subscription Required). Basically big companies who complain about regulation have no problem supporting those regulations that hurt their competitors.

Although you’d think that small government idealists and big businesses would be on the same side their goals are actually different. The former wants a reduced role for the government, less regulation, lower taxes etc but the prerogative of the latter is really only to maximize profits. Of course, people who favor small government argue that their proposals, by enabling the invisible (magic) hand of the market, would, in all situations, increase profits and maximize innovation. That subtle difference of opinion where one group believes in a specific method which they say would achieve the goal of maximizing profits (but really what’s important is the method) and the other that just wants to maximize profits (they don’t really care how) sometimes put the two groups at odds with each other.

Where I would disagree with Douthat is the claim that Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers “have grasped” that sometimes they and big businesses do not share the same goals. The frustrating thing is how often big businesses whip up the anger of near- sighted populists to meet their own ends when their goals happen to match and how often Tea Baggers and their ilk seem to sympathize with businesses that care only about making money and not any mythology of American entrepreneurship or innovation.

Following up on this:

“It also shows how money rules policy toward Cuba, not principles, ethics, justice and morality.”

You think?

From Daniel Luban:

“Despite the Iran hawks’ over-the-top expressions of solidarity with the Green Movement, in actuality nothing would have been more disastrous for them than for Moussavi and the opposition to have triumphed. If Moussavi had taken power and announced that Iran would continue uranium enrichment – which seems extremely likely, given his record of repeated public pronouncements in support of the Iranian nuclear program – this would have put the hawks in the politically untenable position of calling for military action against the same people they had been hailing as saintly voices of freedom and democracy all summer. The same logic that made neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes support Ahmadinejad prior to the election suggested that few were genuinely hoping for a Moussavi victory.”

Yes please.

On the right’s reaction to comments made (or not) in Japan:

How dismaying that a loud subset of the right so consistently demands that President Obama privilege their childish desire for self-righteous rhetoric above the actual demands of statesmanship. What good would it possibly do to tell the Japanese, “Yes, I think it was right to incinerate your cities”? It wouldn’t do any good. On the other side of the ledger, it would antagonize an allied nation, put its leadership in a difficult spot that might impede its ability to help the United States. President Obama is also endeavoring to slow nuclear proliferation, so it would hardly due to have headlines in Iranian newspapers pointing out that even as he demands that other nations give up nuclear weapons, he is saying that their only actual use in history was justified.

They are bankrupt and Friedersdorf is right that they have become all about rhetoric. This was brewing even before Obama won the presidency (remember the flag pin scandal?). Then there’s Cuba: our policies are not only not working but hurting Cubans? Oh well, fuck it. We can’t be seen as soft on communism.