Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: eskimospy
It isn't just pride, it's the Democratic and Republican craving for the anti-Castro Florida Cuban vote.
Well not really. The Cuban expatriates have in the past, and continue to vote overwhelmingly Republican. They aren't being courted too heavily by the Democrats. In fact, if you remember the Elian Gonzales thing, Clinton acted specifically against the wishes of the exiles.
Yes, really!
No, not so much!
The reason for why we continue the embargo is so much more then courting a bunch of retards in south florida.... please don't ruin this topic too. I beg of you.
I'll bold for you if you'll bold for me:
Fidel Decides US Presidential Elections
Election by popular vote would ensure that the Florida Cuban vote doesn't have undue influence
by Steven Hill
When Fidel Castro recently underwent intestinal surgery, suddenly there was a whirl of news stories in the US media, the type of attention usually reserved for rock stars and champion athletes.
What is this love-hate fascination with the ruler of a small island nation? Is it the tempestuous Cold War history, Cuba's close proximity to Florida, memories of the boy Elian, or the beautiful beaches and palm trees?
Certainly all of those are part of the mystique. But when it comes to our political leaders' obsession, the answer is more fundamental.
Simply put, Fidel is hugely responsible for who gets elected president of the United States. That may sound strange, but it's true. And it illustrates the worst aspects of our peculiar system of electing the president.
The presidency is the only elected office where a candidate can win a majority of the popular vote but lose the election. Instead, a candidate wins by capturing a majority of Electoral College votes won state by state in winner-take-all contests.
Most states are strongholds of either the Democratic or Republican parties, creating a presidential battlefield of "safe" states and "undecided" states.
As a campaign strategist, the winning calculus is simple: you ignore the safe states and focus on the handful of battleground states that decide the winner.
Yet as we saw in the last two presidential elections,
two battleground states were most important-Ohio and Florida. Florida, our fourth largest state with 27 electoral votes-one-tenth of the number needed for victory-is the biggest of prizes in the presidential sweepstakes.
Voters in Florida are much more important to who wins the presidential election than voters in any other state except Ohio.
The extremely close presidential race in Florida is heavily influenced by a particular group of voters: Cuban Americans. They are a well-financed and vocal minority with a leadership of Cuban exiles that for decades has loved to hate Fidel.
Both Democrats and Republicans fall all over themselves to court the Cuban vote, which comprises only one half of 1% of the US population. This special interest group has much greater influence than their size should warrant for no other reason than the crucial role that Florida plays in our presidential election.
Recall the fiasco around the Cuban boy Elian, the six-year-old who survived a nightmarish ordeal at sea, only to get caught in the nets of presidential campaign politics. Vice president Al Gore, who was running for president, disregarded his own administration's policy by making a pilgrimage to Florida to support the Cuban leaders' bid to hold the boy in the US. The Clinton administration had to order law enforcement to forcibly remove Elian. It was a high stakes drama, yet if Elian had been Haitian instead of Cuban, or if his plight had unfolded in Wyoming, a solid GOP state with only three electoral votes, no one would have cared.
But events in Florida are dramatically amplified, especially when Cuba is involved.
Anything related to Cuba degenerates into political pandering to the anti-Fidel vote, because small shifts in the Florida vote can have huge impacts.
=============
Your point that we maintain the relationship we do with Cuba out of pride is shallow. In order to understand the counterproductive nature of our policy toward Cuba we need to add this understanding of the power of the Cuban vote into the mixture. The Florida Cubans will not die when Castro does and their vote will remain important after his death and continue to influence our relationship with Cuba. What will influence our attitude toward a new Cuba will rest in part with the evolution and change in the new generations of Cubans coming on the scene and their evolving perspectives. Rapprochement with Cuba won't require politicians swallowing some imaginary national pride as it will a lack of fear that it won't cost a party the election. I think the death of Castro will take a good deal of steam out of the fanatical right winged faction of American Cubans, reduce their voting influence, and introduce the prospect of a more rational national policy toward Cuba.
While I agree the OP's point:
"I think Cuba's in a Catch-22. For the regime to survive post-Castro, it must transform its
economic system. But transforming the economic system will take away the
government's stability."
and also agree with the 'Cuba needs to do' portion of the following:
"But in the end, the US isn't the one that should -or can- make Cuba a normal country. They have to do it themselves."
I disagree that they need to do it all themselves. I see no reason why a rational US policy toward Cuba couldn't help them enormously with their catch 22. We still have power to help or hinder them.
Facebook
Twitter