a presidential fetish
by Cherry Vichette
Published: May 8, 2008
In response to the recent economic reforms instituted by Raul Castro, President Bush made the following statement:
Cuba will not be a land of liberty so long as free expression is punished and free speech can take place only in hushed whispers and silent prayers. And Cuba will not become a place of prosperity just by easing restrictions on the sale of products that the average Cuban cannot afford.
Well… true, President Bush, but Cuba will also not be a land of liberty so long as its people aren’t allowed to buy cell phones, weekend getaways at ritzy hotels and a plot of land on which to grow corn. Those are the freedoms that have recently been afforded the Cuban people; there’s even talk of lifting some restrictions on travel. Now when Fidel addressed the subjects of travel and restrictions during his reign, he always included the adjective “more.” Something is definitely changing in Cuba and unfortunately the only people unwilling to acknowledge the policy shifts are in the current administration.
Of course, no one would argue that Cuba should be given the Human Rights Award for opening up its resorts to the locals. Neither will the installation of a right to purchase a cell phone spawn a movement to award Raul Castro the Nobel Peace Prize. Cuba is still a human rights disaster, complete with stifling economic policies and silly socialist rhetoric. So yes, Mr. Bush, you do have a point. But why the chip on your shoulder? Are you expecting Raul to sing the Star Spangled Banner during his radio addresses and follow that up with a discourse on the revolutionary spirit of Adam Smith?
The fact is that the world is witnessing the end of Fidel-style socialism in Cuba. It will start with cell phones and a few acres of potato fields and end with a free society. It’s the same thing that is happening in China. The country began in 1978 by instituting the economic reforms that have fueled the country’s growth and resulted in the privatization of over 70% of the Chinese economy. Obviously, the party leadership frames the reforms within the context of their “Marxist Revolution,” while the rest of the world rightly frames the reforms within the context of “Capitalism.” The bottom line is that giving people freedom makes them want more - and eventually they’ll get what they want.
If America really wants the island of Cuba to experience a “change of heart and a change of compassion and a change of how the Cuban government treats its people” (another Bush rant), then we ought to “change” how we respond to the first signs of genuine economic freedom in over 50 years. Instead of whining about their communist society why not help Raul convert it into a democratic society; removing restrictions on Cuban imports would be a great start.
But alas, becoming president of the United States entails developing a resentment of “The Little Island That Could… Remain Communist.” President Kennedy had the most accute case of Makecubalikeusnowitis, but each successive inhabitant of the Oval Office has developed his own particular version of the fetish. It’s an unhealthy obsession and unfortunately President Bush is going to give us more of the same.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(6)
May 8th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
If you want to make the argument that economic liberalization will inevitably lead to political liberalization, the PRC is the wrong example to use (though I think it is the correct example to look at when determining our Cuban policy).
While it is true that Communist China has experienced a great deal of growth driven by the opening of markets in that country, the government has tightened its grip to political power, and swiftly quashed dissent when it has occurred (see Tibet and Xinjiang for further details). Furthermore, China’s newfound wealth has fueled a massive military buildup, and allowed it to lend financial and economic support to regimes like those in Sudan, Burma, and Zimbabwe.
Raul Castro’s regime has undoubtedly studied the policy of the PRC, and learned the lessons provided. China will not become a democratic power any time in the foreseeable future, and there is no reason to think Cuba would be any different.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I’ll concede that I’m not going to open up the paper tomorrow and find that the Chinese are holding national elections. But compare Beijing circa 1978 to what it is today and the two cities are worlds apart. Economic freedoms will spawn political ones. It may take a few generations but it will happen. Why not start the process as soon as possible?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Economic freedoms may indeed spawn political freedoms…or the situation may remain as it is today. I firmly believe that political liberty cannot exist without economic freedom, but I don’t see that it necessarily is a two-way street. The Roman Empire existed as a military despotism for centuries (until Diocletian) without interfering in the economy. Some more recent examples would be Spain and Portugal for the middle portion of the twentieth century, and modern day Russia, which has actually regressed politically since Putin first took office.
It’s a nice thought that if people just start buying cell phones and eating at McDonald’s, they’ll demand a free civic society and start voting. However, as a student of politics, I’ve yet to see the evidence that this is the case. Liberty is not the natural state of human affairs. As Ronald Reagan said, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
But if we can’t cheer on cell phone sales what are we suppose to do? Kindly ask Raul to allow us to set up an opposition newspaper in Havana? You may be right about Rome but that doesn’t change the fact that the govt. should be congratulating the Cubans not dissing them.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:16 am
What kind of message does it send, if we care so little about democracy that some token steps, that, if you think about it, are patently ridiculous in the broad scheme of things, get us to shut up about political liberty and human rights, and embrace a dictator? It says that the Castro is right, that we really don’t care about those things we profess to love, we just want to be able to sell out products to them. It plays right into the regime’s Marxist ideology, and denounces us as hypocrites.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
It seems to me that it’s highly debateable whether ecomomic freedom inevitably leads to political freedom. It’s one of those theories that sounds plausible, but I’m hard pressed to think of even one historical example where it’s happened that way. From Chile to China, we’ve seen countries with relatively high economic freedom and very little political freedom continue that way indefinately.
That said, shouldn’t we cheer on ANY progress? If I had a choice of living in a society where I am dirt poor and forced to work in a sweatshop and have no right to vote and no freedom of speech, or to live in a society where I am rich and comfortable and have no right to vote and no freedom of speech, surely #2 is clearly better. No society is perfect. I have plenty of complaints about the U.S. But I’d much rather live here than in Gaza or Zimbabwe.