Poll: It’s Time to Normalize Relations With Cuba

A bike-taxi and a vintage American car are seen in front of a building decorated with a large Cuban flag, on December 31, 2013, in Havana. A new regulation released by Cuban President Raul Castro will allow Cubans or foreign residents to freely buy new or used cars in government-run stores as of January 3, 2014; after 50 years of automobile sales regulations. 
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Feb. 24, 2014, 5 p.m.

Every once in a while, a polit­ic­al ca­nard is ex­posed — something that once may have been gen­er­ally ac­cep­ted and per­haps true, but has re­mained a part of the con­ven­tion­al wis­dom.

Such is the case with the view that any kind of nor­mal­iz­a­tion of re­la­tions with Cuba is a polit­ic­al third rail; that is to say, if you touch it, you die (or get de­feated). In the Cold War era, par­tic­u­larly in the 1960s, nor­mal­iz­a­tion of re­la­tions with Cuba was a non­starter, and in fact, it was dan­ger­ous for most politi­cians to sup­port.

But that day has long since passed. In all but pos­sibly a hand­ful of con­gres­sion­al dis­tricts in Flor­ida and New Jer­sey — if even there — this is a noth­ing-bur­ger is­sue. Few voters would have any prob­lem with it. Like the mis­sile silos in North Dakota, our policy to­ward Cuba is a Cold War rel­ic that has long since passed its time.

A new bi­par­tis­an na­tion­al sur­vey points to strong and broad-based sup­port for a ma­jor change in U.S. policy to­ward Cuba, even among Re­pub­lic­ans.

In­deed, Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers rep­res­ent­ing farm states have a par­tic­u­lar in­cent­ive to sup­port le­gis­la­tion that would cre­ate a new mar­ket for U.S. goods, par­tic­u­larly corn and grain, just 90 miles off the coast of Flor­ida.

Com­mis­sioned by the At­lantic Coun­cil, a highly re­spec­ted for­eign policy think tank, and its Ad­rienne Arsht Lat­in Amer­ica Cen­ter, the poll was con­duc­ted Jan. 7-22, in Eng­lish and Span­ish, among 1,024 adults na­tion­wide. The sur­vey also in­cluded an over-sample of 617 Flor­idi­ans, so that their at­ti­tudes could be giv­en par­tic­u­lar fo­cus, and had a mar­gin of er­ror of plus or minus 3.1 per­cent­age points na­tion­ally and 4.0 points for the Flor­ida group. The sur­vey was con­duc­ted jointly by Re­pub­lic­an poll­ster Glen Bol­ger of Pub­lic Opin­ion Strategies and Demo­crat­ic poll­ster Paul Maslin of Fairb­ank, Maslin, Maul­lin, Metz, & As­so­ci­ates. Both are among the best poll­sters in the coun­try.

Na­tion­ally, 56 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans sup­port either nor­mal­iz­ing re­la­tions or en­ga­ging more dir­ectly with Cuba; just 35 per­cent are op­posed. Sup­port for a policy change is also re­flec­ted in the num­bers of people who feel most in­tensely about the is­sue, with 30 per­cent of the over­all sample strongly fa­vor­ing such a change and 26 per­cent some­what in fa­vor, while 22 per­cent strongly op­pose and an­oth­er 13 per­cent some­what op­pose this. Nine per­cent have no opin­ion. Among Demo­crats and in­de­pend­ents, 60 per­cent fa­vor chan­ging re­la­tions; 31 per­cent of Demo­crats and 30 per­cent of in­de­pend­ents are op­posed. Even among Re­pub­lic­ans, 52 per­cent fa­vor a change in policy, with 41 per­cent in op­pos­i­tion.

In Flor­ida, the state with the most Cuban-Amer­ic­ans and the one geo­graph­ic­ally closest and most likely to fol­low and be af­fected by U.S.-Cuba re­la­tions, 63 per­cent fa­vor a change — 7 points more than the na­tion­al sup­port level. Only 30 per­cent op­pose a change, 5 points few­er than the na­tion­al op­pos­i­tion. So much for the idea that a pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate fa­vor­ing nor­mal­iz­a­tion would lose any chance of car­ry­ing Flor­ida.

Among His­pan­ics na­tion­wide, 62 per­cent sup­port a change in policy, while 30 per­cent op­pose it. These num­bers are al­most identic­al to the Flor­ida at­ti­tudes.

Look­ing at spe­cif­ic policy op­tions, 62 per­cent na­tion­ally sup­port al­low­ing more Amer­ic­an com­pan­ies to do busi­ness in Cuba, while just 36 per­cent op­pose it. Look­ing at in­tens­ity, 35 per­cent strongly sup­port that op­tion; 24 per­cent strongly op­pose it. Among Flor­idi­ans, the over­all num­bers are 63 per­cent in sup­port, 32 per­cent op­pos­ing (with 40 per­cent strongly sup­port­ing a change, and 21 per­cent strongly op­pos­ing). Among Lati­nos na­tion­ally, 65 per­cent sup­port, and 32 per­cent op­pose (40 per­cent strongly sup­port; 20 per­cent strongly op­pose).

An­oth­er policy op­tion would be to re­move re­stric­tions on U.S. cit­izens spend­ing dol­lars in Cuba. Sixty-one per­cent sup­port such a policy change, while 35 per­cent op­pose it (35 per­cent strongly sup­port; 22 per­cent strongly op­pose). At­ti­tudes among Flor­idi­ans were quite sim­il­ar, with 63 per­cent in sup­port and 32 per­cent in op­pos­i­tion (40 per­cent strongly sup­port; 19 per­cent strongly op­pose). Lati­nos’ mar­gin of sup­port was even high­er, with 67 per­cent sup­port­ing and 29 per­cent op­pos­ing (38 per­cent strongly sup­port; 18 per­cent strongly op­pose).

An­oth­er ques­tion in the poll con­cerned re­mov­ing all re­stric­tions on travel to Cuba by U.S. cit­izens, an idea which was sup­por­ted by 61 per­cent na­tion­ally, and op­posed by only 36 per­cent (35 per­cent strongly sup­port; 20 per­cent strongly op­pose). Sup­port for travel was even high­er among Cuba’s next-door neigh­bors in Flor­ida, where 67 per­cent sup­port the lift­ing of travel re­stric­tions, and just 29 per­cent op­pose (38 per­cent strongly sup­port; 18 per­cent strongly op­pose). Fi­nally, the num­bers were very sim­il­ar among His­pan­ics, of whom 66 per­cent sup­port the idea, and just 31 per­cent op­pose it (37 per­cent strongly sup­port; 16 per­cent strongly op­pose).

The only ques­tion that was at all a close call was wheth­er to al­low Cuba ac­cess to high-speed In­ter­net tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions sys­tems based in the U.S., a ques­tion that just 52 per­cent of re­spond­ents sup­por­ted, with 43 per­cent op­pos­ing the idea. Al­though, again, the Flor­ida num­bers were more sup­port­ive of the In­ter­net ques­tion: 64 per­cent voiced sup­port, with only 28 per­cent op­pos­ing the no­tion. Among His­pan­ics it was 55 per­cent sup­port, 33 per­cent op­pose.

It is hard to ar­gue that U.S. policy to­ward Cuba has been any­thing but spec­tac­u­larly un­suc­cess­ful. Either Fi­del or Raul Castro has been in power since Feb­ru­ary 1959; so much for our isol­a­tion of Cuba destabil­iz­ing the Castro re­gimes. Years ago, a former Ca­na­dian am­bas­sad­or to Cuba told me privately that then-Prime Min­is­ter Fi­del Castro would have prob­ably been gone long ago, or at least big changes would have taken place on the is­land, if the U.S. had nor­mal­ized re­la­tions. He ar­gued that, with an in­creas­ingly glob­al eco­nomy and com­mu­nic­a­tions ad­vances, the same forces that helped East­ern European coun­tries shed the yoke of Com­mun­ism prob­ably would have helped trans­form Cuba as well, had it not al­ways had the U.S. to scape­goat for all of its prob­lems.

Some of Amer­ica’s strongest al­lies and most im­port­ant trad­ing part­ners are coun­tries that we once fought against and with which we had le­git­im­ate griev­ances at one point or an­oth­er. Even­tu­ally, however, na­tions have to move on; it’s time for the tiny band of in­transigent Cuban-Amer­ic­an politi­cians who are car­ry­ing on this fu­tile cru­sade to throw in the tow­el and ac­cept the new real­ity, or for oth­ers to just ig­nore them and forge a more ra­tion­al policy.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×