What are your thoughts about Ted Cruz? Do you think the raza in Texas will come out to support him?

A while ago, The Economist, did a cover story on ‘Networking.’ It explained how some groups did better than others by relying on ‘established’ or ‘informal’ networks. The story noted the most powerful ones and how rising or emerging groups use available networks or create new ones. Moreover, the article attempted to describe the ‘transnational’ dimension as well as the ‘domestic or national’ one. It also focused mostly on the Anglophone or the British Isles and its former enclaves or possessions which included the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well as the United Kingdom. It briefly discussed the more recent British colony: India.

The authors of the piece examined these countries primarily on old schools ties like prep schools: the UK’s Eaton being the most notable and the American exclusive New England prep schools like Andover, St. Paul’s, Exeter and Groton, among others. These exclusive high schools have traditionally served the WASP elite in the US. In other countries, the equivalent schools serve similar purposes. The alumni groups and the outreach programs from current students to successful alumni are most significant. The elite colleges and universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford, were also noted to understand the power and influence of networking. Military schools like West Point and Annapolis as well as Britain’s Sandhurst were deemed to be equally important. These institutions serve to credential those fortunate to attend but also to establish networks for safeguarding communications and links among the student body and the former successful alumni, especially the powerful and influential ones. Academic recognition in becoming a Rhodes scholar or Marshall Fellow also bestows a plethora of networking opportunities on the international level.

Networking usually and traditionally has served the elite or uppers in society. They are born into ambitious, powerful or wealthy classes. Many observers agree that the difference between the rich and the poor is glaring in terms of connections or networking. The poor are virtually ‘isolated’, not necessarily deprived. In simple terms the more affluent have easy access or are well-versed in the value of networking. Hence, in order to remedy the gulf between the haves and the have-nots current efforts include: established institutions’ recruitment of new and diverse members who have been selected and vetted by these elite organizations or schools. Thus, the ‘unconnected or isolated poor’ are targeted for scholarly recognition.

Moreover, networking is not limited to the privileged class connections but also includes membership in religious organizations or churches like the Opus Dei for Catholics or the Episcopal Church, the Mormon Temple or the Jewish synagogue and the related Jewish charitable organizations like B’nai Brith and Zionist movements. The different national Orthodox Churches also offer a wide-range of networking systems to Greeks, Russians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Armenians and others. Professional and business organizations also provide meaningful networking to its members, like the Davos Economic Forum, the US National Manufacturers Association, the US Chamber of Commerce, banking and financial groups, the Council on Foreign Relations, American Academy of Political Scientists, the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the mysterious Bohemian Grove, and the mover and shaker Junior League for women in higher circles. Several charitable boards like the Red Cross, the Metropolitan Museum the Metropolitan Opera, and the symphony societies of major cities offer a veritable entry into both the national and local power structure.

Among African-Americans, the civil rights groups have effectively helped many blacks rely on the old warriors or stalwarts for connections. This includes the NAACP, the Urban League, and the myriad local civil rights groups. The African-American Methodist Episcopal (AME) is widely regarded as the ‘first among equals’ in the Black churches’ hierarchy. More interesting perhaps is the special value of ‘connecting’ in the national network of black college fraternities. African-Americans place significant value in the black fraternities after graduation. The United Negro College Fund also provides ample networking possibilities.

The other groups prominently mentioned in The Economist besides the run of the mill Anglo-Saxon power elites were the Jews, Armenians, Chinese, and Indians (South Asians). These represent a global diaspora of the enormous opportunities of unlimited possibilities. The increasing global growth of expatriated South Asians in the high tech sector and in international trade also provides a new network of ‘who is who’ in the on-going convergence of key technologies like computer technology and telecommunications. This ‘new economy’ has unleashed multiple networking arrangements.

The only Latinos mentioned in The Economist piece were the Cubans. It briefly alluded to their plight from their homeland which caused the diaspora to remain primarily in the US. But, at the same time, many went to Europe (Spain) and South America (Venezuela and Argentina) and a handful to Asia (Hong Kong and Singapore). Cubans came from a small island country where virtually all higher circles members knew ‘who was who’ or had access to each other. They represented a relatively small white elite and business class. Those who initially left were predominantly from these ‘haves’. Whereas the vast majority of the have-nots stayed in Cuba. The Castro upheaval forced these white exiles to flee Cuba over fifty years ago with their connections intact. As they resigned themselves to remain abroad for the foreseeable future, their social, professional, religious, economic and familial ties became key to their survival and success story abroad.

Long before the recent digital social networking phenomena arrived, the Cuban exiled diaspora was eagerly communicating with itself regardless of the distance. Moreover, the Cubans readily grasped that a “Cuban network” was indispensable to ensure a positive outcome in US society. This networking involved notification of jobs and resources available, as well as political developments on US policy towards Cuba. Readily, the Republican Party, anti-communist groups and conservative think tanks became the focus of these exiles. Additionally, securing positions for young Cubans in higher learning, government and business, and other efforts required constant and artful efforts. Possessing a solid educational level, many Cubans quickly determined that they needed special efforts to secure their children attendance to the Ivy League or similarly top schools. They also concluded that highly paid jobs in the public sector required access to those who were already connected, and in the private sector, they sought the necessary lines of credit for business creation and expansion. All these efforts required or suggested that connections or some networking was needed. To coordinate efforts and establish effective networks, the Cubans relied on the old school connections such as alumni from Jesuit or La Salle or Sacred Heart sponsored schools in Cuba. Social links in the Galician or the Asturian or Basque or Catalan cultural societies also proved to be useful while professional groups like the former Medical Society and the Cuban Bar Association were revived.

The collective goal of these political exiles developed into securing a piece of the American pie for themselves and fellow Cubans who continue to trickle in. Upon arrival, the leadership recognized that a well-structured and soundly connected network was required to project the diaspora’s socio-political objectives. This included the revival of many of the former social or economic structures which previously existed in Cuba. Only the Hungarian exiles in the 1950s came to the US with equally developed social and political skills. In sum, the Cubans and the Hungarians were uniquely effective in plugging into US society.

The other Latinos collectively have less know-how in creating ‘networks’ with such ease. Given the educational and socioeconomic levels of the bulk of recently arrived Latinos and many of the older Latino communities with ‘less favorable economic conditions’, networking has been elusive or plainly unattainable. Although the emerging Latino leadership and its aspiring followers have determined that the public policy sphere is ideal for networking or connecting, the question remains: How do we adopt as part of our culture the need and motivation to become connected, to turn into a cohesive population that seeks collective improvement? Increasingly, it appears such a mentality is beginning to bear fruit. Both political parties have felt the need to include and count on well-heeled and well-connected Latinos. The financial sector also shows signs of recruiting and connecting a healthy group of Latinos. The liberal professions like law and medicine also demonstrate an emerging high-tech Latino network. Academia has begun to show encouraging signs of Latinos interfacing in social science. The recently held “Latino Legacy Weekend” at Stanford University is an excellent example of the efforts to bring about a change and understanding that inclusion of our own in upwardly mobile plans will benefit all of us. As the latest census reveals that there are now over 50 million Hispanics in the US, hence, the challenge is for us to get this enormously varied Hispanic community to be aware of its need to become ‘digital’ and connect as active participants of this interactive global network in order to access multiple opportunities to succeed.

For those who have avoided a computer for the past few weeks, President Obama’s social media team is gearing up for his 2012 run with his ‘Are You In?’ campaign on Facebook. Essentially, one clicks that they’re “in”, gets bombarded with options to help with the campaign, and it’s off to the races. The only problem is that not everyone is “in.” If anything, Latinos are growing increasingly skeptical of President Obama’s ability to support our community beyond a White House Latin Music Night. As a close friend of mine stated, “I’m NOT in. Obama has my vote, no doubt. But I’m still not sure if he has my money or time. What happened to Immigration Reform? On that note, what the hell happened to the DREAM Act?” His point is valid, and allows us to dispense with the elephant in the room: President Obama has yet to deliver substance on the rhetoric he employed to secure the Latino vote. But more importantly, my friend’s comment embodies the demand that Obama be the “change” president for all disenfranchised groups.

When President Obama was elected, he became more than just the president. Every minority demographic and constituency who supported him felt he was the one to address their issues, and subsequently felt their needs warranted top priority in the Oval Office. Environmentalists saw him as the one to break our dependence on oil, the LGBT community saw him as the first glimmer of hope since Harvey Milk, education advocates felt he would fix NCLB, everyone thought he would end the wars, and the list is endless. I was guilty of this as well, feeling my time and money spent for Obama justified my demand he provide immigration reform, pass the DREAM Act, and end the Cuban embargo. It was incredibly misguided for people to think he would do everything for everyone in those first two years, especially since we didn’t know how eight years under Bubbles the Clown would derail “Change We Can Believe In.”

Simply, no one could have foreseen how the healthcare debate was going to turn into the actual Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, or how the economy was going to put nearly all American policy progress on hold. And of course, no one could have predicted a Republican Party platform of ‘Do absolutely nothing until Obama is out of Office.’ Even as we see a rebounding economy and know we’re much better off under Obama than we would have been under McCain, hardly anyone is happy. The tone of compromise and bi-partisanship looks like weakness, and has caused previous Obama season ticket holders to cancel their subscriptions. They’re still fans, just not willing to pay top dollar for an underperforming product. Indeed, it’s mind boggling to know that the Obama administration botched a prime opportunity to galvanize voters after Arizona kicked off a domino effect that showed the Republican Party’s true feelings towards Latinos. Even if Arizona is an outlier in the greater immigration debate, the reality is we’ve seen the American auto industry and LGBT community get more “change” than we have. Thus, I don’t blame my friend for hesitating to be “in” because Obama’s performance on Latino issues has been subpar at best.

This inaction becomes symbolic because it makes the Latino vote one in which we’ll essentially be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Republicans shouldn’t win the Latino vote by denying access to education for undocumented yet deserving students, and supporting the legalization of racial profiling. However, does that mean a Democrat should win simply because he doesn’t endorse such a platform? Ultimately, Obama wins the Latino vote because the alternative is reminiscent of some of the governments Latinos have fled their home countries from. Therefore, an Obama victory of the Latino vote should not be celebrated by any means, because it just means we will have picked the person who scares us less. If that’s the case, then why be “in”? For me, the answer is simple.

President Obama may not have delivered on what he promised, but he has set the stage to do so. We can’t have comprehensive immigration reform without healthcare reform, which took too long because people don’t have a consensus on healthcare as a right or a privilege. Then there’s the DREAM Act, which should have been passed, but wasn’t because Washington hasn’t found a way to sell it. And by sell it I mean people haven’t gotten the teacher’s unions to buy into it. It doesn’t take a viewing of Waiting for Superman to show us who is calling the shots educationally, meaning our pressure for the DREAM Act needs to start with the unions, not Washington. Combined with the fact President Obama inherited a three ring circus, we just can’t measure his success on two years that were dedicated to avoiding a depression and dealing with a political environment that is starting to mirror the drama of High School. Nor can we measure his success on catering to our needs over those of others, because he unintentionally became the “change” president for all marginalized groups.

Bottom line, we all think President Obama needs to satisfy our agenda now, even though history tells us he won’t. We also know his being reelected doesn’t guarantee that our issues are addressed, especially if Congress stays divided. But what we should also know is that reelection guarantees eight years of work towards a progressive policy agenda that affects all Americans, and will ultimately be shaped by Latinos in the coming decades. To ensure this happens, we need to be “in” and do more than just vote. The alternative of choosing a party comprised of Arizona-supporters, not voting, or casting a vote for independent candidates who will never win leaves too much to chance. Regrettably, what my friend said is probably the norm for a good number of Latino voters. Obama has their vote, but probably won’t have their time, money, or energy like he did the last time. I just hope that changes, because not being “in” is too risky.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

For the past year, I have been entrenched in thesis research on US-Cuba Policy, analyzing the embargo’s evolution from the perspective of the US presidency. (Before the haters slam that because of the US presidency angle, please note I was bound by fellowship guidelines to study the policy as it relates to the American presidency). As personally relevant as my work has been, it has also revealed incredibly unique insight into how American presidents could have handled the embargo, why certain events happened the way they did, and ultimately why a hard-line stance towards Cuba will not change any time soon. My hope was to author policy recommendations on how to end the embargo, which actually was easy enough. Instead, the difficulty came in writing something that rises above the Cuba fatigue on the Hill where we see no incentive to change, and a quagmire of hopelessness and despair for pro-normalization advocates like myself.

My path to finding the groundbreaking argument on normalization began with my research highlighting an incredible lack of attention paid to the Cuban perspective of the embargo. Please note, when I say Cuban perspective I mean academics and officials actually on the island, not Cuban-American politicians or the Calle Ocho scuttlebutt. Often in academia a balanced perspective on issues is difficult to find because of the inherent bias of any research we perform. When it comes to US-Cuba relations, this bias represents the limited and almost non-existent exchange of ideas that takes into account what Cubans on the island think. Such irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone, as an “exchange of ideas” is what the US government always harps on when slamming Cuba for their limited Internet access and state-run media. Although Harvard University does have a professorial exchange program with Cuba, finding actual Cuban research on the embargo is a road to nowhere. Instead, you’ll be left with newspaper and magazine articles from journalists who travel there, or field work from American PhD candidates.

The next idea was for me to find a way to mitigate the severe lack of forward thinking from my Cuban-American brothers and sisters on how we move forward. Historically, any discussion of constructive engagement of the Castro brothers is met with scorn, yet after over fifty years we see the same definition of insanity being read over and over again. I argue that if we want change to happen, we have got to stop demanding all the compromise in the world from everyone else and start respecting Cuba’s sovereignty. We rightfully slam Cuba for its lack of free elections, state controlled media, and deplorable human rights abuses. But any time Cuba has slammed the US for its race relations, inequitable education system, and flawed healthcare policy, we ignore them. This of course harks back to the Miami company line of zero tolerance when it comes to Castro, the extent of which most people probably aren’t aware of (the blacklisting of jobs and attacks on pro-normalization advocates are blogs for another day).

Indeed, it wasn’t easy as a progressive Cuban-American to dive into a subject I haven’t been able to escape since kindergarten and challenge the company line. But as always, a simple subscription to logic allowed me break the US-Cuba debate to its core, revealing one victim (Cubans on the island), a perennial policy failure (the embargo), and a competition between Washington and Havana to show who has the bigger ego. Bottom line, this isn’t working, and surprisingly the anti-Castro lobby isn’t the big hurdle in the argument. The hurdle is Congress, which holds the power to end the embargo through a law that states we either wait for a democratically elected government sans the Castro brothers. The alternative is for Congress to repeal its own law, not exactly a promising notion as long as the Cuban Three are in office.

Lastly, the final food for thought on this issue comes from the one interview I conducted, which was an unplanned, last minute dinner meeting with a former head of the US Interests Section in Havana (what can I say, the perks of guest speakers coming to Cornell). To sum up what was an outrageously informative and hilarious dinner conversation, Cuba hasn’t been a priority since the Reagan administration, when the US shot down Cuba’s attempts at dialogue, setting the Cuba debate back to the Kennedy era and pushing my interviewee to resign. During the Reagan years the anti-Castro lobby mobilized and became one of the most historically influential lobbies in Washington, and Miami’s political scene became Pre-Castro Cuba II. Since then, the most progressive policy changes we’ve seen towards Cuba have come from President Obama, extending a Cold War relic long beyond what should have been its expiration date. Unsurprisingly, the lack of incentive to change prevails.

The moral of the story is one I hope people understand: foreign policy change towards Cuba is not an American priority. Simply, there is no groundbreaking realization on how to create change. People know exactly what to do but refuse to step on the gas. So the Miami elite can kvetch all they want about how the Castro brothers refuse to die and about expanded US travel to the island, the reality is the Obama administration won’t take away their precious embargo. We need look no further than the baby steps the Obama administration has taken towards dialogue with Cuba, which unequivocally are on pace for “consideration of relations” after the 2012 election at best. And even then, if the embargo has taught us anything, it’s that hopeful promise with Cuba probably shouldn’t exist.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

The events in Egypt and Libya recently are enough to warm the hearts of activists and revolutionaries everywhere. They have sent news pundits and diplomats into a frenzy trying to predict how expansive the domino effect will be, with most eyes probably fixed on Iran in hopes for similar change. From a US-Cuba perspective, particularly the anti-Castro lobby, the dream scenario is undoubtedly for recent events to inspire grassroots organizing that results in a transition away from the Castro government. While this has been the hope for over fifty years, it is no more likely to happen now than at any time in the history of the Castro regime. Even with increased protests from Cuban journalists and activists in recent years, Fidel’s “revolution” is not in danger of ending.

The reasons for this are the same reasons we haven’t seen uprisings of any kind since Fidel Castro took over. It starts with how the Cuban government provides just enough goods and services to keep people content, with little incentive to challenge a system that makes it possible for someone to survive without working hard. Then there’s the Cuban-American community, promoting an anti-Castro agenda while sending family remittances and traveling to the island, all of which do nothing but pump money into the Cuban economy. Both are aided by a state-controlled media that never approaches a critical analysis of Cuba’s shortcomings, with dissenting voices being silenced. Throw in limited Internet access, with few Cubans having a computer and the ones that do being subjected to severely restricted Internet, and you get the recipe for groupthink.

But the most important reason a revolution won’t happen is because it’s just too easy for people to leave than stay and fight for change. Make no mistake: it’s entirely possible to leave Cuba. With America’s favorable refugee policy, most Cubans only need the ambition to acquire the funds to pay for their way off the island. Like most things in life, it boils down to who you know and how you can manipulate the situation in your favor. Therefore, when an exit door sits in front of an entire populace, combined with state provision of a minimum standard of care, dependence on the government for everything becomes the norm, with any incentive to fight at best manifesting itself in a desire to leave. Simply, Cubans stay, or Cubans go. There is no middle ground.

Thus, if Cubans want a change, all they have to do is leave, and that’s exactly what they’ve been doing for decades. This in no small way has contributed to what is now a relatively small population in Cuba that is more than accustomed to the Castro way of life. The only problem is when government provision of everything becomes unsustainable, which we’re now starting to see in Cuba, as evidenced by recent policy changes towards a competitive (albeit minimally) marketplace to try and cover costs. The changes are a necessary step to keep Cuban workers content, with many favorably benefiting from the ability to tap into the tourism industry and improve their quality of life. Which is another example of what might be the ultimate legacy of the Castro government: knowing exactly what to do and when to do it to keep the populace at bay. The recent changes in Cuba’s domestic policy highlight a governmental paradigm shift, charting a course towards a free-market system that includes increased competition and individual business opportunity, not exactly the basic tenets of socialism. These amendments will surely help sway the doubters, with the remaining dissenting voices being silenced in the process. Bottom line, there just isn’t room for a revolution to end the revolution. Yet anti-Castro advocates everywhere will cling to the hope a page is taken from the book of the Middle East, which will again leave them dreaming.

Ultimately, we’ll see change in Cuba when the Castro brothers pass away. It’s as simple as that. Inherent in all of this is the undeniable brilliance of Fidel Castro, who managed to stay in power in a region when Latin American political leadership was a revolving door. Regardless of the legality and ethics of his tactics that perpetuated his regime (single-party elections and the lack of free press sure do make it hard to vote for change), he managed to do the unthinkable. While I certainly hope all of my thoughts regarding this are wrong, it just doesn’t seem likely, especially with Cuba no longer being an American priority. The Castro brothers know how to adjust policy to keep their citizenry in check, with enough changes in recent years to calm the masses despite the continued rollback of state aid. Combined with Cuba’s recent release of political prisoners (the majority of whom were the core of the island’s anti-Castro voice) who have since been granted exit visas to seek asylum abroad, the Castro government continues to do just enough to stay alive.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

“[W]e are competing for the moment in order to earn and maintain a semblance of relevance,” Brian Solis writes. “For businesses struggling to gain traction through Likes, RT’s, comments, clicks, friend and follower counts, the moment for which we compete, never really comes. It is perpetual.”

Competing for relevance is a good way to put it. I’d always described it as competing for the human attention span. Solis’ description more concise. It seems all media production can be reduced to just that: competing for relevance. Generally, it seems all human ego can be reduced to this principle.

Self-publishing online allows us to amplify our voice with the lowest-ever barriers for entry into into a global mediasphere. According to the latest available data published by InternetWorldStats, there are currently 1,966,514,816. This figure constitutes approximately 28.7% of the world’s population. Excepting the limitations of the censored Web in some parts of the world, businesses and individuals are competing for relevance.

On that note, the web just got a little less restricted today in Iran where there are now three new Google tools competing for relevance in Iranian cyberculture.

“The citizens of Iran will be able to download three Google products,” said Scott Rubin, Google’s director of public policy and communications strategy: “Google Chrome, which is our browser, Picasa, which is our photo-sharing software, and Google Earth, which provides users a 3-D way to scan and world, and users can add their own layers to earth to create their own version about what they want to share with people about the world where they live.”

Chrome is a web browser. Picasa a photo-editing & sharing software. Google Earth is “a 3-D way to scan and world [in which] users can add their own layers to earth to create their own version about what they want to share with people about the world where they live.” All three are free downloads made possible through “narrow trade licenses” to the U.S. State Department, VOA News reports.

The “narrow trade licenses” interest me most here. If we can compete for relevance with American-made online products in Iran, why can’t we do the same in Cuba? What legal obstacles stand in the way? Do there exist “narrow trade licenses” for our embargoed island neighbor? Finaly, would the Cuban-American lobby scuttle another effort to sensibly pursue U.S. foreign affairs?

As the new Congress gets to work, they’re faced with a daunting task that to date has defined the Obama Administration: repairing the economy. The 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath constituted a perfect storm, highlighting everything that is financially flawed with this country: consumer debt, materialistic tendencies, lax government accountability, corporate greed, and wasteful spending in Washington. The latter is my favorite, mostly because bills are often passed with fiscal notes that no one reads, yet we always hear politicians claim they’re going to take office and remove wasteful spending. Since the solution of slicing a defense budget (which is more than the combined defense budget expenditures of the next twenty-seven countries with the highest defense budgets after America) is not politically sexy, I propose the following: abolish Radio & TV Martí.

I imagine the majority of my readers are now pausing and asking, “what the hell is that?” This is a legitimate question, because Radio and TV Martí are not well known outside of Miami, peripheral members of the Cuban-American community, and US-Cuba embargo academics, which means: US-Cuba history lesson time! Briefly, Radio and TV Martí were designed to counter the “Cuban” media perspective by providing alternative broadcasts to Cuban TV and radio. Their studios are based out of Miami, and they largely employ Cuban-Americans. Initially, different mediums such as news broadcasts and talk shows were employed by the radio version, with the TV version transitioning to soap operas and entertainment programming as well. Unfortunately, the significance of these programs rests in their continued existence despite the Cuban government blocking their signals, rendering them ineffective.

To put this into perspective financially, consider the following: In 1990, TV Martí was launched with a $16 million appropriation from Congress. By 2007, American taxpayers contributed over $500 million in taxes to Radio and TV Martí’s broadcasts, which barely anyone can hear or see. Thus, these two taxpayer-funded initiatives are a) not meeting their mission statements b) wasting American dollars and c) shiny tools in the Castro “blame el bloqueo for all of our ills” toolbox.  So, we’re asking people to retire later, social security will probably not be around by the time my generation is eligible for it, and unemployment is still high, but we must fund the anti-Castro movement! Even though it doesn’t reach Cuban soil. Ladies and gentlemen, that is American democracy at its finest.

For those wondering how this happened in the first place, the simple answer is Ronald Reagan. After his election, he tapped into the anti-communist element of the Cuban-American community in Miami by tightening restrictions against Cuba and establishing a financial and political partnership with the Cuban-American elite. This laid the groundwork for the Cuban-American electorate to rise to prominence, with Radio Martí being one of their first projects. Eventually, the electorate lobbied for and got its television counterpart, with both existing to this day via federal dollars. While the value of Radio and TV Martí was arguable during the Cold War, its existence holds no merit today.  Simply stated, we’re funding a program to reach the island and counter the Cuban media that does not even reach the island to counter the Cuban media. Such waste has come to define our perception of Washington, Wall Street, and everything financial in this country. If Radio and TV Martí are any indication of Washington’s true fiscal landscape, we’re in more trouble than we thought.

Now, abolishing these programs will result in a backlash from the Cuban-American electorate, especially if only one party pushes for it. But removing wasteful spending given these circumstances (a federal program that truly is ineffective) should be able to garner bi-partisan support and should be popular among Americans. Further, abolishing the programs would represent a step in the right direction in terms of normalizing relations with Cuba. Nevertheless, the utter ridiculousness and stupidity of these programs represents more fiscal mismanagement that probably should not surprise anyone, meaning we need to start demanding the accountability that we clearly lack. In closing, if it makes anyone feel better, the Castro government continues to refuse to cash our  $4,085 rent checks for Guantanamo (the lease rate during 1959 on the property) solely because they hate us. This gives the US a whopping $2,451,000 in savings over the lifetime of the Cuban revolution (not counting 1959 when Cuba “accidentally” cashed one of our rent checks). I guess we’re not the only ones flushing money down the toilet.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

To the Cuban Three:

As members of the United States Congress, you are the three most powerful Cuban-Americans in the country. As such, I write to make a humble request of an elected official from my state (Senator Menendez) and two other officials who have the power to be change agents. To Senator-elect Marco Rubio, felicidades on your recent election victory. Please have the courage to end the US-Cuba embargo. To Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, felicidades on your pending rise to Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Please have the courage to end the US-Cuba embargo. And to Senator Robert Menendez, felicidades on not having been recalled from office by the Tea Party. Please have the courage to end the US-Cuba embargo.

As the last remnant of the Cold War, el bloqueo has prevented family reunification for decades, including my own. Its quest to remove Fidel Castro from power and bring democracy to Cuba has not only failed, but it has served as a rallying cry for a government that refuses to look itself in the mirror. One need look no further than the propaganda that lines every street corner and fills every billboard on the island to know we’re painted as scapegoats. Keeping the embargo allows the Cuban government to blame its ills on the United States, never reflecting on its own policy failures. And it is this inability to reflect inwardly that inspires this letter, as our own community is guilty of the same failure.

We reside in the most powerful country in the world, playing chicken with a dictator who won’t blink. He has proven this time and again, and yet we continue to support an ineffective policy that does more harm than good. We have formed one of the most powerful ethnic lobbies in this country, and use our clout to support a policy that in fifty years has done nothing more than fuel the fire of a narcissist. In so doing, our community’s leaders have chastised those who refuse to toe the company line, labeling anyone who challenges the status quo a traitor while suppressing their views. This does not exactly scream democracy or freedom of speech, the very pillars that our country rests upon that we criticize Castro for destroying. As politicians, you know the recent polls show the shifts in favor of normalizing relations with the island among Cubans of my generation. We choose to be progressive while risking discord with our own families, and even you. Regardless of whether our views are accepted or not, we have the courage to look inward. Thus, as we approach the fifty-first anniversary of economic sanctions against the island, I implore you three to look inward!

For years, we have blamed the Castro government for not addressing its own shortcomings. During that time, the well-funded and well-organized Cuban-American lobby has lined the coffers of politicians with money to continue the embargo until Castro dies. While there are fewer years ahead than there are behind in the Castro regime, this strategy has failed. We have failed. At the heart of this failure is our inability to move beyond the fact that we could not remove Castro from office. It is our community’s black eye, and one that won’t be removed for generations. But as the three most powerful Cuban-Americans in the country, you have the ability to push forward legislation that would end the embargo and end our failure. All I ask is that you have the courage to do so.

In closing, I would be remiss not to mention that I supported the embargo as a young child, because that was all I knew. As I have grown older, seen a lack of progress and traveled to the island myself, I have witnessed firsthand where the Castro government comes up short and how they escape total accountability. For that reason, I ask that you have the courage to move beyond Cold War politics and consider a progressive policy change. Only then can the people of Cuba truly see how their government wrongs them, and only then can we take steps to improve the quality of life for our struggling families trapped on the island. Each of you is on record as rejecting my view, but I hope you have the courage to change.

Sincerely,

Matthew Stieglitz

Photo Credit: Matthew Stieglitz, photo of the US Interests Section in Havana, Cuba

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communications from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

Once exiles begin to take up residence in the new country they invariably manifest symptoms of Machiavelli’s sixteenth century observation on exiles. While speaking to the Prince, Machiavelli often cited the passage below:

From Discourses, Book 2, Chapter 31:

“It ought to be considered, therefore, how vain are the faith and promises of those who find themselves deprived of their country. For, as to their faith, it has to be borne in mind that anytime they can return to their country by other means than yours, they will leave you and look to the other, notwithstanding whatever promises they had made you. As to their vain hopes and promises, such is the extreme desire in them to return home, that they naturally believe many things that are false and add many others by art, so that between those they believe and those they say they believe, they fill you with hope, so that relying on them you will incur expenses in vain, or you undertake an enterprise in which you ruin yourself….. A Prince, therefore, ought to go slowly in undertaking an enterprise upon the representations of an exile, for most of the times he will be left either with shame or very grave injury.”

Examples of exiles intervening in our foreign policy include the Cuban exiles who started arriving in the early 1960s and began to take measures to have their host, the USA, take action to help recover their homeland. Prior to the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Mexican exiles sought to influence US public opinion and policy during the long Porfirio Diaz reign (1876-1911) and in the chaotic revolutionary period (1910-1920). They eagerly worked to organize and gain approval to topple the Porfiriato or the succeeding revolutionary regimes. A small Nicaraguan exile group appeared in the US during the 1980s, with limited but highly effective influence decrying the Soviet support of the Sandinista takeover of their homeland.

The Cuban exile community, which came in sizable numbers fleeing ‘communist’ Cuba, became a virtually permanent fixture in the American body politic. They incessantly sought countless ways to influence US policy to generate a ‘regime change’ in Cuba. The fact is in time the Cuban exiles became successful not in toppling Fidel Castro but in influencing US Presidential elections. The luck of these exiles settling primarily in Florida a ‘swing state’ in Presidential electoral politics resulted in an out-of-proportion influence. Since 1980, Florida has gone with every Presidential winner. This fact has allowed the Cuban exile community to cleverly claim credit for winning. Hence, US foreign policy toward Cuba has virtually become a ‘domestic’ or South Florida policy.

The new right-wing exile group beginning to be felt in our country’s politics is the wealthy and educated Venezuelan community fleeing the Chavista regime. Most appear to be settling in South Florida alongside many Cuban exiles. It seems only natural, that recently this new exile group borrowed a page from the Cuban exile playbook. The prominent Venezuelan exile leadership began to subtly suggest and insinuate itself into the sympathetic Republican Congressional staff.

When the new US Ambassador nominee to Venezuela, Larry Palmer, recently appeared before the US Senate for confirmation hearings it was widely and correctly expected that a discussion of the anti-American Hugo Chavez regime would come under fire. The Venezuelan exiles cleverly manipulated the whole process with the goal of inflaming US-Venezuelan relations to the ends of not sending a US ambassadorial envoy to Chavez. They were able to persuade, convince or enlist a key Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staffer working for the Minority Ranking Member. Apparently, after the hearing but just before the Senate’s Committee Business Meeting was to vote out Palmer onto the floor for final vote for confirmation of his nomination as US Ambassador to Venezuela, he adroitly submitted several additional questions. At that point, the State Department’s Venezuela Desk crafted bluntly honest and unusually provocative responses to the rather pointed questions on the Chavez regime’s misconduct. The answers were appropriately cleared and unwittingly approved by State Department’s bureaucratic mattress mice. Palmer also casually approved, most likely thinking the answers would help getting him from under the Republicans’ stare.  However, one wonders if he considered that upon receiving the written answers, the staffer would go on to eagerly post them on the Senator’s (Lugar) website for the world to see. Subsequently, the staffer reportedly had Palmer’s name removed from the previously approved business meeting agenda where the final vote on his nomination was scheduled to take place. Hence, he ensured a delay of his confirmation. But the final step, in the hoped-for sequence, occurred when Chavez harrumphed and subsequently declared Palmer non-acceptable (withdrawing or countermanding his prior agrèment or approval by the Venezuelan government). As a result of the exiles skillful manipulation of the process, the Palmer nomination to Venezuela has been effectively scuttled. And even better, Chavez takes the hit for torpedoing Palmer’s nomination and US-Venezuelan relations are facing a nadir. One wonders if Friday’s editorial in the premier daily, the Washington Post calling on the US not to send an Ambassador to Caracas isn’t also part of the exiles campaign.

Unfortunately, The Obama Administration foreign policy-makers simply demonstrate scant diplomatic or political savvy to counter or even detect such Machiavellian capers. Latin exiles have once again masterfully proven their skillful reading and manipulation of US policy. The Obama/Clinton entourage should read carefully what the master political cynic of the 16th century wisely appreciated. “A Prince, therefore, ought to go slowly in undertaking an enterprise upon the representations of an exile, for most of the times he will be left either with shame or very grave injury.” If the GOP takes over Congress this fall, the encouraged and devious exiles will be difficult to contain.

The new age of political correctness has created the insidious nature of this new racism: the great and grand struggle to protect America from getting too foreign (read: dark and alien) looking. After all, Latinos are not traditionally viewed as acceptable immigrants but instead like Native Americans: conquered and vanquished people but without reservations. They are people who traditionally were confined to certain sides of town. They were the ones with the ability to seasonally service rural parts of the country but who were expected to return to their places of origin.

If one ‘passed’ or assimilated in unnoticed numbers, then one could be accepted, especially with the increasing need for cheap labor, as the US rapidly became less competitive in the global market, as cost of labor skyrocketed. This occurred as traditional white and black Americans insisted in the American dream of high (living) wages. The massive migratory movements from Latin America began concurrently. Previously, the only significant flow had been during the Mexican Revolution. The Castro Revolution of 1960 ignited the first migratory movement covered by the mass media. The anti communist factor helped generally in accepting the first waves of mainly the Cuban white enclave fleeing a majority non-white country. Subsequently, the truly large numbers of immigrants coincided with the US need for cheap labor and the economic and political upheavals in all of Latin America. Hence, the rise of both legal and illegal immigrant movements into the US occurred.

At the same time, the increasing rise of remittances (dollars) sent back to the countries of origin ”hooked’ many Latin American governments to actively support or encourage this massive migration to the US and other developed countries suffering a labor shortage. With the US economy soaring from the late 80s through the 90s, the flow continued. It was the tragic incident on 9/11 that brought a noticeable halt to this readiness to accept this immigrant flow. As the deepest economic recession since the 1930s reared its head in the aftermath of 2001, the exacerbation of economic conditions especially unemployment together with the foreign anti-terrorist awareness or phobia heightened the rejection of ‘outsiders’.

During the Depression years of the 1930s, a backlash against Mexicans arose, significant round-ups of anyone suspected of being Mexican nationals took place and all were deported. Many US citizens were taken to Mexico forcibly. It is common to see, during these uncertain times, the ever-present nativist crowd spring into action as guardians of sovereignty and sentinels of the American tradition. The recognition that the “Latino” population is over 45 million is daunting. The battle cry of “border security” is now the operative term against illegal immigrants and increasingly anti-Latino. The feared white backlash is perhaps and unfortunately the gathering storm in civil relations in the US. Much lies ahead and the impending 2010 electoral cycle will serve to polarize the discourse. The “Latino” leadership must take note and rise to the occasion.