Slate ran a fascinating item by Ann Louise Bardach this week on one of my favorite topics: Cuban-American voters and presidential campaigns. I was born and raised in Miami, so I’ve had a personal connection to the issue.
Bardach’s article is definitely worth reading. I agree with every word of it — except it’s ultimate conclusion.
To be sure, the Cuban-American vote, which historically has gone overwhelmingly to Republicans, will be worth watching in the upcoming election. Anytime there’s a constituency with a million people in a closely-divided swing state, you know both sides are going to take that vote seriously.
Clinton made inroads with the community, better than any Democratic candidate since Fidel Castro started his brutal reign. Gore, however, for reasons beyond his control, couldn’t capitalize. Clinton won 39% of the Cuban vote in 1996, but that support fell to just 18% for Gore, due in large part to the Elian Gonzales controversy.
Could Kerry reverse that trend? Absolutely. In fact, unlike Bardach, I think he’s already made significant progress.
Bardach sees Kerry straddling the fence a bit with Cuban Americans, which she believes won’t work. I agree with the observation, but not the analysis.
Relying on the assumption that Cuban-Americans in Miami are monolithically conservative was part of Gore’s mistake. In fact, the Cuban exiles are not, as a rule, conservatives. More often than not, they champion social issues linked to Democrats: support for Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug benefits, and bilingual education. They tend to be pro-choice and concerned about environmental issues. The Cuban connection to the Republican Party has hung mainly on one issue: support for a non-engagement policy with Cuba going back to Eisenhower. But there is also a lingering bitterness at Democrats over President Kennedy’s refusal to provide air cover during the Bay of Pigs invasion.
But this passion is not shared by younger and newer arrivals from Cuba — who now form a majority. About 60 percent of Cuban-Americans in the United States arrived after the 1980 Mariel Boat exodus. According to two recent polls, one conducted by Florida International University and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the other by Bendixen & Associates, this group tends to view themselves primarily as economic, not political refugees. For them, family comes first, then issues of freedom in Cuba. Unlike the first wave of exiles, these more recent immigrants reject any policy of confrontation with the island that could bring harm or added hardship to their families still in Cuba. High on their agenda is unfettered travel to Cuba, along with the ability to send unlimited cash to their families. (Some estimate that $1 billion annually is sent to Cuba.) True, they do not turn out to vote as strongly as first-wave exiles, but they make up one-third of the Cuban-American vote.
But I don’t think Kerry is forgetting about this division within the Cuban community; I think he’s counting on it.
Bardach is right that there’s a significant difference between old-time hard-liners who immigrated to the United States and younger Cuban Americans who were born and raised here. Yes, Kerry is, as Bardach put it, “pandering” to the exile community by insisting that this is not the time to lift the U.S. embargo. Bardach suggests this position largely ignores the rest of the Cuban community. I disagree.
The younger Cubans, unlike their exile parents, may not have the U.S. embargo at the top of their priority list, but they won’t punish Kerry for his position on it. The division isn’t between Cubans who are for and against the embargo; it’s about nuances of the relationship (or lack thereof) between the countries.
Kerry appreciates those degrees and has a message for both groups. Kerry tells hard-liners that he’ll keep the embargo. But at the same time, he tells younger Cubans and newer arrivals that he’ll support expanded travel and freedom to send their families in Cuba increased financial aid. In fact, Kerry said as much on Meet the Press earlier this month, in an episode taped in Miami.
“I wouldn’t just give something for nothing but I would begin to encourage travel. I’ve suggested that. I think that’s appropriate. I think remittances might be considered and might be helpful….”
Bardach suggests that Kerry looked nervous on the issue, which may be true, but Kerry nevertheless seemed to be adopting the very position that Bardach wants him to take.
A viable position for Kerry would be to declare himself fiercely anti-Castro and then point out that Bush has no Cuba policy other than the embargo — a 45-year failure that has yet to make any progress toward its stated goals: free elections in Cuba and an end to Castro’s reign. Kerry should then champion what the majority of exiles want — unlimited remittances and unrestricted travel — and argue that increased contact with Cuba will lay the groundwork for civil society in the post-Castro years.
Most of that already is Kerry’s policy. He’ll keep the trade embargo, which is what the exile community demands, but he’ll back remittances and travel expansion. Bardach’s advice is good, which is why Kerry appears to be largely following it.
Kerry should play this one carefully and keep both sides happy. It’s not as hard as it sounds. Besides, as I’ve explained on a few occasions, Cuban-American voters in Florida aren’t exactly enthralled with Bush right now, which offers Kerry a valuable opportunity.
The Bush administration, for example, appears poised to formally oppose looser regulations on remittances and travel.
Most exiles, however, believe they feed their families. It appears that the Diaz-Balarts have finally convinced Rove that, without a red-hot Élián issue, this is the way to galvanize their base. They couldn’t be more wrong. “If this Administration cuts travel or remittances to Cuba,” says Sergio Bendixen, whose company conducted one of the polls, “they lose the Cuban vote — and the election.”
This will be one of many controversial steps Bush has taken that could undermine his support among Cuban Americans. The community certainly hasn’t forgotten July 2003 when 12 Cubans, just 40 miles from the U.S. coast, were captured and detained. The Bush administration, after negotiations with Castro’s government, agreed to repatriate the 12 once Castro agreed not to execute them and limit their prison sentences. To put it mildly, this was not a popular decision in South Florida.
Even Bush’s brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), hung the president out to dry on this one, saying he thought Castro is part of “an oppressive regime, and given the environment in Cuba, it’s just not right” to have sent the Cubans back. Jeb added that he thought his brother had failed to create a “coherent policy” on Cuba.
And let’s not forget that a month later, 13 Cuban-American state legislators, all of whom are Republican, sent Bush an angry, almost threatening, letter, insisting that Bush make “substantial progress” toward meeting the demands of the Cuban-American community or the “historic and intense support from Cuban-American voters for Republican federal candidates, including yourself, will be jeopardized.”
So far, Bush hasn’t rushed to act on the policy proposals the state lawmakers outlined, including an indictment against Castro for shooting down a Brothers to the Rescue airplane.
Does this mean Kerry can improve upon Gore’s poor showing with Cuban-American voters? You bet it does. After all, it was less than a year ago when Spanish-language radio stations in South Florida were playing a popular song that said, “All together, let’s sing: Bush is betraying us.”