Less is more? Little mention of Cuba in presidential debate could be positive sign.

Over time, a more rational discussion of US-Cuba relations could emerge.

Geoff Thale is WOLA's program director and blogs here. The views expressed are the author's own.

[Monday]’s foreign policy debate between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney featured some spirited debate about Libya, Syria, Iran, the size of the US Navy, and teachers.  

Yet the debate featured almost nothing about Cuba. Mitt Romney complained, in passing, that President Obama was willing to talk with Fidel Castro (as part of a larger complaint that the President was too accommodating to governments with whom the United States is at odds). But Obama did not respond and, beyond that, the issue did not come up. This absence is surprising, especially because the foreign policy debate took place in Florida. 

It was not always this way.

In 1992 candidate Bill Clinton endorsed the Cuban Democracy Act, a measure to further tighten the embargo on Cuba, while campaigning in Florida; President George H.W. Bush announced his support for the Cuban Democracy Act shortly thereafter. In 2000 Al Gore faced considerable opposition from the Cuban-American community in the wake of the Elian Gonzalez crisis; in an effort to woo the Cuban-American vote, his vice presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman, visited the grave of Jorge Mas Canosa, the founder of what was then the leading pro-embargo Cuban American organization.  

[Monday], the issue barely came up. Neither candidate sought political advantage by bashing Cuba or trotting out his “anti-Castro” credentials. 

What happened? 

There are a few obvious answers. The candidates wanted to focus on domestic policy and the US economy, and they repeatedly steered the conversation away from foreign policy. And the foreign policy discussions that the candidates did engage in were all about national headline issues such as Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and China; Latin America did not appear on the agenda. 

But the silence on Cuba also suggests some changing political dynamics.  

First, President Obama’s modest easing of US-Cuban tensions, and particularly his relaxation of travel restrictions for Cuban Americans, are not particularly controversial, even in South Florida. The Romney campaign does not see much to be gained by highlighting differences on this issue.  

Second, the demographics of the Cuban-American community, which have been changing for years, are finally having an impact in the electoral arena (for example, the race between hardline Cuban-American Rep. David Garcia and more moderate Cuban-American challenger Joe Garcia is essentially tied). The older hardline Cuban exiles have been losing ground to younger and newer voters, who are more concerned about domestic politics and want to be able to visit relatives in Cuba. These newer voters are not necessarily friends of the Cuban regime, but Castro-bashing is not high on their agenda and does not win their vote.  

The decline in Cuba’s salience as a domestic political issue is an encouraging sign. It suggests that, over time, we might be able to have a more rational discussion about US interests, the changes that are occurring in Cuba itself, and how the United States might play a constructive role in improving the climate for human rights and democracy in Cuba. 

– Geoff Thale is WOLA’s Program Director. Mr. Thale has studied Cuba issues since the mid-1990s and traveled to Cuba more than a dozen times, including organizing delegations of academics and members of Congress.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.