The far right could triumph in Congress - the Diaz-Balart amendment (+Marco Rubio etc.)

[flamingdem]

PROGRESO WEEKLY

They can't eat their cake and have it, too

Wednesday, 29 June 2011 20:09

The far right could triumph in Congress

By Jesus Arboleya Cervera

I would like to share the view that the amendment recently passed by the

Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, aimed at reversing the

flexibility on travel to Cuba introduced by President Obama, has no future. But

unfortunately I'm not so sure.

It is true that the proposal of Cuban-American Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart has

a long road ahead. It will have to be considered by the full House of

Representatives, where a Republican majority may rule, go on to the Senate,

where it will likely find some other sponsor but may also find approval is

uncertain; be included in the text resulting from the concurrence of both

chambers and, if it survives this process, may face a possible veto by President

Barack Obama.


It is also likely that the law, as presented to the House, will not pass, but I

do not think that its fate depends on the amendment on travel to Cuba. Rather,

it hinges on the more than $6 billion that the Republicans have cut from the

funds requested by the President with a view to complicate his work prior to the

2012 elections. If this is resolved, I have the impression that the bill will

pass, with or without the amendment.


What counts here is the money and, with a package of more than $20 billion to

finance key institutions of state at stake, I doubt that the President or the

majority of Congressmen, no matter how repugnant they may find Diaz-Balart' s

trick, will decide to vote inspired by the criteria of justice.

On the other hand, if the worst happens, we will not be in the presence of a

rarity in U.S. policy toward Cuba. In fact, the policy now proposed was in force

for much of the Bush administration, without Congress having a crisis of

conscience. And the logic that inspires it has remained almost unchanged for 50

years. It's not even just about Cuba; we should be grateful that it has not led

to devastating wars, as in other places.


On the domestic front, with the "pragmatism" that characterizes American

politics, many must think that this is a fight between Cuban-Americans and

assume that the man who proposes the amendment is the representative they chose,

so if it doesn't suit them, change it.


It might seem that they're right, but things are not so easy, simply because in

the U.S. political system the will of the majority is not enough. Resources,

organization and contacts are needed to channel this desire and it has been

demonstrated that the Cuban-Americans who will suffer the consequences are not

the ones who decide the elections in Miami. They don't have the power needed for

that.


Because of this, Mario Diaz-Balart can afford to promote an initiative as

unpopular as that, without apparently suffering any consequences for his

election plans. Ultimately, the Cuban-American Congressman is only applying the

logic that carried George W. Bush to the presidency and has been so advantageous

for the neocons. What matters is to please the hard core of voters, because his

opponents are incapable of mobilizing the votes that make the difference.

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a leader of the US-Cuba Democracy Pac, said so very

clearly to journalist Tracy Eaton: "You cannot be a refugee and a year and a day

later return to your country of origin. You cannot eat your cake and have it

too." Obviously, this is the crux of the matter: they are obligated to be

"refugees" and act as such, because that assumption is the recipe for the "cake"

of the Cuban-American extreme right.


Let's not deceive ourselves. This is a question not only of ideological problems

and irrational hatred, but also of political interests that are vital to the

survival of the Cuban-American extreme right, which is also inserted in a power

struggle that has its sights on U.S. presidency. From this balance will depend

the fate of the amendment proposed by Diaz-Balart and other initiatives that are

part of the American conservative offensive, heartened by the outcome of the

recent midterm elections.


I think that if Obama figures it out, he will perceive that giving in to these

groups does nothing but feed the tapeworm in their guts. But the President's

goal is to survive at all costs in 2012 and, because U.S. policy is an

arithmetic where the size of the numbers count, both Cuba and Cuban-Americans

are negligible values, speaking in terms that are not only mathematical.

Something good can come of this equation. If Miami changes, it will be easier to

transform U.S. policy toward Cuba, and Miami is changing. At what speed and

range will depend on the articulation of the political forces opposed to the

agenda of the extreme right and their full realization that promoting dialogue

with Cuba, with the aim of solving problems and not creating others, will be

able to mobilize voters who do not vote today because no one represents them.

Only when this happens, we can rest assured that the amendment introduced by

Diaz-Balart and company will have no future.

[Judi Lynn]

1. The block of Cuban radical reactionary power in Miami needs to be diluted.

Miami needs a strong wave of other hispanic and non-hispanic newcomers moving to town, changing the power structure dynamics. The dominant, vistriolic "exile" tyrants in local government and their offspring would have a heck of a time controling Florida politics, and all those electoral votes which make Florida so important every 4 years if Miami gained more Mexican, Central and South American people.

That day's coming, it won't be all that long. Can't wait. They've been exercising a power over the U.S. Congress FAR out of proportion with their actual population, and it has all been due to politics. They just don't grasp how impersonal it really is.