What Year Does He Think This Is?

Over the past month I’ve spent so much time writing and thinking about ethics violations and earmarks that I barely want to write about politics anymore. Because of this, I want to switch gears today and talk about an actual policy position that Mr. Tiahrt holds; a position I vehemently disagree with (and one that I actually did a significant amount of research on a couple years ago for a paper—I got an A by the way).

That is, his support of the embargo of Cuba which he recently described by saying:

“I’m for free trade, just not with Cuba. They’re a state-sponsor of terrorism, they don’t pay their bills, and trade with Cuba will largely benefit the Castro regime. With expanded trade and travel we would just be funding the Castro brothers and the Cuban communist party. We should not change our policies without seeing any changes from them.”

What year does he think this is?

By any objective or subjective measure, the Cuban Embargo has been an immense failure for the US government. For fifty years this policy has failed to bring ideological change to Cuban politics (i.e. the Castros are still in charge), it has economically punished the innocent citizens of Cuba and given the regime an excuse for their failures, it has helped to foster a negative international image of the United States foreign policy, and (most importantly for Kansans) it has unnecessarily removed a viable market for exports.

To support this policy is a mistake that cannot possibly be grounded in a sound and logical analysis of the current global system. It is a policy from the past that needs to be ended, and Mr. Tiahrt seemingly fails to understand that.

I believe that we should end this embargo for several reasons. First, the travel of Americans and their technology can only help to change the ideology of the island. Anybody that has spent significant time living and working in a non-democratic country (which I have), knows that just small interactions with Americans can go a long way to changing the way people think. Americans in Cuba would help them ideologically.

Second, and more importantly for Kansans, Cuba represents a viable and lucrative export market for Kansas farmers. The island already imports goods from the rest of the world, but would certainly switch their imports to our agricultural products (which would be cheaper because the US is far closer to Cuba than any other country) bringing more money to Kansans.

Finally, the old policy has been a failure. If fifty years of failed policies isn’t enough to convince Mr. Tiahrt that we should change, then I don’t know what is.

I guess I just hope that he fails in his effort to retain them.

Hoping to one day smoke a Cuban cigar within the borders of Kansas,

Publius