The acceptance speeches of our two presidential candidates were chock full of references to bipartisanship.  It’s just too bad that both campaigns had just finished up several weeks of particularly partisan personal attacks that tended to blunt the effect of otherwise noble ideas. 

John McCain in his acceptance speech made an effort to make the American people aware that he was a candidate who would do away with the partisanship of the past. 

Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other. We’re dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. No country ever had a greater cause than that….

McCain certainly takes the high road in his speech arguing that partisan concerns won’t govern his decision making.  He argues that he has the record of reaching out across the aisle while Senator Obama does not.  (more…)

I would like to thank Mr. Eckel for the very cordial debate as well as the PSA for offering me this opportunity. Mr. Eckel was a challenging opponent, and I salute him for his effort. Rather than providing a lengthy discussion rewriting what has already been said, I will make an attempt to find some common ground between our two arguments while outlining where we differ.

It appears that Mr. Eckel agrees with affording America some military superiority around the world. However, how the military is used, and the economic limits of its superiority is where we differ. While I support working with our allies to preserve security around the world, we differ with how much faith should be placed in foreign governments. While Mr. Eckel and I both support free market capitalism as the best path to prosperity for poor nations, Mr. Eckel still concerns himself with tired leftist dogmas of overpopulation, global warming, and resource depletion. Of course in order to solve these mythical problems, the solution is always more and more government control.

(more…)

Last week I attended the Democratic convention in Denver.  On the night of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco field, I interviewed a handful of convention attendees about their outlook on the potential for an Obama presidency to operate in a bipartisan manner on foreign policy issues.   [Streaming video of the interviews is below]

I received a variety of responses.  Of course, many Obama supporters felt that Obama’s campaign theme of bringing diverse people together was likely to serve him well in bringing together Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy issues.

When asked in particular about foreign policy, most people examined the question through the lens of Iraq.  I was actually struck by the fact that no one I spoke with advocated an immediate withdrawal, along the lines of much of the Democratic campaign rhetoric during the primary season.  Rather, people I spoke with seemed to feel that a measured withdrawal done in a manner that takes into account stability in Iraq was the way to move forward. If one assumes that convention attendees tend to be more partisan and ideological than the general public, I was encouraged by the fact that even in this partisan crowd, respondents tended to to mirror the the approach to Iraq that was advocated by the bipartisan Iraq study group.

It’s also important to note that not all people with whom I spoke were totally convinced about Obama’s ability to bring “peace and harmony” on tough issues.  Frederick Edwards, for example, clearly felt that despite Obama’s lofty rhetoric of bridging historical divides, he faced an uphill battle on bringing together Democrats and Republicans.  I got a sense from the people with whom I spoke that although they believed that Obama has the potential to bridge such divides, some also recognize that it’s going to take more than soaring rhetoric.

Michael Landweber has rebutted my rebuttal using three basic arguments. They are:

1. If granted access, American business interests could coax the Castro regime into making incremental changes that benefit the Cuban people.
2. That leaving the embargo in place means doing nothing.
3. That Cuba is not the Soviet Union and we don’t even know if a Cuban Gorbachev exists.

Let’s take them in order. I’m a firm believer in the principle that the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Based on this line of thinking, I expect that American businesses operating in Cuba will no more coax the regime into moving toward its demise (that’s what we’re really asking of them isn’t it?) than Spanish businesses, Canadian businesses, British businesses, etc. For example, Spanish hoteliers happily assisted the Castro brothers by enforcing tourist apartheid at Cuba’s hotels and resorts for almost two decades. Cubans were not permitted to stay at such hotels, even if they had the money to do so.

(more…)

Maybe Henry Luis Gomez is right. My original post is probably no more than wishful thinking. Maybe there really is absolutely nothing that the U.S. can do to influence change in our neighbor a mere ninety miles away. Maybe we have to just sit by idly and wait.

But contrary to what Mr. Gomez says, I’m not a believer in the mystical power of free trade to topple dictatorships.  I don’t think that ending the embargo would lead to an instant dissolution of the regime.  Everything Mr. Gomez says could be true.  We could open the floodgates and get totally fleeced by the Cuban government.  A huge influx of U.S. dollars probably could help the regime survive. American businesses might be willing to invest on Cuba’s terms to get a foothold in the market, even if it means participating in a corrupt system. Perhaps nothing would change.

But I also believe that U.S. engagement in Cuba, through private business interests and public diplomatic efforts, might actually influence how the government behaves.  American businesses might actually create incentives through investment for the government to alter its economic policies. If we lift the embargo, even in stages, given our proximity and the certain demand that would arise for American goods and investment, it is possible that we could quickly become indispensable to the Cuban economy. And once you become indispensable, you have influence – something that we completely lack now. Perhaps there would be change.

There I go again with my wishful thinking.

(more…)