Abdicating Moral Authority and Why it Matters


When President Obama first announced his plans to normalize relations with Cuba last year, he lectured opponents up front, as is his wont:

Yes, there are those who want to turn back the clock and double down on a policy of isolation. But it’s long past time for us to realize that this approach doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked for 50 years. It shuts America out of Cuba’s future, and it only makes life worse for the Cuban people.

Hard to understand how maintaining U.S. policy, when Cuba was for the first time without an outside state-sponsor (i.e., when our policy might actually have worked), was turning back the clock. Still, in short order, President Obama was joined by throngs of Americans who thought all this was a great idea. They wanted to travel to Cuba. They saw Obama as opening a great deal of new free enterprise with and in that country. This was not a uniquely partisan position. Prior to his statement and new policy, Obama was encouraged by Republican Senator Rand Paul and after his statement and new policy, the president was joined and encouraged by Republican Senator Jeff Flake.

But remember President Obama’s words.  The policies of the past 50 years, the same policies generally agreed to by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Presidents Bush were a failure. It takes some ego to think that entire club was wrong and you—alone—would be the first to get it right. But in President Obama, ego is never in short supply. When Dennis Prager heard of the plan to “normalize” relations with Cuba, his remark was an entire lesson in foreign policy, but perhaps too simple and clear for today’s academy and professoriate: “If you want to normalize relations with a country, here’s a condition: that country should be normal.”

What could Prager have meant? And what have he and those of us opposed to the Castro-regime seen that the likes of Obama, his supporters, Paul, and Flake don’t? One would not have to look very hard and could easily enough dismiss or discount the reports of exiles and first- and second-generation Cuban Americans if one wanted to discount their stories as, say, partisan, ideological, or simply part of some kind of resentment or grievance community. Everyone and anyone could simply try the Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2015 published by the U.S. State Department. In clear and easy-to-read sharp relief, one can see Cuba under the Castros is a place of

[T]he abridgement of the ability of citizens to choose their government; the use of government threats, physical assault, intimidation, and violent government-organized counter-protests against peaceful dissent; and harassment and detentions to prevent free expression and peaceful assembly.

Not bad enough? The report continues:

[H]arsh prison conditions; arbitrary, short-term, politically motivated detentions and arrests; selective prosecution; denial of fair trial; and travel restrictions. Authorities interfered with privacy by engaging in pervasive monitoring of private communications. The government did not respect freedom of speech and press, restricted internet access, maintained a monopoly on media outlets, circumscribed academic freedom, and maintained some restrictions on the ability of religious groups to meet and worship. The government refused to recognize independent human rights groups or permit them to function legally. In addition the government continued to prevent workers from forming independent unions and otherwise exercising their labor rights.

Now, for a quick lesson in hypocrisy—aside from the government controlled media parts—recall what much of the Left shouted and hysterically charged about America throughout the War on Terrorism, shouts and charges without any merit or actual comparison to places like Cuba: same words but with entirely different meanings, same worries but with entirely different realities. One country actually engages in such policies. But it gets a pass—nothing like fake charges to indict the United States with when real charges require not blaming America first.

Did President Obama’s policy “work”? Of course not. Cuba has not become a “normal” country. Even more dissidents have been arrested and more repression has followed our change in policy. But it is true, one country in this arrangement of “normalization” has changed: the United States. And that change—most of all our abdication of moral authority and leadership—has paved the way for allies to engage in the repugnant kinds of encomiums Canada’s Justin Trudeau and others have issued following Fidel Castro’s death.

What the United States does and says still matters, and the renunciation of our own moral authority on human and political rights, in exchange for nothing, will constitute a necessary and challenging part of the great re-teaching and re-learning of common sense our dedication to making America great again must commence.  As we begin to define what a new “America First” foreign policy will mean for the 21st century, it can easily enough start with simply not always blaming America first. I can think of some 12 million Cubans who might care about that, just about now.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

5 responses to “Abdicating Moral Authority and Why it Matters”

  1. Saudi Arabia is worse, but we treat them as an ally.
    China with political prisoners and forced abortion?
    Moral Authority?

  2. It appears from Senator Flake’s comments post-Castro’s death that he hasn’t learned of the Castro regime’s more repression and the arrest of more dissidents after Obama’s “normalized” relations with Cuba. I sure hope we can knock Flake out of the Senate with a good primary challenger. Go Dr. Kelli Ward!!!

    A good description of Castro’s Cuba beyond the faux environment implemented for the media and others visiting from outside Cuba, read the report from The City Journal entitled “The Last Communist City”


  3. One fascination that tyranny tourists have is nostalgia for a “stuck in the ’50s” Cuba–to visit before capitalism ruins it, as if a Disney theme park attraction: a Caribbean Main St. dialed into the wayback machine. Never mind the Disney performers/workers are paid better, and go home at night–the human cost of liberty is always ignored.

  4. If a country has to be normal before we can have relations with it, then why do we have diplomatic relations with China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Russia, . . . In other words, this is not an argument to be taken seriously.

  5. To me there are three parts to the Cuba conversation.

    Part one is objective. Having a Communist, USSR-backed regime 90 miles from the homeland simply calls for the need to weaken said regime and discourage Soviet support. That worked. Now there’s no more USSR. Ergo, singling out Cuba for other reasons is just a nod to foreign-policy tradition, hence part two.

    Part two is subjective. Should America’s role in the world still be that of the squared-jaw superhero who swoops in on the wings of his star-spangled cape and leaves Jeffersonian democracy in its wake? Experience in the last 30 years points to a rather emphatic “maybe not.” So, as Tassius and others have pointed out, we have no more business tut-tutting Cuba than we do a slew of other among the world’s trashcans.

    Part three is ideological. A murderous dictator is a murderous dictator–yes, even a communist one. While you can observe from afar the human-right mess in which a regime forces its citizens to live, without intervening, it is simply abhorrent to pay any homage to the dictator. Doing otherwise is nothing but “normalizing” (here’s a fashionable word these days) the dictator’s abhorrent ways.

    It is clear that Obama and his globalist cohort view Castro in a positive light because he was 1) a Leftist and 2) someone who wielded absolute power in a way that many modern-day Democrats quietly dream about (recall the NYT editorial’s longing for China’s lack of constitutional niceties). Bottom line: Castro and those attempting to normalize him deserve a patriot’s scorn and ideological condemnation without half measures. However, singling out Cuba for sanctions while we merrily let (say) Pakistan remain Pakistan is anachronistic and irrational.