Separating Ideas' DNA from Their Authors

Recently the Obama administration conducted a long series of discussions of some type with the outlaw island nation of Cuba.  These resulted in some movement forward on the normalization of relations with Cuba.  I confess to fear that I will misstate what the outcome will actually be, or what constitutes normal relations, or whether there will be consuls or ambassadors or what.

I did a piece on this a week or so ago, but the topic was about the proper path to civilize Cuba.  Today, normalizing relations with Cuba is merely the example of the issue I perceived as I wrote the other column, namely, that although I agreed with the idea, the fact that it came from this White House caused me to challenge it on its surface (before getting more rational).  I certainly continue to question the motivation, and assume that the path that will be taken will be the most kowtowing, the least productive for the USA and most carefully positioned to make Obama look good for his legacy portrait.

We should agree with the idea of normalizing relations, though for hardly any of the reasons put forth by the White House; rather, as I wrote, I see a healthy, vibrant economy in Cuba operating under a democratically-elected government to be a wonderful partner for the USA, another Canada (more baseball than hockey, of course, not than there's anything wrong with that).  I see a blitzkrieg offensive to turn Cuba into that end state as best being economic rather than military; open the markets, turn up the Internet full blast, and the Castros will have no ability to hold power.  It will be Poland in the late 1980s, and that certainly turned out well.

I shouldn't have to grit my teeth to say that.  Although I disagree fundamentally with liberal thinking on almost everything, it is not at all out of the question that there can be ideas coming from the left on certain issues that are very much worth discussing.  And I am willing to listen, especially if they can actually explain the end state and show how their proposed process for getting to it has worked before, or why, based on facts, it is likely to work this time.

I think it behooves both sides, liberal and conservative, to start showing a willingness to listen and avoid the knee-jerk, "It has to be wrong because [fill in the blank] said it" reaction.  Sure the proposal may be for the wrong reason but the outcome might be agreed upon and we can discuss process.  Ted Cruz can have a splendid idea.  Elizabeth Warren might have a point somewhere we need to discuss.  Let us not simply scrunch up our faces, hard as it may be, when we see these folks on TV (of course, you are permitted to scrunch up your face when Al Sharpton comes on).

I'm willing to listen, if you can explain how something I would otherwise disagree with can work, and maybe show where it has.

Let's talk, can we?

Copyright 2014 by Robert Sutton