In the past, one word summed up the politics of the Cuban-American community: Republican. But times are changing. With the new generations of Cuban-Americans born in the United States and the new waves of refugees coming from Cuba, the political identity of this community is changing fundamentally. It’s not a result of youth per se, but more so a change in collective consciousness and different historical circumstances. Essentially, the Republican and Democratic elements in the Cuban-American exile closely reflect two groups that exist: those that feel the effects of Castro’s totalitarian regime and those who do not. I use the present tense to emphasize that while many have been first hand witnesses and victims, some of those have detached themselves from the reality of the regime due to the dulling effects of time: apologizing for or ignoring the excesses, the violence, the murders, and the denial of basic dignity by emphasizing a sense of nationalism. The logic is odd, given that some of them tout the regime’s “universal health care system” and at the same time ignore or rationalize the thousands who have been sent to labor camps and/or have been murdered by the regime. Also, there are many who did not experience the “revolution” directly, but truly feel wronged by the regime. In these cases, these individuals feel a sense of connectedness with Cuba and/or patriotism. The new leftward movement of the exile community can be explained in these general terms… of course like all generalizations they do not fully explain the individual reasons that one would be a Republican or a Democrat.

On foreign policy, the exile idea that the United States must take a severe and uncompromising stand against the Castro regime was betrayed by the Democrats under John F. Kennedy and taken up by the Republicans. Those who experienced the violent victory of communism or the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs invasion would side with the right for decades. The monolithic exile community promoted the embargo and censure of Cuba for its deplorable human rights record. But the mere survival of the Castro regime started to change the minds of some of the younger generations, who seemed to reason that if one approach didn’t work then the polar opposite would work and started to think about lifting the embargo and dialogue. Add to them the incoming waves of Cuban refugees who, while in Cuba, were reminded on a daily basis that the embargo itself was to blame for all of the hardships on the island, and the calls to lift the embargo started gaining strength, driving more Cuban-Americans into the Democrats’ arms. They completely ignore the fact that lifting the embargo unilaterally only strengthens the Castro regime’s grip on power and the repression associated with it.

On the issue of national security, the Republican position of a strong national defense resonates more with those that believe that freedom must be defended against its enemies, otherwise it will be lost. This transpired during the lifetimes of those who lived through the revolution and those who see history as a conflict between freedom and tyranny. Those who did not personally lose this freedom and experience the triumph of tyranny in Cuba are more likely to ignore these issues as unimportant to life in the U.S. Younger generations trying to build their lives outside of Cuba enjoy freedoms that are well-defended against and see them as an intrinsic part of society. These persons tend to be more Democratic because they believe that the greatest threats to freedom are intolerance and forms of social injustice, thus national security is less important in terms of preserving freedom. The Democratic prescription for these problems, of course, is for more government intervention and turning a blind eye to terrorists and dictators that openly call for the destruction of America.

Which brings us to government. The traditional Cuban exile position tends towards less government since on the island the state usurped all of the rights of the individual. Hence, again the Republican Party seems more in line with the Cuban reality of the time, emphasizing individual responsibility rather than collective decisions. But more recently, with the aging of the exile population, the new influx of refugees that experienced the collapse of the communist bloc and the ensuing economic downturn, and the younger generations born in the U.S., the belief that problems need to be solved by the federal government has gained strength. Particularly the idea that, contrary to historical examples, our rights can better be protected by big government has become more common. Be they women’s rights, African-American rights, Hispanic rights, gay rights, consumer rights, immigrant rights or any other sort, these are exclusively in the realm of problems that the more Democratic leaning persons believe can only be solved by big government. They fail to realize that a government big enough to give us everything, can also take everything away.

This brings us to the intervention of government in the economy. The regime’s totalitarian control over all aspects of the individual’s life did not stop with the economy. With forced relocations, land redistribution, expropriation of businesses, wholesale rationing, a fully planned economy, and total prohibition of free enterprise, the Cuban exile population again gravitated towards the party that emphasized free markets: the Republicans. But the Democratic agenda of universal health care, wealth redistribution, and reining in of free markets, started to encroach on the exile’s long held beliefs that the collective should never supersede the individual. Universal health care becomes more popular to an aging population and also to a new generation that has confused the individual rights (what government cannot take away from anyone) guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution with collective rights (what government must take from everyone and redistribute). Furthermore, the idea that only big government can provide universal health care becomes the Democrats’ signature policy and those in the community agreeing on the urgent necessity for it trend Democratic.

For these reasons and others, the Cuban-American community is no longer the single-issue voting bloc that it used to be. While the old guard may lament this fact, the Cuban-American community benefits more from political flexibility than blind loyalty. Republicans have long thought that support from the Cuban-American community was a fact of life and have taken them for granted in many ways, paying lip service to many of their concerns and sometimes ignoring them altogether. On the other hand, a fractured voting bloc is not effective in advancing the goals of the community.

Ultimately, the solution to the dictatorship in Cuba cannot be solved in Washington; it must come from within the island. The party that helps end this nightmare is the one that deserves the exile vote (on this issue), though at the moment, the Democrats’ intentions seem to benefit the dictatorship (Democrats want a dialogue, to end the embargo, cutting funding to pro-freedom programs, and leaving Cuba to its own devices: policies that the Castro regime wants) and the Republicans seem to want to keep up this stalemate. There is a real movement on the island and in exile struggling for freedom from tyranny; our government should empower them to help defeat tyranny instead of helping the Castro regime remain in power. America requires an effective and tough policy towards Cuba that reflects our commitment to freedom around the world… the Cuban-American community has long been a powerful voice for the spirit of that very freedom and, now, in the face of the Democrats’ current goal of extending our hand to dictators and terrorists, we need this voice and the voice of all Americans to demand a return to our values. It is here that the Republican Party can strengthen their position in this community, and taking into account the betrayals of Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama, it shouldn’t be so hard.

-AG