THE POLITICS OF FREEDOM

Are Cuban-Americans Changing Their Views?

2011-07-28T09:29:00.001-04:00

From CapitolHillCubans.com

Yesterday, Chris Sabatini of the New York-based Council of Americas added his voice to those "Cuba "experts" -- with absolutely no political experience in South Florida -- who want President Obama to believe his Cuba policy is somehow good politics.

This, despite the fact that -- just last year -- President Obama's Congressional candidate in South Florida's 25th District couldn't break 18% of the Cuban-American vote.

So lets recap.

Are Cuban-Americans changing their views?

In theory -- since 1985.

In reality -- not a single candidate who supports unconditionally easing sanctions towards the Castro dictatorship has ever been elected by the Cuban-American community.

And just for fun -- here's a breakdown of some discredited "theorists," including some of The Miami Herald's finest (former) political reporters (H/T Henry Louis Gomez):

Please note the dates.

"...there has been a generational change among Cuban voters. The power is no longer being wielded exclusively -- perhaps not even primarily -- by those whose political orientation is Cuba..."

-MIAMI'S VOTE MADE HISTORY, November 10, 1985, by Tom Fiedler

"The memory was reinforced in a similar conversation with a middle-aged Cuban American who watches some of his contemporaries react in anger and frustration to the obvious Americanness of their yuca (Young Upscale Cuban American) children. They want their children to feel the loss of Cuba as they feel it.

This wish to have our children re-create our own past experiences is common, perhaps even universal. But it is a vain hope, one that brings only grief if it is pressed very hard."

-THE 'MEMORY OF A MEMORY', November 20, 1988, by Joanna Wragg

"For Hispanic candidates banking on ethnic calls to arms, the survey suggests that the approach may bring no better than mixed results right now. And in the future, they may not work at all, as the numbers of younger voters overtake their seniors."

-MAYORAL ELECTION EXPOSES GENERATION GAP, November 7, 1993, by Andres Viglucci

"There is a generational transition going on," said Jose Ceballos, Hispanic coordinator for the Clinton-Gore campaign. "I have a lot of young Cubans who come up to me and say, 'Don't tell my Mom, but your guy's doing pretty good.' "

-GOP WOULD BE TOUGHER ON CUBA, KEMP PLEDGES, October 27, 1996 by Tom Fiedler

"There are also some generational differences. Younger people are more likely than older exiles to favor dialogue and to want to hear music from the island played on Miami radio, according to the poll."

-EXILES GLUM ABOUT PROSPECTS FOR CUBA, June 29, 1997 by Cynthia Corzo and Fabiola Santiago

"Some of the change is generational . Cubans who came to the United States in the 1960s - and traditionally have held the more conservative views - now make up only a third of the Cuban population in Miami-Dade.

"Through time, there has been a greater acceptance that there are going to be these initiatives,'' Perez said. "I also think that to some extent, there's been a transition in the Cuban-American community. People have changed their position, and many of the traditional hard-liners have died.''

-U.S.-CUBA EXCHANGES BECOMING MORE COMMON, March 26, 1999, by Fabiola Santiago

A Bi-Partisan & Effective Approach to Solving the Debt Crisis

2011-07-28T09:02:00.002-04:00

By: Rudy Mayor

Because Washington Can't Solve the Problem...We Will. The following suggestions form a plan that is all-inclusive of present proposals and other considerations that have been taken off the table; for purposes of promoting it should be called an "all of the above" plan. If the root of the problem is spending, why not tackle every expense possible? This proposal does what the current Boehner and Reid plans do not -close tax loopholes, temporarily increases taxes on the highest income bracket, reforms costly entitlement programs and votes on a Balanced Budget Amendment.

1. Reform Entitlement Programs Like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The largest chunk of our Federal budget goes toward obligations for social insurance and health insurance programs; this is the core problem with America’s spending. While radical changes to these programs cannot be reasonably debated while having a nearby August 2nd deadline for the passage of legislation, small changes can go a long way to saving billions of dollars. Some examples include increasing the retirement age, an option to legally opt out of social security payments who don’t need it after retiring and requiring higher co-payments for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Political Implication: Although these are big government programs, beneficiaries make up large portions of both parties. It may hurt the Democrats more to cut these programs, but more and more Americans are seeing the need to do so. Regardless its big government being downsized so, +1 for Republicans.

2. Increasing Federal Revenues

Revenues have fallen because fewer Americans are employed and fewer are paying taxes. We can make larger repayments toward our debt if we temporarily repeal the Bush tax cuts to Clinton era percentages on the highest income earners for a period of five years. The quicker we pay our debt, the less interest we accrue, and the less we pay in the long run. After a recovery has been made, and more Americans are working, we can cut taxes to spur further economic growth. We cannot expect, however, to resolve our debt issue by raising taxes alone. Ending tax breaks on luxury items can also supplement revenues.

Political Implication: Republicans argue it will deepen the recession and cause even more unemployment. This is very possible, but some of the wealthiest tax payers can hire and pay a marginally higher tax at the same time. The compromise lies in the temporary nature of the tax increase. If the recession in fact goes deeper, Obama may get most of the blame and the Republicans rewarded in 2012 and 2014 with election victories. This will be true only if Republicans fight off claims that they too supported the temporary tax increases. +1 for Democrats.

3. Increasing the Debt Ceiling

To create confidence in consumers, investors and international lenders, the U.S. should raise the debt ceiling once and it should be a reasonable increase. We all agree that the U.S. cannot default on loans and that uncertainty is one of the most influential driving factors in our economy. By increasing the debt ceiling we solve both problems, although looking back at how many times its been increased, probably temporarily. Needless to say, this should be part of any deal, not doing so many end up catastrophically.

Political Implication: Raising the debt ceiling is something both Republicans and Democrats have done. When Bush was in office, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, saying that “increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.” Now it seems everything depends on raising it. Americans recognize it needs to be raised, so the debt ceiling may not be an issue in 2012 unless it needs to be raised again in about a year, causing another similar debate. -/- No Republican/Democrat Advantage

4. Ending Subsidies

Subsidies help certain industries survive and compete with international producers, but not all of these industries depend on subsidies to profit. Incentives for oil exploration exist in the potential profits from selling oil. Incentives for exploring renewable sources of energy exist for industries that could potentially profit from the green movement. Agribusiness is no exception. If America is truly capitalist, it should stop falsely picking the winners and losers by, essentially, funding private businesses.

Political Implication: Ending subsidies is more capitalist than maintaining them and it also cuts costs, helping many Republicans politically if they successfully frame the issue during election season. Still a lot of other Republicans and Democrats alike come from states like Iowa whose citizens lobby for farm subsidies and the GOP has large oil companies who may hold back on donations. Both Democrats and Republicans will hurt from farmers’ claims that they are hurting and no one really wants to hurt farmers, but cuts needs to be made! -/- No Republican/Democrat Advantage

5. Balanced Budget Amendment

Adding a Constitutional Amendment to the legislation means that it requires 2/3 of both chambers of Congress in order to pass. Nothing says “we’re in this together!” more than having such a large percentage of Congress getting behind one single piece of legislation. The Amendment legally binds the U.S. to spending what it can as opposed to what it wants. Of course, the Amendment should not tie the country’s hands in times of unforeseen wars and national emergencies. Enough flexibility is needed, perhaps by requiring a cap on debt and/or a cap on money spent as percentage of GDP. Another hurdle is having states also ratify the Amendment which of course would require time, maybe a couple of years. If enough states don’t ratify, the Amendment would not pass.

Political Implication: Passing the Amendment in this bill would really help Republicans politically back home; it was their idea and their credit to have. Of course, the amendment wouldn’t be added until states ratify it, meaning that even if the bill passes, the Amendment may not. Constitutional and legal issues may come up in the future involving the Supreme Court. Advantage +1 Republicans.

Overall Political Scorecard:

Both sides come up with wins and losses, and believe me, with 2012 right around the corner they are thinking about who wins what battles. It seems that this approach is balanced enough to deliver victories and defeats to both sides. What would require is for both parties to designate a member of their party to work together on the language of the legislation. The most obvious choices are probably Boehner and Reid, but whoever it is, it must be a bill that no single party can claim credit for. If any one party can claim credit for passing or writing the whole bill, the other party will not let it pass and there’s just no way around it. It can’t be a Reid Plan or a Boehner plan it has to be a Reid-Boehner Plan.

Politicians are going to have to understand that sometimes you win some and sometimes you lose some and that the American people shouldn't be held hostage by their personal and selfish needs to be re-elected. They need to make the right decisions now and later defend themselves in the campaign if they so wish to be re-elected; if they aren't, it aint the end of the world and they shouldn't act like it will be.

CEPR Attacks Ros-Lehtinen and Cuban-American Community

2010-11-10T16:27:00.001-05:00

BY: RUDY MAYOR

We live in a generation, living in a country of fools, who have never had to defend their freedoms and therefore consider others who fervently have to defend theirs as uneducated radicals. These fools have manuevered themselves into the American mainstream and promoted an environment of luke warmness that had lost all vestiges of America's Revolutionary spirit. The present generation is one more willing, than the previous generation, to stand on its knees than die on its feet.

If being principled and supportive of democracy is unAmerican, when did this begin? Should Jews who called for the assassination of Adolf Hitler been called radical and unrighteous? Should we have allowed Communism to take over all of Europe and Asia because we weren't willing to sacrifice ourselves for what we know is morally right in our hearts? George Washington would find the present nation utterly unrecognizable by the lack of passion for the principles be fought for in 1776. The Founding Fathers were not fools, and those who have given their lives up in the defense of liberty didn't die in vain.

Today the Center for Economic Policy Research, a self-proclaimed “nonpartisan think tank that promotes democratic debate on economic and social issues” came out with a strong email against Cuban-American Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her stances on Cuba and other Latin American countries. The email, which also attacked Rep. Connie Mack of Florida and other former State Department officials, did more than just aim at the neck of the future Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs committee. The email was a fiery attack on the entire Cuban-American community, which is made up of individuals who have had to flee their country in the hundreds of thousands from the 60's till today.

The email went so far as to say that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen gets cozy with terrorists and undermines her life-long commitment of promoting human rights in Cuba, Burma and other dictatorships around the world by calling her a “champion” of human rights in quotations. It reinforces a hurtful and inaccurate stereotype that Cuban-Americans, especially those in Miami, are right-wing nut jobs who are both too uneducated and too passionate to see the truth about Castro. Despite the groups non-partisan nature, it does say that at least Ros-Lehtinen is right on gay marriage and immigration. Needless to say, this organization is a front – question is who's behind it?

The CEPR calls Ros-Lehtinen's anti-Castro and anti-Communist beliefs “noisy rhetoric” that only reinforces “failed policies of the past administration.” Non-partisan, really? It seems that in this occasion like in so many others,economic oriented individuals who are also monolithic in their considerations for policy are willing to jettison the ideas of human rights and democracy in favor of policies that will simply enrich them. Behind the CEPR, must be two factions. One, being the far left in America that are in the same political beds as Fidel, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, as well as those American libertarians who are actively lobbying for open trade and travel with Cuba at all costs.

This stance, of course, is one that would bring a lot of money to both Castro and the big corporations that would be able to export to Cuba; clearly there is a lot of money at stake. It seems that this lobby is now resorting to the dirty tactics of painting Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and the entire Cuban-American community as a group of radicals in order to undermine the community's strong support for the embargo in Washington. We cannot and wont allow this dehumanizing and dishonorable portrayal of our community. We may be loud and passionate, but we are passionate about the things Americans used to be passionate about because they recently needed defending in Cuba's history as a nation. That is worth more than any dollar earned from the nation the Castro's have been exploiting since 1959.

Rubio Win Signals Rise of Politicians with Backbones

2010-11-05T15:59:00.007-04:00

When I sat down for dinner with Marco Rubio and activists belonging to Students for Free Cuba at The George Washington University in April of 2009, Marco Rubio told us that he intended to run for the U.S. Senate in Florida. He knew that Governor Charlie Crist was interested but he didn't care. He knew that Barack Obama's broad and unsuccessful agenda would concern Americans and that conservatives would rightfully rally back. He knew that this election, more than elections before, would be about ideas and that the responce would be indicative of the dangerous leftist direction our country was taking.

Rubio told me that he inteded to focus on his fresh ideas for America and because his ideas for Florida were not Obama's or Crist's(essentially the same thing) that he could win the election. For Rubio, it was never about who the big names were endorsing or how much money he could raise; he knew that Americans were looking for a message that gave them hope and intended to rollback the big government policies of this Administration.

Crist's decision to run as an Independent after polls showed he would lose the Republican primary, sheds light on how little this election was about ideas for Crist and how much of it was a stepping stone to get ahead in politics. Flirting with the idea of being named Vice President under John McCain seemed to have likened Crist to the idea of seeking a national office.

Crist's actions and his uncommitted stances on issues showed how willing he was to mold himself just to get elected. This also showed how out of touch Crist really was. This election was less about the establishment and more about ideas and Crist's narcissitic "me-me-me" campaign similar to Arlen Specter's had no place in 2010. Floridians and Americans in general were looking for candidates with strong backbones that would oppose Obama's large government programs.

I am very happy that Marco Rubio won this election and not once did I doubt his ability to do it - not during dinner in April of 2009 and not any time since he declared. I will be proud to visit his office in January - here's to the "great right hope."

Check this Link out: March 2009 I was featured in a Marco Rubio email to raise money, one of the first campaign emails sent out by the Rubio campaign. http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2009/03/dude-wheres-my-money.html

Victory: Oh How Sweet It Is.

The Indirect Implications of the Proposition 8 Ruling on Government

2010-08-05T15:50:00.001-04:00

I have long held the opinion that the present method by which we govern ourselves in the United States is far removed from the method intended by our Founders in the Constitution. That method was for a national government to exist to unite the states in matters of a global scope like national defense and trade with other nations.

In essence, the Constitution was not a rights giver but instead a document intended to define the role of the various departments of the national government. The Amendments mentioned rights the people retained although not all the rights of man were included in them. The Tenth Amendment was intended to clear the notion that non-national issues were to be resolved at the state level by state governments.

Making most of the decisions at the state level would give citizens a greater level of freedom and secure them a greater quality of representation. Habit and preference, not a strict following of the law or necessity, put us on the path we have been on since the 1930s. Issues have been unnecessarily nationalized and dealt with by politicians who know less about us than the ones who represent us in our state capitals. Big government has made government more present yet less responsive and less effective.

An Amendment to the California Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman is an attempt by citizens to democratically govern themselves using the Founders desired method of utilizing the state for such issues of domestic importance. The argument against that Amendment is a constitutional one – where critics say that same sex couples aren’t given the equal protection of the laws.

Precedents and rulings made by judges have defined and altered what equal protection of the laws means. It is actually more accurate to say “what those words seem to mean today by those interpreting them today.” Because the definition has changed and the trend is for the scope of its meaning to be broader and more generalized the question is then – where does it stop? Where does it cease to apply?

A more obvious question pertaining to its end includes, whether equal protection is one day to mean that everyone have parcels of land that are equal in size? Or equal in that all of us have the same amount of wealth? I don’t know how much this clause or other clauses can be stretched, but regardless of your views on the matter, one must admit that people are increasingly less and less able to govern themselves democratically when decisions such as the one made by this court are made. I am not saying that the decision was a wrong one, only that our nation is becoming less democratic when decisions and precedents like these are made and set; today we have even fewer things that we can decide for ourselves in the democratic process.

Regardless, too, of our views on the issue of marriage, we must realize that there is a tyranny of the minority in this country and that it is gaining momentum. A minority of California voters believe in same-sex marriage and yet today same-sex marriage is the law in California. The ruling and the law was made by one judge and it trumped the vote of millions. What better example of the tyranny of the minority at work? What better example that the power of the people continues to diminish?

A similar amendment in Florida passed a few years ago and yet has not seen the controversy that the California amendment has attracted. This can be traced to the strong interest groups in California compared to Florida’s. Therein lies the problem of strong factions as explained by James Madison in The Federalist – but that requires another sitting. One of the reasons for the tranquility of the Florida marriage amendment is also the way it was presented. It was presented in a way that supporters said would not inhibit civil unions from being approved in Florida’s legal future. It explained that civil unions and marriage were separate and that civil unions had little to no implications on religious freedom. With civil unions, the church would not be forced to change its Bible and would not be forced to marry same-sex couples against their beliefs.

This is moderation in governance and good democracy; an example of our Founders original intention for how we should govern ourselves – with an eye on our will and another toward the future. Above all, it is good law making and California’s mess has riled up the whole nation into an unnecessary national debate once again. It will undoubtedly inspire many to take swift national action and once again, in accordance with the trend, ignore the Constitution or the way things were meant to be; a domino effect that will continue to make our nation and our laws less democratic and less flexible to our changing will that comes with the changing times.

The Original States-Oriented Government

2010-06-21T22:08:00.000-04:00

If the Federal Government is mighty and all powerful like a lot of people tend to claim nowadays, and if they have the jurisdiction to make laws and stick their noses in just about every issue under the sun, then what exactly were all the other rights the Founding Fathers said they were granting the states in the 10th Amendment? It doesn’t seem like states have a whole lot of power over much of anything, but it’s not because that’s how the Founders intended our nation to be run. The whole structure of how our government conducts business, what issues are dealt with and what level of government handles those issues was turned upside down some time in our nations history.

Many claim that necessity caused this, but even necessity should not lead us to purposefully misread the Constitution to fit our selfish needs. Law is law and even the Constitution can be changed to fit the changing times; instead we started making assumptions or completely started interpreting the Constitution in ways that gave new meaning to old words in the document to justify new government actions.

States rights went down the drain when states of the old Confederacy used the argument to justify their democratic rights to slavery. When the Union won the war and history books linked states rights to the slave South, it became one of those issues that brought back bad memories. Of course there are and should be limits to what we can democratically choose to do. We can’t and shouldn’t be able to violate the most fundamental rights of others with a majority vote.

What we’ve done because states rights has been linked to slavery is completely put the power to governing in the hands of politicians in Washington when that power was meant to be placed more locally in state capitals. As a result, the people making decisions for us are far more removed from the realities and problems of daily life in Congressional districts than they would be if those decisions were made in state capitals.

If this were so, the politicians who represented us would more likely be like us, look like us, be of a similar income level as us, or live in our own neighborhood. They would have better communication with constituents and be more effective at delivering results. This doesn’t happen because all the relevant decisions are now made in what I can imagine is a distant place for anyone living in the Mid-West and the West Coast. How often do those Congressmen actually meet with their constituents?

Perhaps peoples’ frustrations with the quality of our democracy would be alleviated if the decisions being made were made by state governments who are more accurate representations of smaller samples of the nation. Abortion law, laws on gay marriage and gun control would be more in line with the states’ views on those issues. I’m sure the Founders would be confused if you told them there is a Constitutional right to some medical procedure that is never mentioned in the Constitution and is not relevant to the Constitution.

The Founders granted a right for the people to govern themselves by allowing them to choose whether to allow unlimited abortions, outlaw them completely, or formulate some kind of middle ground and they did that by drafting the 10th Amendment. In it they included the right for people to govern themselves on all issues they could predict and others they could not predict would be part of the state or national conversation in the future. Their vagueness was meant to allow for governing on many issues at the state level and not the national level.

The Miami Ideology

2010-02-04T18:50:00.004-05:00

The Miami Ideology

It is common for Hispanics to say good things about Miami’s diverse culture and its desirable warm weather, but common also is the view that Miami is composed of politically radical Hispanics who take uncommon stances on issues that pertain to Latin America. Outsiders of the “Magic City” view the political culture of Miami as vastly different to that of other Hispanics in the country, especially when they compare Cuban-Americans to the rest. For some, the differences that exist between Hispanics from Miami and those outside is difficult to explain. Luckily, having lived there my entire life and having moved away from the city has given me some insight into a few reasons why this political schism may have taken place.

Many Hispanics outside Miami cannot imagine minorities siding with Republicans on so many issues and identifying with conservatism as much as Miami Hispanics do. Diversity of skin color, religious affiliation, and income makes Miami very akin to diversity of thought; the conglomeration of different immigration experiences also make for a truly diverse outlook on foreign and domestic politics and therefore political affiliations. For this reason, Miami-Dade County tends not to be very moderate, but instead possess a great number of individuals from both sides of the political spectrum, often resulting in very close Presidential election results as was the case in 2000.

Hispanics from Miami don’t buy in to the whole “Republicans are white racists” deal because our experiences with the Republican Party in general are very different. First of all, Miamians tend to have some sort of communication or experience with the GOP because the GOP is a viable party in Miami. Many other metropolitan centers where minorities live often fall victim to Republican Deficiency Disorder or RDD. To many in the big cities, encountering a Republican is like encountering the fossils of a rare species of dinosaur. If they do get the rare opportunity to meet such an extraterrestrial life form, they automatically assume that they are racist, an Evangelical Christian, and obviously intolerant of gays. Most importantly, they assume that the Republican is inherently anti-immigrant and therefore when they meet a Hispanic Republican, they often strip them of their “Latino-ness” even though they may be better acquainted with the culture and language.

Immigrants who decide to come to the United States do so because they know that the U.S. is superior in offering its residents and citizens alike the economic opportunities and political freedoms that don’t exist in their native countries. The Miami Hispanic is more grateful about the United States than they are critical of it because they know that the country they left and love is also a country that does not compare in offering the opportunities that the United States offers. In recognizing that the U.S. has given them a second chance, they embrace the values of the U.S. and therefore identify with being patriotic and loving their newly adopted country. This does not mean that Miami Hispanics jettison their culture and their language and replace theirs with American culture. American culture is actually quite unknown in Miami, especially in its predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods that make up the city’s suburbs where Spanish is the language of business, trade, and everyday conversation.

The Miami Hispanic looks beyond the U.S.’s borders and is quickly reminded of Latin America’s poverty and lawlessness, the non-Miami Hispanic looks beyond the U.S.’s borders and sees a country that they may be distant from but still have a lot of pride for. It is in fact that country that helps to define them and give them an identity in a city or neighborhood where they feel like an outsider or minority and where they feel inherently disadvantaged because of where they’re from. Miami Hispanics are usually all working class poor, although some have succeeded more than others through entrepreneurship or higher degrees. The Miami Hispanic, however, is not as cognizant of how poor they are because everyone around them seems to be in their same income bracket. They do not believe that being Hispanic in the U.S. means being the floor sweeper while the white man is naturally the lawyer and the doctor. In Miami, the Hispanic is the floor sweeper, the McDonalds cashier, the doctor and the lawyer all at once. Because of this you cannot say that the lawyers and doctors had some kind of financial or racial upper-hand on you because you have the same background and the same setbacks, sometimes even the same story.

Cuban-Americans are not unique. Like everyone else, they are the sum of their experiences and their experiences have made many conservative. Aside from the natural tendency of the Latino family which makes Cubans socially conservative on issues of abortion and gay marriage, they side with conservatives because they have helped them more than anyone. Ronald Reagan actively spoke out against Communism, not only in Cuba, but all around the world. He criticized the ideology at its rotten core and the Cuban people understood it because they lived through it. Republicans welcomed Cuban migrants with open arms because they understood that Communism was and is no easy thing to live through. They understand that Communism strips the individual of his individuality and therefore strips him of his economic and political rights. Democrats have often come across as sympathetic to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara – although that kind of Democrat doesn’t exist in Miami. Those who also criticize U.S. policy and claim that Cuban education and healthcare are superior also come across as supporters of a Communist regime, and those people often tend to be liberal, not conservative. The Cuban-American is often passionate about the situation in Cuba and because it is personal, you should not expect a Cuban to tolerate your positive and lofty views on a Revolution that has made it intolerable to live in the country they still love. Often, voting in Miami comes down to this – which candidate supports the embargo and which candidate will come out stronger in favor of freedom and democracy in Cuba? Imposing democracy is not a bad thing as long as it is democracy that we’re imposing and not some other form of government. This view of the world may have to do with Cubans’ history with a volatile politics and their still unachieved dream for complete freedom of the people who live on the island; in essence the dream of Jose Marti is still unachieved and must live on.

The reason why Miami Cubans come off as so radical is because they still possess the 1959 mentality of fighting for freedom. Few groups of men and women did so much to try to undermine a totalitarian government like that of Cuba’s as those men and women who now live in Miami. Most importantly, they seem radical because they lived through the radical and radically changing years after the Revolution that changed their country for the worse and in ways they could not imagine. Most Cubans in Miami never supported Dictator Fulgencio Batista, but actually believed in the Revolution to replace him with a democratic government, as Fidel Castro first promised. However, when Cubans say that they lived better under Batista; that they at least had economic freedom although they had little political freedom, they get called right-wing extremists. It is not true that they are and it is not true that they supported Batista. The reason why the Revolution was so successful was because Batista was so unpopular. Furthermore, the opinion that Che is a murderer and oppressor is nearly universal because the story of Che is synonymous with the
Communism that persists in Cuba.

In essence, Cubans look not at what Che may have said or may have inspired, but instead what Che supported and helped implement in their own country. It was in fact the Cuban people, not others, who saw their humble homes confiscated and their families made to do forced labor for the Revolution and it was Che who inspired and implemented these things in their own country. There is no doubt that other Hispanics in Miami have heard their personal stories and are influenced by them to have negative opinions of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara too.

The opinion that elite Hispanics all immigrate to Miami is false. You need not be elite to have negative opinions of individuals like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Many Venezuelans who live in Miami are also eligible to vote in Venezuela’s elections and do so from Miami, mostly against Chavez. They do this because they have come to know the freedoms of the U.S. and believe, having taken advantage of them, that they are valuable and indispensible. They want the poor to be empowered in their country, but they do not believe that the empowerment of the poor has to come at the price of losing essential freedoms. They learn a lot from their Cuban neighbors and do not want to fall into the same path that Cuba fell into – for this reason Venezuelans have become increasingly visible in anti-Chavez protests and support tough measures to salvage the rights of their fellow Venezuelans. Hondurans believe similarly as Venezuelans do that the rights they have experienced in the U.S. cannot be sacrificed for empowering the poor. The Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras standing up to Manuel Zelaya’s attempts to consolidate Presidential power and follow the footsteps of Castro and Chavez were mostly welcomed by Hondurans in Miami. Their experience with knowing the Cuban and Venezuelan stories – stories that are all too real in Miami – causes them to stand up the way they do.

Perhaps defenders of freedom may come across as strong and radical to those who have never had to defend their freedoms, but immigrants in Miami are well aware of the sacrifices of defending that freedom. They have themselves or their parents had to live in a time where freedoms were stripped of nations in their entirety and the natural result of the time was to fight vigorously and endlessly. The stories of these freedom fighters still resonate among later generations because they are so well known and talked about in Miami. Sometimes leaving Miami and realizing how unique these stories are may be the only way to appreciate their true value.

To Cubans and Venezuelans and other Hispanics in Miami, government hand outs are the equivalent of intrusive government policies that closely resemble those of the Communistic and ill-run governments they left behind. Many believe that the programs naturally make people feel entitled, resulting in the perpetual and unstoppable growth of government which they have experienced for themselves. They don't trust it from experience and this too shapes the Miami Ideology.