U.S.-Cuba embargo fails in both theory and practice

Fidel Castro resigned recently, which brings a thought to mind. The embargo against Cuba is… Fidel Castro resigned recently, which brings a thought to mind. The embargo against Cuba is and always has been an affront to reason, failing in theory and practice.

Theory:

The main fallacy of the embargo is the thinking that capitalism and communism are two competing, viable propositions, but that we prefer capitalism out of some moral choice or character quirk.

The error is grave. Capitalism is preferred because it is better, whether or not we think it’s better, just like walking straight northwest is better than walking north and then west, just like metal cars are better than cars made of cotton. Capitalism achieves goals that we innately cherish with efficacy and less social friction. Communism mires everyday life in a catacomb of third-party decision making where the fallacies, status-quo bias, misconceptions and disinterestedness that characterize a citizen’s or bureaucrats’ political thinking are ennobled. The embargo itself is an example of the mistakes we can trust ourselves to make when we’re not deeply, personally affected by our choices’ outcomes.

What’s more, it’s no surprise the Cubans never took up arms against Castro over this embargo. We should expect them to hate the embargo, end of story. A group’s reasoning always resembles a child’s. In a similar way, on Sept. 12, 2001, we countered real talk from terrorists with fantasies that absolved us: “They hate our freedom,” like we’re freer than the Swiss, who can own marijuana and machine guns. In Cuba, it’s easy to picture similar nonsense: “They hate our equality.”

What’s more, one of the main motives for pressing liberalization in Cuba is that its people have no say in politics. How much sense does it make then to punish them for a decision not within their power? It is, after all, mainly the Cubans and not their leaders who suffer from the embargo.

Is the idea to make life so bad for Cubans they revolt? This is a harebrained scheme, and not one embargo supporters endorse. However, if we did embrace this justification, I can’t imagine different policies: In 2004, the Bush administration cut the maximum remittance an American with Cuban family can carry to Cuba from $3,000 to $300 and the frequency of visits to once every three years. Conservatives portend to defend the institution of family, but this policy cleaves families and induces dependence on Cuba’s welfare state.

Our goal should never be to strong-arm a people into our ideology, but to let them see, clear as day, that our way is better. We want freedom and capitalism in Cuba. How inappropriate, then, that heavy-handed economic intervention and restrictions on personal liberty are our means to this end. Practice:

We should evaluate the embargo as we would any other government program: by comparing cost and benefits.

If we’re to attribute any benefit to the embargo, we should also denounce it for killing off World War II veterans: The embargo has proved a force second to old age. This is kind of amazing, given Fidel was a 36-year-old former baseball star when the embargo began. If the war on terror employed aging as a device, we would probably beat the embargo’s record: Osama is an old man on dialysis.

The embargo has a cost, just like any government program. We pay its price in foregone prosperity that we could have realized for ourselves by doing business with the Cubans. So, the price is less obvious than a budget item like HeadStart, but still consequential. Every year we are worse off by some nebulous amount, because we maintain the embargo. HeadStart treads water while it does some good. The embargo doesn’t do anything.

It’s easy to imagine how we could gain from trade with Cuba. Cuba could supplement our sugar supply, lowering prices. Cuba is full of awesome music, like the Buena Vista Social Club. Cuba has incredible beaches we could visit and Cuban cigars. And, I’m no fan of socialized medicine, but it’s simply the case that Cuba has some great doctors. We could easily outsource treatments to these doctors, who seem so adept with the elderly. My geography is so hazy that nothing comes to mind, but if any of you readers can name some place near Cuba where there live many elderly needing costly medical care, it would help out my case.

If we dropped the embargo, free citizens could visit Cuba for treatments. Medicare and Medicaid could offer discounted plans with such coverage or give rebates to people who outsourced their treatments. That would be a win-win situation – first, between taxpayers and retirees; and second, between the United States and Cuba. Some Americans would probably object to this proposal, however, as too capitalistic.

Let’s stop shooting ourselves in the foot and the Cubans in the face. Support free trade in goods and ideas. End the embargo.

E-mail Lewis at ljl10@pitt.edu.