7 ms·

Nothing has changed. For all the polarizing division in US politics on the issue of foreign policy (and even on many domestic issues) the two major parties are

• DANK_YACHT 4y ago
  Sanctions on Cuba could also be due to the Cuban missile crisis. That was a pretty big deal.
• LatteLazy 4y ago
  Fair is fair: capital is what builds economies, capital wins wars, capital allows culture to form, capital makes resources available. And capital will go where it is best protected. So a country that lets it's capital get destroyed is pretty much fucked. This is the fundamental issue with most forms of communism, socialism and theocracy: they're perpetually short of capital. Places like Northern Europe work very hard to simultaneously protect capital and human assets. And that's good. And we should emulate that. But all to often people try to down grade capital instead of upgrading people. The places people so often think of as alternatives (Venezuela as a recent example) all too often fall for this error and doom themselves.
  • meric 4y ago
    The most notable theocracies - Iran and Saudi Arabia, do fairly well compared to the other two forms of government. I wonder why they're do better than one might expect.
    • thematrixturtle 4y ago
      Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy, it's a regular old monarchist dictatorship with some window dressing, and on pretty much any measure they do worse than their capitalist competitors like the UAE or Qatar. Iran, Afghanistan and the Vatican are the only modern theocracies.
    • systemvoltage 4y ago
      Oil.
    • jl6 4y ago
      Do fairly well for whom?
    • brianwawok 4y ago
      Having billions of dollars of black gold gush out of the ground makes many things easy. What happens to them post oil?
  • philipov 4y ago
    I think you are conflating capital with "the capital-owning class" but they are not the same thing.
    • LatteLazy 4y ago
      Not really. If you can keep your capital from fleeing but do away with them then good for you. Cuba and Russia have both made a good stab at that. Saudi too. But again, it's very difficult.
• zajio1am 4y ago
  > Sanctions on Cuba? This is not because Cuba or Castro is "bad". ... What's the real issue with Cuba? Castro nationalized assets and resources that belonged to US corporations. It is not surprising that US reacts more harshly when a foreign country violates human rights of US citizens than when it 'just' opresses their own citizens.
• warning26 4y ago
  > Sanctions on Cuba? This is not because Cuba or Castro is "bad". We have absolutely no problem propping up horrific dictators as "allies" when it suits us (eg Pinochet, MBS, Saddam Hussein until it didn't suit us, even Erdogan, arguably even Netanyahu). What's the real issue with Cuba? Castro nationalized assets and resources that belonged to US corporations. Close, but not quite right. Castro nationalized assets and resources that belonged to various people all of whom now live in Florida and vote as a bloc. Note that Obama actually tried to end the Cuban embargo, but was stopped due to politicians afraid of upsetting the various people-who-hate-Cuba-for-this-specific-reason.
  • uncletaco 4y ago
    I wonder if they’ll be more willing to revisit sanctions now that Florida is all but a red state. Given that bloc isn’t in a swing state anymore it makes sense on the surface.
    • SkyMarshal 4y ago
      Florida is still too close for any party to take for granted. Also those anti-Castro Cubans in FL are single-issue voters, and also can’t be taken for granted.
      • vhgyu75e6u 4y ago
        There is also a small cluster of Venezuelans that will vote GOP because they have, historically, a harder stance on Cuba and the Dictatorship in Venezuela. Funny how left leaning voters call out imperialism but forget that Cuba, Russia and China have been doing that in Venezuela the last 30 years
        • mantas 4y ago
          It's imperialism when US/West does, but it's spreading of love when Russia/USSR (and now China) does it... :/
      • digisign 4y ago
• robonerd 4y ago
  Sanctions against Cuba likely continue because those sanctions are popular with an influential demographic in a swing state, namely Cuban Americans in Florida. In 2020, 58% of Cuban Americans affiliated with the GOP, while only 32% of non-Cuban Hispanics did. Furthermore, Cuban Americans have high voter turnout relative to other Hispanic demographics in America. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/02/most-cuban-american-voters-identify-as-republican-in-2020/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/02/most-cuban-...
• Spooky23 4y ago
  The problem with Cuba is Florida. It’s a politically powerful state and the Cuban community owns the GOP. Ethnic voting blocs are truly powerful. Religious fanaticism waxes and wanes, but strong ethnic identity endured for a few generations. That’s why southern baptists are suddenly sucking up to Catholic judges - it’s seen as a way to connect to Hispanic voters as conservative boomers die off.
  • jmyeet 4y ago
    I don't disagree about the power of the Cuban voting bloc in Florida. Had they voted more in line with, say, other Hispanic voters we may well have avoided a 20 year water in Iraq and Afghanistan [1]. > Ethnic voting blocs are truly powerful. I'd generalize this further. Any substantial voting bloc is powerful, ethnic or otherwise. The NRA and, anti-choice lobbies and the pro-Israel lobby, for example. There is generational voting patterns (as you mention) but this seems to a subset of single-issue voters. There's a reason we can precisely draw Congressional maps to gerrymander the electorate: voting patterns are highly predictable. But a voting bloc can be a double edged sword. Cubans in Florida only hold power because they're the difference between the state being red and blue. It's why certain states are completely ignored in the election. One party or the other will comfortably win. Nothing will change that. Disproportionate power only comes when you're the balance of power. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
    • selimthegrim 4y ago
      To borrow an (apocryphal) line from Paul Revere (with apologies): “The Puerto Ricans are coming, the Puerto Ricans are coming!”
• brokenkebab2 4y ago
  It's oversimplification which can only lead you to the foggy world of conspiracy theories. Modern society is complex, and full of conflicting interests, and that's why two evil dictators may have different kind of favors from US, or whatever country. There's for example a significant voting block which supports sanctioning Cuba, and absolute majority of them are not billionaires. Taking Venezuela case: as potential Russian win would send an encouraging signal to other expansionist regimes, including some who are absolutely willing to be US enemies, and big enough to make troubles, it's becoming more important to deal with bigger problem (compared to Venezuelan regime). There's an obvious solution to these ugly choice of whom of all bad guys to pay more for oil: let domestic extraction industry to increase development. But it happened so that a significant voting block supports diminishing of domestic extraction, and the ruling party doesn't want to annoy them as they have enough troubles without it. So suddenly its not only a game of capitals, but also of ideologies, family roots, voting strategies, and a lot of other elements. Some people say that is how democracy works in every big society. Also, on a side note: Netanyahu may be good, or not, but he is most definitely not a dictator.
  • jmyeet 4y ago
    > ... absolute majority of them are not billionaires. I see two big factors in play here: 1. The widespread belief in American exceptionalism, once characterized as every American thinks of themselves as a temporarily embarrassed millionaire [1]; and 2. The power of propaganda. The number of low-income people who will fight to the hilt that Jeff Bezos shouldn't pay slightly more taxes to pay for the society that made his wealth possible and continues to make it possible is astounding. [1]: http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/ http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
    • jrsj 4y ago
      I think 2 can be complicated as well. Increasing his tax liability along with many other very wealthy people basically requires taxing unrealized gains, which if applied to less wealthy people in the future could be very bad for them. I’d like to see something that specifically targets the loophole of borrowing against stocks & repaying by taking additional loans and selling only assets which have declined in price.
• rafaelm 4y ago
  The sanctions on Venezuela have nothing to do with nationalization. Our oil industry was nationalized in 1976.
  • pphysch 4y ago
    > The sanctions on Venezuela have nothing to do with nationalization. > Section 1. Purpose: The United States recognizes the need for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human rights, and increased free enterprise in Cuba https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/20/2017-22928/strengthening-the-policy-of-the-united-states-toward-cuba https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/20/2017-22...
    • SaintGhurka 4y ago
      Are you responding to the right comment? Venezuela does not appear in the document you linked.
• pphysch 4y ago
  There is a lot of speculation in the replies here that the US strategy towards Cuba revolves mainly around electoral posturing. Here is the actual strategy laid out in an official government document: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/20/2017-22928/strengthening-the-policy-of-the-united-states-toward-cuba https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/20/2017-22... This policy was released in 2017. In 2021, there was a brief and ineffective attempt at a color revolution in Cuba.
• yyyk 4y ago
  >What's the real issue with Cuba? Castro nationalized assets and resources that belonged to US corporations... Sanctions on Venezuela? Again, Venezuela took the unacceptable step of nationalizing their oil assets. Also set up one party states which ideologically align with every US enemy out there including USSR/Russia while completely ruining their own countries. > We have absolutely no problem propping up horrific dictators as "allies" when it suits us (eg Pinochet, MBS, Saddam Hussein until it didn't suit us, even Erdogan, arguably even Netanyahu) MBS doesn't even rule Saudi yet, despite having a lot of power. Erdogan is likely to lose the next election. Nethanyahu is out of office and facing charges. Leaders can suck without being dictators or preventing fair elections. >And with Russia's unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine now threatening the energy sector, suddenly the Venezuelan sanctions aren't as important as we made out Don't make too much of it. The admin will soon find out that Chaves/Maduro ruined the energy sector so thoroughly there isn't any oil to pump in the next decade.
  • MarkMarine 4y ago
    You skipped Pinochet. Thoughts?
    • yyyk 4y ago
      It's well known the US supported useful dictators during the Cold War, nothing new there. That should not imply simping for every anti-US regime out there, or badmouthing every country which has decent relations with US. It should be possible to oppose US policy without supporting one's own set of dictators.
      • random314 4y ago
        Ever considered that you are projecting. That you are bad mouthing every country that doesn't have decent relationships with the US and simping for every pro US dictatorship out there!
  • robinsoh 4y ago
    > Also set up one party states which ideologically align with every US enemy out there including USSR/Russia while completely ruining their own countries. It is unclear if you're referring to Cuba or to Venezuela or both. What exactly does "ideologically aligning" mean? Also does actions taken by a global superpower's military on behalf of elites in that superpower (I'm referencing the article here, "Invade Haiti, Wall Street urged, the US obliged") to steal, confiscate, block trade count towards "ruining their own countries"? My guess is that you're kind of trying to imply they caused their own ruin and deserved it by not being "ideologically aligned" with the US (does that mean Wall Street?), is that inaccurate?
• rnk 4y ago
  Cuba does treat their people in horrible ways, oppressing anyone who resists. But yes, we support plenty of countries that do that - like Turkey! Cuba comes into the 'legacy countries we hated in the past', communism division.
• robinsoh 4y ago
  > Nothing has changed. China?
• MarkMarine 4y ago
  This is a great post about the open and obvious actions the US government has done to protect capital’s interest, but to truly go down the rabbit hole and understand the evil we have done in service of profit, check out what the CIA did in Central and South America, fighting “land reform”
• rajin444 4y ago
  The US has been an oligarchy for a good bit now. Politicians have shifted from discussing how to make our country better and replaced it with why you should hate their political opponents (both sides - ever wonder why it seems like neither political party has a message aside from “at least I’m not the other guy”?). Democracy ends in oligarchy. It’s not like this is new. John Bagot Glubb talks about this in “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival”. Our ruling class is showing the same patterns of those ruling an empire at the end of its days. Squabbling over the riches earned by those who came before with no regard for their people or the future.
  • DFHippie 4y ago
    > both sides - ever wonder why it seems like neither political party has a message aside from “at least I’m not the other guy”? This is pure cynicism. It is both lazy and false. Democratic goals: - address climate change - extend the social insurance programs that are foundational to the welfare state: social security, the ACA, medicare, etc. - election integrity: ensure equal access to the ballot, eliminate gerrymandering, eliminate the electoral college - legislative reform: eliminate the filibuster - education: address educational debt - address inequality through tax measures and public expenditures - appoint liberal judges - preserve access to abortion and contraception - reform policing, making it more community based, less punitive, more accountable in the case of police wrongdoing, etc. - etc. Republican goals: - facilitate resource extraction - privatize public assets - roll back environmental protections and regulations of all sorts - roll back the social insurance programs that are foundational to the welfare state: social security, the ACA, medicare, etc. - reduce taxes, particularly on the wealthy - roll back commitments to international agreements and organizations - enshrine Christian morality and customs in law - roll back protections for historically disadvantaged groups - reduce ballot access for constituencies that tend not to vote Republican - preserve the electoral college and gerrymandering (see previous point) - prevent the teaching of anything touching on diversity or historical prejudices or injustice - appoint conservative judges - prevent access to abortion and contraception - reform policing, making it more lethal, more punitive, less accountable in the case of police wrongdoing, etc. - etc. This lists could be much longer. There are thousands of passionate politicians and activists for both parties who work on these things all the time. However, people are more motivated by negative partisanship than anything else. It turns out listing good stuff you intend to do on behalf of your voters is much less motivating than detailing the perfidy, real or imagined, of the other party and promising to punish it. False equivalence is the way you create oligarchy, not how you fight it.
• andreilys 4y ago
  The US government works for the Bezoses, Gates, Buffetts and Musks of the world. Yes they definitely work for three new-money tech billionaires and not the old money generational wealth families that nobody talks about.
  • jjulius 4y ago
    What good would it have done for OP to list the names of "families that nobody talks about"? Listing Bezos/Musk is an easy way to just say, "richest mother fuckers in the world". You don't have the same impact if you list a name that nobody knows. Because then it would be, "The US government works for the Clarks of the world," and we'd all be going, "Huh?".
• jcranmer 4y ago
  So why didn't the US impose sanctions on the Saudis after they nationalized US oil companies in Saudi Arabia? Or (checks notes [1]) Sri Lanka, Turkey, Bolivia, Bahrain, etc.? The problem with this theory is that it doesn't account for all of the nationalizations that the US didn't respond to with sanctions or invasions. Which is, I believe, larger in number than the reverse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_co...
  • IAmEveryone 4y ago
    For Saudi Arabia, it seems they didn’t nationalize anything but demanded 50 % of profits, which is not too far off from being considered a tax. They then bought the other 50 % decades later. For Sri Lanka, it seems it wasn’t oil production but merely the domestic petrol distribution? Also unclear how much of it was British and not American. For Turkey I can’t find the company at issue, but it apparently happened before the Second World War and I’d guess American interests just weren’t very substantial at the time? The article suggests the US was supporting Turkey in getting out from under existing relationships with the old powers of Europe.
• steve76 4y ago
  [dead]
• random314 4y ago
  Agree with everything but the last line. They work for banks and resource mining corporations. They don't work for software technology new money titans.
• Barrin92 4y ago
  >The US government works for the Bezoses, Gates, Buffetts and Musks of the world the tax department maybe but America's billionaire tech entrepreneurs have barely any relationship with America's foreign policy establishment. It's not clear to me what Bill Gates gains out of subduing Latin American countries and Musk and Cook seem to be pretty positive on China given that they make and sell a lot of their stuff there. America's foreign policy establishment consists of think tanks, intellectuals, politicians, paperbelt types, ideologues and so forth but America's tech sector is to a large extent disconnected from this stuff if not straight up an alternative power center which routinely makes foreign policy hawks very mad.
  • rland 4y ago
    I think he was using those examples because they're billionaires that everyone knows. The energy/construction/resource extraction sector is very closely tied with US foreign policy.
• akhmatova 4y ago
  “I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” It's fun to demonize, isn't? But in the glare of attention we all say stupid things at point or another. In her own words (per WP): Albright later criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda", saying that her question was a loaded question.“I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” She wrote, "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean",[127] and that she regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".[121] She apologized for her remarks in a 2020 interview with The New York Times, calling them "totally stupid".[128][122]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• w0de0 4y ago
  > What's the real issue with Cuba? Castro nationalized assets and resources that belonged to US corporations. > Sanctions on Venezuela? Again, Venezuela took the unacceptable step of nationalizing their oil assets. But is this not saying that the real issue with Cuba is [actual] communism? This requires no conspiracy, it is the root of publicly-cited reasons for US policy towards the island. I think the reason these statements have the allure of revelation despite not being so is an unresolved dissonance in the American civic religion. Capitalism and property have displaced most other rights of the liberal pantheon, old and new. Merely to discover the once unremarkable fact that capitalism in inherently unjust, and that neither property nor free enterprise are actually its synonyms, is lamentably revelatory. I suppose the deliberate destruction of any rational, shared understanding of what communism actually entails, enacted by demagogues attacking Democratic politicians and policy, has also helped break the prior clarity of these embargoes' official justification.