It has been nearly a week since the president announced he would establish an embassy in Cuba, allow investment there, attempt to convince Congress to lift the trade embargo, and being the process of removing terrorist-sponsor label from the Communist dictatorship. Since his announcement, much of the focus on the reaction has centered on the argument between two Republican Senators: Marco Rubio (opponent of the moves) and Rand Paul (supporter of them), in no small part because the argument between the two has become personal, with the term “isolationist” being thrown around by both sides with reckless abandon even though it really applies to neither (Washington Post, although ABC News also covered the back-and-forth).
Through it all, however, one Republican has managed to criticize the president while largely avoiding criticism: Ted Cruz. In fact, Cruz’s reaction has shown a nuance on foreign policy that his colleagues (and would-be presidential rivals) seem to lack, at least on this matter.
Unlike Rubio and Paul, Cruz avoids the false-choice dichotomy of the status quo ante versus the president’s actions. As he notes in Time:
But simply criticizing the Obama administration approach is not enough. As (Cuban dissidents) Sanchez and Farinas pointed out, no one can deny that the Castros have successfully exploited their enmity with the United States to enhance their reputation as revolutionary freedom fighters. And as the critics of the embargo argue, we are 50 years into the project and the Castros are still in power. Of course we should look for new ways to relieve the misery of the Cuban people—but there are better options than what the Obama administration has proposed.
Cruz also highlights voices that should be heard, but haven’t been (much) so far – the Cuban people themselves:
Rather than vague promises of exploring political liberalization, the United States should demand that the political opposition to the Castros be included in any and all negotiations with Cuba, so their concerns will be fully heard and their priorities addressed. Otherwise there will be no incentive for the Castro regime to engage in necessary political reforms.
It may surprise many to learn, but this has been in line with Cruz’s forays into foreign policy for his entire Senate career (brief as it has been). While Paul in particular has repeatedly challenged Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy issues, Cruz has tried to bridge the gap between Paul and his critics – while refusing to personally criticize either.
As a result, should Cruz take the plunge in 2016, he can present himself as the candidate largely acceptable to both sides of the debate on foreign policy while having the support of the “base” due to his actions on domestic issues. Of course, that is the most optimistic interpretation from Cruz’s point of view, as there is no guarantee that “establishment” Republicans will decide that Cruz’s nuance on foreign affairs trumps his domestic “extremism” – or that the “base” would prefer him over Paul anyway.
In the meantime, though, Paul and Rubio are alienating each other’s supporters on this matter, which could allow Cruz to pick up whichever one leaves the race first. This debate is also establishing (by default, for now) Cruz as the voice of the Cuban dispossessed as this issue moves to Congress next year.
@deejaymcguire | facebook.com/people/Dj-McGuire | DJ’s posts
