CUBA: IT’S COMPLICATED

When one asks a native Cuban a question about the state of affairs in their fascinating country, the answer is invariably, “it’s complicated”.  After spending five days in Havana and being introduced to all aspects of Cuban political, social, economic and artistic culture, I have come to believe that this remark is an understatement.

Recently, 24 intrepid lawyers, spouses and friends, interested in learning more about our neighbor off the coast of Miami, took advantage of a whirl wind cultural exchange sponsored by the Washington County Bar Association.  The tour was packed with lectures, diverse eating experiences, museums, an art colony and music/dance ensembles.  By the end of the five days, many of the questions and misconceptions surrounding this socialist island nation had been addressed.  But no one would disagree that Cuba remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma……and very complicated.

In talking to Cubans about their history and place in the world, the generation gaps are even more pronounced than in America.  Those born BC (before Castro) remember the inequality and corruption rampant in the Batista regime.  These older Cubans, now in their 70s and 80s tend to favor the revolution despite the many hardships.  Cubans born AC (after Castro) base their more pessimistic views on the Russian-Soviet withdrawal from the island during in the 90s.  This was a period of extreme economic hardship when many believed Cuba’s socialist experiment would not survive.

The even younger Cubans, now entering adulthood, are less conscious of the advances in education, healthcare and social equality achieved under socialism.  Many cannot wait to receive their excellent free education and seek to leave the island.   They are no doubt influenced by the siren call of uncensored internet and accessible media broadcasts from the U.S. mainland.

Another complication of Cuban culture is the dichotomy between the significant advances Castro’s socialism has achieved for the Cuban people, particularly those disadvantaged under the previous regime, and the massive dysfunctions caused by the same system.  On the one hand is the highest literacy rate in Latin America that turns out some of the best engineers and physicians in the world.  On the other hand, there are few employment opportunities in many segments of the economy. Professionals, even in essential fields, are poorly paid.  With the increase in tourism, it is not uncommon for a private restaurant owner or even a taxi driver with tips to earn more than a top surgeon.

Free comprehensive health care for all, with less infant mortality than the United States, is contrasted with little access to high tech medical equipment, because of the embargo. (see Nicholas Kristof NYT 1/18/19) As a result, every Cuban has some of the best basic universal health care in the world, with no opportunity to be treated with cutting edge procedures.

Housing in Cuba is complicated.  The homes of wealthy citizens who left the island following the revolution were turned into multifamily residences.  Cubans were permitted to purchase their living space from the government over a 15 year period.  The good news is that most Cubans now own their homes.  The bad news is that several generations of the same family often occupy the same space. Transfers of real estate are difficult with the value on the deed much lower than the market value.  Non Cubans are not permitted to own property which encourages very creative transactions with ex-pats who seek to live on the island.

New infrastructure and renovation of Cuban buildings has been nonexistent since the 1959 revolution.  Havana, once the pride of the Caribbean and Latin America, is now shabby at best.  Certain streets would not look out of place in the war torn Middle East. The problem is complicated by the embargo which makes it difficult to import building materials when other necessities are in high demand.  Moreover, Cuban housing regulations do not provide for maintaining common areas of residential buildings. Accordingly, there is no incentive for owners in a building to repair stained facades, crumbling steps, or dingy hallways. Lastly, new investment on the island is going to build up the resort area, not Havana.

The Cuban citizens’ relationship with their country is complicated.  My observation is that many complain about socialism with its dysfunctional economy, authoritarian government and stifling bureaucracy that manages to “find a problem for every solution.”  At the same time, Cubans are strongly nationalistic and are well aware that the violence and abject poverty found throughout Latin America does not exist in Cuba.

Guns are not permitted, with even long guns used for hunting in rural areas tightly controlled. Illegal drug use is nominal with strict criminal penalties and there are no gangs of disillusioned youth.  Havana streets are among the safest in the world.

One comes away from Cuba amazed at the resourcefulness of the people in dealing with the many complications.  The fact that 60,000 American vintage cars are still on the streets of Havana, wowing tourists, is itself a testimony to making the best of things. A “hybrid” vehicle is one that is kept running from parts pirated from many makes and models.

For under $5.00 Cuban young people can enjoy a romantic night on the town. This would include a movie (prices are subsidized by the government) ice cream at one of the famous parlors and a moon lit stroll down the Malecon, the five-mile sea walk that separates Havana from the ocean.

Cubans have learned how to circumvent the socialist system to get what they need in a variety of ways.  Many have second and third sources of income in addition to the low government wages.  When there is a crack in the monolithic socialist economy that permits a small degree of private enterprise, restaurants, creative arts groups and small businesses flourish.  Families work around the slim pickings on Cuban television by renting a black market video box full of current media, streamed from the U.S. over the internet.

Part two of this commentary will discuss the changing political environment in Cuba and the state of Cuban-American relations.

  

THE REAL CRISIS: LOSS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

As we enter 2019, there is a long list of problems to concern the neutral observer on the health of American governance.  In my view, almost all the ongoing crises, including trade wars, a prolonged governmental shutdown, uncertainty in foreign policy (that has allies and opponents alike scratching their heads) and even the threat of impeachment can all be traced to one overriding factor.  

There is a pronounced lack of knowledgeable advisors in the White House, in Congress and throughout the federal bureaucracy.  I am speaking of the paucity in today’s White House and federal government of old school political operatives; of foreign policy experts who are well versed in strategic options as well how foreign regimes think and act; and of economists and international experts with experience in negotiating agreements with other countries.

First, consider the Senate and the House of Representatives.  On matters of trade, the use of force, international agreements and even crafting bipartisan legislation on complex technical matters, Congress has gone AWOL. The past practice of members of Congress developing expertise in a certain area of governance in order to advise and challenge the President is no longer the case. It has been reported that new Republican members in the House of Representatives proudly announced their lack of a passport rather than their eagerness to learn and dive deeply into foreign policy. Exasperating the problem, today’s members of Congress seek to be placed on more committees then in the past, giving them little opportunity to gain proficiency in any one area.

The world is a complicated and dangerous place.  When we elect legislators who are partisan ideologues rather than those with the desire to get involved with policy and to govern, a valuable check and balance is lost. Power is ceded to the Presidency by default.  The White House is relied on to provide the expertise necessary to navigate through troubled waters without Congressional input or oversite.

Which brings us to Donald Trump’s two-year-old presidency. In the modern era, Presidents have been pleased that Congress has shirked its responsibilities. For example, shortly after 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force to combat terrorism. The AUMF has remained in place and given subsequent presidents the unchecked ability to expand military operations throughout the Middle East. Presidents Bush 43 and Obama gladly assumed the additional responsibility and staffed up the National Security Council with well-versed policy experts to replace what was clearly a congressional duty.  No one seemed to care.

Unfortunately, President Trump, while welcoming the lack of constraint on his actions, has not taken the manpower steps necessary to run an effective presidency. Where Obama hired the best experts he could find to present multiple options and encouraged debate, Trump openly criticizes or terminates those who disagree with him and seeks minimal input.

Now, two years into his presidency, Trump has left himself a skeleton crew of ideologically loyal staffers, with questionable expertise, who are willing to accept his “hunches” as the best way forward. The result has been a basketful of questionable unilateral decisions, made by the President with enormous consequences and no Congressional debate. While the media is reporting on Presidential tweets and the Mueller probe, Trump has walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the Iran nuclear deal. His international travels have disrupted relations with our allies while embracing totalitarian regimes around the world.

The same can be said of Trump’s use of White House political operatives.  Their main task should be to protect the President from himself. Even with Trump’s loose cannon tendencies, it is difficult to believe that White House political advisors with the accumulated wisdom of a James Baker (Ronald Reagan) or John Podesta (Clinton, Obama) would have permitted Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey and to make the incriminating comments that lead to appointment of an Independent Counsel.

Lastly, the federal bureaucracy has been severely compromised in its ability to effectively carry out its responsibilities since Trump assumed the presidency.  In 2017, the State Department, lost 60 percent of its career ambassadors and a substantial cut to its budget. After more than 24 months in office, hundreds of key jobs that require Senate confirmation have yet to be filled.  In most cases a candidate has not been chosen by the White House. Thirteen Inspector General positions, charged with rooting out waste fraud and abuse, remain unfilled.  So much for Trump’s pledge to drain the swamp in Washington.

All of the above is a crisis, not simply a talking point.  It is not Trump’s fault that over the past several decades Congress has relinquished powers granted to it under the Constitution.  But he is responsible for firing NJ Governor, Chris Christie, who attempted to put a rational transition plan in place and for refusing to recognize his new responsibilities.

A president who states he “knows more than the Generals”, who refuses to read his daily security brief and who despises expertise is a danger indeed.  In the event of a real national emergency, one not manufactured by President Trump, the challenge may be beyond his ability to cope.

THE MEANING OF JUSTICE

The wordsmiths at Merriam-Webster recently declared “justice” the word of the year.  This difficult to define concept, arguably one of the foundations of our constitutional republic, saw a 74% increase in lookups in 2018 over the previous year.  No doubt the public’s interest in “obstruction of Justice” and “Justice Brett Kavanaugh” had something to do with the increase. But whatever the cause of additional focus, justice deserves a more in depth analysis than most Americans are willing to give it.

The origins of justice can be traced to a Gallicized version of the Latin word “iustitia” meaning fairness or equity. Over time the Roman goddess of Justice, portrayed as a woman holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other was adopted as an important symbol.  In the 16^th century, Lady Justice began wearing a blindfold to represent impartiality. The English common law turned justice into the watchword for a new type of court process, later faithfully imported into the American legal system. 

Justice is now used to impart a variety of meanings including equity, objectivity, honesty, morality and a judge of the supreme court.  For those willing to get down in the weeds and consider political philosophy, there are much deeper meanings.

  Understanding the manner in which justice has evolved from Plato and Aristotle through Immanuel Kant to John Rawls gives us a way to understand the deep political conflicts that divide our citizens into unrelenting tribes. It also explains why conservative and liberal judges have such different views on interpreting the law and in deciding what is just.

In a nutshell, the Hellenistic ancients believed that a just society should seek to promote the virtue of its citizens.  This would include passing laws that reflect the most desirable way for people to live.  On the other hand, more modern political philosophers have placed the emphasis on each person’s freedom to choose his or her subjective concept of how to live. Other recent philosophers have focused on the common good or on inequality. These conflicts of virtue versus freedom versus inequality have always been at the heart of the justice debate and remain with us today.

To investigate all of the philosophical nuances of justice is a long and complicated undertaking. Thankfully we have the excellent book by Michael J. Sandel: Justice, What’s The Right Thing To Do?, to help us along.  Professor Sandel teaches the most popular and discussed course at Harvard University, on understanding Justice.  His book is the summary of his scholarship for the rest of us.

Sandel starts with Utilitarianism: the principle of the most good for the most people.  This type of justice maximizes pleasure for the majority no matter how much pain for the minority.  Because we cannot all agree on what is good, utilitarianism and individual freedom are always in conflict.  Should we ban tobacco smoking?  How about soft drinks that lead to obesity?

Second, is Libertarianism: the idea that individual freedom trumps other factors.  Individuals can choose to harm themselves as long as others are not affected. No one should be deprived of individual liberty to help others. This includes taxing the well off to help the poor.  The government does not get the right to decide what is best for the individual.

The problem with formulating a system of justice based on libertarian thought is that we live in a society, not on individual islands.  For example, while it may seem logical to let each person determine their own healthcare, when the individual without insurance gets sick, we all pay for it. To many of us, leaving the social safety net to chance, with no safeguards, seems like cruel punishment to the disadvantaged.

Next, Professor Sandel considers the teachings of Immanuel Kant, which turned libertarian thought on its head.  Kant wrote that justice is a moral precept where it is rational for everyone to act in a way that harms no one. If individual actions cannot be scaled up to be good for everyone, without bad consequences for anyone, the actions are not moral and therefore not just. Conveniently, Kant never explained what his rules of morality should be.  Many consider his concept of justice difficult to follow in the real world.

Fourth, Sandel focuses on John Rawls, often credited with being the most important political philosopher of the 20^th century. The basis of his theory of justice is reason devoid of self-interest. He asks each of us to image a just society where there are no identity politics and where we have no subjective idea of where each of us would fit in, in terms of wealth or social structure.  His conclusion is that as rational beings we would all choose a society where those who have impediments in achieving social or economic standing would be well taken care of and inequality would be frowned upon.

The only inequality permitted in Rawls’ system would be if it were necessary to make all people better off.  For example, it might be required to pay certain professionals more money in medicine and other fields to maintain quality for the greater good.  As a contrast, libertarians believe that “value creators” deserve to keep all the value they create.  Rawls theorized that the entrepreneurs and professionals among us should only get enough “value” to be willing to do what they do.

Of course the Rawls model of justice is the kind of social liberal democratic model, now in vogue in Scandinavia and under severe attack by many illiberal, populist governments. While the western world appeared to accept the Rawls premise after the end of WWII and again after the defeat of Soviet communism, we are moving away from this justice concept that maximizes equality, with basic rights guaranteed for everyone, including minorities.

The last justice concept introduced by Professor Sandel is the virtue ethics of Aristotle. Here, a well-run society is one that encourages virtue, both by rewarding it and by building it through just laws and in the education of young people.  Aristotle disagreed with Kant that a society could develop rules for all people in all situations.  Instead, “the right thing to do” changes with the circumstances. Good people make good societies where good decisions are made, based on virtue. 

Consider four individuals arrested for theft.  The first stole solely to feed his family; the second was a young immature teenager following peer pressure; the third was an addict; the fourth a professional thief. Aristotelian virtue would not apply one hard and fast law to all four cases, but rather consider the right thing to do in each situation.  With Aristotle, “practical wisdom” goes a long way in forming a just society.

These diverse approaches to justice all ask the same question, how do we distribute the things we value in the right way? Each idea, rational in some respects and questionable in others, comes up with a different answer. This debate is important because how we view justice determines how we approach problems as diverse as affirmative action, incarceration, climate change, economic recession and paying for higher education.

The best political philosophers throughout history have been unable to provide one answer acceptable to all citizens living in our democratic republic.  But to understand the underpinnings of the different theories we have regarding justice is to bring moral clarity to the choices that must be made.

When it comes to justice, perhaps the best we can hope for is that informed citizens will consider the validity of different solutions in building a just society.