FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Marco Rubio’s Rabid Campaign Against Cuba

Carl Gustav Jung, the father of analytical psychology, attributed hypocrisy to individuals who are unconscious of “the shadow-side” of their nature. From this idea arose a simple argument: If people better understood their natures, they might love their neighbors more uprightly. For, as Jung says, “…we are all too prone to transfer to our fellows the injustice and violence we inflict upon our own natures.” Yet, of all its incarnations, the hypocrisy of “pure evil” seems worst. A few simple characteristics define it: perpetrators engender evil intentionally and wield it astutely; they inflict wanton destruction on others to their own benefit; they are inherently evil; and, their victims are innocent, wholesome. Many psychologists, however, decry this hypocrisy a myth; most evil emanates from the existences of everyday people. Nevertheless, the abovementioned qualities of “pure evil” are real, and they, too, do exist. When they crop up, they warrant investigation.

Marco Rubio—Cuban-American and conservative politico—addressed the public midday Wednesday, December 17, 2014. He exposed the deeply hypocritical sentiments that rest in the everyday political existences of himself and other political luddites of his ilk. The species of his hypocrisy? Pure evil. Rubio ignorantly railed against the normalization of US-Cuban relations: “The White House has conceded everything, and gained little.” He went on to complain about the Cuban government’s missing commitment to ensuring freedoms of the press, of speech, and of elections. He fulminated that no binding commitment was made for truly opening the Internet, the establishment of political parties, or stimulating democracy.

However predictable Rubio’s address may have been, his comments carelessly teetered on the brink of absurdity. He cloaked his rant with a thin veneer of polish and quiet anger. Still, his act was not a testament to his commitment to the Cuban people and their freedoms, but to his own self-importance as a political phantom. Rather than defrosting ties with Cuba and normalizing relations with the island nation that Yankee imperium has shamelessly terrorized and heavily sanctioned for too long, Rubio made it obvious that he preferred the unneighborly ramifications of America’s backwards embargo to progress, painting himself anew in the light of asinine recalcitrance.

To discern Rubio’s hypocrisy made manifest in his speech, and the “pure evil” therein, is, sadly, easy enough. First, Rubio’s speech underscored that many conservative American politicians, and like-minded Americans desire to assail Cuba with an economic stranglehold that can only be categorized as overt terrorism. Thus, Rubio consigned himself to the position of “poster child” for all those who would continue to engender this evil embargo intentionally (and in so doing, heavily mortgaged his political future). Second, as the voice of politicians like Rubio eclipse with the dismal flowing tide of anti-Castro sentiment that once inculcated an uninformed American public, so also the platform on which anti-Castro/pro-embargo politicians like Rubio are perennially elected will crumble under the weight of its own bloated unimportance. Thus, that Rubio would see the morally corrupt embargo on Cuba continued ad infinitum effectively shows that he would, without shame, stump on the US-sponsored misery of Cubans until, like a tantrum-bound child, he get his way in full. Rubio and his kind would inflict that misery to their own benefit forever; and yet, his victims—the Cuban people—are ultimately blameless in the whole thing. Even if Rubio himself is not “inherently evil,” what his political speech evinced that he wants certainly is.

“This entire policy shift announced today,” Rubio argued, “is based on an illusion, on a lie—the lie and the illusion that more commerce and access to money and goods will translate to political freedom for the Cuban people.” Blind with hypocrisy, Rubio creates a straw man out of the very thing he would see cripple his “beloved” Cuba forever. To claim that unfurling US-Cuban relations and subsequent economic developments portend no extension of political freedoms to Cubans is not an informed attack on the Obama regime’s actions, but a dagger stabbed deftly into the heart of the embargo’s very raison d’être!

The hypocritical confusion visited upon Rubio did not stop with his admission to miscomprehending the embargo. “All this is going to do is give the Castro regime, which controls every aspect of Cuban life, the opportunity to manipulate these changes, to perpetuate itself in power,” he said. One might well ask how Rubio can claim himself a champion of Cuban freedoms if he would sooner see them hijacked by the embargo of his own government’s making. To claim that Raúl Castro’s administration controls every aspect of Cuban life without so much as broaching the vile and undemocratic US embargo is not even a successful attempt at a red herring; it is plainly ludicrous.

Rubio preached how change “will only lead to greater wealth and influence for this repressive regime—especially the military, which controls most, if not all, of the Cuban economy, and controls all of its oppressed people.” What about Rubio’s own government, the one he serves and in which he is entirely complicit? The US relies on worldwide arms exports and drone assassinations to secure its hegemony of terrorism. In fact, the American share in the international arms market approaches 80 percent. Rubio’s own government continues to inflict heavy burdens on other countries with a capitalist system so as to supply them with arms. America’s mass manufacture of arms is owed not only to coercive political motives; it is an irremovable pillar of the American economy. The US has gained from selling arms to countries that it politically and economically represses with its capitalist system. But to harangue Cuba for military control without addressing the military-industrial complex’s endeavors of the American government does not lend Rubio’s plea any credibility apropos maintaining the embargo.

Some of Rubio’s final words were the saddest of all. He claimed these changes “will lead to legitimacy for a government that shamelessly, continuously, abuses human rights; but it will not lead to assistance for those whose rights are being abused.” How, exactly, has America’s half-a-century long economic chokehold on Cuba bolstered human rights there? How is the normalizing of relations not a step in approaching assistance for those who need it most? Rubio called these developments “another concession to a tyranny” rather than “a defense of every universal and inalienable right that our country was founded on and stands for.” But, how exactly does continuing the embargo and maintaining a supercilious, egotistically aloof distance from Cuba sound an “American” defense of its values abroad? Rubio averred, in sum, that “these changes…will significantly set back the hopes of freedom and democracy for the Cuban people.” To dismiss the revolutionary successes, though, to outright deny the bravery, the endurance, the incredible struggle, and epic human perseverance of the Cuban people in the face of one of history’s greatest instances of adversity reeks of disrespect and unawareness. Ultimately, it gives voice to the pure evil of Rubio’s anti-Cuban hypocrisy.

Mateo Pimentel lives on the Mexican-US border. Follow him on Twitter @mateo_pimentel, or read more at guerrillaprose.info.

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Mateo Pimentel lives on the Mexican-US border. You can follow him on Twitter @mateo_pimentel.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail