The Havana Note talks a lot about the need for a new policy towards Cuba. Fifty years of failure is a shameful, bi-partisan indictment of how policy is made in Washington. Luckily, as we have been and will continue to show, more people recognize that change is on the way. But change for change's sake is foolish, and could easily backfire on the United States.

Fortunately, the emerging consensus on changing Cuba policy happens to coincide with another consensus, here in Washington, that America needs a major overhaul of all our relations with Latin America -- and with the rising influence of Hispanic voters.

But both movements lack strategic coherence.

Today I want to propose some ideas on tying these two efforts together in light of the great strategic challenges facing the United States over the next 30-40 years.

Photo Credit: Bit Boyo

The IMF’s new working paper reminded my editor here at the 'Note -- Patrick Doherty -- of a quote Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern offered at the Council on Foreign Relations last year:

“I think there are some Cuban officials -- some in the government, some of the hard-liners who, quite frankly, I think deep down are a little reluctant for change, because it's something they won't be able to control. I mean, I think the two words in the English language that the hard-liners in Cuba fear the most are "spring break." I don't think they would know what to do.”

The laugh line carries considerable weight, though...

Cuba, despite the U.S. embargo, has proven a formidable summer Olympic contender. The nation placed eleventh in the medal count at the 2004 Olympics, an impressive showing for a nation of roughly 11 million -- below 70th in the world in terms of population. In 2000, Cuba was eighth in medals earned, in 1996, ninth.

Since the end of the Cold War America has lost touch with the political competitiveness of the games. With the United States' global power unchallenged, we find ourselves often dwelling on the “good will” of the games, or on individual athletes whose stories have inspired us. We’ve lost touch with the national pride that a victory can inspire. For many nations, a single medal can be as powerful as the 1980 "miracle on ice," or Mary Lou Retton’s 1984 all around title.

For Havana, the summer games are seen as a time to demonstrate the success of the revolution. They’re an equalizer of sorts -- an opportunity to earn global respect on a level playing field.

I finally got a moment to look at the Democrats' platform on Latin America. In general it's pretty sparse, and on Cuba it only echoes the main bullet points of Obama's speech before the Cuban American National Foundation:

Recommit to an Alliance of the Americas We recognize that the security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas. We believe that in the 21st century, the U.S. must treat Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean as full partners, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies. An alliance of the Americas will only succeed if it is founded on the bedrock of mutual respect and works to advance democracy, opportunity and security from the bottom-up. We must turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism across the region that stands in the way of progress. We must work with close partners like Mexico, Brazil and Colombia on issues like ending the drug trade, fighting poverty and inequality, and immigration. And we must build ties to the people of Cuba and help advance their liberty by allowing unlimited family visits and remittances to the island, while presenting the Cuban regime with a clear choice: if it takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the unconditional release of all political prisoners, we will be prepared to take steps to begin normalizing relations.

My thoughts on a regional strategy are here. My colleague Steve Clemons has more general foreign policy analysis of the platform here.

More later.

Much has been made of Raul Castro’s interpretation of socialism. Earlier this summer before the national assembly, Castro stated: “Socialism means social justice and equality; but equality of rights, of opportunities -- not of income.” The steps that the “practical Castro,” as he’s been called, has taken alongside these statements, while symbolic, have yet to move the nation in any tangible way. And they’re unlikely to. Nimble openings of the past may not draw the same headlines, but they may offer a better avenue forward….

Tony Jimenez, a former Bush administration official, launched a new 527 media group this week, attacking two South Florida Republicans for “confused priorities” that focus on Castro’s Cuba rather than on jobs, wages, pain at the pump, the housing crisis and energy independence.

The newly-launched organization, One South Florida, focuses its message mainly on these misplaced priorities, which has been a theme of the campaigns of Democratic candidates Joe Garcia (See "One Trick Pony") and Raul Martinez, and asserts (correctly) that efforts to tighten restrictions on Cuba haven’t achieved anything:

While our cost of living soared and wages for the poor plunged, our representatives in Washington expired all of their political capital supporting Bush's counter-productive Cuba sanctions. Instead of bringing badly needed funding and economic development programs to our region, they obsess on restricting the right of Cuban-Americans to visit and send money to their relatives on the island. What's worse: their efforts have failed to have any impact on human rights violations in Cuba.

This jives with polling data released by the Foundation for Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations in June. Approximately three-quarters of respondents (77 and 74 percent respectively in FL-21 and FL-25) indicated that they would support a candidate whose top priority will be improving health care, lowering housing costs, and improving our schools. Less than 20 percent of respondents would support a candidate whose top priority will be changing the political system of Cuba or who makes that a co-equal priority alongside domestic issues.

Are high gas prices and falling home values more important than sticking it to Castro’s Cuba? These guys think so.

At the "Big Tent" in Denver, candidate Joe Garcia "stole the show" according to one blogger. Florida Democrat and House Cardinal Debbie Wasserman Shultz had nothing but love for Garcia. Still no love for Annette Taddeo though.