Tom Keane

Have a Cigar

Just before he was about to impose the embargo on Cuba, President John F. Kennedy sent his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, down to the island. Salinger’s top-secret mission? Get enough Cuban cigars to last a good long while. JFK liked a good smoke and he knew the best smokes in the world were going to be much tougher to get.

Salinger returned with at least 1,200 and Kennedy promptly squirreled them away. Part of the mythology of the presidency is that, upon taking the oath of office, one learns all of the nation’s great secrets: What really happened at Roswell? Was the Moon landing faked? And, of course, where are those Cuban cigars?

So why did Barack Obama suddenly return to Cuba after over 50 years of tough sanctions?

The White House must have run out.

To be fair, the president, once a heavy cigarette smoker, reputedly no longer indulges. But many others do. And while much has been made of the humanitarian and geopolitical rationales for America’s thaw with Cuba, the real driver is something altogether different: money.

Cuba, as is well known, is a basket case. Prior to the Castro-led revolution, it was a play land, filled with gorgeous hotels, vibrant nightlife and gambling casinos — along with attendant ills such as prostitution and endemic corruption. That largely ended with the revolution. However, the state-controlled economy stagnated and the U.S. embargo made things worse. For a while, the nation was propped up with heavy subsidies from the Soviet Union. Venezuela stepped into the breach after the USSR’s collapse in 1991, but was no match for Russia and is now beset by its own issues — not the least of which is the dramatic fall in oil prices.

As a result, average annual incomes in Cuba are now just about $5,500. As newscasters who accompanied Obama discovered, the place looks like it could be a movie set for a historical drama. The automobiles hearken to the 1950s. Modernity seems to have passed the country by, whether it’s architecture or technology. Internet access is limited and slow. Sugar cane and other exports aren’t enough to support residents, much less allow for growth. And the population is aging too, with fewer young workers around to support a growing number of retirees.

For all of these reasons, it’s easy to understand Raul Castro’s desire for a thaw in relations with the U.S. But why is the U.S. so eager?

The cigars, of course. But that’s only a small part of what drives the pressure to ease the embargo. Another big piece is tourism. American hoteliers, including Marriott (now the world’s largest), are even now making plans to build and refurbish resorts in Cuba. Despite years of communism, the country still has a reputation has a place of music, dance and easy living, exactly the kind of thing that would pull in droves of visitors and perhaps even give Las Vegas a run for its money.

But an even bigger factor is Cuba’s people. The Castro dictatorship kept the island economically backward, to be sure, but in one area it has shone: Its citizens are exceptionally well educated. Almost everyone is literate and many have gone on to higher education. Cuba’s well-regarded doctors and nurses are sent off, kind of like exports, to predominately South American countries without decent medical staff. And that reputation is why many in wealth and power, such as the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, go to Cuba for their health care. In fact, to a large extent, Cuba’s education system puts the United States to shame.

But with the economy so bad, all of those highly educated and well-trained people have little to do. There are stories, for instance, of doctors who don’t practice their professions, making more money as maids at hotels.

It’s a pool of talent that American businesses covet. As happened with China, they see an economically revived Cuba as a potentially significant market for U.S. goods and services. But they also see Cuba as place to set up shop. Biotech companies, desperate for skills in short supply, look to Cuba as a solution.

Economics is a powerful force in human lives, oftentimes more so than ideology or politics. We may not like Cuba’s system of government. But it’ll be a great place to do business.

This column was first published by Cognoscenti on March 23, 2016.

President Trump

President Trump.

President Donald J. Trump. Leader of the free world. Heir to Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan.

The words catch in your throat like swallowed sand. An impossibility, you think, and perhaps you are right. But the prospect is worth considering. Just what kind of president would Donald Trump make?

First off, thank God for the Constitution.

Actually, of course, a Deity was uninvolved (unless you’re Ted Cruz, in which case the Creator dictated every line). But the men who framed that very political document were deeply suspicious about potential tyranny from a centralized government. As a result, the Constitution fragments power among three branches (and then further, between two legislative houses). And even if there is consensus, the bill of rights imposes sharp boundaries that can’t be crossed absent an amendment. States continue to maintain their own levels of sovereignty — a fact recognized in the (admittedly, poorly understood) 10th Amendment — putting further limits on what the national government can do. Moreover, America is a country of laws that (the assertions of steamy episodes of “Scandal” notwithstanding) even a president can’t break. Thus, for example, Trump’s claim he’d make soldiers violate U.S. laws when it comes to torture will never happen.

For many, the Constitution’s complexity has been viewed as a flaw. They long for some sort of parliamentary system where the head of government is also the head of the party in power and it’s easy to push through all manner of novel ideas such as single-payer health care or paid parental leave.

But should Trump take the oath of office January 20, 2017, I suspect those flaws will suddenly look like virtues. A President Trump will discover — as have many presidents before him — just how weak his position really is. Yes, there’s wider latitude when it comes to foreign affairs. But when it comes to domestic matters, little happens unless Congress and the courts are willing to play along. For that reason alone, I’d advise holding off on that new-home purchase in Saskatchewan. At worst, it’s only eight years.

Thus the Constitution can help limit the damage. But will Trump as president be as bad as feared? Perhaps not.

I say this with trepidation, since to allow that Trump may not be America’s Hitler is for many some sort of heresy. So for the record, let me stipulate: I would never vote for the guy. I find his expressed attitudes towards minorities, immigrants and women deeply offensive (although, to be fair, his attitudes are no less offensive than those held by many of the other GOP candidates — it’s just that Trump is blunter than them). Moreover, I find his vagueness in policy, his stooping to the gutter and his many provocations (including near incitements to violence) disturbing and unbecoming in any serious presidential candidate.

Having said that, though, there are two related arguments that undercut worries about Trump’s seeming extremism.

The first is that the man is no extremist at all — he’s just unprincipled, without any core beliefs. It’s a claim made by many of his competitors and it’s likely true. On the hustings, Trump knows well how to throw red meat to the anti-establishment wolves baying for change. But what he’s offered up is little more than an attitude. There are no policy specifics precisely because Trump really doesn’t care much about policy; he’s anything but an ideologue. A good idea comes along and he’ll latch on to it. I suspect that once in office members of Congress will find him a pragmatist, far more accommodating than they would have suspected.

Second, Trump is a negotiator. Negotiators want to get things done — they want a deal — and part of the shtick is to open with an outlandish position and then compromise down to something more reasonable. Allegedly, Trump made this explicit when discussing immigration during an off-the record interview with the New York Times editorial board. I suspect it’s the same with other issues as well.

Combine these two elements — pragmatism and deal-making — and one might well see Trump emerge as a relatively effective, and also middle-of-the-road, president. His current efforts to reach out to establishment Republicans suggest that, his rhetoric notwithstanding, he wants to pass his time in Washington as something more than just a gadfly. That should please those who now fear him. On the other hand, it might very much displease those who now support him.

Of course, there are other elements of the Trump personality that still leave one worried. He’s a one-man show, vying for a job where it’s high quality staff and cabinet secretaries that can make or break you. His attachment to the truth is slippery; a la his claim of New Jersey residents cheering 9/11, he seems genuinely to believe stuff that others laugh off. His brashness and rudeness might hurt the U.S., especially in its dealings with other world leaders.

Moreover, my sense that Trump is a pragmatist and deal-maker might be too generous. Perhaps he really will be as unhinged as president as he has appeared on the campaign trail. If that’s the case, perhaps a move to Canada might be worth exploring after all.

This column was first published by Cognoscenti on March 18, 2016.

When Hillary Meets Donald

“When Harry Met Sally” was a love story. “When Hillary Meets Donald,” expected to be opening this summer at a precinct near you, will be anything but. Democrats think they know the denouement — Hillary bests Donald — but they may well be wrong. As hated and polarizing as Trump is, and as much as it appears vast numbers of Republicans will turn away from him altogether, he nonetheless has a strong chance of being the survivor of this spectacle as the November closing credits roll. The reason? As with all stories, it’s all about the narrative.

One narrative is the rationalist’s approach: On almost every measure of political viability and competence, Clinton looks better than Trump. Experience and expertise, runs the thinking, beat brashness and rashness.

Trump has managed to offend most every key constituency out there, including women, Hispanics, immigrants, and even the Pope. His personal disposition comes across as nasty and mean-spirited. “You can’t insult your way to the presidency,” Jeb Bush told his rival. Maybe not — but the nomination, apparently, yes. (Although one has to think that Marco Rubio has now one-upped Trump. At a campaign stop, Rubio mocked the size of Trump’s hands. “And you know what they say about men with small hands,” he went on. That seemed a new low in presidential politics — asking voters to make a decision based on the size of a candidate’s genitals.)

Meanwhile, decades in the public eye, Clinton has seen and heard it all. Not only can she roll with the punches, but she excels in rough-and-tumble debates — as Bernie Sanders learned to his chagrin. She is also a master of policy, an area in which Trump is notably unschooled. It is hard to imagine any thoughtful voter seeing Trump as better prepared than her for the office or comfortable with the notion of the temperamental businessman holding the reins — and the nuclear launch codes — of the most powerful nation on earth.

To top it off, even the GOP seems ready to defect from its nominee. Already, some prominent members of the Party — including Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, strategist Kevin Madden, former RNC chair Mel Martinez, and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker — have said they won’t support Trump as their nominee. Many others have laid down broad hints they’ll follow suit. “Republicans for Hillary” clubs are hardly far-fetched.

For all of these reasons then, Trump should be toast.

And yet, haven’t we heard this all before — indeed, ever since Trump entered the race? The other candidates, the Republican establishment and most of the media have predicted with utter certainty that Trump would never catch on, that when he caught on, he would collapse, and that when he collapsed he could never be nominated. All of the reasons given — his insults, his demeanor, his policy vagueness and so on — have mattered not a whit.

That’s because there’s a different narrative at play, one at which Trump excels: The outsider versus the insider. And if Trump can make this the narrative of the general election, he’ll be taking the oath of office on January 20, 2017.

For both parties, the story of this election so far has been a story of voter anger and distrust — a potent and growing phenomenon. Trump has tapped into it perfectly. But so too, on the left, has Bernie Sanders. In fact, both men are much more alike than either would care to admit. Sanders’s rise wasn’t brought about because millions of Americans suddenly decided they prefer socialism; most of them, I daresay, have no idea what it is. Rather, Sanders represented a break with and rejection of the political elite. He and Trump both argue that real change can’t come from an old guard funded by big money and big banks. (One of Sanders’s most widely played commercials — “People are sick and tired of establishment politics and they want real change” — could just as easily have been used to promote Trump.)

Against this story of “real change,” Clinton makes the perfect foil. There is no one more part of the establishment than her. Her husband was elected president fully a generation ago — 25 years — and the Clintons have dominated national politics since. Even with her loss to Obama, Clinton continued undeterred, building up her resume even further as secretary of state. Clinton’s high negatives, her contributions from Wall Street, and her many alleged ethical lapses (such as the email scandal that still dogs her) make her an enormously easy target.

The year 2016 has the potential to be a sweeping, almost revolutionary election. In such an election, policy matters far less than attitude. Trump and Sanders both understand the depth of voter anger, the sense many have that some are favored while the rest are left hanging. The people, one might say, “are mad as hell and (they’re) not going to take this anymore.” That line, from the 1976 movie “Network,” just might be the winning script for this year’s show as well.

This column was first published by Cognoscenti on March 3, 2016