Are "Americans" that stupid in foreign policy or is it just "politics"?

[Oakvale]

How would you suggest healthcare should be rationed, Politico? I'm not being facetious, I actually am curious to know. Since this is fundamentally (if you'll pardon the Gingrichism!) an ethical discussion.

Ability to pay was sort of implied there.

I thought so, yeah, but I didn't want to assume unnecessarily.

How would you suggest healthcare should be rationed, Politico? I'm not being facetious, I actually am curious to know. Since this is fundamentally (if you'll pardon the Gingrichism!) an ethical discussion.

I am optimistic that market-driven technology will save the day sooner or later. For example, I heard the other day about a technology that will scan your body for infectious diseases, any type of cancer, heart disease, etc., and read out the results in less than fifteen minutes. Completely non-intrusive. This technology should significantly lower costs for screening more frequently, and less costly treatments down the road because people will catch the diseases/cancer earlier.

Healthcare will still be a limited resource, though. Hopefully less so, but limited nonetheless. Someone has to make these kind of painful ethical decisions, and I'm not so sure that the parents, who are, obviously, going to be emotionally invested, are necessarily the appropriate people to do that.

I know it may seem callous, but I think when you have a person with the quality of life that Santorum's child (bear in mind I'm just speculating based on the Edwards' Syndrome Wikipedia article, so forgive me for any false assumptions) is likely to have it's an important ethical quandry as to whether, and if so, for how long, to extend that life. Private insurance is a different ballgame, but that's just rationing based on the ability to pay, as Mint correctly pointed out, which isn't much better. In fact, it's not better at all. It's gravely immoral, IMO.

Now, again, I'm not a doctor, and on a human level I certainly hope the kid pulls through. I think we should be careful to avoid getting too emotional about this in the abstract.

[Politico]

No one is saying pulling plug is easy or a joyous occasion but you are not going to solve the healthcare problem if you can't say enough is enough.

Well, at least you are being honest by emphatically endorsing death panels. What else does El Presidente Castro propose for America?

Can we have a definition of "death panels"?

To give a specific example, having people like Link deciding when the plug is to be pulled on Santorum's poor, innocent daughter rather than leaving it up to the Santorums. You get the idea, right?

All right Politico let's clear this up right now.  I have never advocated pulling the plug on a patient over the objections of a patients family.  If I said that in a post please quote it here and I will go back and change it.

You did not say that you hope Santorum's daughter dies and that she should die?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is more reasonable. Your earlier comments on Santorum's daughter showed your true colors on the issue, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is not rationed? We live in a world of scarcity. We have to deal with the constraints that come with allocating resources in a world of scarcity. We cannot live in a fantastical world where we believe scarcity can be legislated away. It is just not so.

Turning health care over to the government is not going to eliminate rationing. Obama is not going to wave his magical wand, say "yes, we can," and now there is no such thing as scarcity. No, having government take over health care is simply replacing market rationing in favor of queue rationing (unless you have political connections, of course, in which case you always get bumped to the front of the line; that is generally how queue rationing works when the government is in control of something).

[Oakvale]

No one is saying pulling plug is easy or a joyous occasion but you are not going to solve the healthcare problem if you can't say enough is enough.

Well, at least you are being honest by emphatically endorsing death panels. What else does El Presidente Castro propose for America?

Can we have a definition of "death panels"?

To give a specific example, having people like Link deciding when the plug is to be pulled on Santorum's poor, innocent daughter rather than leaving it up to the Santorums. You get the idea, right?

All right Politico let's clear this up right now.  I have never advocated pulling the plug on a patient over the objections of a patients family.  If I said that in a post please quote it here and I will go back and change it.

You did not say that you hope Santorum's daughter dies and that she should die?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is more reasonable. Your earlier comments on Santorum's daughter showed your true colors on the issue, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is not rationed? We live in a world of scarcity. We have to deal with the constraints that come with allocating resources in a world of scarcity. We cannot live in a fantastical world where we believe scarcity can be legislated away. It is just not so.

Turning health care over to the government is not going to eliminate rationing. Obama is not going to wave his magical wand, say "yes, we can," and now there is no such thing as scarcity. No, having government take over health care is simply replacing market rationing in favor of queue rationing (unless you have political connections, of course, in which case you always get bumped to the front of the line; that is generally how queue rationing works when the government is in control of something).

I think the idea of the much-maligned... "death panels" is that it's better that a group of objective medical professionals decide who has access to healthcare than how much money you happen to make.

[Politico]

Private insurance is a different ballgame, but that's just rationing based on the ability to pay, as Mint correctly pointed out, which isn't much better. In fact, it's not better at all. It's gravely immoral, IMO.

What's immoral about it? Is it immoral to have somebody wait in a line and maybe it won't be too late by the time they get to the front of the line, or maybe it will be too late, in which case that is too bad? Meanwhile, somebody who is politically-connected gets to jump ahead of them. The politically-connected lives and the other dies. Is that fair?

The price mechanism is impersonal and impartial to the largest degree possible, and in that way I would argue that it is more fair than having bureaucrats in charge of decisions. Nobody is really controlling markets because everybody is controlling them by pursuing their own separate, self-interest (i.e., market forces determine equilibrium quantities/prices)

[Politico]

No one is saying pulling plug is easy or a joyous occasion but you are not going to solve the healthcare problem if you can't say enough is enough.

Well, at least you are being honest by emphatically endorsing death panels. What else does El Presidente Castro propose for America?

Can we have a definition of "death panels"?

To give a specific example, having people like Link deciding when the plug is to be pulled on Santorum's poor, innocent daughter rather than leaving it up to the Santorums. You get the idea, right?

All right Politico let's clear this up right now.  I have never advocated pulling the plug on a patient over the objections of a patients family.  If I said that in a post please quote it here and I will go back and change it.

You did not say that you hope Santorum's daughter dies and that she should die?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is more reasonable. Your earlier comments on Santorum's daughter showed your true colors on the issue, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is not rationed? We live in a world of scarcity. We have to deal with the constraints that come with allocating resources in a world of scarcity. We cannot live in a fantastical world where we believe scarcity can be legislated away. It is just not so.

Turning health care over to the government is not going to eliminate rationing. Obama is not going to wave his magical wand, say "yes, we can," and now there is no such thing as scarcity. No, having government take over health care is simply replacing market rationing in favor of queue rationing (unless you have political connections, of course, in which case you always get bumped to the front of the line; that is generally how queue rationing works when the government is in control of something).

I think the idea of the much-maligned... "death panels" is that it's better that a group of objective medical professionals decide who has access to healthcare than how much money you happen to make.

Yes, and are these objective medical professional angels going to work for angel salaries?

[Link]

How would you suggest healthcare should be rationed, Politico? I'm not being facetious, I actually am curious to know. Since this is fundamentally (if you'll pardon the Gingrichism!) an ethical discussion.

I am optimistic that market-driven technology will save the day sooner or later.

While you pray at the golden alter of capitalism children are dying.  After you painted me as some type of sociopathic sick b@st@rd I'm surprised you would say such a thing.

For example, I heard the other day about a technology that will scan your body for infectious diseases, any type of cancer, heart disease, etc., and read out the results in less than fifteen minutes. Completely non-intrusive. The potential is enormous. This technology could significantly lower costs for screening more frequently (getting rid of so much overhead and unnecessary time spent examining patients), not to mention less costly treatments down the road because people will catch the diseases/cancer earlier when it is less costly to eliminate the problem if possible.

I am optimistic that brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs will ultimately solve the challenges via technological advancement.

And where is all this going to take place, Gingrich's moon base?  Have you seen the health care numbers?  The system is going to be bankrupt long before your Star Trek view of medicine becomes reality.

Those of us who have actually studied the system know the flying car promises made by the high tech sector are very dubious.  How many wonder drugs have been pulled in the last five years?  How many medical devices have been pulled?  What ever happened to that wonderful human genome program?  Don't hear too much about that nowadays do you?  Guess what?  They sequenced the human genome and discovered a lot less genes than predicted.  Oops.  Now they are back at square one when they swore we would be in a Golden Age.  Here's how the super efficient EMR's that are going to solve all are problems are doing...



Technology and research definitely plays a role but we are going to have to make some sacrifices.  I know no one wants to hear that in America.  They just want to shut their eyes and say we can do anything we want and we will never experience pain or discomfort.  Bad news dude.  The healthcare math will catch up with us long before technology let's us avoid reality.

[Oakvale]

Private insurance is a different ballgame, but that's just rationing based on the ability to pay, as Mint correctly pointed out, which isn't much better. In fact, it's not better at all. It's gravely immoral, IMO.

What's immoral about it? Is it immoral to have somebody wait in a line and maybe it won't be too late by the time they get to the front of the line, or maybe it will be too late, in which case that is too bad? Meanwhile, somebody who is politically-connected gets to jump ahead of them. The politically-connected lives and the other dies. Is that fair?

The idea is that those who need the healthcare in question the most get it first. So, in theory, there'd rarely if ever be any cases of "too late".

No one is saying pulling plug is easy or a joyous occasion but you are not going to solve the healthcare problem if you can't say enough is enough.

Well, at least you are being honest by emphatically endorsing death panels. What else does El Presidente Castro propose for America?

Can we have a definition of "death panels"?

To give a specific example, having people like Link deciding when the plug is to be pulled on Santorum's poor, innocent daughter rather than leaving it up to the Santorums. You get the idea, right?

All right Politico let's clear this up right now.  I have never advocated pulling the plug on a patient over the objections of a patients family.  If I said that in a post please quote it here and I will go back and change it.

You did not say that you hope Santorum's daughter dies and that she should die?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is more reasonable. Your earlier comments on Santorum's daughter showed your true colors on the issue, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is not rationed? We live in a world of scarcity. We have to deal with the constraints that come with allocating resources in a world of scarcity. We cannot live in a fantastical world where we believe scarcity can be legislated away. It is just not so.

Turning health care over to the government is not going to eliminate rationing. Obama is not going to wave his magical wand, say "yes, we can," and now there is no such thing as scarcity. No, having government take over health care is simply replacing market rationing in favor of queue rationing (unless you have political connections, of course, in which case you always get bumped to the front of the line; that is generally how queue rationing works when the government is in control of something).

I think the idea of the much-maligned... "death panels" is that it's better that a group of objective medical professionals decide who has access to healthcare than how much money you happen to make.

Yes, and are these objective medical professional angels going to work for angel salaries?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, can you clarify? I can't think of anyone better to make a decision on medical ethics that someone who actually works in the field.

[TheGlobalizer]

High quality doctors don't work for government wages.  Not here, not in Europe, not in Cuba.

[Politico]

High quality doctors don't work for government wages.  Not here, not in Europe, not in Cuba.

Yep. No angels to be found anywhere, unfortunately. So much for "immoral" this and "immoral" that.

[TheGlobalizer]

High quality doctors don't work for government wages.  Not here, not in Europe, not in Cuba.

Yep. No angels to be found anywhere, unfortunately. So much for "immoral" this and "immoral" that.

Well, there are, but they're doing it on sabbatical from their high-paying jobs.  Government care kills charity in the short term, and over time, kills the talent pool.

[Politico]

How would you suggest healthcare should be rationed, Politico? I'm not being facetious, I actually am curious to know. Since this is fundamentally (if you'll pardon the Gingrichism!) an ethical discussion.

I am optimistic that market-driven technology will save the day sooner or later.

While you pray at the golden alter of capitalism children are dying.  After you painted me as some type of sociopathic sick b@st@rd I'm surprised you would say such a thing.

I donate to charitable hospitals for sick children, so this is completely out of line. You're the one who said Santorum's kid should die and should have died a long time ago. Look in the mirror, buddy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have faith in scientists and entrepreneurs. Look at the advancements of the past ten years, let alone the past fifty. I am supremely confident that technology will save the day. It is better than being a pessimist who thinks Cuba (!) is the wave of the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you expect from a government-run entity? That was probably just another one of those public union cash grabs that is endemic among our British cousins.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can sacrifice. I will do my utmost not to have to sacrifice. I am certainly not going to hold my breath hoping that tax-and-spend bureaucrats are going to take care of me and my family from the cradle-to-the-grave.

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is more reasonable. Your earlier comments on Santorum's daughter showed your true colors on the issue, however.

I think that is more of a reflection of how you wish to interpret things I say.  Nothing I've ever said on this forum contradicts what you just quoted.  I know of no politician in any party here in America that has said the state should just go around exterminating patients regardless of the patient's parents wishes or their ability and willingness to pay.  Attributing such comments to me is slander and a lie.  Frankly such a policy is illogical and would serve no purpose.  If someone wants to buy a Rolls Royce and paint it pink that's their business.  If they prefer to use the money to keep their demented stroked out 90 year old grandmother on a ventilator for two months long that is their business.  But if they want the tax payer or private insurer to pickup the tab there should be a mechanism where the rest of us can say, "not with my money."  Furthermore an insurance company would be free to follow the governments guidelines or be more liberal with payouts if they wish.  Having a strict government guideline though would give the insurance industry legal coverage if someone came in and demanded extraordinary care.  After that I would let free market capitalism take over.  If someone could run a profitable insurance company covering stroked out octogenarians and Trisomy 18 children why on earth would anyone pass a law to stop them?

I would also advocate that the government have limited programs where they did do extraordinary intervents for research purposes.  I would have a lottery amoungts people with a particular condition and let them join study groups.  The same way they do for new cancer treatments.  But this hpharzrds system where certain people in society can just open up the communal money faucet when their relative is in the hospital and millions go without is unacceptable.

[Link]

High quality doctors don't work for government wages.  Not here, not in Europe, not in Cuba.

I personally know a surgeon that makes seven figures a year working for a state government here in the United States.  He makes more than the governor.  Their salaries are a matter of public record.  He is a very well regarded surgeon.  Frankly a lot of the best doctors in America work for the state.  Two words...

Teaching hospital.

But I get your point.  I believe on average doctors do better in the private sector even if there are a number of exceptions.

[Link]

How would you suggest healthcare should be rationed, Politico? I'm not being facetious, I actually am curious to know. Since this is fundamentally (if you'll pardon the Gingrichism!) an ethical discussion.

I am optimistic that market-driven technology will save the day sooner or later.

While you pray at the golden alter of capitalism children are dying.  After you painted me as some type of sociopathic sick b@st@rd I'm surprised you would say such a thing.

I donate to charitable hospitals for sick children, so this is completely out of line. You're the one who said Santorum's kid should die and should have died a long time ago. Look in the mirror, buddy.

Having actually seen the books at multiple health care companies I can assure you whatever pitance you and I have donated hasn't moved the needle an inch.  It makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside but it in no way solves the problem.  Oh, and you started in with the name calling.  I will defend myself.

I am supremely confident that technology will save the day.

Again as someone who has actually objectively studied the problem there are no technological fix alls on the horizon.  And frankly there are a lot of these technologies that may treat morbidity and reduce mortality but at the same time add exponentially to the overall costs.  You cannot sit around and "just have faith."  You have to make substantial cuts now.

It is better than being a pessimist who thinks Cuba (!) is the wave of the future.

Truly spoken as someone who has never been to a decent medical conference and seen the incredible contribution to medical science from all over the world... including Cuba.  I grew up in America and was fed a steady diet of "Cuba sucks" just like you.  However once I got an education and started thinking for myself it really bothered me that the dirty commies south of us had such a high life expectancy.  Especially when compared to the "free" islands of the Carrebean.  After doing a bit of research I realized they were doing some absolutely incredible fairly inexpensive interventions to improve the health of their citizens.  I don't care if something was discovered in Cuba, North Korea, or Russia.  If it works, it works.

We wandered way off topic but I think some of your comments illustrate what the OP was talking about.  There really needs to be a lot more thoughtful and careful examination of our neighbors to the South.  Yes there are definitely at least two people I strongly disagree with in Cuba.  But that does not mean I am going to totally ignore something that is being done correctly down there.  And likewise.  They can hate us all they want, but if we are doing something right they should learn from us.

[TheGlobalizer]

High quality doctors don't work for government wages.  Not here, not in Europe, not in Cuba.

I personally know a surgeon that makes seven figures a year working for a state government here in the United States.  He makes more than the governor.  Their salaries are a matter of public record.  He is a very well regarded surgeon.  Frankly a lot of the best doctors in America work for the state.  Two words...

Teaching hospital.

But I get your point.  I believe on average doctors do better in the private sector even if there are a number of exceptions.

Point taken, but obviously teaching hospitals are a serious outlier.

[pbrower2a]

How would you suggest healthcare should be rationed, Politico? I'm not being facetious, I actually am curious to know. Since this is fundamentally (if you'll pardon the Gingrichism!) an ethical discussion.

I am optimistic that market-driven technology will save the day sooner or later. For example, I heard the other day about a technology that will scan your body for infectious diseases, any type of cancer, heart disease, etc., and read out the results in less than fifteen minutes. Completely non-intrusive. The potential is enormous. This technology could significantly lower costs for screening more frequently (getting rid of so much overhead and unnecessary time spent examining patients), not to mention less costly treatments down the road because people will catch the diseases/cancer earlier when it is less costly to eliminate the problem if possible.

I am optimistic that brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs will ultimately solve the challenges via technological advancement.

Markets are not magic. Economic elites are the reality, and those elites can so arrange the lives of others that anyone can lose anything quickly. Power comes not so much from the capacity to satisfy needs but instead from ensuring that people have few means of achieving those needs.

It usually boils down to the same command:

SUFFER FOR MY GREED!

All that differs in time and place are the consequences. Fear is the essence of power over people. Technology can at most provide the legitimate equivalent of an addictive drug in your ideal of a technological and entrepreneurial paradise.

Some elites can simply kill someone who goes astray. There's not much difference in that respect between Josef Stalin and some Chicago gangster. Bullet to the back of the head or cement boots into Lake Michigan following some desperate pleading for mercy -- it is sudden death for disobedience or the semblance of such. As an illustration, Saddam Hussein had a fascination with Nazism, Stalinism, and American gangsters.

The technology that allows one to toy with disobedience can be turned against you by building in an unwelcome and invisible "snitch" software. That is technological advancement, but it is not the sort that I want. Don't fool yourself; giving access to an employer on what you do on the computer or what you watch on TV could be part of the terms of hiring. So if you prefer listening to Rachel Maddow  to listening to Sean Hannity and your employer disapproves of your choice, you could be in big trouble. Type in words like "union", "organize",  "committee", or "meeting"? You might get a severe reprimand.  If it is blatant enough an employer might get to the holder of your mortgage and press for foreclosure.

There might be something seemingly innocent that shows that you are operating on a 'prohibited' level of bliss for your position. Schubert's piano trios are among the most languid pieces of music in existence -- so why in Sam Hell are you listening to some thirty-year recording on a twenty-year-old compact disc of music nearly 200 years old when you could be buying the disposable fads that turn a profit?   

Sure, you say -- this is America, and not China. Right. But it would be far more profitable for American business if people could be obliged to live under Chinese conditions that include near-hopelessness for industrial workers and abject fear for everyone else.

In recent years Corporate America has been able to impose hard bargains upon employees -- and Corporate America likes it that way. Maybe it wants even to intensify that reality. It has been driving small business, as much as possible, into oblivion with the aid of tax policies that favor giant, vertically-integrated firms while pretending to stand up for the very people that it sends to economic ruin.

Technology can give you indulgences -- and it can also strip you of your freedom in ways that you fail to recognize.   

   

[seanobr]

With respect to the interesting detour above, I'd like to make an attempt to divert the discussion back to the far more interesting argument from the first page.  

I think there are two phenomena that have motivated our Cuba policy since the end of the Cold War, one emotional, the other fundamental, and neither is particularly conductive to identifying and advancing America's national interest.  The first is a refusal to accept that Castro's revolution succeeded, in the sense that he not only managed to resist unyielding American political and economic pressure in our exclusive sphere of influence, but became an international presence and created a state that was resilient enough to endure the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  We would simply prefer for Castro not to have the satisfaction of seeing his victory recognized by his primary antagonist, the same reason why the Taiwan dream was still alive as late as the Nixon administration, and the same quality -- petulance -- that was behind America's vindictive, completely amoral posture toward Southeast Asia during the decade after the Vietnam War.  In short, when we decide something is important, then fail to achieve our objective, we find it difficult to let go.  That reluctance is probably exacerbated by widely held conceptions of American power, what it theoretically should be capable of accomplishing, and the fact that we can often sustain a flawed policy indefinitely at minimal cost to our own security.  The ability to appeal to the Cuban-American demographic, who share our enmity for the present regime there, is a fortunate happenstance, although it probably has acquired a character of its own now.

The second is more pernicious, because it has nothing to do with Cuba itself, and unfortunately has materialized in other policy dilemmas, particularly those that are seen as intractable, such as Syria before its uprising, or the ever present problem of the D.P.R.K.  There is an incredibly superficial dichotomy that has been embraced, mostly within the Republican Party, where engagement is no longer an expression of the national interest, but is a way of conferring legitimacy on another regime.  From this perspective, the purpose of diplomacy is not to manage an intra-state relationship, which invariably requires some degree of compromise between parties; it has become a metric of how closely the country in question adheres to our foreign policy preferences, and in practice is nothing more than a spectrum of reward and punishment.  The more acceptable that we find a government, the more meaningful the activity that can and must take place with it, even if they aren't particularly enamored with participating in a creation of our design.  In contrast, a regime that is odious -- whether because of its internal political system, external alignment, or provocative behavior -- should be negated entirely, to the point of renouncing any substantive interaction with it, since recognizing a government that has the temerity to defy us would validate its conduct.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that such a foreign policy is not motivated by any traditional conception of the national interest, there is a fundamental incompatibility between its underlying premise, which is the perceived importance of whether or not we approve of a government, and those regimes that derive their legitimacy from opposition in some fashion to America and are emboldened by our antagonism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that Cuba, Burma (although that may be changing), Iran, and Sudan have managed to persist and even flourish in isolation from America when our entire policy is contingent on their suddenly repenting and accepting a place in the international system that is anathema to them.  It also can never account for those regimes that have managed to enhance their position by challenging America, such as Syria before last March, because assenting to their influence even when it would be advantageous to us is simply incomprehensible; or those governments that are entirely respectable, but possess a different view of the international arena then we do, India being the foremost example.  Finally, the moral stridency inherent to the outlook complicates any attempt at moderation, which is why we perpetuated a policy toward Burma for 20 years that led to nothing but the immiseration of its populace, the fetishization of Aung San Suu Kyi, and Chinese dominance, the last item much to the angst of its leadership.

I do have some thoughts on how such a caricature of a proper foreign policy could become conventional wisdom within a major political party, but they aren't particularly relevant to the topic.

[TheGlobalizer]

With respect to the interesting detour above, I'd like to make an attempt to divert the discussion back to the far more interesting argument from the first page.  

I think there are two phenomena that have motivated our Cuba policy since the end of the Cold War, one emotional, the other fundamental, and neither is particularly conductive to identifying and advancing America's national interest.  The first is a refusal to accept that Castro's revolution succeeded, in the sense that he not only managed to resist unyielding American political and economic pressure in our exclusive sphere of influence, but became an international presence and created a state that was resilient enough to endure the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  We would simply prefer for Castro not to have the satisfaction of seeing his victory recognized by his primary antagonist, the same reason why the Taiwan dream was still alive as late as the Nixon administration, and the same quality -- petulance -- that was behind America's vindictive, completely amoral posture toward Southeast Asia during the decade after the Vietnam War.  In short, when we decide something is important, then fail to achieve our objective, we find it difficult to let go.  That reluctance is probably exacerbated by widely held conceptions of American power, what it theoretically should be capable of accomplishing, and the fact that we can often sustain a flawed policy indefinitely at minimal cost to our own security.  The ability to appeal to the Cuban-American demographic, who share our enmity for the present regime there, is a fortunate happenstance, although it probably has acquired a character of its own now.

The second is more pernicious, because it has nothing to do with Cuba itself, and unfortunately has materialized in other policy dilemmas, particularly those that are seen as intractable, such as Syria before its uprising, or the ever present problem of the D.P.R.K.  There is an incredibly superficial dichotomy that has been embraced, mostly within the Republican Party, where engagement is no longer an expression of the national interest, but is a way of conferring legitimacy on another regime.  From this perspective, the purpose of diplomacy is not to manage an intra-state relationship, which invariably requires some degree of compromise between parties; it has become a metric of how closely the country in question adheres to our foreign policy preferences, and in practice is nothing more than a spectrum of reward and punishment.  The more acceptable that we find a government, the more meaningful the activity that can and must take place with it, even if they aren't particularly enamored with participating in a creation of our design.  In contrast, a regime that is odious -- whether because of its internal political system, external alignment, or provocative behavior -- should be negated entirely, to the point of renouncing any substantive interaction with it, since recognizing a government that has the temerity to defy us would validate its conduct.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that such a foreign policy is not motivated by any traditional conception of the national interest, there is a fundamental incompatibility between its underlying premise, which is the perceived importance of whether or not we approve of a government, and those regimes that derive their legitimacy from opposition in some fashion to America and are emboldened by our antagonism.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that Cuba, Burma (although that may be changing), Iran, and Sudan have managed to persist and even flourish in isolation from America when our entire policy is contingent on their suddenly repenting and accepting a place in the international system that is anathema to them.  It also can never account for those regimes that have managed to enhance their position by challenging America, such as Syria before last March, because assenting to their influence even when it would be advantageous to us is simply incomprehensible; or those governments that are entirely respectable, but possess a different view of the international arena then we do, India being the foremost example.  Finally, the moral stridency inherent to the outlook complicates any attempt at moderation, which is why we perpetuated a policy toward Burma for 20 years that led to nothing but the immiseration of its populace, the fetishization of Aung San Suu Kyi, and Chinese dominance, the last item much to the angst of its leadership.

I do have some thoughts on how such a caricature of a proper foreign policy could become conventional wisdom within a major political party, but they aren't particularly relevant to the topic.

This.  Bravo.

Republicans seem to think being rejected by America has the same import and effect as their idea of a human being rejected by their God, when in fact it plays out a bit more like being rejected by the other guys' God - a rallying cry.

[Jerseyrules]

You're making a classic mistake.  Neocons aren't Americans.  They're vampiric bloodeating weirdos from the twenty seventh century sent by aliens to wipe out the human race.  Oh yeah and true conservatism too

[Link]

I think there are two phenomena that have motivated our Cuba policy since the end of the Cold War, one emotional, the other fundamental...

The problem I have with your explanation is that it assumes people give a ph--k.  I know I don't.  I don't think about Cuba from one day to the next.  There aren't Cuban suicide bombers coming over here.  There aren't Cuban nuclear weapon concerns.  There aren't Cuban rocket attacks.

As far as "The Revolution winning," if that's winning I'm happy to be "losing."  If they ended the embargo tomorrow I would be like cool I'll go check out the beaches/b-tches.  Nobody I know actually gives a ph--k enough to actually support an embargo.  That's why I say it is just pandering on an epic scale to curry favor with a key demographic in a swing state.

The only people that really care are Cubans and crazy reactionaries that think the Cold War is still going on.  The rest of us who live on planet earth don't care.  Well some misguided leftists idolize Castro.  So that's pretty much it.  You have some loonies on either end of the political spectrum, Cuban Americans, and a vast swath in the middle that has a hard time even identifying who Castro is.

[seanobr]

The problem I have with your explanation is that it assumes people give a ph--k.  I know I don't.  I don't think about Cuba from one day to the next.  There aren't Cuban suicide bombers coming over here.  There aren't Cuban nuclear weapon concerns.  There aren't Cuban rocket attacks.

I actually perceive no incompatibility between the attitude you're describing and my explanation for our Cuba policy, because traditionally the American public has been apathetic to foreign policy developments except when they are interpreted as having a direct impact on our country's physical security.  As I noted above, due to the fact that Cuba has not had political relevance since the end of the Cold War, and the sheer preponderance of American power in our favor, one reason why we can continue to implement an approach that has failed in every respect is because it simply doesn't affect us either way; our dynamic with Cuba could continue indefinitely and, aside from the question of the Cuban population's wellbeing, it would not necessitate any reconsideration here.   Where I apparently differ is that, rather than seeing the Cuban-American demographic as the primary motivation behind our Cuba policy, I think the entire situation is indicative of a broader disconnect between the foreign policy orientation of the American public and the perspective cultivated by or required for involvement in government.  The average voter has no interest in American omnipotence, and aside from its capacity to ensure our security -- a concept which is narrowly defined -- might even prefer the gradual unraveling of American hegemony, a view that is portrayed as extreme when enunciated by any politician.  There is almost certainly a tension between our government's opinion of what is the proper role of American foreign policy and the parochial outlook of the public, and it is in that space where I see Cuba residing, as an example of a policy that is neither representative of nor responsive to public opinion.

[batmacumba]

You think it's amusing that there is a nation of people less than 100 miles off the coast of the United States who have been severely oppressed for over half a century? Literally thousands of people have been executed by the Castro regime. The people of Cuba are told what to do in every aspect of their life, and face the harshest of penalties if they fail to comply. It is even worse than North Korea when you consider the facade Cuba puts on for the world.

Ohhhh!
It's so beautiful to see an American hawkish right-winger praising the end of an authoritarian regime...

And thought that just a few pages ago you were being true, defending Pinochet's one.

[batmacumba]

The Warren Commission report has sections that will long be kept secret. Castro has done some nasty stuff since 1963, like giving blatant support for anti-American 'liberation' causes in Africa and Latin America.

Please, take these these quotation marks off the liberation word. It's grotesquely arrogant that use by the part who was supporting authoritarian regimes.

EDIT: I had write an immense post about the Cuban issue on my tablet, and this cr*p closed the browser down. So, only tomorrow.

[pbrower2a]

The Warren Commission report has sections that will long be kept secret. Castro has done some nasty stuff since 1963, like giving blatant support for anti-American 'liberation' causes in Africa and Latin America.

Please, take these these quotation marks off the liberation word. It's grotesquely arrogant that use by the part who was supporting authoritarian regimes.

EDIT: I had write an immense post about the Cuban issue on my tablet, and this cr*p closed the browser down. So, only tomorrow.

Cuba and North Korea are the only Commie states that the US was never able to deal with. North Korea is easy to understand for its unrelieved hostility toward the United States. China is a huge trade partner with the us (OK, so it no longer has a 'socialist' economy), and Vietnam is off the execration list. Laos? Laos has little to trade. Now if it ever stuck oil... I don't know what it is, but there must be some continuing animus between Fidel Castro and the United States. Castro has done a few things right, but he must have done something unforgivable that most of us Americans don't know about.

Fidel Castro or his brother has wielded dictatorial power in Cuba for just over 50 years. I have a suspicion that the CIA has something in his files and that anyone even approaching the Presidency is told something that the rest of us never get to know.

When Fidel croaks, or when the Warren Commission report become public domain, we might find out why.

[Politico]

I don't know what it is, but there must be some continuing animus between Fidel Castro and the United States. Castro has done a few things right, but he must have done something unforgivable that most of us Americans don't know about.

Killed JFK and/or RFK is probably a good bet if you are correct about this.

Another possibility: Cuba actually has operational nuclear warheads.