Max J. Castro. Published Tuesday, December 11, 2001 in
The hard-line Cuban radio stations and commentators in Miami were at it
again last week. This time the target of their wrath wasn't a Cuban-American
academic who said something politically inconvenient on prime time or a touring
musical group from the island. On this occasion the object of attack was a most
unlikely one: a dozen wealthy and moderately conservative Cuban-American
businessmen brought together under the umbrella of the Cuba Study Group.
What sin did these eminent exiles commit to bring on themselves a torrent of
invective from the guardians of anti-Castro orthodoxy? They commissioned a poll,
conducted by the firm of Bendixen and Associates, whose findings punctured some
cherished beliefs. In particular, the results showed that a majority of Cuban
Americans feel that the policy of confrontation between exiles and the Cuban
government has been a failure. So conservative Cuban-American pundits weighed in
to question everything from the survey's methods to the credibility of the
pollster and the motives of the Cuba Study Group.
What does the poll show? Results indicate a trend toward moderation.
Specifically: 55 percent of exiles believe confrontation has been a failure; 53
percent believe that travel to Cuba is an important agent of change; only 23
percent of exiles are hard-liners.
Are these results so out of line with other scientific evidence as to
suggest bias, as the critics say? Actually, what's remarkable is how closely the
results of the Cuba Study Group track some previously observed trends, while at
the same time venturing into previously unexplored territory.
Take the crucial issue of the embargo. A survey of Cuban Americans conducted
in 2000 by Florida International University showed that, excluding ambiguous
responses (don't know/no answer), 64 percent supported continuing the embargo.
And what does the Cuba Study Group 2001 study show? It shows that, excluding
ambiguous answers, 62 percent of Cuban Americans support the embargo. Although
the difference of 2 percent is within the margin of error, one might speculate
that what the most recent poll shows is the continuation of a predictable trend.
That's because many polls show younger Cuban Americans are less likely than
their elders to support the embargo.
Indeed, when FIU conducted a similar poll in 1997, 78 percent of Cuban
Americans supported the embargo. What about the Cuba Study Group finding that
shows exiles think confrontation is a failure? In the 2000 FIU Cuba poll, 74
percent of Cuban Americans said the embargo -- the central element of the policy
of confrontation -- doesn't work.
While the results of the Bendixen poll are consistent with other polls and
known trends, change in the Cuban community may be taking place somewhat faster
than a 2 percent yearly drop in support for the embargo might suggest. That is
because of differences in the samples used in the two polls.
The FIU poll included anyone who identified him or herself as Cuban or Cuban
American. The Cuba Study Group included only those Cuban Americans who said they
were interested in Cuban issues. The latter procedure likely yielded more
politicized and conservative respondents.
The Cuba Study Group poll shows more clearly than ever before that the
handwriting is on the wall for the hard-line position. That is the reason for
the ferocious response.
One fair criticism that can be leveled at the Cuba Study Group is that it
hasn't yet released its poll fully and publicly. For instance, one might want to
know how they defined hard-liners and nonhard-liners.
The larger point is that both science and democracy demand transparency and
the risks that come with scrutiny. Ultimately, those risks are worth taking
because claims of scientific validity or democratic legitimacy can be
established no other way than in the light and heat of open debate.
maxcastro@miami.edu
Copyright 2001 Miami Herald |