JACK'S BLOG
|
|
CubaTHEODORE ROOSEVELT BLAMED Cuba's failure to succeed at self-rule on their inability to compromise. He sent a detachment of Marines to guard the island's national treasury while the government sorted itself out. Thus, began another thirty years of American paternalism in the Caribbean. Cuba's first President, Tomas Estrada Palma, attempted to lead the island through the transition from a Spanish colony to independence. However, he would begin a pattern that repeated itself through the decades up to and including the presidency of Fidel Castro. Once in power, they all wanted to remain in power. The people, more comfortable following a strong man than governing themselves, were inclined to allow them. However, others wanted the power and refused to accept the will of the people, threatening revolution if they didn't get their way. As Palma's first term in office drew to an end, two other parties advanced candidates: The National and the Republican. When Palma announced that he was going to seek a second term, these two coalesced into a Liberal alliance and announced that they would not accept Palma's reelection. They proclaimed that they would not accept the results of an election that favored Palma and would resort to revolution to overthrow his government. The Liberals made good on their threat when Palma was reelected and the President employed the military to break the revolt. The Liberals responded with accusations that Palma had pilfered public funds to finance his campaign and, since reelection, hiring guerrilla assassins.
Theodore Roosevelt saw this as a failure of the Cubans to compromise which he held as essential to the effective functioning of government. Is it, really? He urged the Cuban Congress to intervene, but this only caused Palma to resign. As he left office, every member of his cabinet, the ones that were part of the succession of power in Cuba, resigned with him. Moderate supporters of Palma in the Congress refused to attend sessions and, thus, a quorum was prevented. The island was left without a government. Thus, all of America's efforts to prepare the islanders for self-rule failed. Roosevelt blamed the failure on their inability to compromise. Is that why America's efforts to build new nations in Iraq and Afghanistan failed? Is it possible that compromise just isn't possible in some places or situations?
4 Comments
11/12/2012 07:00:25 pm
Interesting post, Jack, I always love your Cuban history posts! And I agree with you: the art of compromise is certainly an art and it has to be learned. It takes time. So yes, I'm sure you're right, compromise is difficult in some countries for cultural and historical reasons.
Reply
Jack Durish
11/13/2012 03:52:34 am
I think that the larger question is this: Why does the United States champion democracy? We're not a democracy.
Reply
11/13/2012 12:11:38 am
I fear that the art of compromise has been lost. In Washington today, compromise means: "You come over to my side so I won't have to come over to yours." And neither side will agree to meet half way in a winner-take-all political world.
Reply
Jack Durish
11/13/2012 03:54:03 am
I'm going to write a blog post on compromise. I'm not sure it is such a good thing. I guess I'll have to research it and think it through.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|