It may seem so.  Two bills that would lift the decades-old travel ban on Cuba are gaining momentum.  House Resolution 874, and Senate Resolution 428, would completely wipe out prohibitions on Americans traveling to the island nation.

First enacted by President Kennedy in 1963, the ban sought to cripple the Cuban economy, and drive Fidel Castro out of power.  But the Cold War is over, and Fidel was never disposed (his brother, Raul, now runs the country).  Especially in the last decade, Americans have begun to question the purpose of the travel ban.  A CNN opinion poll conducted in April of 2009 showed that a whopping 64% of Americans think that the ban should be lifted.

That is why the “Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act” is surging through the House of Representatives.  Originally sponsored by Congressman Delahunt of Massachusetts, the bill how has 179 co-signers.  What makes its proponents even more excited is the fact that the issue is not particularly partisan.  Currently, there are nine Republicans signed on as co-sponsors (Alexander-LA, Biggert-IL, Boozman-AR, Brown-SC, Chaffte-UT, Emerson-OH, Flake-AZ, Moran-KS, Paul-TX).

The Senate has its own version of the bill as well.  And with 35 co-sponsors, it too could pass.  Republicans like Richard Lugar and Walter Boasso have officially stated their support (there are 5 GOP-ers in total at this point).  And this group does not even include liberal Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Sherrod Brown.

Why so much support?  Lifting the travel ban is seen as good for business (the Chamber of Commerce has thrown their weight behind it).  And agricultural states do a lot of trade with Cuba anyway, so that explains why Republican Jerry Moran of Kansas and Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota are pushing for the bill.

There may be some hurdles however.  53 Democrats (many from Florida) signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi expressing their support for the ban.  This means that, officially, 170 Democrats are for the bill, and 53 are against it.  So 223 out of the 257 Democrats in the House have an opinion, leaving 34 in the gray zone of officially having no leanings.  And the bill is 39 votes short of passage.  For the House of Representatives to lift the travel ban, all 34 Democrats, and 5 Republicans, would have to sign on to the bill.  That could be a tall order.

And in the Senate Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has sworn to defeat the bill, so the caucus will not be completely united to overcome a possible filibuster.

Will the bill pass?  Will Americans be allowed to travel in Cuba for the first time in 47 years?  Like many of our laws, it all depends on a handful of representatives.

In recent days, the public has received a clearer picture of what was known, and when, about the attempted Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his plot to destroy an American-bound airliner in its descent to Detroit. From the National Security Agency to the Central Intelligence Agency to the National Counterterrorism Center, pertinent information was scattered across the national security spectrum. While the Obama Administration has insisted there was no “smoking gun” prior to the attempted attack, the government report detailing the systematic breakdown highlighted the inability of the intelligence community to connect the dots on the suspect’s background and deadly intentions.

In fact, the report often cites the shortcomings of the government and the deficiencies of particular agencies, communities, or organizations in protecting the homeland. Yet, what the report does not remind its audience, and what is absent in the furor over the White House’s response to the terrorist plot, is that these institutions, no matter their power, are made up of error-prone individuals. Human systems, despite technological advances and computer intelligence, are inherently flawed and, thus, could be compromised. For all that has been done to establish a centralized federal government capable of intercepting, decoding, and making sense of valuable intelligence in the name of security, an all-knowing and efficient entity is not within reach. David Brooks of The New York Times put it this way in his column, “The God That Fails”:

Bureaucracies are always blind because they convert the rich flow of personalities and events into crude notations that can be filed and collated. Human institutions are always going to miss crucial clues because the information in the universe is infinite and events do not conform to algorithmic regularity.

This is not to suggest that we give up or stop trying. For all the money expended on security measures, the public rightfully demands results (and they get them in the vast majority of cases). We should never cease in our efforts to improve our methods at the same time we remain aware of unavoidable holes in the net. Sadly, regardless of our preparations or the amount of money we dole out, perfection will never be achieved. As the old cliché goes, we must be forever vigilant and bat 1.000 when dire situations do arise. Those who wish to do us harm, however, need only succeed one to win.

Criticism is warranted, of course, when failures occur. The buck, as Obama channeled Harry Truman, stops with him. But the chattering classes’ incessant finger-pointing for the sake of finger-pointing is not synonymous with the useful tasks of delegating responsibility and placing blame. No one denies that public officials like Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Deputy National Security Adviser for Counterterrorism John Brennan now have to redouble their efforts to secure our interests and counter threats to the United States. Nevertheless, insisting that someone, anyone, be fired or forced to resign after the system is exposed for its weakness does not guarantee change. Substituting one official for another is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Whether it is an argument over the appropriate leadership and direction from Washington or airport regulations across the country, a reasoned and rational approach is not possible unless people understand who is running the Great Bureaucracy: Us, we, you and me—simple, imperfect human beings.

President Andrew Jackson prided himself on being the first “outsider” to ascend to the White House. From George Washington to John Quincy Adams, America’s first six chief executives were creatures of the Eastern aristocracy. Jackson, however, was not a member of this established order. While the Founding Fathers sought to apply the ideals of the revolution throughout their terms in office, they were ever cautious of the threat of mobocracy. Political giants of the Jacksonian era worried that the president’s popularity with the “common man” would diminish their congressional powers and foment a military dictatorship.

Old Hickory, of course, viewed the situation in a much different light. Jackson captured the presidency in 1828 and again in 1832, determined to serve as a steadfast representative of the people. The political battles his White House waged with Congress, most notably on the issue of the recharter of the powerful Second Bank of the United States, focused on Jackson’s desire to play the role of Robin Hood to the nation’s elite—in essence, to weaken the monopoly of power in the hands of the few.

American Lion, author Jon Meacham’s seminal examination of Jackson’s life, notes that the president favored the work of the French philosopher François Fénelon in Telemachus. After years of political education under his mentor, Telemachus asserts that the “multitude, though fickle and capricious, does not fail sooner or later to do justice, in some measure, to true virtue.” Such words, no doubt, were akin to Jackson’s own convictions. Jackson, Meacham posits, “understood that governing was provincial—no single bill or single election would ever bring about the perfections of all things–but his experience suggested that the American people, if given world enough and time, would come to a right conclusion.”

Speaking in the days after Jackson’s death, historian George Bancroft said “that the whole human mind, and therefore with it the mind of the nation, has a continuous, ever improving existence; that the appeal from the unjust legislation of to-day must be made quietly, earnestly, perseveringly, to the more enlightened collective reason of to-morrow…” As Jackson was known to say, “the people, sir—the people will set things to rights.”

Read the rest of this entry »

After a brief rest, Politics.theeagleonline.com is restarting again!  2010 promises to be an exciting year, and we will cover everything.  The healthcare fight to midterms to the legislative battles to the White House: nothing is out of bounds.  So stay tuned for postings and coverage of the most interesting topics inside and outside of our nation’s capital.

politics@theEAGLE is back! Although the Honors capstone that inspired this site finished in December, the blog is here to stay! This semester, we’re going to focus on the Obama administration’s efforts to reform higher education, chronicling the new president’s proposals, successes and shortfalls during his first 100 days and beyond. So, as usual… check back often!

In the meantime, here’s part two of a three part series I published earlier this week at UPI’s Voice of Young Voters, a student-run, presidential transition blog. Please bookmark that Web site as well!

***

BY: TONY ROMM

Thanks to everyone who supported politics@theEAGLE and attended last night’s American Forum.

If you missed it, here’s the audio link (courtesy of WAMU/SOC)

…and here’s the video link (courtesy of C-SPAN)

Additionally, there will be a special airing of the American Forum today at 11 am on WAMU’s HD Channel 3.

While politics@theEAGLE prepares to re-launch (we’re transitioning, just like President-elect Obama), we have two announcements:

1. Our podcast continues — This week, The Eagle’s staff discusses voter turnout and Obama’s first 100 days in office

2. politics@theEAGLE makes its radio and television debut during the American Forum, a discussion moderated by NPR station WAMU and hosted by American University. Doors open at 6:30 p.m., and the program itself begins at 7 p.m. It’ll be available live on WAMU (WAMU.org) and C-SPAN (check local listings).

Thanks to everyone who checked out the blog and visited The Eagle’s main Web site; your feedback has made this live blogging process as historic for us as the election has been for the candidates. We’ll resume coverage tomorrow — offering our final takes on the final electoral count — but, for tonight, we’ll end with this: a link to the candidates’ final speeches (McCain’s concession speech, Obama’s victory speech).

BY: CHARLIE SZOLD

Claus Kleber has been on his feet all night. If anything, the esteemed German news anchor at least has endurance. We, the American bloggers, have been more or les shuttled off into a corner. Sam Hagerdon, my co-blogger, is wracking his brain to figure whether or not Obama could pick up Indiana too. I’m just sitting here — a bit shell-shocked. I have some serious egg on my face. I really thought that the American people would tack right once they entered the voting booth.

They didn’t. And now, Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States of America.

I call myself a conservative, but this moment is a beautiful moment. This moment means so much to so many people that it is impossible to be sad. The Germans are on their feet chanting and yelling. They are as excited as the AU students. I can’t stop smiling, people can’t stop yelling… is it weird that I want to cry a little? How could you not?

This is America; this is what we do. For eight years the American people slowly became more and more alienated from their government and tonight, the healing can begin. We can, at a moment like this, be hopeful. Let the politics come later — this isn’t the time to talk about them. This is a time to be excited that so many other people are excited. Congratulations to the United States.

MSNBC, among other networks, projected at 11 p.m. that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will be the 44th President of the United States.