As usual, I agree with Steve Clemons’ take on Cuba policy.  But then he asked this question, and it wasn’t really rhetorical:

If serious conservatives can say this, why can’t the serious Dems running for the White House?

I’m sure Mr. Clemons knows the reasons, but let me give two of them in response: those serious conservatives aren’t running for President, and they aren’t going public and on the record with their complaints about Cuba policy.  Presidential candidates will get few rewards for taking an anti-sanctions position, and they will receive intense criticism and probably lose a lot of votes.  The Cuban-American community is divided in its opinions on the sanctions policy, but that doesn’t mean that all sides of the debate are equal in their political influence.  To the extent that Democratic candidates are still worried about appearing “weak” with respect to foreign affairs, they will not want to go too far out on a limb in support of opening up trade with what is still a despotic regime, and Republican candidates are under pressure both from voters and from ideologues who believe that any accommodation with such regimes is inherently wrong.  Probably unintentionally, Mike Huckabee summed up his changed position on Cuba sanctions best, “What changed was I’m running for President.”  One of the reasons why the debate is so lopsided and why the political advantages are all on the side of the status quo is that the serious conservatives (and probably plenty of other people) who talk privately to Steve Clemons aren’t going to attach their names to a call for lifting the sanctions.  Unfortunately, there is little political incentive for making smart and sound policy.  Far from being easy to change, Cuba policy is probably one of the more difficult things to change.  If it were easy to change a policy because of its irrationality and counterproductive effects, the sanctions on Cuba would have been lifted 17 years ago when the Soviet Union vanished.