Unsurprisingly, Marco Rubio is not very popular in Cuba:

“If Marco Rubio becomes president, we’re done for,” said Héctor Montiel, 66, offering a vigorous thumbs-down as he sat on the Havana street where Mr. Rubio’s father grew up. “He’s against Cuba in every possible way. Hillary Clinton understands much more the case of Cuba. Rubio and these Republicans, they are still stuck in 1959.”

Rubio dismisses these criticisms as proof that he must be “on to something” in his dead-ender opposition to normalizing relations, but it is really a sign that his preferred policies are wildly at odds with what most Cubans want to see change in the U.S.-Cuba relationship. Consider the statement quoted above. Rubio’s Cuba policy isn’t perceived as being “stuck in 1959” because his position has been misrepresented or distorted. One would only need to listen to or read one of Rubio’s statements on the subject to see how outdated and hard-line his views on Cuba are. If many Cubans have a bad opinion of Rubio, it seems reasonable to assume that this is because they understand his position very well and reject it.

This might not matter very much if it weren’t for the hard-liners’ conceit that they are opposing normalization and supporting the embargo for the sake of the Cuban people. It’s an odd and ultimately ridiculous position, but it is one that hawks frequently take when trying to justify their support for coercive and antagonistic policies. We see something similar from Iran hawks that want to pretend that they are somehow doing the Iranian people a favor by pushing for even stricter sanctions. Hawks presume to speak on behalf of the people they are helping to impoverish, and when presented with evidence that most of the population hates their policies they dismiss it as proof of “indoctrination.” This is consistent with the hawkish habit of boasting about their concern for the people in another country while supporting policies designed to hurt them.