Who does Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart represent?
By Eliades Acosta Matos
This question has one obvious answer: the voters from Florida’s District 21, who in 1992 elected him as a Republican member of the House of Representatives and have reelected him ever since. It is possible that others may consider him to be a spokesman for his native community, which has settled mostly in Miami. But in politics, as José Martí shrewdly observed, reality is often what you don’t see. And other possible answers could be surprising.
Let us put aside the habitual rhetoric, the pompous statements, the poses for photographers and the money spent by a politician like Díaz-Balart to polish a nice image. Whoever takes the time to review his biography, his record as a legislator, the list of the contributors to his campaign, the state of his accounts, and the statements he so prodigally makes and carefully chooses to be always politically correct by Republican standards, could arrive at conclusions that have nothing to do with the obsequious manner in which he describes himself in his official website:
“During my time in Congress, I have successfully tackled issues such as tax relief for hard working American families, significant education reform, transportation funding, and bringing common sense and discipline to the federal budget…”
Said that way, it doesn’t sound bad — except that the legislator’s concrete accomplishments don’t always match that description. What’s worse, they frequently contradict it.
But we shouldn’t be surprised about the political sinuousness of someone who, in 1982, began his career in the ranks of the Democratic Party, rose to president of the Dade County Young Democrats and the Dade County Democrats Executive Party and today is a hard-working Republican paladin who looks down his nose at his colleagues “on the other side of the aisle.” To someone who today, as a Republican and a conservative, bitterly opposes abortion, no matter what the justification, and, like his GOP colleagues, has made that topic the criterion of the cultural wars aimed at discrediting President Obama, it must be embarrassing to be reminded that in 1982, as a Democrat and a liberal, he loudly declared that he would oppose any legislation that tried to ban abortion. [1]
But in the intervening years, as Díaz-Balart’s opinions and moral principles have changed, only one quality has remained unchanged, a quality that accompanied him since his political debut, when he ran for the Florida House of Representatives and was defeated by Republican Humberto Cortina — his efficient ability to raise funds. On that occasion, as a good omen for his future career, and despite the fact that he was defeated, he managed to raise almost twice the amount raised by his rival.
A look at the surnames of the individual and collective donors who support Lincoln Díaz-Balart, according to official records of the Federal Election Commission, gives us a kind of tour of the historic past and the future of a segment of the Cuban bourgeoisie, the same that smoothed over all its tactical differences and united in the bitterest strategic opposition to the revolutionary project on the island in the past half century.
On that list, defying a past of liberals and conservatives, coup-prone army officers and pro-Constitution politicians, appear in close embrace, joyfully depositing their donations in Díaz-Balart’s cash box, under the protective mantle of George W. Bush’s Grand Old Party, the Fanjuls and the Machados, the Tabernillas and the Masferrers, the Menocals and the Mendietas, the Bacardis and the Roger Noriegas. In what clearly could make for a good joke by Guillermo Alvarez Guedes, the comedian has donated almost double the very modest amount contributed from San Juan by Emilio Bacardí.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2007-08 campaign, the political action committee Democracy Believers, which supported Lincoln Díaz-Balart, raised a little more than $2 million and spent almost twice that amount — amazingly, without declaring outstanding debts. The economic sectors that donated the most money were those involved in foreign policy and defense, the big lawyer firms, the leaders of sympathetic PACs, real estate businesses and health care providers.
Demonstrating the principles of “judicious and disciplined” management of the federal budget that Díaz-Balart demands from U.S. administrations, especially Democratic-led administrations, the legislator places a proud zero on the line listing personal disbursements to finance his own political campaigns.
A summary derived from an analysis of the way in which Díaz-Balart has voted all these years in the House of Representatives — and consequently of the manner in which he has embodied the mandate of his constituents — allows us to characterize him as follows.
He bitterly opposes abortion, is in favor of prayer in the public schools (teachers included), and advocates the application of the death sentence.
He defends the right of civilians to carry firearms, favors the privatization of Social Security, and opposes the replacement of coal and crude oil by alternative forms of energy.
He votes against the application of progressive taxes and in favor of the expansion of the armed forces and the Patriot Law. He opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
On Feb. 25, 2009, during the vote on Bill 86 — House Resolution 1105, which was passed by 265 votes to 159 — this legislator, who worries so much about the welfare of the American working families, voted against the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which sought to provide medical coverage to 9 million children. Passage of the bill might have affected part of the fabulous profits of the tobacco companies and private medicine providers.
On Aug. 4, 2007, he voted in favor of Bill 836 (S.B. 1927), which sought to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and eventually passed, 227 to 183. This zealous vigilante of any excessive expansion of the federal government and critic of the slightest intervention in the private lives of citizens, voted for a bill that, according to civil rights defenders, violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and grants absolute powers to government officials to spy on any communication originating in the United States without the need for a court order.
This austere promoter of “responsible” federal spending voted on May 24, 2007, in favor of Bill 425 (H.R. 2206) that allowed the administration of George W. Bush to spend $100 billion in financing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while an amount 16 times smaller was set aside to repair the damage created by Hurricane Katrina and an amount 33 times smaller was given to U.S. farmers to deal with natural disasters.
This compassionate patriot, who opposes any offense against the flag of his adoptive country, does not show the same energy when it comes to providing medical care to the returning war veterans, as he demonstrated when he voted against Bill 265 (H.R. 1591) on April 25, 2007.
More than insensitivity or miserliness, the real reason for such a stance is even darker.
Apparently, Díaz-Balart’s opposition was not intended to avoid greater expenditures in wheelchairs or prostheses for mutilated soldiers but to prevent President Bush from having (as the bill stated) “to certify the progresses of the Iraqi Government, limit the mandate of the American troops in that country to no more than one year, and indicate [to Bush] that he should concentrate his military policy on Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda,” thus forbidding his administration to establish permanent bases in Iraq and control Iraq’s crude oil production.
As long as he could show loyalty to his boss in Washington and propitiate the execution of Bush’s aggressive, neoconservative agenda for the Middle East, what importance might have the rehabilitation of some young men mangled by bombs hidden on the side of Iraqi roads?
This big Cuban, who overflows with love for his compatriots on the island and abroad, who has devoted his life to national felicity, on April 13 wrote a letter to President Obama, co-signed by his brother Mario, protesting against the lifting of the ban on travel for Cuban-Americans and the resumption of family remittances.
The fact a boy may visit his mother or send money to his aunt is described as “a serious mistake” by these paladins of the holy national cause. But by now we shouldn’t be surprised by Díaz-Balart’s unmovable firmness when it comes to defending the future and the million-dollar profits of some industries, whether they be political confrontation with Cuba (the source of numerous and meteoric fortunes in Florida) or the multimillion-dollar pharmaceutical consortiums.
He also voted in favor of the pharmaceutical companies and against the ordinary citizen, including the elderly residents of Little Havana, when on Jan. 12, 2007, he voted against Bill 23 (H.R. 4), which timidly attempted to enable the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical producers a decrease in the prices of Medicare medicines.
Despite all this, according to the estimates of the conservative Christian Coalition, his votes in defense of family-related issues enjoy a rating of 90 percent, which no doubt will be seen by many as a cruel mockery.
Strictly speaking and judging for his record of votes in the House, who does Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart represent? Aren’t the answers obvious? Are there any other reasons not to think matters more deeply?
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Díaz-Balart has a record of 90 percent when voting in favor of corporations, of the big businesses that, of course, have nothing to do with the lives of his District 21 constituents, people who have to work several jobs at once to pay their bills, to guarantee a future for their children and stay afloat in the high seas of the economic crisis.
The American Conservative Union (ACU), which describes itself as “the most powerful grassroots conservative organization in the United States” and publishes an annual ACU Ratings of Congress, says that Lincoln Díaz-Balart voted in 2008 as “a pure and tough conservative” on 52 percent of the votes and maintains a total rating of 72.06 percent. To get an idea of how demanding the ACU is when it qualifies the conservative orthodoxy of a vote, suffice to say that, in its opinion, Democratic liberal representatives, like Charles Rangel of New York, were rated at 0 percent in 2008.
I do not doubt that the ever-smiling Lincoln Díaz-Balart has a high opinion of himself, that he assiduously attends religious services and that he poses for photographs every time he can show the charitable and generous aspects of his soul. I do not doubt that he is a loving husband and an exemplary father, or that he is loyal to his friends and protectors, as he has demonstrated with his votes in Congress. But the personality and political ethics of the man described in the Wikipedia website [2] leaves the following question hanging in the air:
For whom does Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart work and whom does he represent?
One thing is clear: not the Cubans.
Author Elíades Acosta holds a doctorate in philosophy. He was head of the Culture Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba.
[1] See The Miami Herald: “Latin Opponents Take Traditional Party Stands”, by Elizabeth Morgan, Oct. 10, 1982.
[2] “[Lincoln Díaz-Balart] has defended the naval blockade and the display of U.S. military forces against Cuba. He has called for the assassination of Fidel Castro. He defended Valentín Fernández, convicted for the murder of Luciano Nieves, who promoted negotiations with Cuba, and lobbied for a pardon for Orlando Bosch. In 2002, he attempted to prevent the visit of former President Jimmy Carter to Havana.”
