During the past two weeks our hypothetical Chief Executives (you) had to make a decision concerning the future of our foreign policy toward Cuba. The options presented to the President by his or her aides were the following:

Option A: The Hard Road -- The best way to topple totalitarianism in Cuba is to continue to boycott Cuba's products. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba no longer has a protector and will inevitably realize that it must seek normalized relations with the United States.

Option B: The Soft Road -- Why single out Cuba for a boycott when we trade with other countries whose governments we object to, such as China and North Korea? The best way to bring about a new regime in Cuba is to resume the flow of products and ideas from the outside world. Cuba is not a threat to our economy or our national security -- let's stop inflating the importance of isolating this tiny country.

The Results

Option A: 14%
Option B: 86%

Respondents who chose Option A felt that there's a fundamental difference between China and Cuba: the latter is nearer economic collapse, so a boycott has a much greater potential for working. Others felt that Cuba still represents a destabilizing threat to the United States through its drug cartels. Finally, some felt that Cuba should make an effort to introduce a free-market economy before the United States relaxes its stand.

Those who supported Option B felt that external forces such as investment, trade, and education would go much further toward improving Cuba's government than an American boycott. Many said that the U.S. policy of embargoing Cuba while trading with other nations whose regimes we disapprove of is hypocritical. Finally, some said that partisan politics, not our national interest, is keeping us involved in Cuba, and expressed the hope that our policy might change if Clinton is elected to a second term.

Party Lines

Option	Democrats	Republicans	Independents	Other	Unregistered
Option A	3%	5%	5%	0%	1%
Option B	33%	13%	22%	7%	5%

The Significance of the Issue

Issue	Most Significant	Very Important	Fairly Important	Not Very Important	Completely Irrelevant
Cuba	0%	5%	28%	63%	3%
Welfare	5%	53%	36%	5%	1%
Balancing the Budget	17%	49%	21%	9%	3%
Tobacco Regulation	0%	10%	28%	43%	15%
Trade Policy	6%	35%	45%	13%	0%
Campaign-Finance Reform	9%	41%	27%	20%	4%
Health-Care Reform	4%	39%	41%	13%	2%
Entitlement Reform	12%	56%	27%	4%	2%
Immigration Reform	2%	32%	50%	15%	1%

Age. Those under 18 were the only ones who were proportionally more supportive of Option A than Option B.

Age Range	Option A	Option B
Under 18	3%	0%
18-34	4%	28%
35-44	4%	18%
45-54	2%	21%
Over 55	1%	14%

Age and Significance

Option	Under 18	18-34	35-44	45-54	Over 55
Completely Irrelevant	0%	0%	3%	0%	0%
Not Very Important	2%	21%	13%	15%	8%
Fairly Important	1%	9%	4%	6%	6%
Very Important	0%	0%	2%	2%	1%

Race and Gender. There were too few non-white respondents to present a good statistical analysis of whether responses differed among the races. Women made up 18% of respondents to this scenario. Percentage-wise they were more supportive of Option B than were male respondents.

Gender	Option A	Option B
Female	2%	16%
Male	12%	65%

Click here to return to the Executive Decision index page.