[News] The Specific Case of Marcoism

[Anti-Imperialist News]

resumen-english.org
<https://resumen-english.org/2026/09/the-specific-case-of-marcoism-2/>
The Specific Case of Marcoism
------------------------------

By José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez on September 18, 2026

Marcoism

References to McCarthyism or *Reaganomics* marked eras of political or
economic thought in the United States, reflecting the agenda of the ruling
(or dominant) groups, even though the figures who took historical credit by
lending their names to these movements did not exactly possess the
intellectual caliber that would have made them worthy of such recognition.

In the first case, it was a political and ideological reaction against any
idea or discourse that could be considered leftist, socialist, communist,
or simply progressive—years after the Soviet Union (and not the United
States) had been the principal actor in the victory over German fascism.
The domestic sympathies that this reality generated, coupled with the
social achievements the USSR was making despite its massive losses on the
battlefield, served as a catalyst for a full-blown witch hunt across the
“American Union” against anyone who was not an Aryan Republican or an
ultra-conservative Democrat. During his ten years in the U.S. Senate
throughout the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy was the figurehead of this
abomination.

Thirty years later, the so-called Republican New Right rose to power, led
by Ronald Reagan. The group that organized to bring him to the presidency
aimed, among other things, to redistribute social wealth—making the rich
richer and the poor poorer—on the grounds that the country was losing
economic competitiveness and needed to radically transform its productive
base. Social spending was drastically cut, while military spending
skyrocketed. On the foreign policy front, there was also an offensive—again
in the McCarthyist style—aimed at curbing the social and revolutionary
movements that were spreading throughout Latin America and Africa.

We summarize these historical precedents, among others, to better
understand the current era, as we arrive at what some media outlets or
pseudo-academics have labeled “Trumpism.”

But even the very authors who have attempted to coin the term, and,
incidentally, a “legacy,” have struggled to identify its main components—or
anything resembling intellectual activity—beyond the goal of destroying
societies, including the United States itself; changing the rules of the
political game; corrupting the entire governmental and judicial system;
turning negotiations with third parties into dialogues between mafia clans;
and, once again, redistributing wealth to a select few. All of this is
happening at a time when the U.S. economy is in worse shape than it was 40
years ago and faces the greatest challenge of its contemporary history: the
People’s Republic of China.

It is an era of hard, unadulterated power that feels no need to forge
alliances and divides the world into victors and vanquished. Perhaps the
only new development is the significant influence exerted by the State of
Israel, as a generator of chaos and one of its main supporters.

Beneath the rags of “Trumpism 2.0,” another phenomenon is emerging that
does not deserve any “-ism” label, but which it would be useful to try to
describe given the potential implications it could have for the United
States itself, for Latin America, and, undoubtedly, for Cuba. The leader of
this sect is someone whose name is difficult to turn into a historical
term, since one would have to refer to “Marcotism” or “Rubism”—labels that
image consultants do not consider appropriate.

So, let’s forget about the term and try to describe the phenomenon.
“Marcoism,” even before Trump, was a way to reap political dividends for
someone who showed no aptitude in business, culture, science, or any other
field of human knowledge. With the single issue of Cuba in tow, Marco Rubio
constructed a fictional family history to cast himself as a “victim of
Cuban communism,” despite having no relatives who took up arms in the
Escambray Mountains, nor in the mercenary brigade at Playa Girón, nor among
those selected by the CIA to govern “the Cuba of the future.” He has,
however, had ties to drug trafficking, but that is another story.

The fact is that this candidate, with no property in Cuba to “claim” and no
“relatives who were victims of the regime,” took advantage of experiences
such as those of the members and leaders of the Cuban-American National
Foundation, who realized that there is much more to be gained by milking
federal “regime change” programs in Cuba than by trying to sell used cars
in Hialeah. In that analysis, perhaps his main advisor was David Rivera.
His neighbor—and fellow aspirant to a seat in the U.S. Congress—shared the
same confusion about the boundaries between being a legislator and a
lobbyist. He ended up being charged in a trial—which Marco attended as a
witness—for having allegedly represented Bolivarian Venezuelan interests
within the United States.

Marco, who was finally elected to the federal Senate in 2010, spent the
next 24 months courting every potential Republican presidential candidate
who might emerge ahead of the 2012 elections. But he failed to catch the
eye of any of them and had to return to his legislative seat, where he
earned the distinction of being among the senators with the lowest
attendance at the chamber’s plenary sessions and the fewest legislative
initiatives—that is, bills introduced and passed—which was supposed to be
his primary (and sole) job.

Despite belonging to the Republican majority in Congress, he had absolutely
no success in trying to block—through legislative obstruction and backroom
deals—the executive actions undertaken by the Barack Obama administration
to negotiate a range of issues with Cuban authorities and reach mutually
beneficial agreements for both nations, which were formalized in 22
memorandum of understanding.

Ahead of the 2016 presidential election, “Marcoismo” incorporated an
anti-Trump stance into the shaping of its public image. There are quotes
from the senator-candidate—now forgotten—that reveal his essence as a
“turncoat,” “chameleon-like,” or adaptable to changing circumstances. At
that time, his advisor Todd Harris went so far as to state: “There is a
growing *anti-Trump* movement, and our goal has been for Marco to emerge as
the *leader* of that movement.”

Upon tasting defeat in November of that year, Marco Rubio considered
changing the course of his life and attempting to return to wielding
behind-the-scenes influence, drawing on all the relationships he had
already cultivated in Washington. Two very philosophical reasons stopped
him: the call from the Republican majority in the Senate not to lose
leadership, and the lucrative contract that billionaire Norman Braman
offered his wife to cover the family’s expenses. His change of heart was
not driven by the defense of an altruistic agenda, nor even by combating
the threats of communism, which are a constant in his recent speeches.

Heavy contributions from the Mossad lobby—which is not exactly the Jewish
lobby—also played a role.

In 2018 and 2019, “Marcoism” could not prevent millions of Cubans and
Americans from visiting the island as tourists, academics, artists,
athletes, or simply as human beings interested in getting to know the
“enemy” they had been taught to fear since elementary school, in the
corporate press, and even on Netflix. But instead of supporting and
promoting Cuban business people living in the U.S.—who were already
beginning to make substantial profits from cruise lines, airlines, and
other more modest commercial ventures—Marco found his profits in supporting
the clan of perpetual “claimants,” those who have forged thousands of
documents to make judges believe they owned something in Cuba that was
“snatched away by Castro”—which they claimed was sufficient justification
to act like vultures, demanding bribes and threatening to take anyone who
did business with the “tyranny” to court.

Put another way, “Marcoism” did not support—neither then nor now—those who
created goods or services, the essence of modern capitalism, but rather
those who lived off extortion, an old practice that originated in Chicago’s
underworld.

The political behavior we are referring to here has a preference for back
doors, for the so-called *backstage* in the shadows. It is not in the blood
of leaders who can defend their views before crowds—among other things,
because they cannot articulate a coherent discourse that the majority can
share.

For this reason, Marco Rubio waited until Donald Trump was on the ropes due
to the Democratic *impeachment* attempt in 2019 to step into the spotlight
and take control of the agendas against Cuba and Venezuela. In exchange for
that favor, he would prevent the proceedings against Trump from moving
forward in the Intelligence Committee (or lack thereof) to which he
belonged in the Senate. “We have a deal,” was the phrase repeated by the
former mortal enemies, recalling the actions of the crime bosses in the
television series “*Godfather of Harlem*,” which, coincidentally, was just
beginning to be filmed at that time.

Marcoismo then formed an alliance with thinkers of the caliber of John
Bolton and Elliot Abrams, who were eventually targeted by the U.S.
“justice” system for lying under oath or manipulating confidential official
information. The goal in those years was to justify a blockade against
Venezuelan assets in the United States and abroad, which would allow them
to be consolidated under the ownership of a so-called
government-in-exile (*Guaidó
Brand*), which would then funnel one percent into the pockets of those
ideologues behind the heist. At that time, the plans against Cuba were
clearly confrontational, but they took a back seat in the grand schemes of
extortion.

“Marcotism” seems to have “risen” to another level of complexity by
entering the inner circle of “Trumpism” during Trump’s second term in the
presidency. In any case, since it is not the result of coherent
intellectual activity, it continues to face major contradictions that make
it unlikely to be recorded in the history books.

Following the Monroe Doctrine-style attack on Venezuela on January 3, 2026,
and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the
senator-secretary-archivist-advisor embarked on a frenzied pursuit of the
very issue that had previously propelled him from Calle Ocho to the *National
Mall*: Cuba.

Since then, a series of drafts—later converted into presidential
directives—has been repeatedly issued, in which Cuba has been portrayed
both as a failed state and as a major threat to U.S. security.

To avoid obstacles to his schizophrenia, the secretary has purged hundreds
of State Department officials, with the aim of preventing them from
questioning the “content” created by the tools of Elon, Mark, and Jeff
(among others), which—through so-called Artificial Intelligence (or IS,
Supine Ignorance)—have constructed arguments against Cuba that have made
the majority of the U.S. population laugh at them.

By cutting off a centipede’s legs and asking it to walk, Marco has
concluded that the animal is deaf. By extorting third parties to prevent
trade and economic activities with Cuba—subjecting the Cuban people to the
most brutal blockade in decades—he has sought to peddle the notion that
Cuban authorities are inefficient. One would have to calculate how many
minutes other nations subjected to similar pressures would remain standing.

But the main problem with “Marcoism” or “Rubism”—whichever you prefer to
call it—remains with the spiritual leader of “Trumpism.” Faced with the
profusion of anti-Cuban “strategies” and messages, questions are piling up
that the subordinate apparently is not in a position to answer for the Boss:

– On what basis was the 15-day estimate made—as the deadline for the Cuban
government to capitulate due to the lack of oil and essential supplies?

– Given the high level of intelligence activity, now reinforced, why has it
not been possible to identify a “dissident” faction within the Cuban
government?

– Despite the immense resources spent on the corporate press, digital
platforms, and even prank calls, how is it possible that dates like July 11
have not sparked mass demonstrations in Cuba?

– How is it possible to leave the Cuban people “without any outlets” and
not provoke a new mass exodus—the antithesis of Trumpist policies?

– How does one intend to return tens of thousands of unwanted Cuban
emigrants to Havana amid an unstable situation, the aftermath of a war, or
a change of government in Cuba?

– If a decision is made to allocate massive funds for a military invasion
of the island, what tangible benefits will be gained in return, and within
what timeframe?

– How can the “Cuban vote” be guaranteed for the upcoming midterm and
presidential elections if plans are being made to repeal the so-called
Cuban Adjustment Act?

– Why are the so-called “immediate changes in Cuba” now being postponed
until the end of the current Trump administration?

– How does one intend to promote capitalism in Cuba if the suffocating
measures also stifle new forms of production on the island?

– What impact would the weakening of Cuban law enforcement and compliance
authorities have in light of the rise in crimes such as drug trafficking
and undocumented emigration by third parties?

– If the People’s Republic of China is the main “threat” according to the
U.S. National Security Strategy, how can such responsibility now be
attributed to Cuba?

– On what grounds would the United States enter into a new armed conflict,
when the confrontation with Iran can already be described as a new fiasco
with no end in sight?

When confronted with some of these questions, it is common to see the
secretary-advisor gesturing profusely in front of the press cameras due to
a lack of solid arguments. The rapid pace of his speech, without pauses or
breaks, is meant to convey intensity of thought, when in fact it is exactly
the opposite.

There is a clear purpose behind the current manifestation of “Marcotism”—or
perhaps “Marquism”—and that is the intention to try to erase, with a stroke
of the pen or through the relentless repetition of lies, the significance
of what was achieved during the 2015–2017 period and even during much of
Trump’s first term. The goal is to erase minds, decapitate leadership, and
destroy ties—especially among Cubans living in the United States and their
relatives or acquaintances in Cuba.

“Marcoismo” also has other questions to answer in South Florida:

– If it rose in the U.S. political spectrum by capitalizing on the
so-called “Cuban vote”—and a key premise for that social group is securing
their residency status in the United States—how is it that all the
privileges this social group has accumulated over the years are now at
stake?

– On what basis is a group of “businessmen”—who have yet to prove their
knowledge of and success in the Cuban market—given preferential treatment
over those who have been doing business with the island for years, with the
backing of U.S. law?

– Where will the city governments of Florida’s cities with the largest
Cuban populations obtain the resources to provide the social services that
their citizens often received in Cuba—especially health care?

– From which Cuban authorities will the Miami Hurricane Center receive
future reports as hurricanes approach—reports that have been critical to
natural disaster prevention on the peninsula?

– With which partner does the U.S. plan to continue efforts to rebuild the
shared coral reef, which is essential to the health of Florida’s fishing
industry?

– How do you plan to prevent and combat future oil spills in the Caribbean
Sea in light of ongoing *offshore* drilling, given the absence of official
expertise from Cuba?

– From which authority on the island will U.S. vessels traveling through
the Florida Straits and facing unexpected accidents receive search and
rescue support?

– How do you intend to ensure aviation safety in the area without regular
communication between aviation authorities on both coasts?

These are just a few of the issues that Marcoism has ignored—or assumed
would have a simple solution—due to the intellectual shortcomings of its
leading proponents.

It will always be much easier to destroy than to build, but a major problem
will be anticipating the costs. For some, this could mean the end of their
political or bureaucratic careers—and, above all, a burial without any
honorable words on their tombstone.

Any doubts? Ask their *soulmate* Robert Menéndez

*José R. Cabañas Rodríguez* is Director of the International Policy
Research Center (CIPI) in Havana, Cuba and former Cuban Ambassador to the
US.

Source: Resumen Latinoamericano – English
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20260921/f00b16ba/attachment-0001.htm>