In opposing President Barack Obama's opening to Cuba, Florida's Republican senator, Marco Rubio, explained, "This entire policy shift announced today is based on an illusion, on a lie, the lie and the illusion that more commerce and access to money and goods will _ political freedom for the Cuban people." Rubio has correctly touched on the hottest issue. But theory, logic and history suggest that he's wrong in his conclusions. I would recommend to Rubio one of the classics of conservative  thought, Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom." He doesn't have to spend too much time on it. The first chapter outlines the "relation between economic freedom and political freedom." The point Friedman makes in the book is one that America's founding fathers well understood. Drawing on the political philosopher John Locke, they believed that the freedom to buy, sell, own and trade were primary elements of human freedom and individual autonomy . As they expand, liberty expands. This is not just theory, of course. Over the last two centuries, the countries that embraced "more commerce and access to money and goods" in Rubio's phrase -- Britain, America, then Western Europe and East Asia -- have moved toward greater prosperity, but also political freedom. If you exclude oil-rich countries, where money is not earned but dug from the ground, on the whole there has been a strong connection between economic freedom and political freedom. In Latin America today, democracy  and markets have acted to strengthen each other, transforming the continent, which 30 years ago was almost entirely ruled by dictatorships  to one that is today almost entirely ruled by democracies. After opening up its economy in the 1970s, Chile began to grow, but that growth then produced a stronger civil society that over time contributed to the end of the dictatorship within the country. Yet Cuba is an outlier, one of the last regimes in Latin America that has embraced neither markets nor ballots. The Obama administration is acting on the theory that more commerce, capitalism, contact, travel and trade will empower the people of Cuba and thus gives them a greater voice in their political future. And so the first point to make is that it will help Cubans economically -- it will raise their incomes, their standard of living, and boost access to technology. These are all good things in and of themselves. But easing the embargo  will also help Americans, who will benefit from being able to trade with a neighbor. This is the reason that conservatives have long understood that free trade is not a gift bestowed on someone. It helps both countries and in particular, helps the United States. That's why the Wall Street Journal's editorial page -- bastion of conservative thought -- has been an advocate on lifting the trade embargo against Cuba, which is a far larger step than Obama's normalization. What message does the writer try to deliver through this passage?
President Obama is making a wrong move opening to Cuba. Marco Rubio is making a mistake criticizing Obama's normalization policy. Obama's policy will benefit both Cubans and Americans economically and politically. Obama's decision agrees with the fact that economic freedom grows with political freedom.