Everyone's an Expert on the Latino Vote, Except Latinos
New America Media, Commentary, Roberto Lovato, Posted: Jan 22, 2008
Editor’s Note: The newly minted experts on the Latino vote are using the old paradigms to explain the Nevada vote results says NAM writer Roberto Lovato.
NEW YORK – The most interesting development out of this weekend's Nevada caucus votes had little to do with Hillary Clinton winning a large percentage of the Latino vote – that was predictable. More fascinating was the sudden and exponential surge in the number of experts in Latino politics.
It was tragicomic to watch non-Spanish speaking pundits explain the ‘reality’ of the Nevada vote while standing in the artificial light of the casinos during one of the first caucus meetings held entirely in Spanish. Reporters had to wait for translators to tell them what campaign workers were saying before they could report it to us. Understanding the electoral needs of casino, hotel, restaurant and other workers who labor in a new economy – and require new hours for voting – proved very difficult for many in the media to understand.
It was no less difficult having to watch the white, and some African American, political commentators on MSNBC, CNN and other networks tell us that the Latino vote for Clinton reflected “Black-Latino tensions.” The New York Times newspaper had earlier echoed these observations in a story that caused frustration in the Latino blogosphere. In a recent issue of The New Yorker, a publication that has no Latino editorial staff and publishes very few stories a year about the country's 46 million Latinos, the magazine showed off its newfound expertise in a story which detailed how Latinos are Clinton's electoral "firewall," thanks to the "lingering tensions between the Hispanic and black communities." It’s hard to know how they know this when only one serious polling organization in the country conducts polls in a language other than English.
Yet everybody, it seems, has something to say about Latino politics. Everybody that is, except Latinos.
The awkwardness and simplicity seen and heard in the coverage of the Latino electorate illustrates how ill-equipped the news organizations, the political parties and the society as a whole are to understand and deal with the historic political shift previewed in Nevada: the death of the black-white electorate. Simplistic talk about the Latino vote provides another example of how we live when the ‘experts’ and their organizations are increasingly out of touch with the dynamism and complexity of the electorate and the general populace.
As a result, the growth of the very diverse Latino electorate will likely force the revelation of more inconvenient truths. Principle among them is the media’s conclusion that anti-black racism among Latinos explains why they voted Clinton and not Obama in Nevada. Story after story tries to fit the Latino vote into the procrustean bed of old-school, black v. white politics.
Typical of these conclusions are statements by the liberal New Republic's John Judis. He explained Latino support for Clinton this way: "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with whites than with blacks." Judis backed his claims with a modicum of academic seriousness as he quoted "experts" like Duke University political scientist Paula D. McClain. McClain told me in an interview that she neither speaks Spanish nor watches the primary source of Latino news and political information, saying: "I don't watch Univision." Quoting her makes little practical sense.
It only makes sense when we consider how ever-expanding Latino power in Nevada and across the country is pushing up against people's fraying sense of nationhood and citizenship. Latino citizens and voters, not undocumented immigrants, are the targets of many liberals. These liberals long for the simpler days of a black-white electorate, a less-globalized country. Like Clinton, Obama and all Republican candidates, they support the political and racial equivalents of the anti-immigrant, anti-Latino border wall.
So instead of considering that Latinos reflect the new complexities of our political age, we should, experts tell us, simply swallow the black-white political logic of the previous era, like the half-moon cookies our grandmothers made. Ignore whatever you think of the Clintons - they have more than 15 years of relationships, name-recognition and history in the Latino electorate. Outside of Chicago, Obama has less than two years. Never mind that Latinos may still be wondering about why Obama did not, until recently, secure the support of most black voters. Never mind about the political amnesia about how the country's last black candidate of national stature – Jesse Jackson- defied the prevailing racial logic during the Presidential primaries of 1988, when his Rainbow Coalition secured almost 50 percent of the Latino vote in Latino-heavy New Mexico counties like Santa Fe and San Miguel and 36 percent of the Latino vote in the largest Latino state in the country: California.
The Latino experience of the right-of-center Clintons and the left-of-center Jackson, who the Illinois senator did not ask to campaign for him, raises questions about Mr. Obama's political operation and his political agenda. Time will tell us what was behind the Latino support for Clinton in Nevada. And who knows, maybe the experts telling us about Obama, Clinton and other candidates' fortunes in upcoming primaries will do so without the black and white lens that has proven obsolete in the face of a new country.
Related Articles:
Presidential Candidates Take the ‘Social’ Out of ‘Change’
The ˇSi, Se Puede! Test for Obama
The Five Lessons of Iowa
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Dionne Davis on Jan 28, 2008 at 16:46:37 said:
Interesting article, but as usual no mention of where Afro-Latinos fit into this paradigm.
eb in nyc on Jan 24, 2008 at 09:02:24 said:
The New Republic is not a liberal magazine.
TNR supported the War in Iraq. They state that they are politically \"moderate\". The truth is that they lean to the center right of American Politics.
Inaru on Jan 24, 2008 at 02:24:07 said:
We Latinos differ most from whites on education, so yes, like all poorly educated people, some Latinos are prejudiced against blacks. We Latinos differ in that we are also interracial, thus it makes no sense to discriminate against Obama, the interracial son of an immigrant. Novato's right; we voted for Jesse Jackson in droves. We're not more racist than white Americans.
We don't have as much information on Obama as we deserve, all the candidates' Spanish websites are mediocre and anyway we're not big fans of political sites. The media is as corporate in Spanish as in English. Most people of every race have little idea what Obama's policies are - or anyone's, in any detail. What can you possibly learn about a candidate from the trash talking on tv? It's name familiarity and media hogwash, plain and simple.
A few American and independent Spanish and bilingual media outlets tell the truth: Obama is the most favorable to immigrants, has the best plans to provide health coverage and end poverty, and has been elected more often to more offices, state and national, than either Hillary or Edwards.
Edwards deports the poor to suburbs - that's his big plan, but in case he didn't know, it's already in play, and it's called gentrification. Obama's poverty plan would work in Latino communities beautifully - it's community-based and proven in New York, 10 years now, sending the most kids to Ivy League colleges of any school district in NY - from Harlem! In case you didn't know, Black and Spanish Harlem are neighbors.
Obama clearly said "Immigrants don't come here for drivers' licenses, they come here to work and improve the lives of their families". Only Obama and Richardson clearly stated they will let the undocumented get drivers' licenses as a public safety issue - Richardson already did it in New Mexico- but what media coverage did that get?
Obama co-sponsored the federal Dream Act, and wrote an Op Ed and letter to Schwarzenegger begging him not to veto the California Dream Act. Hillary and Edwards were nowhere to be seen on those all-important work and education platforms for Latinos.
Nevada Latinos were just uninformed, and the Clinton-label won by default. There were also many instances of Clinton organizers putting Clinton's name on the Latino voters' ballots in advance of the voting, as well as misdirecting Obama supporters of every ethnicity. It's official, testimonies have been filed with the Nevada Democratic Party, not to change the outcome but to clean up the Party's caucus.
Let's also not forget the Clintons divided Latino union members and all union members by suing the Culinary Workers' Union. That provoked an angry $37,000 radio ad by that union that set off a backlash, nourished by Clintonistas.
We're not more racist than white voters, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in Iowa, and gave him one more delegate than Hillary in Nevada, and tied him with Hillary for delegates in New Hampshire. In some states, we're simply less informed and more manipulated.
I'm voting for Obama. I don't like to be manipulated, and the Clintons have done that endlessly. No mas. Ya basta. I'm third generation though, very educated though still very poor (disabled), and I'll even vote for a third party if the Clintons end up on the Democratic ballot in November, and that's a radical move for me in what will surely be a bloody contest if the Clintons are the nominees. Can't pull the lever for the Clintons, though, their military contractor donations, pharmaceutical lobbyists, and union-busting advisers scare the hell out of me. Que Dios nos ayude.
abt on Jan 23, 2008 at 19:48:16 said:
For whatever it's worth: my brother works in construction in the Bay Area. A large majority of the workers are Latino.
Let's call them working-class Hispanic. My brother maintains that they are extremely racist in their views toward African-Americans, and he gave me some examples which I don't need to print here. He also said they told him that they would never vote for a black candidate - ever.
That's anecdotal, but it's real.
Bupalos on Jan 23, 2008 at 14:37:44 said:
Well, I\'d like to believe this article. But does it really give us anything other than 10 data-empty paragraphs and one halting half-suggestion for why Obama got slaughtered among latinos?
When I see a split of this magnitude, I expect a better explanation for that than Clinton has especially good \"name recognition\" and \"connections\" in this community. Yeah, and she doesn\'t have that in the white community? She doesn\'t have that in the black community? Sorry. Doesn\'t add up.
If I was a highly educated and intelligent latino, I\'d want to explain away why my ethnic buds broke this heavily for the white woman too. And maybe there is something better than racism. But you really haven\'t offered it here.
Jose on Jan 23, 2008 at 13:26:21 said:
Here's some hilarious irony for you: Many misguided Latino voters view themselves as akin to whites, i.e. caucasians, and look down on blacks. That said, most whites in the US see latinos as illegal border jumpers best suited to be trimming their hedges or serving up hamburgers. Hilarious! Get a freakin clue, wetbacks!
RJ on Jan 23, 2008 at 13:16:05 said:
What happened to Elian Gonzalez?
Jay Largo on Jan 23, 2008 at 09:36:20 said:
J Cir:
Let me get this straight, you're upset that people who were born speaking Spanish and have learned English as immigrants actually prefer to converse amongst themselves in Spanish, their native language? What world do you live in? I hate to tell you my friend, but the Italians were not exactly the poster-children for assimilation... try the North End in Boston, North Beach in SF and many other Italian enclaves that back in the day had signs saying "Se parla Italiano" No matter how much schooling you have in a second language, your first language is always the one you feel most comfortable and proficient in. Why don't you force them to speak amongst themselves in a language they have less proficiency in? Still, the kids of these immigrants are more fluent in English than Spanish... just like the kids of the Italians. This is a proven fact. There is no "multicultural nightmare" except for biggots like you who conveniently forgot that your impoverished, peasant ancestors did EXACTLY the same thing when they came to this country. Talk about ethnic ingrates. Still, we have Italian mobsters in this country, Italian slang and Italian cultural impact (food anyone?). So let's not get on our high horse, paisan!
Remo on Jan 22, 2008 at 23:00:02 said:
This is a highly sophisticated and enlightened analysis! Great article. I would ask that more writers consider this kind of objective approach.
BTW, I am voting for Obama, not because he necessarily has the most progressive agenda, but because the nation is at a crossroads in racial understanding and tolerance, and this may be the last opportunity for perhaps decades to connect diverse peoples in this country in a great show of tolerance and acceptance. A giant step for American minds. As the song states: "free your mind, and the rest will follow."
Clinton, on the other hand is testing us with whether extreme dissembling and attack tactics will be the future norm. Peace out.
Karen on Jan 22, 2008 at 12:58:09 said:
EXCELLENT article. Last night CNN finally had on two Mexican-American political analysts to discuss the Febraury 5th primaries in the West. Soledad O' Brien and Bill Schneider (in taped footage) still tried to make Latino support of Hillary about race, but one of the analysts shot down that thesis with some data.
I think you're right that the only paradigm the media understands is some group being in opposition to blacks--if not whites, then Latinos.
My vote for Hillary is a pro-Hillary vote, not an anti-Obama vote, or an anti-black vote.
Geena Varezzi on Jan 22, 2008 at 11:27:09 said:
Mr. Lovato makes some good points- but what he and all the so-called experTs forget to mention is that much in the way African Americans were afraid to vote for Antonio Villaraigos in L.A.,because they feared he would do more for Latinos than blacks,(boy were they wrong) so Latinos in the presidential election fear that their agendas will be lost if a Black president, namely Obama is elected, particularly as the country faces a recession, or at least a downward turn in the economy.
Blacks and Latinos have much in common in this area, but as often happens, the needs of their respective communities are often seen as competing interests.And that\'s part of the reason blacks and latinos have trouble building real coalitions-
What people do not remember is that during the Clinton/Gore era, Latinos were for the most part invisible- the recognized minorty was Blacks-so in that sense, Lovato\'s analysis is correct- too many media people still think in terms of Black/White electorate-
I think many Latinos support Clinton because they think she will be easier to guilt or pressure into recognizing their needs if elected- she will not be as beholding to the Black community as was her husband Bill-\"the first African American president\"- because this time around,Latino support, not black support, will have been the difference in her getting elected, and she will be \"grateful.\" Truth is, she will be more focused on being the first woman president, and showing she can do the same job as any man, which scares me, after all , their record in recent years is not too impressive.
I\'m voting in California and still have not made up my mind-I\'m a Latino married to a Latino/Italian-we may be leaning towards Edwards, since his platform deals more with the real core of the problem and split- the poor - no matter what color they are- and the problems of globaliztation that is forcing people out of their countries into ours- Idon\'t think he can get elected, though- but maybe with enough votes he can make both candidates stand up and take notice, and force the party to adopt a more progressive and meaningful platform during the Convention-
J Cir on Jan 22, 2008 at 09:04:03 said:
Mr. Novato, without remorse, reported that in Nevada the United States of America experienced "one of the first caucus meetings held entirely in Spanish", like that's a good and glorious thing. My family emigrated (legally) from Italy in the 1920's...where in the hell is my Italian-language caucus? While we're at it, it's high time America had caucuses in Polish, German, Russian, etc.
-->If Mr. Novato genuinely revered and embraced the United States, he would lament a situation where people, who we will assume are legitimate US citizens, and who presumedly have at the least a working knowledge of English since they passed their citizenship exams, have no shame conducting their caucus in any language other English. Oh, wait, I forget...the ethnic ingrates that are the media should have known better to show up at an American caucus without being able to converse in Spanish. How thoughtless of them!! How 20th Century!
Sadly, the United States for the last 40 years has granted immigrants, largley Latino, a pass when it comes to assimilation. But the hens have come home to roost, and we are now mired in a creeping multi-cultural and multi-linguistic nightmare, and consequently, the US is facing, as Mr. Lovato so glibbly put it, "new complexities of our political age" in the form of a massive Latino contingency that flippantly disrepsects the cultural history and institutions that form the foundation of this great Nation, and who unabashedly demand the United States make political and cultural concessions to them instead of the other way around.
The cultural dismemberment of the late, great USA continues, much to the delight of Mr. Lovato, La Raza, the Mexican government (such as it is), and the rest of their open-borders ilk.