In Univisión Debate, Star Candidates Give Latinos More of the Same

It was the first time in history that candidates in a presidential campaign addressed Latino voters on Spanish language television. The drum beat of buzz around this event began several weeks ago, and anticipation has been building up in Latino media about the "historic event." Historic it may have been, but groundbreaking it was not. After watching the YouTube debate and the PBS All American Forum, the Univisión event seems like más de lo mismo -- more of the same. The only real difference was the terrible simultaneous translation and how hard it was to differentiate the candidates' stances on issues, as they all seemed to be either parroting their closest neighbor in the responses, or punting questions to avoid straight answers. I guess it's only fair that the Latino community get the same treatment as the rest of the U.S. -- dances around issues and excuses made for prior fouls.

Speaking of fouls, the boulder hurled at Clinton and Obama as to why they voted for the border wall left both candidates repeating their same old lines: "border security is necessary for immigration reform"..."Immigration reform benefits immigrants because it provides a path to citizenship." Still it's hard for some Latino immigrants whose families -- or even they themselves -- have crossed "illegally" via the Mexican-American border to understand why increased migra presence is the right thing for them. When abuses are committed by border authorities and La Migra are such a part of the Mexican immigrant experience, saying that a wall needs to be built and there needs to be increased patrolling (which conjures up images of the Minutemen) isn't going to be a popular proposition, even among Latinos who believe immigration reform is necessary. Most, like myself, believe that immigration reform is, in fact, possible without building a medieval wall between two countries and without making the border a more problematic place than it already is.

Before the debate began, I had two predictions: Bill Richardson would shine, given his natural leg up -- a familiarity with the community and his "Mexicanness" -- and that Hillary would, like in prior encounters, flatten the rest of the candidates with her well-rehearsed answers. Neither happened (or maybe it did but the clumsy voiceover impeded me from getting any of that).

I'm not sure if it was the fact the event was dubbed -- making it necessary to depend on the "interpretation" of the translators to judge the responses, and therefore impossible to decipher tone -- or because the candidates don't see enough value in the Latino community to get pumped up, but after the first 45 minutes of the debate I was pretty much done. Hillary didn't kick ass, the most interesting thing that Richardson did was whine about not being able to speak Spanish, and I found myself dreaming of a Mike Gravel presidency (Mike who?). Gravel showed he knew something about his audience in his first response by, before replying, extending his condolences to the family of Latino U.S. Army Private Armando Soriano, who was killed in Iraq and whose parents now face deportation.

To tell you the truth, I know nothing of this Mike Gravel, but in watching the debate tonight the only times I felt myself perk up were when it was his turn to answer a question. Sure, comparing his French-Canadian upbringing to the experience of a monolingual Spanish-speaking immigrant was a bit trite, but he spoke words tonight that resonated with me. When asked about whether immigration reform would be a priority for him in the first year of his presidency, he made a comment that no other candidate had made up until this point: that the immigration "issue" is a mere scapegoat for the myriad problems we have in this country, both something to be blamed for our healthcare, crime and education woes, and also a distraction from our national disgrace, Iraq. Amen, Mike.

Immigration wasn't the only issue tonight. I was happy to hear the Hugo Chavez question -- the "what would you do with him?" question, a real humdinger in the YouTube debate -- come up again. While the "star" candidates gave their party line of alienation (if I recall correctly, John Edwards even called Chavez a "dangerous leader"), only Gravel gave an answer that resonated with me at all. He said that Chavez isn't an enemy of the U.S., but that the U.S. makes enemies of countries like Venezuela "and Iran." And in the [presumably] largely Cuban-American audience, he even went so far as to say that the same thing had happened with Castro, and that instead of making enemies he'd extend an olive branch to the left-leaning governments of Latin America.

Hey, I know Mike Gravel doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in getting the nomination, so don't think I'm smoking something over here. It's just that I found his responses to be the most refreshing out of everything I heard tonight, most of which was, más de lo mismo. Lots of empty promises, canned answers tweaked to fit the audience and no strong stances on the serious issues, other than Iraq (everyone wants out but disagree on timetables).

I have to agree with my co-editor in that Chris Dodd hit the nail on the head in citing NAFTA and other U.S. policies as catalysts for the massive influx of Latino immigrants into this country in recent years. It's not a popular thing to say, and I'm glad he said it.

Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling that the candidates didn't see this as a important platform for them. Is it a coincidence that most didn't seem on their game, or is it because they feel the Latino vote (that's citizens, which constitute only one part of the Univisión audience) is already in the bag?

The Miami-Dade Democratic Party helped organize the event, and according to the International Herald Tribune, party head Joe Garcia said prior to forum: "The Hispanic community is the most significant swing constituency in American politics...Univision is as important to political elections as NBC, CBS and ABC. You get invited, and you show up."

In my opinion, the candidates were there, but they didn't show up.

Comments

[snellingsilvia]

I agree that translating the candidates' debate in Spanish was largely a symbolic gesture. Nevertheless, I believe it is at least a small step towards acknowledging the growing political clout of Latinos. As much as it may anger a significant segment of the US population, the reality is that many people feel more comfortable receiving their information in Spanish, be they recent immigrants or long-time elderly citizens.

As Latinos, many of the issues that are significant importance to us are largely ignored in the English-speaking media because they don't generate the intensity of feelings associated with immigration. When was the last time we heard truly substantive talk about education, health care, or the impact of the tanking economy on middle to low-income individuals? Surely, these issues concern constituents across the political spectrum. In contrast, immigration is presupposed to be the sole issue in the mind of Latinos. To that end, the discussion is presented in such a polarizing light, that little is gained from following the news in mainstream forums. Therefore, it makes sense that people would feel greater trust in hearing the candidates' words in their language, botched translation or not.

It seems to me that if the objective of our society is to produce an electorate that is well-informed, we should welcome this newest opportunity to have the candidates present their views - albeit in a forum that is more likely to hold their feet to the fire.

The Democrats would be foolhardy to assume that the Latino vote is in the bag (George Bush enjoyed a decent amount of support from this bloc), given the vast diversity of ethnicities that fall under the umbrella term. I am divided in my thoughts as to whether the candidates will offer more substance to the platitudes that have brought them this far in their respective campaigns. Unfortunately, the superficial nature of the debate was not a surprise given the cavalier performance given by everyone thus far in the election cycle.

[mulegino]

"Latinos" and the current demographic brainwashing going on in the MSM ["Latinos a new power to be reckoned with", etc.] [Whatever "Latino" or "Hispanic" mean, as the term is as vague as "Whites", "Blacks", "Asians", etc.] is just another reason why the Corporate oligarchy and its propaganda arm, the MSM, is able to manipulate our electorate. In other words, it balkanizes the bulk of our middle and working classes using the politics of identity against the politics of the common good. It's a ploy of divide et imperat. The beneficiaries are the Transnational Corporations and the Latin American Oligarchs like Carlos Slim, Salinas de Gortari, etc.

[llamajockey]

Amen

Nobody could have said it better!!!

[Gerahufff]

It seems that as progressive Latinos our only real options during the primary are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. We can't vote for any other candidate without sacrificing our integrity. Not even Bill Richardson. But, this leaves us with a difficult question: Do we ignore Barack and Hillary during the primary, or do we engage their respective campaigns in hope of bringing about change? Whatever we do, it's clear that we can't afford to lose the White House to another republican in '08. We just can't.

[hidalgo12]

great post. it's rare to see latino perspectives on issues that directly concern us in mainstream (read: white) forums. hats off to huffingtonpost and, of course, to maderazo.

[nihilon_x]

I'm sure you'll see a lot more latino perspectives in the future, given the changing demographics of America.

Its a shame these candidates only address "minorities" when they are either looking for a vote or a scapegoat for America's problems, but in time this too shall pass.

[Mike__M]

"Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling that the candidates didn't see this as an important platform for them."

Obviously, last month's "Prez on the Rez" forum was not important for them either. Only three of them bothered to show up for that (Gravel, Kucinich & Richardson). Even worse, there were not three prominent blogs about Prez on the Rez here at Huffington Post,and very few outside of the Native press -- it passed with barely any notice.

"Hey, I know Mike Gravel doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in getting the nomination"

Hell is exactly where we're headed with the más-de-lo-mismo-frontrunners.

"It's just that I found his responses to be the most refreshing out of everything I heard tonight, most of which was, más de lo mismo. Lots of empty promises, canned answers tweaked to fit the audience and no strong stances on the serious issues"

Some of us have had the same response to earlier "debates." Look past the "angry old (straw) man" the pundits insist you should laugh at, and find the passionate man who is really pissed at where the country being taken. These people scare me, too. Does anyone besides the Clinton/Obama/More-of-the-samists think that anger is NOT the correct response?

If we're going to hell, I'd want take a snowball with me, it would be refreshing.

[MsMonis]

"Americans are sick of having millions of poor people flock into this country, take their jobs, drive down wages, and overburden local community services." i'm american and i'm actually sick of hearing that. and last time i checked i haven't heard of a group of american born grape pickers mad that illegal immigrants took their jobs.

great post jennifer! i agree with you re: mike gravel. i knew nothing about him until yesterday and suddenly dream of a world with him as president. it's sad that only those candidates who have little chance of winning are the ones that speak from their hearts...and the ones that give me hope.

[MsMonis]

"Americans are sick of having millions of poor people flock into this country, take their jobs, drive down wages, and overburden local community services." i'm american and i'm actually sick of hearing that. and last time i checked i haven't heard of a group of american born grape pickers mad that illegal immigrants took their jobs.

[nihilon_x]

Actually, there are many black people who feel that illegal immigrant latinos have taken many of the unskilled labor jobs that were traditionally held by blacks.

Its the same frustration seen in whites who are increasingly losing their jobs to workers overseas -- I remember whites bashing Japanese automobiles back in the 80s simply because the Japanese made better cars.

In hindsight it seems ridiculous since many people now accept that Japanese cars are generally of better quality and value, but that's just how it was at the time -- people lashing out because they were losing their blue-collar jobs at the factory to the "evil" Japanese.

While I understand the frustration with the loss of job security, I likewise acknowledge that we live in a capitalistic society and that if someone out there is willing to do your job for less pay, then they are going to get the job, plain and simple.

To compete, one either has to change one's occupation or change one's government because nothing is going to stop companies from seeking the cheapest, most efficient labor possible.

[flatus]

I owe a great deal to television as an educational language tool when I first came to this country.

In what way is Univision helping the new arrivals to the Spanish community in this sense?

[NABNYC]

You write: "Still it's hard for some Latino immigrants whose families -- or even they themselves -- have crossed "illegally" via the Mexican-American border to understand why increased migra presence is the right thing for them."

The premise of this statement is that the U.S. politicians have some duty or responsibility to support laws which are acceptable to illegal immigrants, or to support laws which favor continued illegal immigration. But these politicians do not represent the illegal immigrants who, by definition, are not citizens of this country. If they want to be represented by politicians, they need to go back to their own country and participate in that country's political processes.

The reason illegal immigrants oppose the wall and oppose increasing the staffing of La Migra is because those policies make it harder for people to come here illegally. But that's the point. Americans are sick of having millions of poor people flock into this country, take their jobs, drive down wages, and overburden local community services.

Instead of sitting in the U.S. whining that everyone from south of the border should be allowed to move here, why don't some of these supposedly concerned people start organizing in Mexico? It is a bad idea to continue to promote the view that the "solution" to the corruption in Mexico is just to have all the people move here. If the people would instead stay in their own country and start making changes, this whole problem could be reasonably resolved.

Trade policies contribute, but the main problem is that the rich in Mexico keep all the money and force their own people to live in extreme poverty. The people who risk their lives crossing the desert should go back to Mexico and risk their lives taking over their own government.

[CheGuevara1]

They tried that last year, but the US puppet "won" the election--just like in the US. You are wrong if you think that the US will allow economic competition from Mexico. The goal is to keep Mexico in its current condition.

[jeffsback]

Amen! Very well said!.
Thanks!.
JEFF