Everyone's an Expert on the Latino Vote, Except Latinos
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.
Follow Roberto Lovato on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robvato
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A dear friend of mine's formerly VERY Conservative Armenian parents (who voted for Bush) are BOTH voting for Obama.
Where does THAT fit in the Corporate Media's
chronically slanted "analysis"?
Corporate Media = Done;Finished
The Latino--Black "conflict" is almost exclusively between un-educated "street-types" and gang-members, and does not occur much among most regular, employed Latino/Black citizens who tend to VOTE and think about actual ISSUES
that affect them.
The Corporate-
But re-instatement of The Fairness Doctrine should take care of that when The Time comes.
And The Time is coming.
We Shall Overcome.
Together.
I did participate in the Nevada caucases. There were several Latino voters at my precinct and most were in the group for Hillary Clinton.
When I asked what reason they had for supporting Clinton, two of them replied that their union (Culinary Workers) had supported Obama, but never asked them, the rank and file, who they supported.
Could it be that Latino voters are just as independent as the rest of us, and can make up their own minds without being lumped into a "block" at all?
If so, VIVA!!
Why is race in America still an issue in 2008? It's sad to see that Americans haven't evolved in all these years. As for Southerners, they are a whole separate case of crazies, but normal, intelligent Americans should be past these issues.
As for me, I don't begrudge women voting for women, blacks voting for blacks, Mormons voting for Mormons... as long as the person is doing it for what they feel are the right reasons. I understand and appreciate the fact that this is a rare opportunity for those sects of society and they want a chance to prove that they are just as capable of being President as anyone else. This is not racism this is simply taking advantage of a rare opportunity. Unfortunately, the media has given whites the impression that blacks, who vote for Obama, hate white people. I don't think this is the case anymore than I think women who vote for Hillary hate men. Also, if Bill Richardson was still in the race he would most likely have the highest percentage of Latino votes. This race/gender thing put forth by the media is just plain primitive and uncouth and should end today.
The clintons have a long history With a lot of the Latino voters. Edwards and Obama Has some relationship but Not as much. Edwards and Obama
have show how the NAFTA ONLY benefits corporations and left them with low wages. This not a racial issue. This is just plain economics
Its who can deliver. Right now its the Clintons. You have may the case to them to think out side the box. Some Latinos are very conservative in their view. A case can be made against the Clintons there. It not one size fits all. President Bush some to vote against their best instered. So when you speak about Latino they are more diverse than Black America. MSM media would have you believe all latinos are illegals or migrant wrokers.
Latinos have a history of looking up to white people and looking down to black people.
Up until recently (with the elections of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales), almost all the latin american countries had been ruled with a white elite. And most latin american countries are still ruled by a white elite.
The truth about "experts" is that they so often are expert at nothing at all.
With the Latino vote being treated monolithically, this group of Americans can now stand up and be treated by politicians and political analysts in the same simplistic manner that American politics treats all ethnic groups.
As an African American, this has been true forever, dispite statistics, anecdotal reporting, and just plain common sense in the description of African Americans politically and in large part socially and economically.
So Latinos, welcome to the party. Especially since these Presidential primaries and caucuses, particularly the Democratic Party's, are turning into ethnic dogfights, with either the ignorance of, or a cognitive dissonance of the Latino community which in this country is largely comprised of two disparate and separate groups, The Caribbean, (consisting of Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans, etc.), who large have an African background and have been located for the most part on the East coast and in Mideastern cities such as Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, etc. and the Mexican, Central American, and Western South American population, that have a more distinct Native American heritage, who have until recently largely inhabitted our Southwestern states and California.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Other distinctions in time and method of immigration, heritage and cultural make the current political analysis about Latin Americans sound ludicrous.
But since until recently and as it seems presently, such illlogical analysis is applied to African Americans as well, why should we be suprised.
What a cop out! I am neither a fluent Spanish speaker nor any expert on Latino voting patters (nor have I ever pretended to be) but this little sleight of hand is really frustrating.
After debunking the Conventional Wisdom (which I have read on DU from at least one self-identified Latino -- a 'grassroots pundit') this article completely dodges providing an answer to the question of what DOES shape the outcome. That really is a cop out extraordin
It is true that a LOT of latinos look down on Black people and look up to White people. This is not a myth or a made-up fact. It's the REALITY.
And the reason why you don't see any latino expert saying it, is because latinos do not want to be seen on TV admitting this or be painted as racist.
I have a lot of latino friends and they consistenly bash black people.
I feel there is no divide between Latinos and Afro Americans, but in case there was, the following tale is a good illustration of what I consider a very foolish position. I apologize if this tale hurts people’s feelings.
“Once upon a time, there was a man selling crab and he had two buckets full of live crab. One bucket was covered with a net and the other was uncovered. A woman asked him:
- Why do you cover only one of the buckets?
The man answered:
- I sell two types of crabs: Latin American crab and Japanese crab. Japanese crab continually tries to jump and get out of the bucket, and if one gets out, they form a chain and support each other and every crab gets out, that’ why they are covered with a net.
The woman asked:
- What about the other bucket?
The man answered:
- The other bucket has Latin American Crab. These also try to escape, but when one is at the top, the ones below pull him down and not one crab escapes.”
I HOPE WE ARE NOT ACTING AS LATINO CRABS. WE MUST HELP OBAMA. REMEMBER THAT IF OBAMA OPENS THE DOOR, THAT DOOR WILL REMAIN OPEN FOR MANY LATINOS AND OTHER AFRO AMERICANS THAT DREAM OF PARTICIPATING IN GOVERNMENT.
Latino vs. Black is a media invention designed to assure "mutual destruction" between the two ethnic groups. This will "assure" a Republican win come November. Way to go Democrats, especially the Clinton machine for starting the race baits!!
Latinos(and I highly respect them) will unfortunately vote for status quo since they do not have the guts to think outside of the box. They will vote within their comfort zone. Hillary represents comfort and status quo for them. However, Latino men will be more inclined to vote for Obama. It will be the "macho" Latino vote that will draw to Obama.
If the Clinton machine continues to divide the Latino vote and Black vote, come November millions of voters will not vote for Hillary. As an independent, I will vote for Hillary ONLY if Obama is on the ticket. This way, I can be assured of at least the "appearance" of true change from the norm.
Nonetheless, I do not expect this last scenario to play out. Mark my word. Division among the party has already started between women and men. While no one is mentioning the obvious, women will come home to roost for Hillary.
But, what counts are delegates, and no one is talking about the fact that Obama leads Hillary in delegates(at least in Nevada and Iowa, tied for delegates in New Hampshire). Obama has not lost a delegate race as yet. This may not mean something now, but when Super Tuesday comes rolling along, the delegates count starts in earnest.
Bottom line: If there are no votes for Obama in primaries (indicating true change),then I believe that the Republicans will win in November and I will personally do a protest vote for whomever the Republican candidate is. Maybe vote for whomever a viable Independent candidate is.
The Democratic party will have shown again, that its leaders are too divided to show true change. The source of the division is the Clinton political machine.
The bickering must stop or else Kansas will go bye-bye. I represent millions in my thinking. Don't take us Independents for granted!!!
Hillary Clinton appeared here in Arizona last night to an incredibly large and enthusiastic crowd. She was endorsed by the United Farm Workers (Cesar Chavez' grandson made the announcement and introduced her), and AZ rep. Ed Pastor who is very popular with the Latinos in his district. Judging from what I saw and heard at this event she is going to do very well with the Latinos here. I was also impressed at the large number of younger voters of all races who showed up to support Hillary since the media would have you think it's all about the senior citizens! This appearance was only announced tuesday yet almost 10,000 people showed up for Hillary.
Spot on analysis, or should I say, critisism of lousy analysis by TV networks.
The young and politically active Latinos I know are all over the spectrum in who to vote for, just like the rest of the American public. Some support Obama and his message of hope after these dark 8 years, some are for John Edwards due to his support of unions and the working class, and some are excited about Hillary.
That said, I walked a majority Latino precinct here in San Diego last week. Most people I talked to were going for Hillary, for the very reasons you mentioned. There hasn't been as much candidate outreach in the Latino community, so less is known by the general public about each candidate. Hillary has the Clinton name. And in the Latino community the Clinton years are remembered with fondness and prosperity, especially compared to the Bush era. People want to relive the Clinton years, and with Hillary, they see a way to do this.
Of course, I'm sure Obama will get more Latino votes in Chicago, where he has the name recognition to compete with Hillary. And as the Latino press reports more on the race, Hillary may lose the name recognition edge.
As for the charges of votes do to racial bias, according to the MSM, any vote placed by anyone is do to some innate prejudice. If Latinos go for Clinton, its because of hidden bias against blacks, I'm sure had they gone for Obama, the press would have declared it was due to machismo against woman. If women go for Hillary, according to the press, its because we're saying "you go grrrl!", and if we support Obama, we want a black friend (please!). If Obama doesn't win its the "Bradley affect", etc, etc.
The whole MSM analysis is ridiculous and an insult to the grand majority of voters (Latino, white, black, Asian, women and men) who are trying their best to determine the best candidate to lead this country forward, regardless of gender or race.
What really makes me angry is the lies that the corporate media is saying in order to divide the Blacks and Latinos where there is no division. Latinos identify more with Blacks than with Whites because, we as minorities have been through the same prejudices. Both of the races are waiting for the DREAM to come to pass.
What amazes me when the Hispanic or Latinos were in the minority population. African Americans did not treat the Hispanics with disrespect as soon as they became the majority the Hispanics started acting racist towards African Americans. In the school systems and the prison system Hispanics hate more on Africans Americans than they do White Americans.
The Hispanics do not like to talk about Slavery here in America. Black America's use to be the Maids in Hotels, the worked in car washes, etc. When the Hispanic Temp Agencies started under bidding low wages for the Hispanics, the employers started hiring them whether they were illegal or not. When I hear them say Black Ameica will not do those jobs, who in the world did they think have been doing those jobs for the 300 hundred years.
For Hispanics to hate Blacks is very sad and to think that Hillary is their friend, remember African Americans thought the same thing until one wanted to be President.
In Nevada, I was there, I saw the Hispanic hatred of Obama, the disrespect they showed anyone supporting him and it was sad. To see Hispanics who think they are white and some look Negroid was very disappointing. Yes they do prefer whites to Blacks and it showed in Nevada.
In Los Angeles the Black vote helped to defeat a white person to elect a Hispanic Mayor of Los Angeles who in turned campaigned against Obama. So iin Los Angeles it took Black votes to elect a Hispanic Mayor to be a White Candidate. To me the Nevada vote was very sad to see racism being enjoyed so much by the Hispanic voters.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
