One issue Republican leaders have agreed on lately is the absolute necessity for the GOP to appeal to Latinos if they want to be a viable national party in the future. Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado should all be red states but they will not be if Republicans fail to connect with Latino voters. Conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, moderates like Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist, and Latino Republicans like Mel Martinez and Mario Diaz-Balart all are sounding the alarm, the Republican Party cannot survive as the party of Southern, white, and wealthy men. Karl Rove went as far as to say that “an anti-Hispanic attitude is suicidal” and the poll numbers from the last two elections prove his point. Seeing a Republican like John McCain who was so respected by the Latino community only win 30 percent of their vote should be a wake-up call. While everyone admits the problem exists, no one has a game plan to fix it but the answers are right in front of us. We can’t be the party of Neo- Know-Nothings, especially if want to go back to being Reagan’s party. Ronald Reagan once said that “Latinos are Republican, they just don’t know it yet.” He was right, but the reason Latinos still don’t know it is because in the past few years, Republicans have either ignored them or appalled them. The GOP needs Latinos and this is how we can win them back.
1) Remind Latinos Republicans are as socially conservative as they are. You cannot get more socially conservative than the typical Latino Catholic family. Protestant Latinos are just as socially conservative as their fellow white parishioners and the vast majority of them voted for Bush in 2004. Even Latinos who consider themselves liberal on most issues are strongly against abortion. Abortion is not something that is accepted or even legal in many Latin American countries and when Latino families move to the US they bring their anti-abortion beliefs with them. Latinos are family oriented and are big on family values. If Republicans can somehow get back to family values after Mark Foley, David Vitter, and the like, that would help.
2) Support free trade agreements with Latin American Countries. All Republicans in Congress should vocally support the free trade deal with Colombia. If Democrats want Republicans to come around on other issues, Republicans should make Democrats come around on the deal. If you think right now is a bad time for time for free trade, remember that the last time we became more protectionist during a deep recession was the Hoover Adminstration. If you think American workers would be hurt by the deal, its important to realize that U.S. products sold in Colombia currently pay tariffs as high as 35 percent, and almost everything produced in Colombia already enters the U.S. duty-free. These agreements shouldn’t stop with Colombia. Republicans should work to end the tax on Brazilian sugar-ethanol that could be used to fuel cars much more efficiently than our corn-ethanol can. We should continue working towards a free trade zone throughout the Americas and use trade to help our democratic (small d) allies around the hemisphere. Latinos in the U.S. recognize the importance of these deals and many Latino Democrats are disappointed with their party’s opposition to them. Pushing for free trade shows the Latino community we see Latin American nations as equal partners and we want closer relations with countries they still have family links to.
3) Stop with the English as the only language nonsense. For starters, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War and gave us most of the Western United States was supposed to guarantee the area remain bilingual, requiring all legal deeds and contracts to be in both English and Spanish. The United States is currently the fifth largest Spanish speaking country in the world. Studies show that students who learn more than one language do better in all subjects. In our global economy, we should be promoting more languages, not sticking to only one. Saying things like “You’re in America, speak English!” reeks of racism, sounds completely ignorant, and ignores First Amendment rights. Making English the ”official” language obviously would not force people to speak it and would only effect government forms, making it harder for some to report crimes or get help at the hospital. So do we really want 70-year-old women to die in hospital waiting rooms because they couldn’t fill out a form that is easily translated? What exactly will making English the official language of the United States accomplish other than throwing a symbolic bone to the Neo-Know-Nothings and completely alienating the bilingual community? Nothing. Of course new Americans should learn to speak English, especially if they want to succeed, but we don’t need laws to tell us the obvious.
4) Recognize and Reward Latinos for their service in the Armed Forces. The number of Latinos serving in the US Armed Forces, especially those serving on the front lines and in the Marine Corps., is disproportionally high when compared to the number of Latinos in the United States. Latinos serve as a way to repay what this country has given their families, as way to further their education, and as a way to speed up their citizenship process. When you read the names of fallen soldiers in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, you are just as likely to come across a Rodriguez as you to come across a Roberts. The Republicans could and should work to do more for to honor all our soldiers, Latinos included. They should increase education and health care benefits for those who enlist and re-enlist. There is no doubt that if you increase the incentives to join the Armed Forces even more Latinos will serve. With enlistment numbers dwindling, we can really use them. Beyond that, every man or woman brave enough to enlist in the United States Armed Forces during this time of war should be rewarded with US citizenship from day one. Countless Latinos have died serving a country they were not even citizens of, and that is a shame. This is why citizenship has been posthumously awarded to some, but it shouldn’t have to be that way.
Last 5 posts by Abel S. Delgado
- Let’s Support the Cantwell-McCain Bill - January 6th, 2010
- Deeds Gets Dirty, Doesn’t Win Anyway - November 2nd, 2009
- Obama & The Berlin Wall - October 25th, 2009
- The Nobel Prom King - October 11th, 2009
- Bureaucratizing Interrogations a Horrible Idea - August 28th, 2009
While you are no doubt correct about the necessity of garnering greater portions of the Hispanic vote, I have some doubts vis-a-vis the language section. First, while I have always been told that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo put into place cultural and language rights for the (at that time) indigenous Mexicans, in the actual treaty I can find no evidence of it. Indeed, the only privilege that I can find is an article IX promise of the free exercise of religion (which is of course redundant, in a strictly [federal] legal sense).
Moreover, while it is certainly not necessarily advisable for the implementation of a official national language, I have always found the idea of bilingualism interesting–especially in regards to ballots and official documentation. You see, to my mind an individual who votes or posses any other rights of citizenship is either a) native born or b) naturalized. In the case of native born, with the rarest exception of those who were born here and then ferreted back to some other nation, one could reasonably expect them to have gone through the American educational system. As flawed as that may be, it seems reasonable to expect that someone who has received 12 years of instruction in either English or ESL would be capable of functioning with English language documentation.
Furthermore, if they are naturalized citizens, then they have gone through the naturalization process (obviously). One of the requirements of the this process is “an ability to read, write, and speak English.” Therefore, it again seems reasonable to expect that these individuals, unless they are to be considered guilty of fraud, can indeed “read, write, and speak English.” Hence, we ought to be left with an SUBSTANTIALLY smaller population of those with legitimate claims to necessity of bilingualism–recent legal immigrants from any number of countries and those raised as non-English speaking ex pats. Thus, what is the overriding reason to deny the promotion of English as the sole/overriding/official language of the United States?
With respect to you Abel, I don’t hear anything new that will deliver the Latino vote in 2010 or 2012 to the GOP.
I hope you noticed that 66% of Latinos voted for a candidate that was liberal and did not support trade. It was even worst in Nevada where Obama got 76% of the Latino vote.
The secret is not in the message but in the ability the party has to connect personally with the voter.
We lost because we were divided and disconnected. We patronized Latinos by telling them exactly what you have laid out on these 5 point as if they did not know it already.
I disagree with people that attempt to categorize Latinos as an homogeneous community, not all Latinos are pro-life. No all Latinos have the same cultural or social background.
When we start to recognize that reaching out to us is not a matter of translating a page or placing an ad in Spanish on a TV channel that may only be seen by less than 30% of the Hispanic voters, then we will begin to understand how to reach out to the community at large.
We lost because we started connecting with them when they already had a relationship locally with the other team. We came late to the game.
So, now it is time to organize.
I agree with Nikeopolis06 on English not an “only” language but as an official one.
Nikeopolis06, a naturalization applicant’s “ability to read, write, and speak English” is measured by his or her ability to pass the naturalization test which is administered in English. This is always the case except when the applicants reach a certain age (around the age of retirement) when they have the right to take the test in the language they are most comfortable speaking in. I know many elderly people who took the citizenship test in Spanish, passed, are proud Americans and just so happened to vote Republican. Of course the chances of an elderly person passing the test in English when he or she is not comfortable speaking it are slim. By the way, while citizenship applicants rarely fail the test, I’ve read that the average high school civics student would not pass.
In regards to other forms, even if naturalized citizens are required to learn English for the test, wouldn’t it be wise to let them fill out other important forms in the language they are most comfortable in later. It could probably avoid a lot of errors. What’s the harm? If you think it gets costly, it doesn’t because many non-profit organizations volunteer to translate the forms and many government and health care workers are already multilingual.
It is also important to recognize that there are many people who live here legally but are not citizens. I went to school with many American-born children who grew up with non-American citizen parents at home. All school forms were sent out in English, Spanish, and Creole so that parents of nationalities could know what was going on. If English were made official this wouldn’t happen, so whenever a parental consent form or important notice would go out, how exactly can we expect everyone to understand fully. Again, Latinos do understand the importance of learning English, just ask kids in ESOL programs how insistent their parents are that they learn it perfectly. These are all reasons, to “deny the promotion of English as the sole/overriding/official language of the United States.” Now tell me what possible good it would do. Will it force older immigrants to learn English? Not really. Will it give younger ones the incentive to learn English? They already have plenty. So what exactly will it accomplish.
Tellis, we honestly cannot expect to win the majority of the Latino vote in 2010 or even 2012. What we need to do first it get the ones we had to begin with that switched sides back. I did notice they voted for Obama in high numbers, but except for some Mexican Americans who are suspicious of free-trade, most US Latinos look favorably on free trade. Just because Latinos supported Obama and Obama opposes free trade, you cannot conclude that Latinos oppose free trade. That’s like saying most Catholics are in favor of abortion rights because most voted for Obama.
The secret is indeed the message because you cannot possibly expect to connect with any community unless the message you give them is tailored to their needs. We didnt lose Latinos because we were “patronizing” or even “divided” we lost them on the economy and immigration and focusing on what unites us, like these 5 issues and the ones on my next post will begin to win them back.
I completely agree Latinos are not a homogeneous community but what I’m presenting would appeal to a broad range of Latinos. And the Obama team didn’t have a relationship with Latinos actually. McCain had a great one, but that relationship was hurt by other Republicans. Obama also spent a ton of money in order to present himself to Latinos as a viable candidate. The money he spent on them alone was a sign to many he cared about their support. Of course some Latinos will never support Republicans, but a great deal of them have in the past and many more would be willing to. These are the Latinos I’m talking about.
Abel,
perhaps my message was not clear, I am sorry. I did not implied that Latinos did no favor free trade or Catholics are in favor of abortion, however it is evident that this topic as important as it may be for these voters it did not influence their vote.
A side not of free trade – you recognized that for Mexican-Americans free trade may be topic of discussion, “are suspicious of free-trade”. Well, in four of the five states you mentioned on your article, Mexican American are primarily who form the majority of the Latino community. Just a thought!
Our party focused their message on these very topics especially to Latinos and we saw the results.
So, message is not the answer. And, until we accept this reality that it is about relationships first and no message we will not make progress on this community. True message is an important element on every campaign but for Latinos it takes much more than that.
The Democrats expended years in the Hispanic community registering voters, playing soccer in their parks, attending every community event (every one of them), supporting every cause, talking in the radio and identifying every Hispanic they could, so they can send a birthday card signed by their highest elected official.
This may not be important to some, but to a great number of Hispanics evidently it was.
It is because of pundits and operatives on this campaign that think exactly like you that we lost the election. We started late and did too little too late.
Obama did not have a relationship with Latinos, the Democratic party did. McCain had a relationship with Latinos, the party does not.
That is the difference!