Woo’s Victory

I would like to comment on Fernando Torres-Gil and Tony Zamora’s article (Editorial Pages, July 24) regarding the impact on Latinos by Michael Woo’s victory in a Los Angeles City Council race.

To begin with, if the lesson from Woo’s victory, stressing so-called bread-and-butter issues over an ethnic agenda, was already well established by the City Council victory of Edward Roybal in 1949 and the 1982 congressional victories of Matthew G. Martinez and Esteban E. Torres, what new lessons were learned?

If anything, Woo’s victory seems to suggest that timing, consisting of the district make-up, funds and opponent, is as important as issues. Woo’s timing was better in 1985 as compared to 1981 because of redistricting, which made the 13th District more liberal, because of more effective fund-raising and the incumbent’s being perceived as even weaker than in 1981. Even the pioneer Roybal could not overcome the lack of timing in his 1954 race for lieutenant governor or his 1958 race for county supervisor, both of which he lost. Esteban Torres’ timing was lacking as well in his 1974 congressional defeat.

I also feel that there is an inherent contradiction when Torres-Gil and Zamora discuss the macro appraoch to ethnic politics. The macro approach consists of appealing to broad non-ethnic issues. That is, taking the ethnic out of ethnic politics. With such being the case, a Latino candidate must behave as a typical politician. The Latino community, therefore, is left with a Latino candidate in name only. Is it no wonder then, that the Latino community is not inspired to turn out when faced with more of the same--just a different surname. At least this is the conclusion I draw from their logic.

Torres-Gil and Zamora also suggest that “a candidate who wins by appealing to the larger issues of the electorate is in a better position to respond to his or her own ethnic constituency’s concern.” Where is the proof? If anything, the well established legislative bodies are more likely to impact the individual making him or her conform rather than the reverse. Conforming to the norm is already under way if a candidate rejects ethnic issues to begin with. Having taken this firest step away from the ethnic constituency as a candidate, what is there to make the now elected individual turn back?

It is time to recognize that what bodes well for Latino candidates does not necessarily bode well for the Latino community. This does not have to be the case. A Latino candidate should stress Latino issues. It is, however, a matter of timing. What was necessary to have Latinos elected up to the 1980s will change with the demographics of the 1990s.

More secure Latino districts will bring out Latino issues. Not only will we see new faces surface with these Latino issues, but many of the current crop of elected officials will jump on the Latino issues bandwagon. Putting the ethnic back into ethnic politics, however, does not mean abandoning the new era of high-technology political campaigns. These techniques have a positive potential. Thus, what the Geroge Pla’s of the 1990s do is as important as demographics, redistricting, funds, and issues. I have faith that they will do the right thing--in time.

FERNANDO J. GUERRA

Los Angeles