Latinos Can’t Be Taken for Granted

Victory or mandate? These words pepper the discussion of political pundits observing the November election. Clearly, this shift reflects the growing view that Bill Clinton must not just win, but win with a firm cast of new Democrats who will take over Congress and bring Clinton’s agenda back to center stage.

In the House, there are 53 open seats, most of them now held by Democrats in the Southwest, primarily in California and Texas, states with a growing Latino population that may play a critical role as swing votes in close contests for the House and Senate seats. No race better expresses the potential of the Latino vote in altering the congressional balance of power than the story of Victor Morales, the upstart Democrat in Texas who has captured the imagination of Latinos across the nation. Morales, a schoolteacher, drove 70,000 miles in his Nissan pickup truck in a grass-roots campaign to counter the anti-immigrant and anti-affirmative action rhetoric peppering the speeches of leaders of both major parties. He beat a six-term congressman in the primary and now Morales has become a formidable challenger to former presidential contender Sen. Phil Gramm. He may not beat Gramm, but his success thus far shows the strength of a galvanized Latino vote.

Despite Morales’ amazing feat, neither party has focused much energy on the Latino vote this year. Although about 60% of all Latinos vote for Democrats. this number is hardly set in stone. In Texas, Latino interest in the Republican Party has increased, as witnessed by the significant support by Latino voters for Gov. George W. Bush. In California, although Democrats have a stronger hold over Latinos, the potential for Republicans to cultivate the conservative characteristics of this population is significant.

A recent national poll by the Southwest Voter Registration Institute sheds light on potential cleavages within the Latino voting bloc that could allow for a realignment of party loyalties. The poll found that only 39% of Latinos surveyed viewed the Democratic Party as reflecting their interests, even though more than 60% of these same voters will vote for Clinton next month. Clearly, in issues such as immigration and bilingual education, the Republicans have been shortsighted. By framing these debates to exclude rather than include Latino perspectives, they have lost the many Latinos who share their views on welfare reform and the death penalty. On the other hand, by relying on a strategy of inclusion without dialogue or interest, Democrats have alienated many Latinos. Latinos, thus, mirror the ambiguity of many non-Latino voters.

After November, we may see additional surprises in the future trends and opportunities for this growing voting bloc. There are many indicators that would suggest that Mexican Americans, the largest segment of Latinos, may remain a contested group open to either party, unlike the Cuban bloc, which has for decades remained near and dear to the Republican Party because of its aggressive stand against Castro. Moreover, although immigrant rights and affirmative action still remain important issues to most Mexican Americans, they expect only measured reform.

Perhaps the greatest danger facing the Democrats is their propensity to ignore the nuances within the Mexican American vote and merge it within the views of all minority voters. Continuing such a strategy will provide ample opportunity for successful Republican inroads.

With 18.6 million Latinos eligible to vote and recent demographic projections of Latinos surpassing the African American population as the country’s largest minority group by 2005, neither party can afford to continue placing the Latino agenda on the back burner. In light of the growing Latino presence in the United States, Clinton’s legacy to the next century may not be in his victory, political appointments or his measured reforms, but in his ability to broker new relationships as new groups come into power.