Thursday's top questions
Yep, still more questions than answers when it comes to Latinos, and that's good!
On Tuesday, I posed some questions that were on my mind. Today I’ll do the same, because the election, for me at least, raised more questions than answers. I hope they might help shape how we talk and think about Latinos between now and the next election.
Is there a way to make punditry more about analysis than partisan posturing? Cecilia Muñoz got me thinking about this when she said on Twitter, “Polling and punditry are so broken. Democracy, thankfully, is hanging on.” I’m no expert on polling, and I simply agree with her about Democracy. I also agree about punditry, but the statement got me wondering what it would look like to fix it, especially with respect to Latinos. I think at least one problem is that punditry has become more about partisan positioning than analysis. I’m hardly the first to say this, I don’t think it’s the only problem, and I don’t think everyone is guilty of it. I also don’t think I’m innocent. But I do think that pundits often represent their partisan position when they claim to be representing the views of Latinos writ large. I have two ideas about this. The first is directed at consumers of punditry. When a Latino on television, radio, or online begins a sentence with, “Latinos are …,” or, “Latinos believe …,” or, “Latinos think …,” ask yourself: who is this person, what is their job, what viewpoint are they representing, who are the others they’re in agreement or conversation with, and what are they not telling me? These questions lead to the development of the same critical thinking skills I try to impart to all students. The problem, I think, is that when Latino pundits say things like, “Latinos are …,” or “Latinos believe …,” or “Latinos think …,” not enough non-Latino Americans care to dig beneath these statements, to understand that they’re telling a version of truth, but not the whole truth. This relates to my second idea, directed at Latino pundits themselves: say things like “some Latinos,” or “it’s complicated, because…” Those caveats are sexy, to me at least. And then explain what you mean. Wear your perspective on your sleeve, rather than suggesting that you’re conveying the whole truth. In a country where too many non-Latinos don’t care to know more about us than they absolutely have to—and I hope that’s changing—it doesn’t do our community any good to only be telling half truths about us. Look, I understand that truth, the whole truth, and greater truths are themselves tricky ideas, but they’re what we should all be aiming for, no?
How are both parties going to energize youth over the next two years? It is clear that on Tuesday young voters were engaged and energized, more so than most (or, more so than I) expected. I do think it’d be great to engage young Latinos with something other than negative ideas about how they’re fighting for their lives. I’m only saying this based on my experience working with college students, who are stressed and anxious about the world and their own future prospects. Can we engage young people with more positive ideas about the possible worlds they can build, and allow them the space and encouragement to begin building that world themselves? It seems to me that this is already happening, based on victories by young Latinos (under 40 … come at me) like Gregorio Casar from Texas, Maxwell Alejandro Frost from Florida, Robert Menendez Jr. from New Jersey, and Delia Ramirez from Illinois. They’re spread across the country, and come from so many backgrounds! Where will they take us? Yes, Latino youth should and will be a big story in the near future. It has been noted often that Latinos are younger than other groups of Americans. Let’s see what the political meaning will be, for both Republicans and Democrats, of that basic fact.
What will be done about Florida? I think too many Democrats seem willing to let it go, and that’s a mistake. If you think it’s “special,” as the MSNBC election coverage team said over and over, you should consider for a moment some ways that it might be representative and even a bellwether. It’s too important to dismiss, given the large and diverse Latino population—way more diverse than you think, and in every way.
What will be the main takeaways for the GOP with respect to Latinos? Of course, there’s the hemming and hawing about how things didn’t go as you’d hoped they would. And I’m sure, Republicans, that you’re thinking of a million different reasons why. Yet it’s also true that even more Latinos voted for your candidates than they did in 2018 and 2020. What are you going to do about that fact, since, as Mike Madrid always says, you’re winning Latino support despite yourselves. You don’t have a well-developed infrastructure for building relationships with Latinos; your party harbors election and climate deniers, white power insurrectionists, and a long history—maybe this is even true in the present—of not really caring about Latinos. Yet they’ve still supported you because they support a lot (but hardly all) of the same policies that you do. Just so we’re clear, and so that you don’t think I mean the insurrection and white power stuff, I’m talking about things like free enterprise, religious liberty, and school choice. The economy, faith, and education of course have many different meanings—some that align with more liberal views, and others that align with more conservative views. But many Latinos are on board with the conservative version of these issues. Another important and related question is what are you going to do in a post-Trump world. And by God, I hope that at least some of you learn that, on balance, Trump is a drag on your party and the country. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic. Yet I do think that he unlocked something with Latinos and other nonwhite voters that your candidates will have to figure out how to capitalize on without being the utter ass that he is. I’m not trying to say that Latinos love him, but he shook something loose in American politics. Political scientists call it a permission structure—he gave Latinos who hadn’t felt comfortable voting for or expressing support for Republicans the “permission” to do so. Maybe that’s it. I don’t know. That’s for you to figure out.
What will be the main takeaways for Democrats with respect to Latinos? Some seem eager to keep their heads in the sand by denying that a slide has even happened over the past few years. They say, look, Latinos are still winning a sizable majority of the Latino vote, as though a simple majority has been the goal. Others only blame a lack of investment and outreach—early and continuous, in order to build real and lasting relationships. This is certainly part of the story, but at what point will you also begin to ask questions about the product you’re selling, or at least why Latinos express support for what your selling in numbers that you’re happy with, but then those numbers don’t translate into votes for your candidates. (This is how one Progressive Democrat explained the conundrum to me). So, clearly there’s work for Democrats to do between now and 2024, and I hope you won’t look at the less-bad-than-you-expected midterm elections and conclude that you can proceed with business as usual.
I’m gonna end here. But I’ll be doing more writing about the midterm results, both here and elsewhere. And, to my first question, you should ask the same questions of me that you ask of other Latinos. I am just one Latino, expressing my own opinions, with my own biases.