¿Viva Obama?
Ta-Nehisi Coates: “Remember those stories about how Latino racism was going to kill Obama. Funny how they’ve receded to the back pages as Obama has started to dominate McCain among the demographic.”
It’s really too bad that there hasn’t been more examination of this, because the predictions that Obama would have trouble with Latinos weren’t crazy. He really did do poorly with this group during the primaries. And black-Latino coalitions have been hard to build in the world of big city politics. And John McCain is highly identified with his party’s pro-immigration, pro-immigrant wing. And though McCain has backed off from his support for immigration reform, he’s never engaged in the kind of anti-Latino demagoguery that often characterizes conservative politics. Under the circumstances, I think the failure of the McCain campaign’s message among the Latino demographic is an interesting issue. My hypothesis is that it illustrates the extent to which the entire suite of “culture war” issues, even when neither explicitly nor implicitly “about” race, still largely appeals only to white people.
38 Responses to “¿Viva Obama?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
My hypothesis is that it illustrates the extent to which the entire suite of “culture war” issues, even when neither explicitly nor implicitly “about” race, still largely appeals only to white people.
The key word is “culture” … e.g. “cultural conservatism”, “culture wars”.
“Social conservatism” would appeal to just about anyone committed to a certain take on “traditional moral values”, which no doubt includes large numbers of African-Americans and Latinos. However, the problem with social conservatism is that you really need to get people to vote based on values they don’t even necessarily hold outside of Sunday at church. So you almost always see social conservatism, even when done by a non-social conservative (and certainly a pro-immigrant, etc., conservative) like McCain, combined with a culturally conservative message.
OTOH, “cultural conservatism” — the idea of preserving the “defaultness” of “white” culture is a draw … but, well, only for whites, natch.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
As the Republican Party collapse and the U.S. is left with one relevant party, the question for the future is how will Hispanics and blacks function inside the Democratic Party as they fight over the spoils. As the Hispanic population rises, they will want more of the current racial spoils system of government jobs, 8a contracts, set asides, and quotas.
Also, as cities transition from being majority black to majority Hispanics, how will the politics change. Currently, Hispanics turnout is very low but is bound to incrase in the future. What will happen in Democratic party politics win a district drawn to elect a black politician elects a Hispanic politician?
October 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I think you’re also ignoring the long relationship the Clinton family had with various leaders of the Latino community. I don’t think working class Latinos were voting against Obama in the primaries as much as they were voting for a known ally.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I’ve always thought the issue of black vs. hispanic political rivalry was hugely overblown… a few contentious city council races here and there is nothing compared to the overwhelming feeling of being a victim of white racism.
Not too many black Americans out protesting against immigration….
All the more reason the Dems need to move past the “blue collar white male” fetish and build a black/brown/asian/educated white coalition.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I live in an area that’s about 75% Latino, and in the years I’ve lived here I can recall hearing precisely one negative comment about Black people i.e. a hell of a lot less that I’ve heard from Whites.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
…and come to think of it, I’ve heard quite a bit more immigrant bashing from my native-born neighbors, compared to that one anti-Black comment.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
As the Hispanic population rises, they will want more of the current racial spoils system of government jobs, 8a contracts, set asides, and quotas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4shQIKbr0hg
October 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Just because he did poorly with latinos in the primary doesn’t mean he’d do poorly with them in the general. That logic never made sense to me.
Just because they liked somebody else better in the primary doesn’t mean they didn’t also like obama or wouldn’t vote for him should he be the nominee, merely, it means they liked HRC more.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I enjoyed the bumper sticker on a car next to mine being filled up by a hispanic gentleman last week: “Obamanos”
October 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I believe it is pretty simple. If a black man can be president so can a Hispanic man or an Asian man or an Indian man. I believe most minorities will vote for Obama because of that reason. An Obama administration is a breakthrough for all minorities in America not just African American.
I believe many Hispanics didn’t vote for him in the primary because they didn’t believe he could become President. Just like most African Americans didn’t’ believe he could be president when he started running.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Re Tammanycall’s comment ” think you’re also ignoring the long relationship the Clinton family had with various leaders of the Latino community. I don’t think working class Latinos were voting against Obama in the primaries as much as they were voting for a known ally.”
————-
Maybe they were voting for whomever Haim Saban told them to vote.
You know Haim — the Israeli billionaire who dumped $15 Million into the Democratic Party a few years ago. He who Terry McAuliffe said “saved the Democratic Party”. The Israeli who funded Kenneth Pollack and Marty Indyk’s “Think Tank” so that Ken and Marty could tell us in 2002 that we needed to invade Iraq before Saddam finished making those nukes?
The same Haim Saban who BOUGHT Univision last year?
October 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
That’s the same Haim Saban who raised a Million for Hillary because he thought she would be “good for Israel”. “Good for Israel” being defined as bombing the piss out of the Iranians before they can develop nukes that threaten Israel.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I never bought into a Latino rejection of Obama. The idea was insulting, it assumed that policy is irrelevant to “those people”. The reason that “black-Latino coalitions have been hard to build in the world of big city politics” is that their local interests often clash, just like the local interests of all sorts of interest groups and voting blocks clash (think of upscale Republican NIMBYs fighting a commercial zoning height change for a Republican developer); but at the national level these conflicts mostly dissolve.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Latinos also haven’t forgotten that McCain flip-flopped on immigration. The Spanish-language media covered the immigration reform saga very thoroughly, and Latinos followed the story closely. McCain really damaged his name by distancing himself from immigration reform and denouncing the 2006 bill.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Fact is most Latinos (as well as lots of white folks) voted for Hillary Clinton not because of the issues, but because of the power of her celebrity. She was big time famous in a way that Obama wasn’t (back then).
Just look at at Arnold Schwartzenegger, his rise to Governor was powered by overwhelming Latino support. Not because of the issues, because of the power of his celebrity.
Now, Obama is getting the same bump. Of course, McCain is a celebrity in his own right, but he’s tied to the Republican Party, who hate minorities and have the policies to back that up, so that really hurts McCain.
But the Clinton/Celebrity factor was never properly accounted for.
Frankly, it’s the most amazing feat in the history of American politics that Barack Obama beat the Clintons and then beat/will beat war hero John McCain, when 1 year ago 80% of Americans hardly even knew he existed.
Dude is freaking amazing.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
My hypothesis is that it illustrates the extent to which the entire suite of “culture war” issues, even when neither explicitly nor implicitly “about” race, still largely appeals only to white people.
I haven’t seen any polls of Asian voters, but I have an anecdote that makes sense to me. I asked my Korean-born mother how her Korean-born friends are reacting to the suggestions that Obama is Muslim or Arab. She responded with a laugh and said, “For us, Muslim is just another religion. Even though we’re all Christians, we are used to being around people of different faiths. And we know what it’s like to be different in a strange country. So this is not something we would hold against other people.”
October 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
It seems that MattY just can’t write a blog post without lying.
That wing isn’t “pro-immigration, pro-immigrant”. Like most Dem leaders, they’re simply pro-CheapLabor. And, of course, it’s false to imply as MattY does that those who oppose illegal activity are anti- those in the quote.
MattY: if I ever got into a debate with you about this subject, do you think there’s even the slightest chance you wouldn’t be completely discredited?
October 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
@knoh – love your story about your mother and her friends. What the GOP is failing to realize is that this sentiment is true for so many people in America now.
Many families practice a variety of religions (or none), especially among people of color. There will be someone raised Baptist who has converted to Islam – is he a terrorist now? There is another who practices Buddhism – is she going to hell? Someone else converted to Catholicism upon marriage – should we shun him?
No, we all figure out how to get along, what you choose to believe doesn’t make you a better or worse person.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
MattY: if I ever got into a debate with you about this subject, do you think there’s even the slightest chance you wouldn’t be completely discredited?
Er, yes. Given that you haven’t demonstrated the debating skills needed to deck a dyslexic hamster.
Strange how well the smell of Cheetoes travels over the tubes of the Internetz.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
DAS,
That’s a good point. And I wish more people would draw the distinction between social and cultural conservatism. They’re too often confused. One’s position on abortion, say, should have nothing to do with one’s position on, say, whether English should be the only official language.
That said, I don’t agree with what you said that they usually overlap. The Catholic bishops, for example, are probably the strongest intellectual force behind social-conservative causes like fighting abortion and gay marriage, but I don’t see them as a particularly _culturally_ conservative bunch.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
That wing isn’t “pro-immigration, pro-immigrant”. Like most Dem leaders, they’re simply pro-CheapLabor.
His grandstanding about defeating MY in a theoretical debate aside, 24Aheaddotcom has a solid point there.
Regardless, I think people forget that Hispanic Americans are Americans, not simply Hispanic. They care about all the issues anyone else cares about–not just immigration. This year immigration isn’t even on anyone’s list of top issues. Hispanics favor Obama because they like his positions on Iraq and the economy. It’s as simple as that.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
That said, I don’t agree with what you said that they usually overlap. The Catholic bishops, for example, are probably the strongest intellectual force behind social-conservative causes like fighting abortion and gay marriage, but I don’t see them as a particularly _culturally_ conservative bunch. – Hector
Indeed. That’s where the distinction comes in real handy. I know many “conservative Catholics” who are “social conservatives” but not cultural conservatives (FWIW, some who make this distinction reverse the labels … also one can further distinguish strains of cultural conservatism) — and not just bishops! The question, however, is — how many (white) Catholics are bishops, priests, nuns, academics, etc. such that they are nuanced enough in their thinking to realize that their beloved church is socially conservative but is, in certain ways (at least within the context of American politics where the culture to be preserved is Protestant as well as white) not at all culturally conservative? And how many conservative (white) Catholics figure as good Catholics they must drink the socially conservative kool-aid (no abortions, etc) and then just take a big swig and drink the culturally conservative kool-aid as well … even if drinking it is the equivalent of eating meat on Fridays during lent?
For that matter, how many of them eat meat on Fridays during lent? You hear a lot of conservative Catholic complaints about liberal “cafeteria Catholics”. But the same could be said of many conservative Catholics as well … but that’s another topic …
October 20th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
One would think that the first *real* candidate from the desert Southwest – a section of the country bordering Mexico with a huge Latino population (Goldwater doesn’t count) – would enjoy a tremendous natural advantage among Latinos as a core constituency. The fact that Latinos are barely lukewarm (if that) toward McCain says a whole lot.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
DAS,
I think it goes deeper than that, as well. You can believe in “Sacred Tradition” without believing in tradition as a general principle. Many socially-conservative Christians don’t believe in the traditional teachings of their church simply because of some feeling that “that’s the way it’s always been done”, they believe that those particular traditions were created by men who were inspired by God, and therefore can be relied on to be true. Since the founders of Anglo-American cultural institutions were presumably just men, and not divinely inspired in the same way, it doesn’tr necessarily follow that the traditions they created should be accorded the same loyalty.
In this way, one can be attached to those particular traditions which one believes to be of sacred or apostolic origin, but not to a general conservative respect for tradition for its own sake. It’s hard to argue that support for English Only, or opposition to affirmative action, is mandated by the Bible or the Church Fathers, although I’m sure some yahoo somewhere has done it.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
The problem is not racism. The problem is that the ideal politician for Latinos is the more down on Earth kind of guy(Example, Lula of Brazil, that invites foreign leaders for a barbecue, churrasco, that he does). And the Obama of the general election is more casual than the Obama of the primaries…
October 20th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Latino voters tend to be tax and spend Democrats for perfectly rational reasons: relatively speaking, on average they get more from the government than they pay in.
Bush and Rove tried to lure Latinos away by funneling huge amounts of mortgage money to Latinos to make them conservative-minded homeowners. Mortgage dollars going to Latinos to buy homes almost octupled from 1999 to 2006, increasing 693%.
By the way, how’s that working out for the country these days?
October 21st, 2008 at 2:21 am
Get off it, Steve Sailer.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:20 am
As Steve points out, when you are a relatively poorer group, you vote for the people who offer to give yo umore goodies. If they don’t support your social values, so what? – although there’s a lot of behvaioral evidence that a lot of Hispanics are not actually as socially conservative as people try to tell us?
And a bigger point here – if Hispanics are more likely to be in favor of the welfare state and to vote liberal, why should conservative want to import more of them?
Because of some fanatasy that by pandering to them they will turn Republican? Fat chance. Because we are scared of being called racist? Cowards.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:26 am
Just want to point out: the Latino (voting) demographic is very young; McCain is very old. Just a thought.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra