Last week's mid-term elections were benchmark elections -- but not how most people are inclined to think about them.
They raised the question as to whether President Obama's self-acknowledged setback was also one for Latinos, who have consistently supported the President.
To understand the implications for this country's 50 million Hispanics, some historical perspective helps.
As early as the 1960s, large swatches of the Hispanic population, back then demographically small, helped elect John Kennedy. Even with Lyndon Johnson, who claimed to be a friend of Hispanics in Texas, on the ticket, Latinos got little recognition or benefit for it. Johnson made the point to some community leaders that government had to be pushed and pressured to act.
In a nutshell, Hispanic civic and community improvement efforts became a movement for political intercession. Much of this history, leading up to George W. Bush's first year as president, was covered in my 2003 book, The Rise of Hispanic Political Power.
From the 1960s to the '90s, neighborhood-level organizing in support of local candidates drew attention to issues concerning public works, education and unfair practices that held back Latino economic development. The reality was that personal efforts went unrewarded unless the group was given the social respect that usually came following political gains. Personal betterment is more easily recognized after a community has political standing.
Congressional pioneers up to the 1970s were Rep. Manuel Luján, R-New Mexico, and three Democrats, Edward Roybal of California, Henry B. González of Texas, and in the Senate another New Mexican, Joseph Montoya.
The emerging Hispanic political culture has been especially consequential since the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976. In turn, the attention that Hispanics drew translated, at first slowly and then at a healthy pace, to economic improvements for their communities.
The Democratic Party sought to capitalize on a mass following of Latino working people; Republicans defined middle-class professionals and entrepreneurs as their best prospects. These were especially noteworthy during the Nixon, Reagan and both George Bush campaigns and administrations. The political movement was one for inclusion and not for alignment within any party.
It culminated the 1990s during the Clinton administration with the synchronization of a political economy leading to the largest ever Latino expansion into the middle class.
It coincided with the surge of Hispanic elected and appointed officials, who by 2010 had increased to more than 6,000. Such officials are the ones responsible for aiding state and national candidates, who depend on Latino help and expertise in voter registration drives and campaign infrastructure. The reciprocity has stirred a national consciousness on Latino issues.
Still, sloppy analysis and stereotyping have persisted since the '70s over whether Hispanics even show up to vote at all -- or are they fickle or Pavlovian voters?
The 2008 election of Barack Obama made it crystal clear that the Hispanic influence is abundant and here to stay as part of the national political culture, and will vote consistent with how it perceives its community interests.
By then, only the U.S. Supreme Court remained a government pillar lacking Hispanic inclusion. That was overcome with Obama's nomination and subsequent Senate confirmation of Judge Sonya Sotomayor to the Court.
With that, the beginning of the quest for responsive government through inclusion was completed in the civic life of U.S. Latinos was complete.
The 2010 mid-term elections established the first benchmark in the new phase, one that harmonizes Latino interests with national ones. Scholar Ilan Stavans once defined it as the "Hispanicization of the United States and the Anglocization of Hispanics."
The elections came at a time when U.S. society was seeking its own political responsiveness for its recovery from the financial crisis, recession and widespread unemployment. The national parties and Tea Party offshoot had been at loggerheads for more than a year.
The trademark attitudes for the 2010 redress have been reactionary and angry. They could -- or better said, should -- have borrowed a chapter from the Latino playbook by seeking progress instead of making yesterday sound like tomorrow.
They had the opportunity to approach candidates and issues constructively, with optimism instead of enmity, alienation and bad blood.
That is the essential yardstick for measuring who won and who lost.
NEXT WEEK: What the midterm elections forebode for Hispanics - in nuts and bolts of lightening.
Jose de la Isla writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. E-mail him at joseisla3@yahoo.com.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:16 am on Wed, Nov 17, 2010.
Jose,
It's obvious that Brittanicus has no Hispanic heritage. And it's even more obvious that he has little appreciation of what it once meant to be an American.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
With these words now infamously inscribed on a plaque mounted on an inner wall of the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal, the citizens of the United States once proudly declared their position in claiming to be the most blessed nation in the world. But now, with statements like those recently issued by Russell Pearce, (Tribune story, Oct. 20) this proud vision of a lamp being lifted beside our Golden Door fades into memory.
Where some, who claim to long for bygone eras when American values were staunchly upheld remain, silent or blinded by such as Mr. Pearce one wonders, “What went wrong?”
Mr. Pearce is not concerned that his proposals to contradict our heritage will bring law suits by, as he says, “the liberal left who continue to refuse to accept the laws of this land or the rights of lawful, legal citizens of this country.” (Id.) But what about the laws cherished by those of us conservatives who also cherish the principles first set forth in 1866 by the plain language of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to the children of those huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
Brittanicus, why don't you go back to Brittan. Oh, I know, they tollerate Muslims there, don't they! Remember next time when you eat a vegetable, chances are it grew here in the US because a Mexican illegal hoed weeds to allow it to flourish. If you dislike illegals, get a hoe and got to work.
Keep up the work, Jose.[beam]
Brittanicus posted at 12:34 pm on Mon, Nov 15, 2010.
So California's Sanctuary Cities engorge themselves on taxpayer’s money, thanks to the return of Sen. Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown. Los Angeles county and San Francisco is drowning in public entitlements being given away as freebies to millions of illegal aliens. Senator Barbara Boxer and ex speaker Nancy Pelosi are hard line liberal progressives, who ideology is you don't have to work for a living as government will pay your way. Senator Harry Reid who squeaked back to the Senate is another member of the Liberal extremist groups, who has sold his soul for large minority votes, promising the Dream Act--a sleight of hand, to pass a De-Facto Amnesty. The Dream Act will not only reward students of criminal aliens, who stole through our borders. But will also function as a sponsored pass for the whole families to arrive after the newly naturalized students use the "Chain Migration Act" to open the gates to their Immediate Relatives—the spouse, minor children, and parents of adult U.S. citizens.
Chain Migration refers to the unceasing and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate as the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their extended, non-nuclear family members. This Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to over one million a year since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief menaces in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, school overcrowding, dwindling energy supplies and other impacts that reduce American's quality of life. This type of immigration is very dangerous to our society as the US population is beginning to see the light, from the costs brought to them in higher taxes from catering to the illegal alien population by Liberal zealots.
The Lame Duck Dream Act would explode our population even more and as the Heritage Foundation has projected, at a cost of 2.6 Trillion dollars and millions more uneducated relatives. This certainly will put our Social Security at risk. Senator Reid, Barbara Boxer Diane Feinstein and the creeping fetid fringe groups of Liberal lawmakers are not concerned with the costs, but the amount of votes extended to them by grateful minority blocs in future election, the lobbyists secretive bribes and a need to exert their influence upon America. It’s beyond comprehension that Harry Reid would try for the passage of this Dream Act, when our schools are overcrowded with the children of illegal aliens, the massive cost to taxpayers and the terrible reality of the 15 million jobless rates in this nation. This will add even more red ink to our US deficit and certainly not riding the favorable wave of the Tea Party, to lower taxes and reduce a over encroaching federal government.
Any new incremental Amnesty--as that is what the Dream Act is, will just keep on attracting the forever poor and desperate across our borders. We must secure our border with an electrified fence, stop the drain on our social services by pregnant women who intentionally birth their children here, to take advantage of instant citizenship for the infant; so all family members can stay. Now is the time to release your anger on all members of Congress, by calling (202)224-3121 beginning this Monday? Learn the reality of illegal immigration at NumbersUSA and which politicians are corrupted at Judicial Watch.