Remember that decades old command from an imagined Martian arriving on Earth and saying, "Take me to your leader."
The set-up line was funny because, who is that leader? Actually, there are many, in every aspect of life -- religion, education, communications, opinion, politics -- local, state, national -- community, trades and professions, to cite just a few.
Besides, there is just a hair's-breadth of difference between leaders, mentors and influentials. A "leader is someone people choose to follow: PERIOD," says Leadernetwork.org, and that person influences others to do things they may not do on their own.
But according to the formerly authoritative Pew Hispanic Center, Latinos don't have one.. The first line of its press announcement of Nov. 15 says so: "By their own reckoning, Latinos living in the United States do not have a national leader."
Pew Hispanic Center reached this conclusion from its 2010 National Survey of Latinos when it asked 1,375 Hispanic adults before the mid-term election the question.
Seventy-four percent of respondents said they didn't know of anyone or no one when asked "who is the most important Hispanic/Latino leader in the country today." For the one quarter who named someone, they identified Sonia Sotomayor (7 percent), Luis Gutierrez (5 percent), Antonio Villaraigosa (3 percent), Jorge Ramos (2 percent) and Other (8 percent).
There you have it: a Supreme Court justice, a congressman, a mayor and a news anchor, all trailing some unnamed "Other."
But clearly, that was not what the research was after, which was implied. Pew wanted to know who is the consensus leader, the Big Kahuna of Latinos, the one who pulls the strings and -- you know -- manages the flock.
They said as much: "At various times in U.S. history, groups that have felt aggrieved have rallied behind leaders who championed their cause." The report proceeded to talk about Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez.
In other words, on the whole, the Hispanic community is perceived as "aggrieved," sort of pissed off with a grievance that needs correcting, like a physical condition instead of citizens focused on social participation and the issues of the day.
Actually, the Pew research presumption can be considered a type of parochialism from an institution that had previously been quite sophisticated and insightful. For the life of me, I don't know why this research was not just simply canned, because it exposes how its researchers and political analysts can become ethnic- and racial-category and leader obsessed.
Not leaving good enough alone, the Pew report proceeded to assert that Hispanics need to fill the missing leader vacuum. The report said the Nov. 2 midterms, with the election of another Hispanic to the U.S. Senate and two state governors "conceivably could provide platforms from which any of the three could emerge as national Latino leaders."
The error lies in how Pew fails to distinguish leaders and leadership. Leadership is the social influence that a person can bring to enlist the aid and support of others for a common endeavor. Other definitions are more inclusive of followers, also in a kind of symbiotic relationship, instead of thinking about a leader as a kind of king or queen.
If Pew had looked for leadership, they might have found it everywhere. It was best illustrated in the week leading up to the U.S. Senate vote for closure on the filibuster over the roundly supported DREAM Act.
Beside the usual expected advocates, networks of new groups were recruited into a wide spectrum of civic, labor, religious and political groups -- of many ethnicities and backgrounds. That is the color of leadership.
And like good, persistent leadership, even in defeat they declared they were coming back until they prevail.
samkat posted at 10:55 am on Wed, Jan 5, 2011.
The question that begs to be answered is why do we have different ethnic groups vying for power when we are all supposed to be Americans. If we are truly a nation of unity then it is time fore the supposedly oppressed minority groups to start acting responsibility.
EmperorSmith posted at 5:41 pm on Tue, Jan 4, 2011.
Tu no comprehende pas le logic
EmperorSmith posted at 5:38 pm on Tue, Jan 4, 2011.
yes, I also have some knowledge of French and Spanish. Not going to argue real logic with you because I do no think you know what is.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:06 pm on Tue, Jan 4, 2011.
Are you fluent in English?
EmperorSmith posted at 12:37 pm on Tue, Jan 4, 2011.
put up your right hand and yell hail to the rasa altland what ever leader.
EmperorSmith posted at 12:33 pm on Tue, Jan 4, 2011.
understand real logic better than you
Dale Whiting posted at 7:54 pm on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.
No, you just cannot follow logic. You know what you think but not why you think it. You paint those you think agree with you in white hats and those you think disagree with you in black hats. Those who process facts more deeply loose you, so you either give them a black hat or say they talk in circles, especially if trying to think deeper makes you dizzy [hense those circles]. Nothing is as simple and straightforward ad Neo-cons would like.
EmperorSmith posted at 4:24 pm on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.
you talk in circles
EmperorSmith posted at 3:26 pm on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.
I don't know where to start on this one
Dale Whiting posted at 10:19 am on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.
Once again, our editors have applied an overly simplistic headline to catch our attention. The Headline ought to have read "Pew asks the wrong questions about Hispanic Leadership."
We know who the nominal leader of the party occupying the White House is, the President. And political parties elect leadership in both the House and Senate. Both political parties also have national committees charged with helping re-elect their members to political office. But in what sence are these elected leaders really leaders?
For example, weren't Nelson Mandella and Martin Luther King leaders? Weren't they shown the way by Gandhi? Yet who stands in their place today? Does that mean minorities have no leaders?
Perhaps the better set of Pew Questions out to have been, "Who stands out in history on the issues most important to you today?" And who of the present crop of leaders seems most closely aligned with those historical leaders?"
For the Tea Partiers, their leader seems to have been Samuel Adams. And finding no one in either party operating in the mold of Sam Adams, they struggle for leadership. Michele Bauchman tries to occupy that spot. But will she succeed? It's doubtful.
Pew Research needs to ask itself questions. What are we trying to accomplish and are we focused well enough to succeed? The answer is a firm NO.