1998, Four Latino Republicans He was elected to the California State Legislature. As a spokesman for the Republican legislative leader, I called for a press conference calling for an end to discriminatory policies.
Twenty-five years later, the Latinx Legislative Conference in California still excludes Republicans. In contrast to states such as Arizona and Texas, where Latinx caucuses are bipartisan, Latinx Republicans in California remain excluded from the ethnic caucus that insists on representing them.
This idiosyncratic reflects the state’s history of Latino political empowerment. When the Caucus was founded in 1973 by LA Congress member Richard Aratre and others, it seemed unlikely that the results of Latinx Republicans could be elected to serve in Sacramento. This has proven accurate for decades.
But now there are nine people who have formed their own caucus as the shift to the right of Latino voters took a record number of Republican Latino lawmakers to the Capitol. The debate has revived. This time, I feel that it is different because they have different identities from Latino voters.
Latinos today lack the defined ethnic and racial perspectives of previous generations. New Latino voters are overwhelmingly American-born, primarily speaking English, and are more likely to consider them “typical Americans” than they are associated with their country of origin. And they are more likely to have no relation to political parties than members of other ethnic groups. Latinos are more populist and less partisan.
Over the years when I was a bright-eyed, 20-something staff member, I began to doubt the practicality of the bipartisan Latin Caucus. California’s bipartisan Latinx Caucus could have focused on common goals, such as improving public education, improving university attendance, becoming more affordable housing, and maintaining upward mobility for working-class Californians. Instead, almost all social and economic indicators make Latinos worse than they were before a generation despite the exponential growth of Latinos’ representation.
This failure unfolded in an age of increasingly violent partisanship. Today, bipartisan caucuses are unlikely to achieve a broader productive consensus than our bipartisan parliament. The truly representative Latin Caucus does not seem to be compatible with both major political parties.
Each party certainly has a legitimate claim to represent aspects of the Latino community. Democrats line up far more with Latinos on immigration reform, access to healthcare and reproductive rights (you may have heard of Latinos cultural conservatism). Republicans line up far more with Latinos on border security, crime, housing construction and economic opportunities.
However, the evidence that neither party holds the hearts and hearts of Latino voters is overwhelming. Democrats claim a Latino identity more than Republicans. It is also nonsense to the idea that partisans from both camps under tents of the same ethnic group could bring commonality to hot button issues such as reproductive rights and the deportation of the masses.
why? Because Latino politicians on both sides are far more interested in partisan identities than insisting on the priorities of the Latinx community they claim to represent.
Otherwise, Latino Democrat politicians will become greater supporters of strict crime countermeasures such as Latino voters, such as the recently passed Proposal 36. It’s overwhelmingly supported. They are far more fierce supporters for overturning extreme environmental and regulatory measures such as the California Environmental Quality Act, which has helped turn housing affordability into a crisis for the state’s Latino generation, among other things. And they’ll do a better job of holding the state’s democratically controlled government accountable for the failure of Latinos in many issues.
Meanwhile, Republican Latino politicians will have the courage to openly condemn President Trump’s appeal for racism. They will also be more supportive of the path to reproductive rights, healthcare investments and citizenship for the millions of immigrants that our economy desperately needs.
But it seems like it’s been asking too much lately for Latino politicians to expect their community to go ahead with their parties. Ironically, Latino politicians have matured to the point of being like other politicians. For decades, it has focused on power and partisanship rather than solving community issues that have been articulated about their priorities. Perhaps the ethnic caucus cannot effectively serve California’s largest ethnic group. Because the whole idea suggests that Latinos are such a terrible undervalued minority that we no longer have.
At the same time, Latino voters are more moderate and independent than any other ethnic group in the state, focusing on daily economic issues. California and the country need politicians to look like them.
As our society becomes more diverse, Californians are less interested in our racial and ethnic differences than in our common economic struggles. Pocket Book issues replace identity issues.
If Latino lawmakers have been as obsessed with these issues as Latino voters for many years, they will work across the aisles and deal with them without the need for a caucus, bipartisanship or anything. The constant need for political parties to fight on cultural issues came from a focus on economic mobility. You don’t need a bipartisan Latin Caucus to get things done. We need a bipartisan legislature that solves economic issues that disproportionately affect Latinos.
This is a great opportunity for a new generation of Latino lawmakers. It is about envisaging leadership between the parties and making the overall Congress better. Latino politicians on either side of the aisle need to lead the party rather than follow them.
Mike Madrid is a political consultant and author of “The Latin Century: How America’s Largest Minorities Change Democracy.”
