When Matthew Dowd, a leading Bush campaign strategist, forecasted in July 2004 the GOP would reap 38 to 40 percent of the Latino vote, the professional punditry responded with a chorus of scoffs and skepticism. But just three months later, Dowd's declaration was vindicated with the victorious cries of \??Felicidades President Bush!""
Although the exact percentage of Latino voters who favored Bush is still a matter of conjecture, with credible estimates ranging between 34 and 42 percent, it can be said from relatively solid ground that 38.5 to 41 percent of Latinos voted for the president. This represents at least a four-point increase in the Latino vote from the president's 2000 total, which, in turn, translates into a one-point gain in the national vote for Bush, and, most significantly, a three-point decline in Kerry's national total. Bush's increased Latino support is perhaps the most portentous and unexpected backstory of the 2004 election.
Apart from Cuban-Americans, who traditionally have voted Republican, the largest Latino constituencies, such as Americans of Mexican and Central American descent, were considered to be as dependently Democratic as African-Americans. The 2004 electoral results made it apparent, however, that deepening fissures have developed in the political identity of the ethnic bloc. Latino political identity is becoming irrespective of ethnic identity and it's no longer politically prudent to consider Latinos as a national core component of the Democratic Party.
There are a few reasons that can explain the GOP's successful sequester of this historically Democratic dominion. For starters, Latinos mainly vote Democratic for socioeconomic reasons but are inherently culturally conservative. An overwhelming majority of Latinos consider themselves to be devoutly Catholic (92 percent). In fact, Spanish-speaking Catholics in America now outnumber their English-speaking counterparts.
In terms of cultural wedge issues, Latinos share near-identical beliefs with Evangelicals. In general terms, Latinos are attracted to the Democratic Party because of economic self-interest. For instance, the Democratic Party's historic willingness to favor state-funded health care is particularly salient and attractive due to the severe disparity of health insurance coverage between Latinos and whites. But as the burgeoning Latino middle class continues to emerge, Latinos are freed from voting with an economic priority and instead can acquiesce to a naturally conservative worldview.
Another aspect which contributed to Bush's Latino gains was Bush's perceived preeminence on security. The Latinos who cited security as their top concern favored Bush by a margin comparable to white voters. The most obvious reason this occurred is the propensity of Latinos in the military. In general, Latino families regard the military as a good place for their children to learn ""values and skills."" More Latinos have a family member in the armed forces than any other ethnic group.
Latinos, especially in the last decade, have therefore cultivated a deep sense of patriotism that stems from military experience. Latinos tended toward Bush because he played the role of commander in chief well, and many voters, not just Latinos, believed voting for Bush was a means of supporting the armed forces.
Bush's unprecedented success with the Latino electorate was a result of two factors: his appeal to culturally conservative voters and his advantage on security and national defense. Sound familiar? It should. Ethnicity be damned, these are the same reasons why everyone who voted for Bush did so.
The real reason behind the GOP's gain is because they had the brains and the guts to pitch their appeal to Latinos the same way they did to everyone else. They simply translated Bush's appeal. ""Vote por sus valores"" (vote for your values) was the overarching theme behind every Bush ad directed toward Latinos. Bush ran attack ads in Spanish, a political move. In contrast, John Kerry & Co. focused on traditional Latino themes of immigration and health care. His ads never even mentioned Bush once. The Kerry camp went after votes as if Latinos, as in the past, were unquestionably Democratic. Kerry ads were focused more on cajoling Latinos to get them to the polls rather than attempting to influence how they voted.
But don't queue the Samba and the sombreros for the GOP just yet; after all Kerry still won a decisive majority of the Latino vote. Furthermore, many policies Bush used to attract Latino support, such as his support for bilingual education, are anathema to many of his party cohorts.
U. S. Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., unveiled the most unapologetically racist ad of 2004, where a narrator explained his opponent would open up the border and give immigrants government aid. The ad included a series of Latino individuals receiving cash handouts from the Oklahoma Department of Motor Vehicles. So it remains to be seen if the rest of the GOP is ready to treat Latino supporters as something other than an exotic fauna of the right, even though 2004 demonstrates that it is far wiser to include Latinos in the foundation of a new Republican base, rather than using Latino fear-mongering in the efforts to get the old right wing out in November.
opinion@dailycardinal.com.
