|
 eorge
W. Bush and prominent members of the GOP leadership have high hopes
for Latino voters, believing that a political realignment is in
the making. The Bush campaign spent considerable resources courting
the votes of Latinos, and reports from the White House have indicated
that this effort continues. In recent weeks, the administration
has been carefully balancing the costs and benefits of a new amnesty
program, and are said to favor a generous guestworker law. Some
of the best minds working within the new administration are charged
with the task of closing the gap between Democratic and Republican
voting within this growing segment of American society. But is it
realistic for the new administration, and the Republicans in general,
to spend time pursuing the allegiance of Latinos?
The Republican
case for pursuing Latino voters rests mainly on what some in the
GOP perceive as the cost of not doing so. Republicans, like the
Democrats, are aware of some compelling demographic realities. As
of the 2000 census, Latinos represent the largest minority group
in the nation, slightly bypassing African Americans in numbers.
Beyond this, Census Bureau population projections expect dramatic
declines in the proportion of white non-Hispanics, particularly
if current immigration trends continue.
In addition
to the demographic imperative that motivates Republicans to create
inroads into these burgeoning minority electorates, political indicators
suggest that there is no time to waste. California was not as competitive
for the Republicans in the 2000 presidential election as it had
been in elections past, also reflecting the pronounced Democratic
bias among Latino voters in that state. Other states with large
Hispanic populations are tipping more Democratic as well, with Illinois
and New York readily coming to mind. Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran
very competitive races in Florida (Clinton winning it twice), and
the once-reliable Republican advantage among Cubans has dwindled
to almost nothing.
The partisanship
of Latinos tends to show a strong Democratic bias, regardless of
national origin, conclusions I have drawn from a survey of election
exit polls as well as a 1999 survey of Latinos conducted jointly
by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation,
and Harvard University. Cubans aside, the Democratic advantage ranges
from a low of 21 points among the sample of Salvadorans to a whopping
57 points among Dominicans. Among the most numerous group, Mexicans,
Democrats lead Republicans by 22 points. For their part, Democrats
have every reason to believe that they can win over Cuban votes,
as the Republican advantage there is a mere six points. But by comparison,
Republican hopes to turn these other nationality groups around seem
far-fetched, if not fanciful.
Examination
of comprehensive surveys of the Hispanic population suggests that
the Democratic advantage in partisanship remains strong regardless
of economic standing, and actually increases among Latinos with
longer tenure in the country and with greater educational attainment.
For Latinos with less than an 8th-grade education, Democratic partisanship
exceeds Republican partisanship by 17.7 points. But for those with
four years of college, Democrats have an enormous 32-point advantage.
For those of short tenure in the country (less than one year), Democrats
maintain a 21-point advantage. But as duration of residence rises
to 30 years, the Democratic advantage increases to 27 points.
Rising income
does improve the prospects of finding Hispanic Republicans. Among
those earning less than $20,000, about 17 percent claimed GOP identification,
compared with 26.1 percent of those earning over $100,000. And as
income rises, Republicans do make up ground on Democrats, but at
the highest level of income, Democrats still maintain a 10-point
edge in partisan affiliation. In order for the Republicans to eliminate
this deficit, Latino incomes would have to stand at well over $200,000
per year. If Bush advisers can discover some means for making hundreds
of thousands of Latino citizens this wealthy, then maybe their hopes
for Latino realignment are not misplaced.
How much of
the Latino vote is really "in play"? Most surveys suggest
surprisingly little of it. Republicans can count on 20 to 25 percent
of the Hispanic vote in most states, regardless of what they do.
Obtaining the sizable gains to pull even with Democrats is unrealistic
anytime soon. For Bush, the challenge may be in simply maintaining
some Hispanic vote share, not making gains.
My examination
of the numbers raises questions about whether the GOP attempt to
woo Hispanics is worth the enormous effort that it would take to
make solid gains. The GOP is in no position to make the kind of
liberal policy promises that would be required to bring Latinos
over to the Republican side, much less deliver on such promises.
Latino leaders are now demanding nothing less than a full and comprehensive
amnesty. Anything less will be spun by them as a weak and untrustworthy
commitment. And by merely flirting with the Hispanic vote, President
Bush risks mobilizing Latinos without converting them — clearly
a recipe for Republican disaster in 2004 and beyond. More critically,
the White House is paying significant opportunity costs in chasing
after the Latino vote. Their time may be better spent on trying
to close the gender gap, or attracting the loyalties of white working-class
voters who have regularly
shown an independent streak.
There may also
be a lesson in our data about legal-immigration policy. There can
be little question that high levels of immigration have been a boon
for Democrats, allowing them to import large numbers of impoverished,
mostly unskilled Latino immigrants who, once naturalized, add significant
numbers to the Democratic base in the major immigrant-receiving
states. The sustained growth of the Hispanic population, coupled
with its increasing political muscle, will continue to have major
political ramifications for the balance of party support, tipping
once-competitive states to the Democratic side and turning once-solidly
Republican states competitive. Immigration reduction, from this
point of view, is likely to be one of the few pathways to Republican
survival in California, and even Texas.
In light of
the assembled facts, the Republicans may want to think long and
hard about current proposals to grant amnesty to immigrants illegally
living in the country. From a Republican standpoint, legalizing
the status of illegal aliens is another path to electoral defeat.
Ironically, most surveys indicate that the very Hispanics most likely
to vote Republican are resolutely opposed to illegal immigration
— something an amnesty would continue to encourage.
If the past
tells us anything, then the prospects of a widespread Latino conversion
to the Republicans are more fantasy than reality. The GOP is not
operating in a vacuum. There is another party out there actively
courting the Latino vote with a platform far more consistent with
their interests in liberal social-welfare and health-care programs.
For the GOP to shift its policy ground to the extent necessary to
compete for this vote would be tantamount to trying to reverse the
New Deal realignment of the 1930s. Presidents and party leaders
are, of course, free to pursue their dreams, but this one could
well turn into a nightmare — leading to another one-term Bush presidency.
|
