In Pursuit of a Fantasy
The Bush White House chases after the Latino vote.

By James G. Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland, College Park, and co-author of a recent Backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies entitled "Impossible Dream or Distant Reality?: Republican Efforts to Attract Latino Voters."
August 21, 2001 12:00 p.m.

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.