Latinos upset with the lack of immigration reform passed and created during Obama's second term threaten to avoid the polls this midterm election in November, because they feel that no matter who is elected, the politicians will ultimately ignore the Latino demographic's interests. In the article by Mark A. Barabak from the LA Times(ARTICLE HERE), he cites that Obama failed to do the overhaul he promised back in 2012 to push immigration reform even "acting without congress if necessary".
By losing the vote of Latinos, a very Democratic leaning group, the Democratic party will have a harder time holding onto the Senate, limiting losses in the House, and winning gubernatorial seats in various states. Latinos are upset because they feel Obama has broken promises made to their community. (But that's not unlike many other politicians who promise reform! Amirite?) There seems to be a tinge of irony to the Latino sentiment however; I would argue that by deciding to not vote in midterm elections, the likelihood of having immigration reform passed anytime soon is meek because the Latino vote is vital to the success of many Democratic candidates running for congress. Obama responded to criticism by saying that Latino activists and lawmakers must 'talk to [their] constituents and communities and [they] got to get [Latinos] to go out and vote'.
Food for thought:
In your opinion, what else on the Democratic agenda takes precedence over immigration reform?
Do you think this may cause some Latino voters to defect to a Republican candidate who is able to garner their attention?
Do you think Latino voters are being irrational by not voting in the midterm elections or are their grievances a rational reason to abstain?
4 comments:
Latinos, or anyone for that matter, refusing to vote because they feel like it doesnt represent them is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, because that is the surest way to make sure that they are not represented in any way for the next term. I understand that they feel like they are making a statment or whatnot, but itll ultimately just hurt them. That being said, their announcing of a boycott does draw attention to their needs and may force some politicians to appeal to them with policy proposals, but if they refuse to participate then thats meaningless.
If Latinos refuse to vote, they are the ones ensuring their own demise in political power. Their ever-growing numbers wield the potential to increase Democrat representation, which in turn would lead to a better chance that Congress could pass immigration reform. I agree with Antony that boycotts and picketing, being public and direct, would be more powerful and effective in displaying their discontent. As stated in the article, President Obama recently faced one such protest at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and had to address the issue, though he seemed to be playing the blame game a little. The march was a good idea, but I think the Latino community should first focus on changing the minds of those who are refusing to vote. To win the votes for immigration reform, Latinos will likely need the help of Democrats, and so first must vote them into office.
I think your comment about staying out of the election hurting them in the end (or at least hurting the policies they tend to support) is extremely perceptive, John. Well, I feel like gun control and immigration reform were the two most popular things on the Democratic agenda this past couple years, and we haven't seen to have gotten that far on either of them. I think those were the top two legislative priorities that would have garnered them additional support. Well, I think some might defect to the Republicans, because we seem to blame most issues on the party in the White House, so sure, but I honestly don't think that is the problem as much as depressed turn out, like you mentioned earlier.
Although protesting is usually a good way to try to enact change, this form of protest would do nothing but harm everyone in the Latino interest. I wouldn't call this irrational, however, because the Latinos are upset and they have every right to enact change. There are just better ways to enact change. Not voting will only ensure their under representation in government. The best solution I can think of that doesn't involve the Latino contingency migrating to the republican side would be for Latinos to run for state and local office, so they can not only enact change, but possibly increase Latino and minority voting attendance. For example, Latinos are a majority in 10 California counties, including Santa Cruz and Fresno counties. The best way to enact change is to do it yourself, so if the Latino population really wants to make a difference, not voting is the exact opposite of what they should do.
Post a Comment