Skip to main content

tv   Geraldo Cadava The Hispanic Republican  CSPAN  October 18, 2020 6:56pm-7:58pm EDT

6:56 pm
>> hello everyone thank you so much. i am benjamin and on behalf of today's event i will come to invite you to be in conversation this is part of our friday form to take place on friday afternoons as a way to highlight scholarly books. we remain digital for the time being the full schedule of virtual events is listed for
6:57 pm
today's event we will include questions locate the q&a button then i will post a link and if you already have a copy of the book would like to contribute in a different way we greatly appreciate any and all support. and lastly, if you
6:58 pm
participated in large gatherings recently technical issues may come up. we apologize in advance we will do our best to resolve them quickly. and now i am so pleased to introduce today's speaker as an associate professor of history have latino and latina studies the first book standing on common ground is a powerful portrait of frederick jackson. he is written about the cultural experience including the atlantic. jonathan is a staff writer but his had from the american immigration system and work for education reporting. today discussing the book
6:59 pm
hispanic republican and the portrait of the ever-growing population to teach experts of american politics at a time when it is very much interpreted in the hispanic republican is the necessary corrections and talk about those pullover politics play will end with the observation that the hispanics are a monolithic voting block. we are so honored so without further ado we will turn it over to giraldo.
7:00 pm
>> . . . . achievement under any circumstances illuminating history but also terribly urgent now given where we are, given what we are learning about the electorate and anxiety and run up to november so there are all kinds of ways we can move through the substance of the book but before we launch into those elements of the book i want to just ask one kind of general question of the viewers,
7:01 pm
listeners. in many ways one of the real achievements of the book is it precisely lays out how common and logical it would be for certain hispanic voters to be republican. but i wonder if you can start giving a little snapshot of who we are talking about when we talk about hispanic republicans. what do they look like, what states are they in, where are their families from, give a sense of that and that would be helpful to people. >> thanks for starting there. that is a useful place to begin. the main thing i would want to say is that it is an incredibly
7:02 pm
diverse lot across the united states and of course we associate a group of voters with the exiles in south florida and venezuela and who came during the chavez era but they are all over the place. one of the biggest surprises is that hispanic republican movement began among mexican americans in the southwest who first kind of latched onto dwight eisenhower and western politicians like barry goldwater first locally in new york and for governor nelson and rockefeller but even more recently, so it is a diverse group representative of all hispanic latino groups across
7:03 pm
the country certainly in different percentages and i wouldn't want to pin it on a particular issue like catholicism or free enterprise or law and order or military service and patriotism. i think all of those things have been discussed at the kind of underpinnings of the identity, but i would say it's all of those things at the same time. >> what would you say some of the biggest misconceptions are about the latino electorate. the broad assumption is that it's monolithic which is a sort of classic assumption but are there particular misapprehensions that you see repeated by the nature of the voters or the issue of those that compel them to go to the polls?
7:04 pm
>> guest: the biggest one is they are naturally anything. naturally liberal or conservative. i think members of both parties have said those things. i remember harry reid saying he doesn't understand how any hispanic could be republican. meanwhile ronald reagan famously told advertising executives from san antonio working on the campaign so i think in different moments both parties have been guilty of saying latinos are naturally democrat or naturally republican and i don't think that is how the development of the partisan identity works. partisan identity and ideas about politics evolve over time with communities, your own family past and your sense of right and just in the world so first i would say it's a mischaracterization as one way
7:05 pm
or another were products of history. the other thing i would say is something i've been thinking about a lot in the context of this election, latinos are hyper visible in certain parts of the country like all of our attention these days is focused on florida and texas and arizona and campaigns are spending millions and millions of dollars reaching out to latinos in those places but i think the hyper visibility whether democrat or republican in particular areas has the effect everywhere they live. latinos are even if we identify primarily as members of our own individual national groups. i looked the other day what the ten closest states were in 2016, the narrow margins of victory.
7:06 pm
they include florida, arizona and also maine, minnesota, wisconsin, michigan. and in those states the number of eligible voters was greater and the margin of victory that you never hear of campaigns like campaigning to and with. >> that is a great point. without any further ado let's go through the history that you've laid out because one of the most striking things about it especially for a reader of the book that might not be steeped in jesus uses first of all your book on hispanic republicans that is centered primarily on south florida which is classic assumption and also this strikes me as someone who covers immigration a lot the assumption needs to be immigration is the primary issue that affects hispanic voters.
7:07 pm
when you tease that out of course why would that ever be the case but it's striking in this history which i can't stress to people enough it's so brisk and inviting and full of these great entry points but it's also striking to me it comes up at different times but it's not this foundational issue from the beginning that defines the different identities in the u.s. which come election time it's a fixation of political journalists. they save the president has done this or that on immigration policy why doesn't it have these ripple effects. these are complex communities with deep histories and relationships to the parties, so here's what i want to start with. the book starts in the period
7:08 pm
between the 1950s and 60s as particularly interesting and i want to pull together two quotes at the beginning part of the conversation. early on in the book you are talking about nixon as a california politician and you talk about the various outreach efforts to the hispanic voters and you write that it's important to note they appealed to mexican americans, not hispanics that concerns puerto ricans, cuban-americans, mexican americans were not yet defined as hispanic. it was even during the 1950s members particularly national groups began to consider whether they were members of the national ethnic group that joined so that's one kind of idea to keep in mind. the second one bridges us to the
7:09 pm
1960s and one of the reasons i'm reading you to you is because i want people to hear you writing and again it is the smoothness and the clarity is so valuable. by the 1960s, there is a kind of element in the equation that does help hispanics sort themselves out in relation to each other and non- hispanic americans and that sort of principle as the cold war so you write the cold war between the united states and latin america from puerto rico to cuba and to mexico became the filter to which hispanic americans viewed not only international relations but also the formation of the partisan political identities. with these historical benchmarks in the kind of hispanic american identity to begin with and the fact of the 60s introducing
7:10 pm
into the american political orthodoxy of the cold war thinking is this around the time we see the identity begin, is it fair to say that it sort of coalesces in the late 50s and early 60s. tell us about how that takes root. >> i would say that it's a small process that is never complete. one thing to note about the 1950s and 1960s is that the kind of electoral map of the united states is shifting during this time so new york state still had the largest number of electoral votes. i think like 34 or something like that. but texas and california are growing and it leads to the rapid growth of the southwest.
7:11 pm
the latino population of the united states is still small and the eligible voters represent like 2% of all so it's not a huge group, but they are concentrated in the states with a growing number of electoral votes and this is when politicians began to kind of wake up and world war ii veterans who were latino have a kind of growing voice in politics. i do think that this is the moment that starts to wear politicians start to perk up and pay attention in part because of their own electoral interests and also because of the rising demands of latinos themselves to be paid attention to and i think it picks up in the 50s with eisenhower servicemen and this is the story of that advertising executive i was telling you about.
7:12 pm
he kind of recognized delight eisenhower as the general of world war ii and solve the kind of kinship there and believed he was the leader that would kind of lead the united states during this new cold war period. that was an origin point and i think other members were with nixon and goldwater where they claimed for long time longtime y with mexican groups. there is a kind of legend about nixon that he worked alongside mexican americans in the fields surrounding california. his family owned a grocery store and gas station. i think that is where it picks up around the individual politicians into smaller groups like -- i hope in the book i don't try to oversell how big and powerful these groups are. i was trying to portray them as
7:13 pm
little grassroots efforts that over time coalesced into something bigger. i don't know that latino or hispanic identity starts to coalesce in the 1960s. there's a lot of tension and rivalry. there still are between the different groups but i'm thinking about the formation by lyndon johnson and richard nixon. inter agency committee that gets branded on opportunities for spanish-speaking people. there are nine new members that are supposed to have proportional representation by different nationality groups so it's like three mexicans, three cuban-americans and three puerto ricans but there are rivalries.
7:14 pm
i don't think latinos themselves, members of the groups don't start to think through what are the points of commonality between the different nationality groups until the 1970s. >> there is a huge flexion point with the passage of the major national legislation on immigration that also starts to change the complexion of who's able to come to the u.s. and how their families are able to come and make lives here but basically in the 50s and 60s when we talk about the spanish-american voters, tell us a little bit about the different constituencies and if they have any relationships among them or was it pretty segmented, mexican americans. there is a striking point we will get to in the full sweep of things. but when goldwater is tightening the moves and 64, he's thinking primarily of mexican americans in the southwest, southwest, cuban-americans in the
7:15 pm
southeast. you've got nelson rockefeller with puerto ricans in new york but that's the moderate side. but give us the sense who are we talking about right now in the 50s and 60s and early 70s which different constituencies. >> we are talking about small groups of mexican americans, kind of the founders of the political association these are some small groups that spin these groups like latinos from eisenhower and goldwater so small groups of mexican americans and cubans in florida and i think the important thing to remember about cubans in florida is for much of the 60s they start coming in large numbers after 59 and the revolution but so much of the kind of political attention is focused on overthrowing castro
7:16 pm
and planning their imminent return once castro is gone so they don't naturalize and participate in large numbers until the mid-1970s, so it's small groups in the southeast and puerto ricans in new york. there are differences when nelson and rockefeller were vying for the republican nominee. you have puerto ricans who are largely backing nelson rockefeller, mexican americans in the southwest largely backing goldwater but even in the southwest there is a contention of powerful mexican americans who back rockefeller because he's kind of seen for a long time as the person most invested in the latino community and also u.s. and latin american relations, so it's kind of a fragmented electorate.
7:17 pm
it doesn't start to come together until later. even the kennedy campaign in the 1960s is the first time you start to see mexican americans trying to bridge the divide between them and puerto ricans but that is the kind of upstart effort that doesn't fully get off the ground. >> not to release us from the 60s quite yet. goldwater, it's interesting in 64 he does seem alive to the prospect of the mexican-american voters going his way which i was struck and given his background and his ties with arizona but one problem he encounters which may be is not so surprising all things considered but he cannot peel that many away from the democrats in part because of their loyalty to kennedy to some degree but also lbj because of
7:18 pm
the great society and all of these domestic policies that directly helps mexican americans and other middle class and lower middle class americans, so that also strikes me as an interesting point. you can read the history between the lines but it sounds like there was the kinship to mexican americans, puerto ricans and the democrats. >> what the latino republicans that have the partisan identity as republicans, what they begin to ask in the 1960s whether this is a kind of caricature of what the democratic party has done or not or misrepresentation
7:19 pm
of what the democratic party has done is it begins to ask other latinos what has your blind loyalty to the democratic party gotten you and they start to make the argument that democrats are only looking for your vote and only come around during election season otherwise they ignore you but don't care about you whereas the republican party creates economic opportunities and they are the ones waging this battle with latin america, those kind of things, the kind of party of patriotism and free enterprise and things that appeal to a group of latinos, so they start to argue that it's actually the democratic party that has ignored them. they also start to make the argument that all the democratic party cares about when it comes to racial politics is
7:20 pm
african-americans and they get handouts. that's what the democratic party does. but we need the republican party no latinos are different. you don't march through the streets protesting. you are more respectable in your political behavior. so those are some of the early arguments the republican party and latino republicans in particular try to mobilize. >> i want to ask more about the civil rights layer of this but before that i want to get your honest take on when republicans are making the first column of the pitch as you described it when republicans are saying to the hispanic voters in the 60s look, you blindly follow the democrats and feel a sense of loyalty. look where it's gotten you. the democrats don't really care about you. it's just instrumental for them for electoral reasons. is there any legitimacy to that,
7:21 pm
there is a way that it's just a classic way to peel voters away from one party. did that designate, what is your view of that? >> i don't think there's a difference how would resignation it then and now. both parties have plenty of responsibility to accept for ignoring latinos and i don't say that they take latinos seriously in the mid 20th century if they take them seriously today. i do think there are individual politicians in both parties who over the years have tried to prioritize and make a sincere effort and many people would be surprised to learn that has
7:22 pm
halved in among republicans and democrats. texas senators like john tower, the base a lot of their appeal in texas, a lot of the appeal was to mexican americans and mexican americans embraced it in a lot of ways. then richard nixon and his senate run in 1960, part of it has to do with the advisors they have around them, he had a guy that knew the key to recruiting latinos was a sustained long-term consistent investment even when you are not necessarily looking for the vote so he would set up medical clinics or legal advice offices or job fairs in east los angeles to win mexican-american voters during the campaigns and to be honest what he was saying in 1960 isn't that different than what is said today about
7:23 pm
reaching out to latino voters and how the campaign was so successful. they kind of camped out in nevada for months before, trying to build a relationship so in some ways stuart spencer was right in 1960 and this year i just think the latinos for trump campaign has been at it for longer and doing a better job at what we know to be the key to reaching latino voters. >> that is a good point and we will get to that in a moment and what some of those echoes are. beginning to talk about nixon more specifically, one of the kind of threw lines i three lins whole history is the importance of california and texas. it's funny to read about or almost a yea year you to read at
7:24 pm
california as a bastion not just of conservatism but a kind of proving ground. now we think of california as this kind of blue state. one of the major revelations of each book was, and maybe this betrays the subject, was just what a tipping point nixon was in terms of the relationship with the hispanic electorate. take us through a little bit a
7:25 pm
shift. it seems there's kind of a sweet spot in terms of how nixon really started to kind of pound the pavement to show his commitment to some of these constituencies. >> i wish we had hours and hours. but to give a couple of highlights here, one thing to note is the republican party pay strategists are explicit about the fact that african-american republicans are leaving the republican party in droves and need to replace with new voters. one of the more likely targets that they conclude our latinos for reasons we can talk about the family values, the work ethics, the drive to succeed. so that's the first thing to note. the second thing to note, you
7:26 pm
can think about nixon's personal collections. his best friend and th cuban guy whose family came over from cuba so you can think about that but also he makes a commitment to a kind of patronage politics where he creates a committee for spanish-speaking people and sens them across the united states to communities like chicago, miami, dallas, new york with the kind of guarantee. interviewing a woman named linda chavez, the patronage politics as a reason she didn't like nixon because she called him the father of the quota system so part of it was just providing goodies i guess, jobs. but he also starts making some
7:27 pm
of the first high level appointments both within his administration and other federal posts so he appoints the first treasurer of the united states and appoints the owner of a tortilla factory in los angeles, a mexican-american woman who is wasa fascinating character and o appoints to be the chairman of the economic development agency so the benefit of appointing people that could then become latino surrogates out on the campaign trail and that's how he begins to recruit them so that's a redoubled effort making appointments and that kind of thing. the critics called that all performance rather than a sincere interest to middle-class
7:28 pm
latinos and there's something to that but it also did the job nixon needed it to do and he was the first president, the first republican president to win at about the 30, 35% of the vote that has become more or less normal. you are writing about the treasury secretary under nixon and say nixon found himself a mexican-american that opposed to the activism but nevertheless contributed to those others for financial services. you have to give him credit for finding the sweet spot.
7:29 pm
it does seem to be the case that having these figureheads and the criticism of this overt tokenism did pay off. but this analysis among the administration and campaign advisors said okay, we are losing voters through the 60s and one of the ways we sort of stem that elsewhere he is a constituent we can make gains with and so having these prominent figureheads can crisscross the country.
7:30 pm
it's how many miles of the country that clearly impacts the voters. >> there are ways for the administration to say that we are in inclusive administration and we value basically you have a seat at the table. that's the kind of key point for the high level latinos job level positions. >> anothe >> another development in the nixon years is the creation of the hispanic category in the u.s. census. i'm going to give people a sense of this history because you write it where i can summarize the white house directed the
7:31 pm
bureau as a unique category for the 1970s census they published questionnaires in spanish and urged the participation through advertisement spanish-language newspapers on the radio and on television. it was a crucial step to solving their economic woes because you could help determine where they directed the resources. this was like liberals these days always surprised to learn this. what do you see is the practical consequences of this movement in the census?
7:32 pm
to what degree did it make the lives of hispanic americans better and was the government meaningfully using this information to actually craft public policies towards these communities or -- >> i could have linked the desire for the federal jobs. you have to have the same percentage of the federal jobs going as latinos are we are
7:33 pm
thinking in particular the chairman of the cabinet committee on the opportunities for the spanish-speaking people and for the audience members, i'm so sorry that i have to go through that whole name, but he's a mexican-american educator from los angeles and his whole thing is in order to know who latinos are and in order to get them kind of proper representation and know where they are in order to be able to distribute the resources to them, we have to know how many there are. that isn't all that different from the nonpartisan groups today and the national association saying in order to benefit latinos, we have to know who they are. so actually, i don't see the creation of the hispanic category on the census as a kind
7:34 pm
of cynical ploy. it was something that he was able to account but in terms of outreach that he had and from what i know about the effort it was sincere. >> it's extremely interesting and so hard to square away with the republican party today which we will get to. to announce the fly through, tell me if you think this is too reductive both in the cold war how those issues resonate.
7:35 pm
there is a quote from the famous mayor of south florida that says it begins and reagan very much internalizes the idea of using the kind of cold war politics to start to appeal to the specific constituencies in south florida and beyond. but one thing that particularly strikes me how he walks this very fine line between on the one hand doing right by hispanic americans broadly speaking but also we can talk about this immigration reform, 2 million
7:36 pm
people are essentially legalized to the massive accomplishment. but he's also got the faith to begin with that increasingly, and this has been festering for years and years, but really starts to rear its head in its classic xenophobic anti-immigration, anti-immigrant base. one of the first things to note the approach to immigration reform that we have had ever since, so in some ways his efforts to satisfy the public
7:37 pm
constituencies even if they are contradictory or opposed to one another in some way is reflected in immigration reform in particular, so you the immigration reform and control act has these kind of three legs if you want to consider them that way, amnesty, and employer sanctions and tougher border control. so each of those appeals to different constituents and they haven't been able to imagine anything beyond those three things as a way of achieving immigration reform because of the opposition between the different members and their constituencies. >> can i just added it's striking in many ways that defines the legacy of those three prongs and shapes how democrats play the politics of this. what we now accept and take for granted is the kind of tough on
7:38 pm
the border in exchange for some version of amnesty through that formulation. >> democrats haven't necessarily had a better solution. republicans emphasize different aspects of the immigration reform but they haven't really gotten beyond. that's why i know it sounds silly but it's to think creatively about the humane or different policies. i bring up the immigration control first because it is reflective of the ways in which the republican party is being pulled in different directions at the time and i think that reagan first of all the important thing reagan tries to do is he decides he isn't going to do patronage politics but is going to try to craft the issue
7:39 pm
base, so it's the mexican-americans from california that first try to articulate this kind of collection of issues like family values, hard work ethic, and i communism religious freedom all these things as the package that unites latino republicans and that's where he comes up with this idea. the republican party, the democratic party, latino communities themselves were never able to fully square with the appeal to the national category and individual moves is something that over the decades both parties have struggled with. pointing to the moments when
7:40 pm
they are working for one of the campaigns and tried to do that. >> is he is mentioning now but for the reasons you enumerate in the book that there's not a single hispanic entity that kind of coheres across different constituencies that politicians of either party can directly appeal to and there were different issues sometimes they matter say to cuban-american voters and this is to keep it in the most clear-cut categories. we are not talking about colombian or nicaraguan. one question i wondered about and it seems worth asking in relation to late reagan and certainly today. whether you risk by appealing to
7:41 pm
others. i was reading your book at the same time my twitter feed blew up the other day with all sorts of people going crazy over joe biden saying something about venezuela. it was striking to me because my first thought there's a very specific constituency he's playing to their in florida. but of course, that wearing gold with so many other people, other progressive values and priorities. it made me wonder how is a politician particularly a national politician speaking to one constituency without being overheard by other constituencies, and alienating them. and it seems particularly acute with respect to the hispanic americans, hispanic voters. >> that is a great question and i don't know that i have a great
7:42 pm
answer. i would just say i think that there might be a difference between something that upsets someone and alienating them. alienating them in the sense that they are going to decide that's it i'm done with joe biden. i think there are issues and moments over time. i don't know that it actually turns them away from the party. the thing i like to point to is nafta where mexican-american republicans thought it would create more trade opportunities for them but cuban-americans were not excited about it because mexico at the end of the cold war started doing more business with cuba and any country that did business with cuba wasn't good for
7:43 pm
cuban-americans. and puerto rico, puerto rican american companies doing business, there were all kind of tax incentives for them, so they thought they were kind of profits would be eaten into by the north american free trade agreement, so that is an example of an issue that not all latino republicans were on board with. but i don't think it turned them away from the republican party because they have these broad issues like statehood in the case of puerto ricans or which party would take a tougher stance on castro as the things that were motivating them finally. >> that is such a good point we could almost have a separate conversation. i was keen to ask about the programs going back now and it probably doesn't make sense now because we are a little short on time. but the idea of how there is a policy that has kind of implications for sick and americans that are legalized and
7:44 pm
implications for the undocumented that kind of even within an individual constituency like mexican-americans in the u.s. it called so many different ways so kind of threading the needle is so difficult. one slot i have because i want to open this up to questions but before we do, before this becomes thoroughly democratic, i thought one way of getting through the most recent year, certainly the late '80s and kind of 90s to early 2000's is to be more programmatic rather than tearing into specific politicians or people. so, one question i have for you is -- and it seems especially relevant now -- is and this is with regards to republicans, is there ever a tipping point where anti-immigrant rhetoric and
7:45 pm
policy ends up dooming the republican appeal to the hispanic voters? if nixon were the high point in 72 for how the republicans could deal with hispanic voters, bob dole in 96 had in many ways a sort of idea what that would look like and one of the explanations among many others and bob dole is in the world's most charismatic campaigner, but there were of course a raft of policies the voters associated not with clinton who signed them into law but the republican congress who was anti-immigrant heavy enforcement that we live with to this day and welfare
7:46 pm
reform. that you suggest hurt republicans in the eyes of hispanic voters. it made me wonder and that is on the heels of california and kind of how immigration is part of the cultural war and english onlenglish-only ordinances in different states. is there a way of understanding the tipping point if they cross the line like okay all the bets are off. >> apparently not. we are still waiting for it. the period from the '90s forward becomes the most difficult to explain because you have to explain the support for the republican party despite the turn on immigration and border control. the '90s is the moment in addition to what you mentioned with pat buchanan having a serious primary challenge to george hw bush and floating the idea of the border wall
7:47 pm
construction. i think what happens is even if from the '90s forward, hispanic republicans are at greater pains to explain continued support for the republican party, that's when they start pointing to others as being even more important to immigration like jobs, healthcare, education. it's always been the case of course that latinos were not a single issue voters and they always cared about issues beyond immigration but it's from the '90s forward when they had to really stress the importance of other issues like jobs, education, health care as a way of justifying their continued support. the other thing i try to wrestle with and i don't know how successfully i do this, but it's important somehow is the creation over a long period of time the partisan loyalty. it's just the fact that by the 1990s many hispanic republicans had been voting for
7:48 pm
republican candidates for decades and they don't switch in the same no americans which is easily these days. they developed a pattern. so for example, to bring it up to today, even though the coronavirus was devastating for the latina small business owners and they had 85% of the small businesses to apply for federal government support during the coronavirus, they still believed the republican party party, even trump's republican party will represent their economic interest better than joe biden. so they still identify as republicans and i just don't see, not yet at least, the two things as historians i can make some statements about what i expect over the past 50 years and that's why to me it isn't a surprise trump has a significant level of support today, but the
7:49 pm
other thing you learn is just because things were a certain way the past 50 years doesn't mean they are destined to be that way the next 50 years so there could be a tipping point where things change and it's always seemed to me this seems like a moment that is ripe for change because it is tumultuous for everyone including latino republicans, but it's kind of amazing to see the durability of this identity even in these very kind of turbulent times. >> it is such a good point and in many ways, that to me is one of the striking things reading the book now is essentially you've documented all the work that's been put in on the republican side over the course of decades and it explains the persistence of some of these forms of loyalty even in the
7:50 pm
face of wildly jarring examples for the iteration of the republican party is directly hostile to the needs and interests of these very constituencies and as you said, leaving aside the emigration stuff, which you know, obviously always plays out in complex ways in the communities and there is a sort of one to one correspondence between how frankly they would respond to a president on the border they don't map out clearly. i always wondered for instance i was in south florida last year and a sort o sort of tried to oe impact of how state republican officials were trying to get different constituencies in line and at the time in the summer of 2019, there was concern trump overplayed his hand with venezuela and gave up on the game.
7:51 pm
it was his commitment to the issue was rhetorical and tried to promise everything but didn't deliver on any of it. and yet here we are a year later and the most over-the-top form of that political posturing and branding any kind of socialist seems to be what stock. you look at the polling now and that seems to be one of the issues that explains why biden is catching more in south florida for instance. >> that was one of my favorite points of the article and reminded me what happened at the end of the reagan administration were all of these cuban-americans that voted like 85, 90%. by the end of the second term they are kind of expressing their disappointment like you talk to big game but haven't removed fidel castro. he's still there. i guess all i can think of as an explanation is just again, you
7:52 pm
have two options. biden and trump. even if republicans are not fully satisfied with the biden option or trump option, they can never imagine at this point voting for a democrat. voting for trump or not voting. i spoke with the few that would politicize and vote for democrats because i think by this point there is a 50 year an ingraineand grained tradition on particular issues like socialism or the left or free enterprise and school choice, any number of things that just at a gut level hispanic republicans are going to identify with and always think the republican party is going to handle those issues better than democrats. >> i started to wonder at a certain point of the smartest strategy on the messaging level would be to liken trump to
7:53 pm
describe them, and particularly with his refusal to acknowledge a peaceful transfer of power if he should lose and the way he's marshaled the military to kind of support him on the streets, you know, all of these things, the denial of the coronavirus. quite honestly, it isn't hard to figure out what is a daniel ortega quote and watch is a donald trump quote. and yet like you say i wonder if there's even may be diminishing returns at a certain point in pushing the line because the narrative has been set. we talk about polarization being stifling, but you combine that rigidity at the polarization with the entrenchment of certain partisan voter preferences in the constituency and place like south florida it's hard to chip away at it. >> but i do feel like in some
7:54 pm
ways when they have an ad that plays of joe biden next to che guevara. at some point it doesn't make sense and i was thinking about this yesterday or two days ago when trump had the brigade 2506, it sounds like they are really still going for it but at some point it's the connection between the radical left in figures like joe biden. it's just not going to resonate anymore. >> right. i could talk to you for hours. >> i have been greedy keeping it to myself.
7:55 pm
>> [inaudible] >> i was just going to start their. here is rachel's question can we get the real, and you and i were talking about this a little bit before. 1975 or 1976 it isn't all that different than joe biden on the microphone. it's like a cultural unawareness and insensitivity that demonstrates a lack of knowledge about a particular community and this idea that politicians
7:56 pm
regardless of which party they represent, that you only come looking for a vote right after the convention, during hispanic heritage month. i think many take offense to that and the same is true whether you are a democrat or republican so i do believe the idea that you have to, all politicians, all americans, this is why i wanted to bring up the point of maine and iowa. i would love to hear joe biden and donald trump talking in wisconsin not about dairy farmers. you would think the whole state is just dairy farmers, but it's up to latinos in the states where even you don't think you should be talking to latinos. so doing it and engaging with latinos even when you are not necessarily or explicitly looking for their vote. just get to know who we are and what our history is. that is the key to doing it and then misstep to demonstrate some
7:57 pm
cultural and sensitivities or lack of awareness. >> that is such a smart point and good thing to end on. to those asking questions i'm sorry. it's such a pleasure to talk to you. holding up the book in total admiration. i've learned so much from this and i hope everyone goes out to read it especially now. >> i appreciate it. thank you and thank you to harvard bookstore. >> please feel free to visit the website. i want to take a moment to thank the wonderful speakers and all of you for joining this afternoon supporting the bookstore in general. we sincerely appreciate your support now and always. please make sure to check out the link in the chat or website. thanks for your time and support and spending part of your afternoon with us. have a great day, everyone. stay


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on