{"id":50,"date":"2018-07-23T00:00:50","date_gmt":"2018-07-23T00:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/?post_type=podcast&p=50"},"modified":"2021-02-08T16:56:41","modified_gmt":"2021-02-08T16:56:41","slug":"06-what-are-we-getting-wrong-about-latino-politics","status":"publish","type":"podcast","link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/podcast\/06-what-are-we-getting-wrong-about-latino-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"06: What are we getting wrong about Latino politics?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Recently television pundit Tucker Carlson suggested that the influx of Latinos into the U.S. is an attempt on the part of the Mexican government to influence American elections. This view of the rise of Latino politics may represent a fringe view, but it also represents many of our blind spots in relation to understanding Latino Politics. In this episode, I speak with Prof. Matt Barreto who discusses his Latino Decisions polling firm and how his work on Latino politics has illuminated the intricacies of the Latino political experience and helped advance how political scientists understand political behavior.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Recently television pundit Tucker Carlson suggested that the influx of Latinos into the U.S. is an attempt on the part of the Mexican government to influence American elections. This view of the rise of Latino politics may represent a fringe view, but it also represents many of our blind spots in relation to understanding Latino […]","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","episode_type":"audio","audio_file":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2018\/07\/American-Ingredient-Ep-6-Matt-Barreto-Final.mp3","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"50.71M","filesize_raw":"53178368","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":""},"tags":[46,44,43,47,45,49,48,9],"categories":[],"series":[2],"class_list":{"0":"post-50","1":"podcast","2":"type-podcast","3":"status-publish","5":"tag-barreto","6":"tag-immigrants","7":"tag-latino","8":"tag-latino-decisions","9":"tag-matt","10":"tag-mexican","11":"tag-mexico","12":"tag-politics","13":"series-american-ingredient","14":"entry"},"acf":{"related_episodes":"","hosts":[{"ID":650,"post_author":"38","post_date":"2021-02-08 16:24:20","post_date_gmt":"2021-02-08 16:24:20","post_content":"\n

Professor McDaniel specializes in American politics. His research areas include religion and politics, Black politics, and organizational behavior. His work targets how and why Black religious institutions choose to become involved in political matters. In addition, his work targets the role of religious institutions in shaping Black political behavior.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Eric McDaniel","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"eric-mcdaniel","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2021-02-08 16:24:21","post_modified_gmt":"2021-02-08 16:24:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/?post_type=speaker&p=650","menu_order":0,"post_type":"speaker","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"guests":[{"ID":592,"post_author":"38","post_date":"2020-06-23 17:38:16","post_date_gmt":"2020-06-23 17:38:16","post_content":"\n

Matt A. Barreto is Professor of Political Science and Chicana\/o Studies at UCLA and the co-founder of the research and polling firm Latino Decisions. Time Magazine called Latino Decisions the \u201cgold-standard in Latino American polling\u201d and The Guardian wrote that Latino Decisions is \"the leading Latino political opinion research group\" in the United States. Barreto\u2019s research was recognized in the 30 Latinos key to the 2012 election by Politic365, listed in the Top 100 Global Thinkers of 2012 by the European Politics Magazine LSDP, and was named one of the top 15 leading Latino pundits by Huffington Post which said Barreto was \u201cthe pollster that has his finger on the pulse of the Latino electorate.\u201d In 2015, Barreto was hired by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign to direct polling and focus group research for Latino voters. In the 2016 cycle Barreto also directed Latino outreach research for the U.S. Senate campaigns of Catherine Cortez-Masto (NV) and Michael Bennet (CO).

In 2018 Latino Decisions was one of the earliest consulting firms hired by the DCCC as part of their year-of-engagement plan which conducted extensive research and messaging strategy to understand the best ways to communicate and engage with Latino voters across dozens of competitive battleground districts. In a 2018 post-election article, the New York Times wrote \u201cthe polling company Latino Decisions conducted nationwide focus groups to better identify the needs of Latino voters and to tailor a proper message.\u201d And NBC News added \u201cFor the election, several Democratic political fundraising committees commissioned the polling firm Latino Decisions to conduct polling and focus groups and try out some messaging of Latinos. According to DCCC chair Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, \u201cLatinos showed up to the polls because we talked to them, we listened to them, our candidates connected with their personal stories, we knocked on their doors we reached out online.\u201d

Barreto also directed research for groups such as Priorities USA, House Majority PAC, and CHC BOLD PAC in 2018 to understand Latinos views in the midterm, challenges and opportunities to mobilizing the Latino vote and message testing.
<\/td><\/tr>
In 2010 Barreto implemented the first-ever weekly tracking poll of Latino voters during the 2010 election, which LD continued in 2012. Working closely with Gary Segura, he has also overseen large multi-state election eve polls, battleground tracking polls, extensive message testing research, and countless focus groups. He has been invited to brief the U.S. Senate, the White House, Congressional Committees, and has been a keynote speaker at many of the major Hispanic association conferences including NALEO, LULAC, CHCI, NCLR, and others.

He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Irvine<\/a> in 2005, and had been on the faculty at the University of Washington for 10 years before joining UCLA in 2015.


His research examines the political participation of racial and ethnic minorities in the United States and his work has been published in the American Political Science Review, Political Research Quarterly, Social Science Quarterly, Public Opinion Quarterly,<\/em> among many other peer reviewed journals. He has published 57 academic articles and book chapters on the topics of race, ethnicity and politics and his work has received over 2,250 citations according to Google Scholar<\/a>

He is the author of the book, Ethnic Cues: The role of shared ethnicity in Latino political behavior published by the University of Michigan Press in 2010. In 2013 Barreto co-authored a book with Christopher Parker<\/a>, Change They Can't Believe In: the Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America, with Princeton University Press, which was awarded the American Political Science Association Best Book Ward for Race, Ethnicity Politics in 2014.

In 2014 he co-authored the book Latino America: How America's Most Dynamic Population is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation with Gary Segura<\/a>, which was featured on MSNBC's Morning Joe<\/a> and NPR's The Brian Lehrer Show in 2014<\/a>.In addition to his research on Latino voting patterns, Prof. Barreto has conducted extensive research on voting rights, and has been an expert witness in numerous Voting Rights Act lawsuits. In 2012, he was qualified as an expert witness in Rodriguez v. Harris County<\/em>, a Section 2 voting rights lawsuit regarding County Commission redistricting, where he provided a report and testimony on vote dilution and racially polarized voting with respect to Latino candidates and he has testified many times in court about racially polarized voting in a variety of cases. He also served as an expert witness in the 2012 Pennsylvania voter identification lawsuit Applewhite v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania<\/em>, where his research with Prof. Gabriel Sanchez<\/a> proved crucial to the voter ID law being blocked. Barreto and Sanchez also provided an expert report in a lawsuit challenging the impact of the Wisconsin voter ID law on minority voters, and in 2012 the Wisconsin law was also put on hold. In 2014 Barreto and Sanchez teamed up<\/a> again to provide an expert report and testify in Veasey v. Perry<\/em> in a challenge to the Texas voter ID law, and a Federal Court struck down the Texas ID law as unconstitutional, in part basing her decision on the evidence presented by Barreto and Sanchez. Most recently, they implemented research and an expert report challenging the voter ID law in North Dakota finding the law would prevent thousands of Native Americans from casting a ballot. A Federal Court blocked the North Dakota ID law. In 2011, Prof. Barreto was retained as the lead expert consultant for the State of California\u2019s Citizen Redistricting Commission, and was specifically asked to advise the Commission on Section 2 and Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act and conduct research on polarized voting and vote dilution. He continues to actively research voting rights in California in Latino, Asian American and immigrant communities

.Prof. Barreto research focuses on minority and immigrant voting behavior, and teaches courses in the departments of Political Science and Chicana\/o Stuides on Racial and Ethnic Politics, Latino Politics, Immigration Politics, the Voting Rights Act, Elections, Research Methods, and American Politics. Part of his research agenda also includes public opinion and election surveys, including exit polling methodology and pre-election polls. In addition to his work on the Hispanic\/Latino population, Barreto partnered with Prof. Karam Dana<\/a> to implement a large national survey of Muslim Americans<\/a>, and are studying the influence of religiosity on political incorporation of American Muslims.

Prof. Barreto has been an active member of the Politics of Race, Immigration and Ethnicity Consortium<\/a> hosted by UC Riverside, and an affiliated research scholar with the Center for the Study of Los Angeles (www.lmu.edu\/csla<\/a>). In 2008, Barreto was a co-principal investigator (with Gary Segura<\/a>) of the American National Election Study Latino oversample, which included the first ever Spanish language translation of the ANES and the first ever oversample of Latino voters. In 2009, he was appointed to the ANES Board of Overseers<\/a>.

Matt is married to Julie Straub-Barreto and has two children, Daniel<\/a> and Clara<\/a>.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","post_title":"Matt A. Barreto","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"matt-a-barreto","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2021-01-13 16:01:42","post_modified_gmt":"2021-01-13 16:01:42","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/?post_type=speaker&p=592","menu_order":0,"post_type":"speaker","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"transcript":"

Welcome to The American Ingredient, a podcast that examines grace in American society from
\n\ue5d4
\nan academic perspective, focusing on the work from social scientists and legal scholars. The
\nAmerican regent demonstrates that race is not the only ingredient in making America. But in order
\nto make America, you need to. Heaping spoonfuls for
\nthe discussion of race within the US has primarily been painted as black and white.
\nAnd in this discussion, many groups have been forgotten about, such as Native Americans. Asian-Americans,
\nas well as Latino Americans, in particular, Latino Americans. Because they’ve been out
\nin the West. They have many ways been treated as a forgotten group,
\nbut they’re now gaining more attention. Furthermore, Latino Americans have been treated as immigrants.
\nHowever, as we look at American history, many of them did not cross the border. The border
\ncrossed them. And so they begin with in the U.S. for centuries,
\nbut are still treated as newcomers with the rising concerns about immigration.
\nThere are rising concerns about Latino politics, and political scientists attempted to
\ntry to understand Latino politics better. But even it has failed to some degree.
\nLook at the polls and the way in which the political pundits talked about Latino vote. There are many
\nwho argue that this misunderstanding of the Latino experience has led to a variety
\nof misconceptions about their wants and needs, their level of political participation,
\nas well as what the immigrant experience is really like in the US amongst Latinos.
\nIn this episode, I interview Professor Matthew Baretto of the Universe of California, Los Angeles’s
\npolitical science department. Many of you may remember Professor Baretto named for my interview with Professor Christopher
\nParker of University of Washington. They are the coauthors of Change. We can’t believe in a book
\nthat dictates the rise of the Tea Party. And also they’re currently examining the rise
\nof Donald J. Trump to the presidency. Today, we’ll be talking about his work on Latino
\nDecisions, a polling firm that he began with. Professor Gary Segura, who is currently
\nthe dean of UCLA, is Public Policy School. The purpose of Latino Decisions is
\nto improve upon our knowledge of Latino public opinion. And
\nin doing so, they hope to give nuanced the Latino experience and dispel
\nmany of the myths we have regarding the Latino experience and Latino life.
\nWe begin the interview with Professor Baretto, discussing the impetus behind Latino Decisions.
\nSo Gary and I started this about 10 years ago now we were
\ninvolved in a consulting project when we were both professors at the University of Washington,
\nand some folks reached out to us and said, hey, could you jump onto this project and give us some advice
\non this questionnaire? And they had hired a fairly reputable
\nnational well-known D.C. pollster to do some polling of
\nLatinos. So Gary and I joined along with some other folks as consultants, and
\nwe were just blown away with the lack of cultural sensitivity,
\nawareness and even some violations of basic social science norms that you and I would just
\nlaugh at if we saw it presented at a political science conference and we thought this is what is passing is very
\nhigh and reputable D.C. polling of our community. And so
\nwe did the project. We learned a lot actually doing the project, but we came away from it thinking
\nthere’s a real need and a desire to try to get it right when it comes to the Latino community,
\nto try to getting the polling numbers right, to try to get questions worded from a culturally appropriate way.
\nAnd so that’s where we started. We started in the 2008 cycle trying to work with Latino
\nadvocacy groups who we knew would be receptive and want to work with Latino social
\nscience scholars on these projects. And so we did that. We did our first couple
\nof polls. I remember in late 2007 heading into the 2008 presidential
\nelection and really started going in that 2008 presidential election, just trying
\nto get accurate data from the Latino community on the radar
\nof people who were involved in this sort of larger political consulting and just media
\ninformation, newsgathering, so that they could tell the story. Right, of what Latinos wanted to see
\nwhen it came to politics. That’s really where it started. And from there, we’ve just increased star
\nnumber of projects each year. So this is a large polling effort. Were
\nthere any hiccups you had along the way or I guess what does it do to convince larger
\ncommunities to go along with you and kind of move away from these other firms that had
\ntaken up a certain level, the market share? Yeah. I mean, that’s the hardest part was try to breaking through. So
\nGary and I both had tenure at the time as political science professors. And so
\nwe thought we knew what we were doing and at least our community had validated us in terms of our
\nresearch. But when you try to get into the D.C. polling world or political consulting role is totally
\nseparate, you know, they looked at us like a couple of dumb political science professors who didn’t know the first thing about
\nthe real world. And so it was hard. We had to go and give a lot of presentations.
\nWe had to meet a lot of new folks. We had to go to their conferences, their conventions,
\nbig on panels and try to demonstrate our expertise to show that we really did understand
\npublic opinion and voting patterns in the Latino community. We had to demonstrate
\nthat we could turn projects around, you know, in two weeks and not take two years to get something
\npublished. And so we did that. And that’s why we turned to at the beginning, a lot of Latino advocacy
\ngroups that we had previous relationships with or who had trusted us. So we were doing
\nprojects for now, LEO, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
\nWe were doing projects for the National Council of La Raza, which is now called Needles US.
\nAnd we were doing projects for those sorts of organizations that maybe had already
\nheard of us, had trusted us, knew that we had a good reputation in the academic space.
\nAnd when they then went onto the national stage to present their findings, they
\ncould bring us along and say, hey, these are our pollsters. These are the guys collecting the data. And from there, we just slowly
\nwould get one more project. One more project. But it took a very long time and was very, very difficult
\nin the first few years. I mean, we probably worked two or three or four or so years before we
\nreally had a large number of projects happening on a regular basis. And we would just take
\nthe projects we could get and then try to promote the results. What were some of the biggest mistakes
\nor bad assumptions that these pollsters had in terms of studying the Latino population
\nthat you had to say right off the bat? The first was that Spanish speakers are not voters. And so there
\nwas this general sense that, yes, what you see on Telemundo have big
\nratings that have a lot of followers, but that’s where the nonvoters are and that the voters are only
\nover here in the English speaking community. And you can just message them in the same way that you would message anyone
\nelse. And so the first thing we had to do was demonstrate right off the bat that, no, there is a huge number
\nof immigrants who are naturalized citizens and voting. And we’re not just
\nseeing that in Miami or Los Angeles, but across the country.
\nImmigrants were driving really the growth of the Latino electorate in.
\nThe late 1990s and early 2000s, and so those folks were coming in and you needed
\nto reach people not only when you implemented the pull, you needed to have bilingual
\ncallers up, but then when you did your political outreach, you needed to have a message in Spanish. That was probably
\nthe first thing. And it still amazes me. But you will still see polls there
\nin your state of Texas where they’re doing a lot of polling over the Senate election. You’ll still see polls that
\nare conducted 100 percent in English today in 2018 in the state of Texas.
\nIn fact, it’s probably a majority of them that are conducted that way. And so we come in and
\nsay, listen, there are huge number of communities that are not English dominant. It may
\nnot be their first language. They’re more comfortable in Spanish. They are watching Spanish language TV. Spanish language
\nradio. And their Facebook feed is in Spanish. Let’s reach out to them in
\nthe language that they’re the most comfortable as I think that was really the first thing that we had to help people
\nover common understand. And you have seen that in a lot of places with really the strong
\nvoter participation rates by immigrant communities will continue to try to make that point clear
\nas we do our research and outreach that you don’t want to take those for granted. And then the second I would say is
\nthat when you get to the English speaking community, there’s some similarities here with the African-American community. That
\nis, the English speaking Latino community is identifying for the most part as Latino
\nand does not always resonate with these same ads, these same outreach
\nmessages that are often geared towards a more middle upper class
\nsuburban swing voters. And so what we’ve been trying to inform folks is that when you go
\nto even the English speaking community, don’t just assume that your messages are working. Try to
\nfind ways to understand those folks. They may be the children of immigrants. They may still resonate to the immigrant
\nissue because of their parents. But you you need to reach them in English, but do so from
\na culturally appropriate lens. And so we’ve been pushing those two messages out pretty much consistently,
\nI think, from the start. And as I said, there’s still a need to do that in 2018. Well, you
\ndo have a lot of work in Latino politics. You are a political scientist. First, as you know, you think
\nof the work don’t behavior work. You’ve done what political institutions and the fact that you’re a pollster.
\nAnd one of the things that I think is really interesting about your work
\nis that it seems to give us something that was missing. And
\nI think of you as a political scientist who uses Latinos as a subject to study. But you’re political
\nscientist first. And so given what you’ve studied, what is
\nthe importance or why is it important that we understand the complexity of Latino social and political life?
\nWhat can that help us to understand broader issues in America as well as
\nbroader issues dealing with American politics? Yeah, no, that’s great. I mean, I think you phrased that exactly right,
\nErick. That is that, you know, we’re interested in these communities maybe because this is where we
\ngrew up. But we don’t see it as a niche or a subfield. We just see that as part of American politics,
\nthat is, we’re trying to understand what is happening in these communities, why people are motivated, why they
\nare not just from the same lands that anyone studying the political institutions
\nand processes in America. And so for me, I think what that is, is that when I was
\ncoming out of graduate school and working on my dissertation, there was an overwhelming consensus
\nthat Latinos were bad voters, that they were less engaged, that they were more focused on Latin America,
\nthat they weren’t really that committed to the civic institutions in America. And
\nI didn’t always see that in the communities where I was. I saw more engaged communities when
\nwe had candidates and issues that resonated. And so I started, you know, tackling
\nfrom the start these age old questions of voter participation rates, public opinion,
\nsupport for the different political parties in America. The same questions that had been
\ntop questions being analyzed in American politics for decades. And I was just doing that,
\ntoo, from the perspective Latinos. And I think what that tells us then about America overall
\nis some of the same findings we have resonate with Latinos. That is when you do outreach, when you have candidates
\nthat that resonate with communities, when they conduct get out the vote drives,
\nwhen they do voter mobilization, when they talk about issues, you see the same things. And so we’ve documented
\nplaces and instances where Latinos have voted at higher rates than whites, where immigrants,
\nnaturalized citizens have voted at higher rates than u.s.-born whites. And what we’re
\nfinding is that Latinos are voters and Americans just like anyone else. And
\nI feel like it was similar to some of the early African-American politics research where
\nthere were findings of in-group identity that were propelling and there were
\nin-group institutions that were propelling sense of civic engagement. And we wanted to demonstrate
\nthat that that was happening in the Latino community when it was when it wasn’t. Why wasn’t it?
\nWhy was there that lack? So I think it’s. Volumes to how our institutions
\nengage and mobilize our communities, whether you’re talking about Latinos, African-Americans.
\nMaybe that you could relate this to American Muslims, a growing group. It’s getting a lot of
\nattention. Or other groups. LGBT groups or other groups. How do groups
\nin our diverse and pluralistic society. How do groups get engaged
\nwhen the different groups feel like they are a valuable member of society that has
\nequal footing? And those are some of the questions I’ve been grappling with from a research perspective
\nthat I think will continue regardless of what groups we’re talking about in America. Those are the questions you should be asking
\ntoday in American politics. Is there any particular politically then that
\nwe were not prepared for because we did not spend more time looking at
\nLatino public opinion? ML Yes, definitely. I mean, that’s a great question. I think that
\nthere’s been a long line of those over the years, not just with Latinos, but African-Americans
\nand other groups as well, you know. But for sure, I think the first thing that comes to mind, at least in
\ncontemporary events, is the 2006 immigration marches and
\nthe aftermath of what happened there. And those, you know, were the largest
\nattended. A series of political protest marches in the nation’s history is estimated to
\nbe between 5 and 7 million participants in those from March through
\nJuly of 2006 across America. And people were not necessarily
\nready for those. They saw these undocumented immigrants as being marginalized,
\nas being voiceless and not being able to vote or really even petition their elected members of Congress.
\nAnd so they were on the sidelines. That was what political science theory would suggest.
\nBut instead, what we found was that they were very well integrated into society, into civic institutions,
\nand they had political voice and they recognized how these series of laws
\nthat the U.S. Congress was considering were going to deeply affect them. And it wasn’t just
\nundocumented immigrants who participated, but many naturalized citizens, immigrants who
\nhad become U.S. citizens. And then the children and the grandchildren, the second and third generations,
\nthose born in the United States who had that connection. And so
\nthe political science, traditional theory didn’t see that interconnectedness as it ranged from undocumented
\ncommunities to the children the U.S. born. They didn’t see the connections to the naturalized
\ncitizens. And so we had these huge protest marches that led to some increases in
\nvoter registration, political voice, but really political organizing. We can really trace the rise
\nof the DREAM Act movement and the dreamers to those sort of
\nlarger rallies that were taking place in 2006. Many of those who became leaders
\nin the dream movement were teenagers or even junior high kids and participated
\nin some of those 2006 rallies. And then they continued to sort of really push and promote. So, you
\nknow, that was something that I think our traditional theories one of understood well. And now we have a much better
\nunderstanding for how marginalized groups can influence outcomes,
\nhow they gain political power and representation. And so it’s important to continue
\nlooking at those. I think we have some lessons today. We can extend those same things and lessons today to
\nprotest against the Muslim ban that we saw at the start of the Trump administration or the protests that
\nwe’ve seen recently in Texas over the family separations that were happening. And
\nall of the members of Congress think about all the members of Congress on the Democratic side who are now saying, hey, I
\nwant to go tour these facilities. That was all brought about from immigrant
\nactivism from these folks who, you know, people are acting on behalf of their
\nbrothers and sisters who are being locked up and detained for seeking asylum
\nand refugee status. And that’s something that’s hard to see. It’s hard to see how a voiceless or
\na powerless community might have that amount of activism in them. So it’s important to continue to look
\nat those, I think of, you know, just in terms of recommended reading. Chris Apaid, Milan’s book
\nthat’s just come out on this topic and really looking at the history of the 2006 marches
\nand forward really is required and saying, let’s go look at these voiceless,
\nunder-researched, understudied communities and see how they can have an impact. One
\nof things that you pointed out is there’s always been this juxtaposition between those who are naturalized
\ncitizens and those who are newly immigrated, whether it be documented or undocumented.
\nIs there a distinctiveness in their attitudes? So is there one a level
\nof group consciousness that crosses this, I guess, born a U.S. versus
\nnaturalized or immigrant divide? But on top of it, are there also differences in terms
\nof what they would like out of the U.S. or kind of their social political demands?
\nYeah, definitely there’s large distinctions within the Latino community. One of the
\nmistakes I think that people make a lot of times is in painting a broad brush
\nacross the Latino community. And that’s easy to do when we see activism and when we
\nsee mobilization around issues where people care about. But and
\nwe’re seeing that right now on the immigration issue. We are seeing unity on that issue.
\nHowever, there is a lot of diversity within the Latino community at the same time. And,
\nyou know, there are differences that people are looking towards, policy issues towards,
\nyou know, just everyday basic sorts of needs towards, you know,
\nattitudes, even towards the treatment and incorporation of immigrants. This was something that really
\nuntil the 0 6 rallies, until we had seen that sort of level of antagonism
\ntowards immigrants, we were seeing differences. So we constantly want to be looking at issues of
\nyears in the US. How many years have you or your family been in the U.S.? What generation are you? Were you
\nborn here or your parents born here? Were your grandparents born here? And then, of course, class
\nis a considerable important variable in understanding and Latino acculturation and really
\nbeing able to distinguish between immigrants and subsequent generations who
\nhave integrated very effectively and moved up the chain. These are variables
\nthat are very important in being able to distinguish what happened was really
\ngoing back to the \u0449\u043e\u0431 rallies in California, going back to the Pete Wilson years,
\nPete Wilson Professor Broder was referring to is former governor of California, Pete Wilson,
\nwho served as governor from 1991 to 1999 when Governor Wilson took over the state
\nof California, was in the midst of an economic downturn and had a budget shortfall. Governor
\nWilson took part in a variety of activity to try to shore up the state economically, including raising taxes,
\nas well as changing welfare benefits and itsome to provide fewer resources to
\nmake sure that the state was able to meet its budget concerns. He also developed a tough
\non crime policy as a way to shore up certain aspects of the state,
\nbut in particular to Latino politics. He was a supporter of Proposition 187,
\nwhich was a 1994 ballot initiative which restricted illegal immigrants from access to
\nstate services such as health and education. While Governor Wilson and supporters of Prop
\nwere using up a great deal of state resources while not paying taxes. Many studies
\nhave found that the strong support for this is really based upon immigrant animus and racial animus
\nin regards to this. And so many people have put the economic argument into question. Furthermore,
\nthis policy ignited the Latino population throughout the state and has actually
\nharmed Republican Party in the state of California for many years, with Arnold
\nSchwarzenegger being the only Republican to win the governor’s seat since now.
\nOne thing about Prop 187 is that it does have a strong legacy because several states adopted this
\npolicy shortly after California did. And so while Prop 187 may
\nbe seen as very unpopular, many states such as Texas also adopt
\nsimilar policies to restrict the access of undocumented immigrants to certain government
\nservices. Daunia going back to the Pete Wilson years 1994, Proposition 187.
\nWhen these new waves of attacks against immigrants and Latinos in general
\nunfolded that were, of course, seen extended today, it started to create
\nmore unity. And we draw a lot of lessons from the sort of idea
\nof linked fate and group consciousness in the African-American community. That is, we know there’s incredible
\ndiversity across ideological and class lines within the African-American
\ncommunity. But sometimes it becomes difficult to escape that. When your community feels under attack
\nand you look and you see allies that have your same last name and you’re same
\nan immigrant experience and your same skin color. And that unity becomes stronger. So
\nI think we’re in one of those moments, you know, so it’s sort of an answer of yes. There’s incredible diversity and we do
\nsee those distinctions. But in the Latino community today, when you have such strong language
\nin such strong policies coming out of the White House, it tends to breed more unity.
\nAnd so to the extent that there is that diversity and differences, where at least in a moment
\nright now politically, what we’re seeing, those differences being put aside, even though they do exist, because
\npeople are very upset and they see that they have more in common with one another and
\nthey want to stand up for other immigrants rather than try to distance themselves. So it’s
\nreally a. Fascinating. I welcome more people to study this. When will that go away? When will we see
\nU.S. born Latinos moving away from the immigrant experience and distancing themselves?
\nThe threat and the attacks that people are facing. We think is continuing to drive that
\nthat sort of solidarity that’s happening right now. To what degree has Hispanic are being Latino
\nbecome racialized as opposed to being an ethnicity where we think of racial categories as permanent,
\nhanded down or birth, whereas an ethnicity is much more fluid? Do you
\nthink this threat has led to so such as in the case of blacks, a racialized
\nidentity to where the reactions of Boothby, the government or outside
\nforces have clearly forced groups of individuals who may not necessarily be the same
\nto see themselves as the same, at least within the U.S. context. I think we’re moving
\nin that direction, that’s what’s really fascinating for us scholars to study
\nis who feels that strength of identity, who feels that racialization and who doesn’t?
\nSo the difference, I think, is that within the African-American community, it’s almost impossible
\nto not feel that racialized threat. There are certainly some people who don’t feel as strong, but
\nat some point there are national events that happen and people are reminded about
\nthat. And we’re starting to approach that level of hostility, I think, within
\nthe Latino experience. And when immigrants, regardless
\nof their citizenship status, when people who speak Spanish, regardless
\nof whether they were born in the United States or not, are racialized and called the
\nnames, when new policies are put against them as a result of
\ntheir ethnicity, then you are racializing that. And we’re seeing that come up in focus groups,
\nsurvey research. More and more people are calling this out and saying, you know, there’s racism against Latinos.
\nPeople are saying this open ended when we ask them what’s happening in the country today. And
\nso I think as that happens, the Latino community, as I was saying earlier, they sort of hunker
\ndown a little bit. You see more in common with your group members if you perceive
\nthat, but not everyone perceives it. And that’s one of the most interesting things to try to unpack, is there are
\nsome who say, yes, I am Hispanic, I’m fourth generation or third generation, but
\nI don’t feel that connection. You know, when they’re talking about immigrants, they’re not talking about me.
\nWhat we usually find are those folks are folks who are higher in class status,
\nperhaps from multiple generations. Their parents had a college degree. They have a college degree. They’ve moved outside
\nof enclaves. But that switch can turn back on in a moment because
\nthe racialization of Latinos today doesn’t have any sort of bounds. So if you’re with
\na group of friends and speaking in Spanish or if you’re just watching the news and you hear
\nthe language that is being used to discuss immigrants, suddenly something goes off
\nin your head and you say, hey, wait a minute, they’re talking about my grandparents or it’s talking about everyone who speaks Spanish.
\nSo we’re seeing more people, even those who were distant. We’re seeing more people feel those
\nattacks. And I do think that’s increasing the racialization against Latinos and that is increasing
\nthis group identity right now. And again, the question is, how long will that last? Do we see that going on? But there’s
\nno question that it’s at play and it is increasing and it’s going to be increasing at least through the 2020
\nelection cycle. We can we can bet on that. And then it will be unclear, you know, will
\nthe country change? Will the Republican Party open up and try to incorporate
\nLatinos and welcome Latinos in a way that they previously
\nwere able to do with other immigrant communities, Italians, Irish, German,
\nother immigrant groups who could find a place in the Republican Party and not be called
\nnames for being immigrants? If that happens, you might be able to roll
\nback some of that racialization, but that rollback will take a very long time.
\nAnd sadly, we don’t see any signs of that. We only see signs of it increasing every time is Eric. Every day we turn on
\nthe TV, there’s a new policy from the White House or a quote saying that we’re
\ninvading this country, that we’re destroying this country, we’re infesting this country. And it’s really
\nthe sort of language we haven’t seen publicly since Jim Crow era.
\nAnd, you know, it’s really sad. And I think that’s what’s what’s driving politics right now in her community.
\nSo I’m thinking about your work overall, and I realize that it does have a very clear
\nsubstance purpose where you are informing the public and the media and others about what is the Latino
\nexperience. But Putin’s back, I guess, to the academic perspective, what
\nthings in particular have you done to advance political science or what are some of the things that you’ve done
\nto correct or advance the way political scientists think about one Latino
\nbehavior, but the political behavior in general? Well, I guess, you know,
\nI’m not sure if I’m the right one to answer that. You know, you have to look and see what other people are saying and writing
\nabout some of the stuff that I’ve written. But I think the two things that I’ve tried to put my
\nsort of finger on in trying to help understand and, you know, get right is first under
\nwhat conditions do Latino Americans behave and perform politically?
\nLike everyone else, meaning under what conditions do we turn out at high rates? Do we participate in high rates?
\nAnd so documenting those first just a document that they exist and then unpack them and say why?
\nI think it’s been important. And I think people have built on that and said, yes, there are conditions. Hold on, though. We do have
\nevidence of Latinos turning out at high rates and and voting as a bloc
\nand voting in support of issues that are mobilizing. So that’s one. And I’ll continue to work on that as we hear this,
\nyou know, myth of the sleeping giant and of under performance in the Latino community.
\nIt’s not a static. It’s not always a community that underperforms. In fact, there’s lots
\nof evidence of engagement. And then the second, I think, is if you think about
\npolitical attitudes and political behavior more generally, I think of the work that I have been doing with Chris Parker
\nthat we’re continuing as the country is changing, to think about how white Americans
\nare responding to the changing demographics and the changing political
\ninfluence that different groups have and how that is creating this reaction
\nthat we call reactionary conservativism. And what lasting
\neffects that might have. We’re certainly in this moment that we think had been going on
\nreally since the George W. Bush years, but was kept under wraps
\nby a white Christian southern president
\nwho symbolically put any concerns at ease.
\nBut those demographic changes in those political changes were happening and then, of course, was really unleashed
\nand taken over when Obama was elected president. And then and now just continuing further. So
\ndocumenting that, documenting the way that some white Americans have responded
\nto this sort of change in status, this change in political influence and
\nwhat that means for American democracy, not just for public. What does that mean for democracy?
\nYou know, I think it is an important project and one that Chris and I are certainly continuing to work on and
\nwe’ll be working on for quite a while. There’s this idea has been advanced by individuals.
\nThe Central Huntington, along with a number of the Sam Huntington was referring to, is a former theorist
\nin the Department of Government at Harvard University. Huntington is known as a
\nvery strong advocate for Berardi ideas, specifically ideas that support
\nthe importance of Western civilization. One of his latest Lord of the Last Works before
\nhe passed away was a book titled Who Are We, which talked about the American national identity.
\nAnd in particular, Huntington argued that the influx of immigrants, specifically
\nimmigrants from Latin America, was problematic for maintaining American identity.
\nHe argued that because they spoke Spanish, they were geographically located
\nin the primarily in the West, but also had close proximity to home where they could travel back and
\nforth that they would not assimilate. And so because of this, this would change the nation’s identity
\nand in many ways deteriorate the way we understood America. Several studies
\nhave actually found that Huntington’s theory about this was was incorrect. And so while
\nhe theorized that Latinos were not assimilating, the empirical work which tested this found that Latinos
\nwere somewhat in a very quick rate. As Professor Baroda will point out, many of the arguments
\nand fears that Huntington expressed were unfounded and that we’re finding that Latino Americans,
\nAsian-Americans and other immigrant groups are assimilating at a very fast rate, either
\nas fast or faster than we found from European immigrants. Idea
\nhas been advanced by individuals Disenroll Huntington, along with a number of other conservative
\npolitical theorists, that when we think about the American identity, that the influx
\nof immigrants, specifically Latino immigrants, is going to change the national identity.
\nDo you have any evidence to suggest that, one, that they’re not assimilating quickly, that
\nthey are in some ways opposed to norms, things of that nature?
\nI mean, if you look historically, since the large waves of migration and of course,
\ndiscounting and setting aside the populations who were already part of Texas
\nand New Mexico and Arizona and California. But if you look at the sort of more contemporary modern waves of migration,
\npost-World War 2, there is nothing but evidence of incorporation,
\nassimilation and acculturation. All of the evidence points to rapid
\nacculturation in terms of language education class.
\nLatinos into the second generation have the highest rates of military
\nservice of any racial or ethnic community. Homeownership status
\nrises dramatically after controlling for socio economic status. And so all of these other
\nmarkers are there. And we’re seeing that evidence. And that’s why the sort of Huntington. Who
\nare we? Clash of civilizations ideas, you know, is unfounded. What’s
\nhappening is that migration has continued. And so they’re blinded by it because
\nthey see immigrants speaking Spanish and they say, you know, who are these people? They’re refusing to assimilate.
\nIf they go back to those same immigrants 20 years later, they’ll see that almost all of them are speaking English now
\nand their children are all speaking English. Now they’re just looking at a cross section and a snapshot in
\ntime and seeing, you know, these Spanish speakers are here ruining our country.
\nBut of course, they come with all of the same sort of underlying democratic values that already founded
\nAmerica in terms of hard work, in terms of Christian values,
\nin terms of family values. All of these same values
\nare there. And, you know, the immigrant experience is one of, you know, pulling yourself up by the bootstraps
\nand the decision to migrate. From your home country is itself that first
\nsort of decision that the same, you know, Europeans who landed
\non the East Coast and eventually marched their way across this country. Contemporary immigrants
\nare doing that same thing. They’re saying there are better opportunities for us, for our family
\nsomewhere else. So let’s go pursue those. And, you know, dozens of economic
\nstudies have have documented the business creation, the economic
\ningenuity and inventiveness of immigrant communities, including of Mexican
\nand Latino immigrant communities. So I think it’s quite compatible. All of the evidence shows that. The
\nproblem is that people look at these small snapshots in time and they say, hey, wait a minute, there’s a lot of Spanish speakers
\nhere. What’s wrong with you Latinos? And there are a lot of Spanish speakers here. And
\nthe other thing we know today is that that acculturation process is not a one way
\nstreet for Latinos in the way that it might have been centuries ago for German and Italian
\nimmigrants. That is that many Latinos pick up English, assimilate
\na coal train into America, but they also maintain that Latino identity and Spanish
\nspeaking and other Latino customs and cultures. And so we shouldn’t expect that
\nshedding that complete shedding of our identity. We should not expect that that’s not something that America
\ndemands. And so I think if that’s what the Huntington disciples are looking for, they won’t
\nfind that. But that’s wrong to look for. One things that one
\nof our past guests, Travon Logan, talked about was understanding race not as a control
\nwearable, but race as an experience. What has
\npolitical science or the other social science disciplines? What have they missed about the Latino experience?
\nI know a lot of times we’ll control forward in our models or try to account for in some way, but
\nin many ways it seems to be an experience. And so what are some of the key things, what the experience that we’re
\nmissing right now? Well, I think at the top of that list is just the interconnectedness
\nacross migration generations. And this happens in two ways. It happens
\none at the individual level, at the familial level. That is, you might have
\na Latino who’s situated with two immigrant parents and just controlling for
\nLatino in a model. You don’t understand that that person is very close to the immigrant experience
\nbecause their parents were immigrants. They may have even been undocumented and eventually have their status adjusted. And then you
\nhave you could be the grandchildren of immigrants and have those close experiences with your grandparents.
\nAnd those are informative. And so at the familial level, at the individual level,
\nthere are differing degrees of exposure to the immigrant experience. That is very
\nimportant because that influences the way you look at America, as
\nwelcoming, as unwelcoming, the way you look at immigration issues. The second is at the community level that
\nthat immigration experiences interconnected. You may not have that experience in your
\nown family, but you may live in a community or be proximity to a community that has high
\ndensity immigrant populations. And you’re reminded of it and you feel a cultural
\nconnection to it. And you’re reminded of your grandparents or even your great grandparents for older
\ngenerations. And so there is no separate and distinct
\nundocumented community, immigrant community, fifth generation Hispanics who don’t connect.
\nThose are very rare. The average Latino is very interconnected to the immigrant
\nexperience at both the individual level and the community level. And so that’s something that we constantly
\nare trying to look at by looking at someone’s generation, their proximity to the immigrant experience,
\nthese community level variables. So you need to build in not only individual but community level variables. That
\ncontext matters. That church you go to, do you go to a Catholic church where the entire
\nmass is done in Spanish because that’s the church that your parents had always brought you to. And so now
\nthat’s the church that you bring your children to. And I think that’s the most important thing to get right,
\nis that instead of just having these control variables, to really understand that experience
\nof connectedness to the immigration experience is very important in understanding Latinos
\nas a community and as individuals. You might encounter somebody who’s a professional, who’s a doctor,
\na lawyer, an accountant, a consultant, somewhere. Maybe they live in the suburbs or
\nmaybe they live in a central city that’s not heavily Latino now, but they might still have that experience
\nwith them from the previous 30, 40 or 50 years growing up. And we need to understand
\nthat so we can understand why they support these issues, why they view America the way they do.
\nSo worth as you emphasizes the connection to the immigrant experience. Do you believe this continued connection
\nto the immigrant experience is because much like Asian-Americans, Latino Americans are
\ntreated as as a as an other, that they’re really not part of the group. So if you
\nhave a Latino surname that also you are seen as a foreigner,
\nsomebody who momentously doesn’t belong but is not the norm.
\nDo you think that is why this connects to this to the immigrant experience is just
\njust cannot be separated? That’s certainly part of it. I mean, Latinos are continually,
\nyou know, racialized as as un-American and told to go home. I mean, the regular
\nrefrain, when someone gets mad at Latinos, when counter-protesters show up to protest
\nagainst an immigrant rights march, almost always you hear people saying, go home, get out of my country.
\nAnd so that is something that we’re constantly faced with and told. And
\nwe saw this with the two women at the convenience store in Montana less than a month ago
\nwho were just buying snacks at a convenience store and speaking to each other in Spanish. And a Border
\nPatrol agent happened to be there and asked them for their proof of citizenship. And
\nwe saw this infamously with Hawtrey Ramos when he was covering Donald Trump on
\nthe campaign trail and one of the Ramos supporters, after kicking him out of the press coverage,
\nyou know, said, get out of my country. You don’t belong here. And he says, I’m an American citizen. So
\nthat certainly is part of that. And because of that, we want to understand how people relate
\nto that. Now, it’s not the case that everyone has that experience, though, and I don’t think it is as strong
\nwith Latinos as it is for Asian-Americans. There certainly. First of all, just as a
\ndemographic more likely to be foreign born. And secondly, I think stereotyped at a higher rate
\nof being foreign born. But it is continuing and the
\nnational discourse is continuing that today, that other isation or
\nthat that un-American. But that’s the refrain that we’re most commonly faced with, is that
\nyou don’t belong here. This is not your country. This is not your country. And you need to go home to
\nanother place regardless of where you are from, where does where your family’s from, regardless of where you were born.
\nThis is not yours. And when you’re faced with that, it does bring up those those emotions and that
\nconnection to the immigrant experience. So I guess if you could basically take over political science
\nfor a day, what would you tell them? This which we need to focus on. Quit ignoring this.
\nI think the interplay between racial groups is
\nnot getting enough exposure. I think we’re doing a good job. We’re doing
\na better job of understanding the Latino experience, of understanding the black
\nexperience and the Asian-American experience. But I think we need to have
\nmore on the interplay between groups. Why are we seeing blacks and Latinos together
\nprotesting police violence or together protesting immigration officials? Why are
\nsome whites reacting very strongly to black and Latino influence
\nwhile other whites are joining those rallies and are going to the Muslim ban
\nand the immigration rallies? And so I’d like to see more work done on
\nthe interplay and how groups interact with each other and why groups sort of
\nfind themselves in as allies or as opponents. And
\nwhat’s underlying that? And then, you know, if we have the Matawan for a moment, maybe then pushing and saying, how
\ncan we promote more opportunities for cohesion and how can
\nwe remove those opportunities that promote division, I
\nthink would be really fascinating. Some people are working on that. I’d like to see more work done in that area.
\nOne of the things that’s important to remember when we talk about race in America is that it is complex
\nand that the way we understand race dictates the policies
\nwe put forth and that if we simplify the racial experience, we make very
\nbad policies. As Professor Baretto has pointed out, that many of the myths
\nor previously held beliefs had about Latinos in Latino politics have led
\nto really a misinterpretation and a bad understanding of Latinos.
\nAnd this has hurt both parties and in many ways has created bad policy.
\nWhat Professor Baretto hopes to do with Latino Decisions, along with his other work,
\nis to shed light on the experiences of Latino Americans
\nin the hope that this will help us better understand the political process.
\nAgain, he is a political scientist first who uses Latinos as an example, and many
\nof his findings and many of much of the work that he has done is an attempt to
\nexpand our understanding of the political world and by understanding and dispelling
\nthe myths of the Latino experience. Hopefully we can dispel many of the myths and correct
\nour assumptions regarding political behavior in general.
\nThank you for listening to the American ingredient. I’m Eric Daniel, a professor in the Department of Government at the University
\nof Texas. I would like to think Michael heidenreich and Jacob Weiss, their assistance, along
\nwith the Department of Garbarek, the University of Texas and the University of Texas, ELEI t.c.’s
\nDevelopment Studio.<\/p>\n"},"episode_featured_image":false,"episode_player_image":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2018\/02\/The-American-Ingredient-Logo-with-text.png","download_link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/podcast-download\/50\/06-what-are-we-getting-wrong-about-latino-politics.mp3","player_link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/podcast-player\/50\/06-what-are-we-getting-wrong-about-latino-politics.mp3","audio_player":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/podcast-player\/50\/06-what-are-we-getting-wrong-about-latino-politics.mp3<\/a><\/audio>","episode_data":{"playerMode":"dark","subscribeUrls":[],"rssFeedUrl":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/american-ingredient\/feed\/podcast\/american-ingredient","embedCode":"

06: What are we getting wrong about Latino politics?<\/a><\/blockquote>