Op-Ed

How will the nation’s 27 million Hispanics vote? Here’s a primer

Azel
Azel

Recent surveys by the Pew Research Center reveal that Hispanic eligible voters will reach a record 27.3 million this election cycle, an increase of more than 19 percent since the 2012 elections. As a category, the Hispanic electorate will make up a record 11.9 percent of all U.S. eligible voters, nearly the same as African-American voters, who make up 12.4 of the electorate.

Significantly, youth is a bigger defining characteristic of Hispanic eligible voters than of any other group. And although specific interest-group issues such as U.S. immigration policy are often offered as the main drivers for the Hispanic vote, there is a more fundamental sociopolitical driver at play.

The sociopolitical heritage from Spain, and the post-colonial experience of Latin America, has begotten in the Hispanic population an understanding of the role of government significantly different from the principles of limited government embraced by the U.S. Founding Fathers. According to the Pew Research Survey, “When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services than a smaller government with fewer services.”

The difference is not small. Overall, 75 percent of Hispanics prefer a bigger government, compared with only 41 percent of the general public in the United States. Interestingly though, the Hispanic support for large government declines as American values are absorbed. For 81 percent of first-generation Hispanic immigrants, a bigger government is more desirable. For the second generation the preference drops to 72 percent, and by the third generation only 58 percent still prefer a bigger government.

The Hispanic preference for a bigger government prevails regardless of party affiliation, and Hispanic Catholics are particularly supportive of a larger government. Overall, 56 percent of U.S. Hispanics either identify with the Democratic Party or are independent who lean Democratic, while 21 percent identify with or lean toward the Republican Party.

Parenthetically, Cubans are somewhat of a political anomaly. Cubans who are registered to vote are closely split in party affiliation: 47 percent identify with the GOP, while 44 percent tilt toward the Democrats.

Clearly, the political philosophies of classical liberalism that limit the role of government, and place the individual center stage are not nearly as ingrained in Hispanic heritage as they are in the American sociopolitical historical discourse. Classical liberalism does not come naturally to Hispanics. To some degree, the Hispanic sociopolitical heritage undermines the pluralistic participation of Hispanics in the civil institutions of free societies.

The Hispanic preference for a larger, more intrusive government is a manifestation of collectivist and statist political tendencies that seek a uniform societal common end. In contrast, the Founding Fathers understood that a free society is a pluralistic society that champions individual rights without a universal common end. The Founding Fathers’ vision necessarily leads to people achieving unequal results since individuals differ in ability and interest. A society which seeks to implement collectivist policies cannot protect individual freedoms, since the pursuit of socialist egalitarian goals necessitates the coercive action of big government.

Latin American political thought has been historically seduced by the siren song of “social justice” and has trouble accepting the unequal results of the marketplace; that is, the unequal outcomes of economic freedom. Unhappy with the results of freedom, Latin American political thought invokes the power of the state to restrict freedoms. This political philosophy ignores the Kantian precept that laws must be based on the protection of rights, not on an attempt to create happiness.

Characteristically, Hispanic politics lead to some form of messianic strong-man collectivism and other ideological mystical grotesqueries.

On the other hand, small government capitalism is rationalistic, anti-heroic and anti-mystical. Free markets, with all their warts, are the economic system of free people. In the Hispanic electorate, if we peel off most dogmatic arguments against free markets, an intellectual discomfort with freedom itself becomes obvious. This discomfort is what the preference for bigger government reveals. The Hispanic intellectual uneasiness with freedom is dismaying, because freedom is the only enduring foundation for improving the human condition.

José Azel is a Senior Scholar at the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies and the author of the book “Mañana in Cuba.”

  Comments