![2[1].jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5abadf_f310244424a443b29215dadb17bba49b~mv2.jpg/v1/crop/x_5,y_0,w_1069,h_1080/fill/w_101,h_102,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/2%5B1%5D.jpg)
By Noah Merrin
Los 3 de La Habana are a three-piece musical group who moved from Cuba to Miami in 2007. In September 2020, one of their songs went viral for its political message. Titled ‘Canción de Trump’ (‘Trump Song’), the lyrics declare, with bolero trumpets and a salsa rhythm, ‘I will vote for Donald Trump’, encouraging listeners to do the same.
To those familiar with Trump’s harsh anti-immigration rhetoric during his 2016 campaign – with some particularly distasteful comments aimed at those entering from south of the US border – it may seem inconceivable that three Hispanic immigrants could support the hard-line president, but they are not the only ones. Cuban voters were key to Trump’s victory in the swing state of Florida in 2020, with 55% of them supporting the incumbent, according to exit polls. In 2018, Pew Research found that 57% of eligible Cuban voters identified as or leaned Republican. In contrast, the same Pew investigation reported that, amongst Puerto Ricans and Mexicans, support for the GOP was much lower: 65% and 59% leaned Democrat, respectively. But, along with all other Spanish-speakers from South America, Central America, North America, and the Caribbean, these voters are often grouped, for campaign purposes, under a single label: the Hispanic vote.
A so-called ‘sleeping giant’, the Hispanic vote has in the past struggled to turn up to elections, but represents the most numerous racial or ethnic minority voting group in the USA. This has prompted both Democrats and Republicans to court them for their immense, but previously unrealised electoral potential. In terms of national background, 59% are Mexican, 14% are Puerto Rican, 5% are Cuban, and 22% are from a mixture of other countries. Evidently, the ‘Hispanic vote’ does not vote uniformly. So, is it still useful, fair, or representative to talk of them as a single electoral entity?
We might start by outlining how the term originated. According to a 2018 paper published by the Russel Sage Foundation, the emergence of Hispanic as a category of identity was the result of a confluence of media, state, and activist interests in the 1970s and 1980s: Spanish-language broadcasters in the USA seeking a larger market; the adoption of Hispanic as a census category; and the use of the term Hispanic to mobilise activists and politicians for the achievement of common aims. The authors suggest that, although Hispanic individuals remain attached to specific national identities, the ‘pan-ethnic’ label enables them to cooperate and ‘exert political influence to common advantage.’
Despite this, not all groups within the Hispanic vote see their priorities as aligned. In fact, nationality can have a major influence on voting choice. Returning to ‘Canción de Trump’, the song’s music video shows an animated shipping container covered with the Cuban flag being crushed by another container, falling from above, plastered with the word ‘SANCTIONS’. The same animation is repeated, the crushed crate now representing Venezuela. For Cuban-Americans, many of whom reside in Florida, Trump’s reimposition of business and travel restrictions on Cuba and his ‘maximum pressure’ strategy of huge sanctions on Venezuela is an appealingly tough stance on the socialism that they fled.
Though perhaps recent support for the GOP amongst Cuban-Americans also has to do with the ending of the ‘wet foot, dry foot’ policy instituted under Bill Clinton, which enabled Cuban immigrants arriving to the US to qualify for expedited citizenship if they made it to ‘dry’ land before getting caught (those caught at sea, with ‘wet feet’, were returned to Cuba). Barack Obama abandoned the policy on 12 January 2017, just days before leaving office, as part of thawing relations with Cuba. One may speculate that the policy, and its end, produced two important electoral results: a distinct experience for Cuban emigrants and therefore a feeling of difference to individuals of other Latin American backgrounds; and a distaste for the Democrats.
In contrast, Puerto Rican voters may have felt significant cause to punish the Republican incumbent this year. Puerto Rico is a Spanish-speaking territory of the United States. Despite this, residents of the island do not have the right to vote for the US President. In 2017, Puerto Rico was ravaged by Hurricane Maria, killing thousands and causing around $90 billion in damages. Trump’s response was widely criticised as slow and ineffective, prompting Oxfam to issue aid to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican residents in mainland USA, some of whom are refugees of Hurricane Maria, may have felt particular ire towards Trump in 2020 for his perceived indifference towards the fate of islanders during the preceding years.
These examples demonstrate the extent to which the particular national background of groups contained within the Hispanic vote can influence experience, culture, and voting choices. Yet they also say nothing of the problematic racial implications of the Hispanic label, which does not adequately represent the racial complexity of Latin America. Indeed, there are sizeable black and mestizo (mixed-race) populations of Latin American countries that have high rates of immigration to the USA (notably Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic). These groups share many experiences with their criollo (white/of European origin) compatriots – such as language and nationality – but their presence in the Americas and the Caribbean is at least partially, if not entirely, rooted in different histories: for those with African heritage, in the Atlantic slave trade; for those with indigenous heritage, in the pre-colonial era. By eliding these groups, the Hispanic label submerges their histories and identities.
The Hispanic vote’s multiplicity makes the concept impractical for generating electoral strategy. It cannot address the needs and priorities of all contained within it. Nevertheless, its use may decline with the continual growth of the Hispanic population in the US and the inevitable increase in high-profile Latin American politicians who are vocal about the racial heterogeneity of their ethnic backgrounds. Additionally, whilst it is imperfect, as long as it is employed by major political parties to address all groups of Latin American origin, it is still worthwhile as an organising principle, as per its origins, and a framework through which to speak about diversity to power.
Comments