Obama and Latinos

By
Max J. Castro                                                                     Read Spanish Version
majcastro@gmail.com

Loyalty
is one of the most endearing traits of Latino culture. It explains,
in part, why so many Latinos have supported Senator Hillary Clinton
in her quest for the White House. Name recognition and sheer
political calculation have played a role as well; many Latino leaders
who support Clinton thought they were betting on a sure thing and
would benefit accordingly. But there is also no denying that the
Clintons have been good for Latinos. Bill Clinton appointed more
Latinos to high office than any other administration. The economy
boomed throughout most of the Clinton years and Latino employment and
income rose. The country was at peace and Latino kids in the armed
forces were not getting killed by the hundreds and maimed by the
thousands fighting in an elective war. Moreover, since being elected
to office, the New York Senator herself also has been on the right
side of most issues that affect Latinos.

Loyalty
is a good thing but it should not be the sole consideration. Barack
Obama was right on the defining issue of our time, the war in Iraq;
this should count for a lot with Latinos, most of whom oppose the
war. Hillary was wrong on Iraq and has yet to admit her error.
Indeed, she promises to repeat it. After saying that Bush abused her
trust in taking the country to war in Iraq on the basis of a
Congressional vote that merely authorized the use, Clinton, alone
among the Democratic presidential candidates, voted for a resolution
on Iran that amounts to an invitation for Bush to do the same thing
with that country.

The
differences on Iraq and Iran are part of a larger pattern. Clinton
may have a slightly better health care plan than Obama, as liberal
columnist Paul Krugman has argued. But, in general, there is not much
to separate Clinton and Obama on domestic policy, including those
issues most important to Latinos, such as employment and education.
On foreign policy, however, there is a difference, one that matters
to Latinos.

To
be sure, neither candidate is going to renounce American hegemony.
But Obama promises some degree of break from the past insofar as he
has declared his intention to dialogue with the leaders of other
countries, even those who are hostile to the United States. Clinton,
meanwhile, seems intent on a policy of bluster, bullying, and
interventionism, albeit a less violent version than the militarism of
George W. Bush but a self-righteous and imperious foreign policy
nevertheless in the manner of Madeline Albright. Obama, on the other
hand, seems to intuitively grasp the notion that other countries, and
not just the United States, even Third World countries, have a right
to their own nationalism and that it is a force that has to be dealt
with not with coercion and ideology but with diplomacy and
compromise.

On
the Middle East and Cuba, where U.S. policy diverges most widely from
the views of most other governments, including many close U.S.
allies, Obama represents the prospect of at least some modest
movement while Clinton is decidedly for the status quo. Clinton seems
every bit as bent on unconditional support of Israel and unbending
hostility toward Cuba as Bush. Obama has spoken out about the
suffering of the Palestinians, and he has signaled his support for a
somewhat more flexible policy toward Cuba.

U.S.
foreign policy affects Latinos as it does all Americans, and perhaps
more than most. The United States spends more on its military than
all other countries combined. That is in part because it has to; many
of its policies engender hostility internationally. Different
policies, policies more based on diplomacy, would allow the United
States to spend more money on other priorities, including health care
and education at home and more assistance to Latin America and other
developing regions. 

Obama’s
willingness to break with some foreign policy taboos also may reflect
the kind of boldness that is going to be required to confront the
anti-immigrant tide that has been building in this country. And, if
Obama wins the presidency, he will win with less support from, and
less beholden to, cultural and racial nationalists, the political
core of xenophobia, than any candidate in U.S. history. For this and
other reasons, it is important that if Obama wins the nomination, his
candidacy for the presidency receive more support from minorities,
including Latinos, than any presidential candidate in the history of
the United States.