Contempo Magazine Blog

by Dr. Tony Magana

The political shock felt by the Democrats in Massachusetts could be only a slight tremor compared to what may happen in the traditionally Democratic and predominately Hispanic South Texas election scene where the Tea Party movement is growing. A political debate held in the Rio Grande Valley shows Hispanics views mirror those developing across the country.

Since before World War II the most southern area of Texas along the Mexican border, known locally as the Rio Grande Valley, has been a staunch Democratic bastion tightly controlled by a “party boss system”.  With a population that is nearly 90% Hispanic (the highest percentage in the U.S.) conventional wisdom has always been that local candidates will be only Democrats.

The Republican party made significant inroads in getting Texas Mexican-Americans to vote for state-wide and national candidates during the Reagan and Bush era by addressing socially conservative issues attractive to Catholic and evangelical protestant Hispanics until the beginning of the second George W. Bush term.

The Obama campaign managed to capture almost 70% of the Hispanic vote by portraying himself as a somewhat conservative Democrat. Many Hispanics perceived anti-immigration movements by some in the Republican party to be veiled racism. Mainstream media pundits predicted that Hispanics as a group who had previously been thought of as swing voters would now forever vote way to the left.

Now we are one year and counting after the Obama election and find that the liberal pundits predictions about Hispanics especially in a Democratic stronghold may be faulty.  When the Tea Party movement began last spring in South Texas, the first reaction of local media and political pundits was that no Mexican-Americans would be involved.

Today a live debate which was simultaneously streamed online was held in Edinburg,Texas where political candidates from both the Republican and Democratic primaries in Congressional as well as local elections participated.  This is by itself an unusual event, because the status quo has always been for the Democratic party bosses to decide who runs in the primary rather than have true open primaries.

Conventional mainstream media “wisdom” is that Hispanics views will be always be left of center (ignoring  that Marco Rubio in Florida, a Reagan conservative, is ahead of incumbent Governor Crist).  The McAllen Candidate Forum held today was sponsored by organizations of the Tea Party movement but most of those presenting themselves as candidates were Hispanics.  The viewpoints they expressed publicly in the hopes of being elected were very much at odds with conventional liberalism.

Should children of illegal aliens be allowed to stay in the U.S. or be given citizenship? Almost of all them agreed that children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally should not be allowed to stay in the U.S. or be given citizenship.  At first glance this coming from Hispanics looking for office in a predominantly Hispanic community might seem shocking.

The great farm labor organizer, Ceasar Chavez, was a strong advocate for stopping illegal immigration because he recognized that uncontrolled immigration only weakened the bargaining position of farm workers to earn a decent wage.  Uncontrolled immigration harms the poor and relatively uneducated workers in the Hispanic community most.   When you understand this it is not so hard to comprehend how the Hispanic community will support immigration controls. However, what got the Republican party in trouble was that the rhetoric about immigration from certain politicians sounded much more like thinly veiled racism than a concern for workers.

Should photo identification be required for voting? Almost all the candidates strongly supported this idea and one even noted that such a requirement is currently the law for voting in Mexico.  Although some well meaning liberal organizations have tried to portray this as discriminatory against Hispanics,  a poll done in the state of Texas has shown that a majority of Hispanics would support such a measure.

Hispanics support photo identification because they have all experienced machine politics controlled by party bosses. They inherently distrust the fairness of the election system and feel that a photo identification would do more good than harm.

Should American history be taught differently? Almost all the candidates support the idea of teaching our children about American values of religion and free enterprise.  Liberal advocates forget that Hispanic immigrants came to America to become Americans and to share American values.  This does not mean giving up all of one’s cultural heritage but neither does it mean that high school history should be courses in everything America has done wrong.

Other conservative ideas expressed included supporting a flat tax, preserving secret ballot in union elections, being more aggressive in war against terrorism (keeping Guantanamo open and using military tribunals), cutting Texas taxes,  and balancing all government budgets.

In the end, liberal pundits should not be so surprised that Hispanic Americans would tend to share similar values with other Americans because if you ask them to describe who they are in one word it is not “Hispanic” or “Latino” it is American.

A portion of the debate can be seen here

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Review. Follow him on twitter http://twitter.com/contempomagazin

Copyright 2009, Dr. Tony Magana. Some rights reserved.
To reproduce or distribute, visit: drtonymagana.icopyright.com

By Dr. Tony Magana

The American political process is often characterized as a “two-party” system, implying that members of the electorate will belong to either the Republicans or the Democrats. However, the reality is at least half and often more of participating voters in election are actually independents who hold no real affiliation. Although political parties are a useful instrument to allow the organization of political candidate’s campaigns and their alliances with others, they must not be confused as being an end goal in themselves.

Many political pundits were flabbergasted by the recent special election for the United States Senate in Massachusetts. Conventional wisdom held that the state was the “bluest of the blue”. The only election which mattered they mistakenly believed was the Democratic primary because only 13 percent of the voting public was Republican.

What both political parties seem to forget is that voters should vote for the individual not the party. The increasing education level of the average voter, the internet, the development of competing news media with various points of view, and the scandals unveiling crony-ism of both Republicans and Democrats all contribute to a rising level of not only dissatisfaction but outright mistrust in the sincerity of political parties. The ready access of the public to facts and figures in modern society today creates an unavoidable environment of transparency which limits the ability of political party hacks to deceptively spin their agendas.

Americans must continue to move away from the concept of political parties being the center of political theory or practice and instead see them in a more realistic light of being campaign facilitators. Most Americans of any political persuasion would agree that there are both good and bad Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Political parties serve the public best when they have relatively small enrollments of the overall voting public and must prove their point to a greater majority then when they represent a monopoly. This forms the real engine of positive change.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a Republican or a Democrat in our advocacy for a particular issue or candidate, but being so on any and every issue should only occur after we have examined the issue or the candidate through our own independent point of view unfiltered by the prejudice of party affiliation.

Party labels do not help the unemployed find jobs or the sick to get health care. Those who hold leadership positions in government should not have to be “bribed” with secret back room deals to convince them to do the right thing for their constituents. Instead of being a conduit to promote overall societal improvement, the American public has too often recently seen established political party leaders became fixated on personal power acquisition through narrow focused partnerships with special interests.

The nineteenth century commentator on the American political process, Alexis de Tocqueville, lamented that the power of the majority would overwhelm the ability of a small group of enlightened intellectuals who would be best fit to rule a nation. He felt that the American success story had occurred by luck rather then design and predicted future chaos. Now almost 200 years later, we continue to marvel at the genius of our founding fathers in their conception of a government which most highly values the inherent goodness and judgment of the common man expressed in the form of the independent voter.

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Review. Follow him on twitter http://twitter.com/contempomagazin

Copyright 2009, Dr. Tony Magana. Some rights reserved.
To reproduce or distribute, visit: drtonymagana.icopyright.com

By Dr. Tony Magana

Many Texans including Texas Democratic Chairman, Boyd Richie, point with pride that a fellow Texan, President Lyndon Johnson, signed into law in 1964 the Civil Rights Act which was created to stop discrimination against minority voters in registering or carrying out their right to vote. Yet, according to LULAC attorney, Luis Roberto Vera Jr., this same Texas Democratic party now finds itself in his words “challenging the constitutionality of the Civil Right’s Act itself”. Mr. Vera was interviewed by this writer for this report.

For decades the Texas Democratic party has held presidential primaries and caucuses whose rules were controlled by a few elite members of the party. The process traditionally happened so late in the national election cycle that it had little effect on who would be the ultimate party candidate. In 1988 the process was changed to a “hybrid” that replaced the old fashioned caucus process with a combination open primary election and local caucuses.

Writing in the Democratic blog, The Texas Blue, Texas Democratic party chairman, Boyd Richie, on the eve of the primary defended the “Texas Two step” as it has come to be named.  Even though he admitted that several writers and prominent Texans had called for a “simplified “ delegate selection plan he defended the status quo saying that it would give a “greater voice to the grassroots”.

In 2008, the Texas Democratic primary came sooner and right on the heels of a contested multi-state Super Tuesday primary event then ever before. For the first time in recent history, the Texas Democratic primary could have an effect on the national election. Although then Senator Barack Obama was riding a national populist wave, Senator Hillary Clinton had close ties with and the support of many in the Mexican-American community which makes up the majority in South Texas.

Texas’s fastest growing ethnic group which makes up almost a third of the eligible voting population and are overwhelmingly registered Democrats expected that their vote would be more then significant but instead experienced confusion, misinformation, and betrayal reminiscent of the days of the poll tax and Jim Crow. Most Latino Democratic voters were under the impression that they had one vote which would be cast in an open primary held on March 4, 2008  but they did not know that there were “conventions” held after the primary closed to select additional delegates. In the end, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Barack Obama won more delegates because his organizers dominated the post-election conventions.

Following the election, the Texas Democratic party was embarrassed by revelations that no formal documentation of not only how the delegates where ultimately chosen but even who was officially chosen were made. In hearings held by the Democratic party, the late Jim Mattox testified about the utter chaos that occurred that lead to a universal agreement among the majority of Democratic voters that delegates should only be selected by the primary vote and not caucuses, however, the leaders of the Texas Democratic party have not accepted this conclusion.

On behalf of Texas voters, the League of United Latin American Citizens filed a suit in Federal Court alleging the so-called “Texas Two-Step” process was a violation of voter’s civil rights. Initially U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery ruled that the case was not relevant because the law did not apply to political parties but LULAC appealed to the higher Court of Appeals in New Orleans which reversed Judge Biery and remanded the case back.

This past week the three judge panel of the Texas Western District Federal Court ruled against the Texas Democratic party. According to Vera, the stage is now set for the court to issue a summary judgment against the Texas Democratic party for violating the rights of not only Latino voters but possibly the elderly and disabled. As a result of the inequity of the “Texas Two Step” process, the Democratic party violated Hispanic voters rights in at least the seven state senatorial districts which have major Hispanic populations he adds.

One cannot help but wonder why this issue even went to court? Why has the Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, Boyd Richie, and the executive committee not acted strongly and decisively to correct this problem but instead chosen to fight against the rights of Latino voters in court? Mr. Richie falsely claimed that Latin0 voters were informed about the late night caucuses.

Why has not Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Justice Department under the Obama administration stepped in to file  an amicus curae brief in defense of Texas Latino, elderly, and handicapped voters?

Mr. Vera states categorically that he believes the leadership in the Democratic party of Texas does not want to relinquish control by the old white party establishment. He sees the continuing opposition of the Democratic party leadership to change to a newer fairer system as a continuation of the old Texas ways and called the recent naming of a Latino executive director for the Texas Democratic party “window dressing” because in  reality he notes that position has “no power.”

Mr. Vera says the Texas Democratic party has ten days to answer the recent court ruling. A key issue still to be decided is whether a new Democratic party primary rule will have to be approved by either the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, or the District Court in Washington DC. So far the court has urged this as a voluntary measure but could make it mandatory.

The truth is that the alliance between Texas Mexican-American community and the Democratic party has always been rough. For this writer what is most shocking if not unfortunately most surprising is that the leadership in the Democratic party would be so resistant to changing an obviously discriminatory practice. Following the post election hearings I would have expected the Democratic party to issue an apology to the Hispanic community and rapidly change the process, not lawyers representing the Democratic party in court arguing that loopholes exist in the Civil Rights Act which they can exploit.

The Texas Democratic party must show Hispanic voters not only the respect but also the dignity they deserve. In the general election, they supported Barack Obama by an almost 70 percent to 30 percent margin. They seem to have forgotten the old saying “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. However, this loyalty can only be tested so far. The right thing for the Texas Democratic party and especially the Chairman, Boyd Richie, is to issue an apology to Texas voters and to immediately denounce any continuation of the Texas Two Step. The Texas Democrat Party should immediately agree to fully adhere to the spirit and the letter of the law in the Civil Rights Act without hesitation or compromise. This remnant of the old Texas has no place in the future of Texas.

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Review. Follow him on twitter http://twitter.com/contempomagazin

Copyright 2009, Dr. Tony Magana. Some rights reserved.
To reproduce or distribute, visit: drtonymagana.icopyright.com