African-American and Latino Politics: Changing Together or Growing Apart?

By Francis Bartus
Posted 12/17/05

            The face of America is changing daily.  Now, more than ever, traditional notions of race and ethnicity are being challenged as voter participation, immigration, and identification take on a new direction.  In examining today’s political relationship between African-Americans and Latinos, one is faced with a choice: to remain within the narrow framework of the Color Dichotomy, or to choose the nuanced lens of the Ethno-racial Pentagon.  Doubtlessly, the Color Dichotomy highlights the cross-cutting cleavages that unite the two groups in their oppression, distinguishing them equally from privileged whites.  The Ethno-Racial pentagon, however, draws attention to countless differences in demographics, composition, and history, setting the two groups starkly apart.  Though neither captures the whole picture, both frameworks prove useful in reflecting the overriding similarities and differences between African-Americans and Latinos.  Despite their vastly different histories and nature, they exhibit some of the same political tendencies and face some of the same political barriers in contemporary U.S. Politics.

            Perhaps the most poignant measure of political clout and character manifests itself in the group’s respective demographics and voting behavior.  Latinos recently seized the national media spotlight when they surpassed African-Americans as America’s largest minority.  In June of 2002, U.S. Census bureau released a report stating that Latinos comprised 13% of the U.S. population while African-Americans comprised only 12.7% (CQ Researcher 254).  If immigration patterns persist, the Latino population will continue to rise, while the African-American population remains relatively steady.  These statistics might lead to the presumption that Latinos posses more political clout than African-Americans, but numerous factors contradict this conclusion.  The first of these factors—the relative youthfulness of the population—weighs heavily on overall Latino voting eligibility.  As of the 2000 Census, 35% of Hispanics were under the age of 18, significantly more than the entire U.S. population, of which only 25.7% were younger than 18.¹ African-Americans exhibit a comparable youthfulness; 32.4% were under the age of 18 in the 2000 Census.² In addition to their young age, more than 10% of Latinos are illegal immigrants (class notes), whereas most African-American adults are eligible to vote. Additionally, a vast portion of Latinos immigrated to the United States quite recently.  In fact, the Latino population increased by 58% between the 1990 and 2000 Census (class notes). These recent immigrants are not as firmly entrenched in the American political system; they do not posses the political predispositions, party loyalties, and voting responsibilities passed down through many African-American families.  The relative youthfulness of Latinos combines with their widespread voting ineligibility and recent immigration to reduce participation rates to 27% of adults versus 54% of African-American adults (CQ Researcher 246).  Thus, though their raw numbers continue to affect the United States cultural and ethnic landscape, Latinos still lag behind African-Americans in overall political participation.

            Despite disparate levels of voter participation, Latinos and African-Americans display many similarities in their actual voting behavior, offset by emerging differences in party affiliation.  The past and present socioeconomic status of Latinos bears many similarities to equally urbanized and marginalized African-Americans.  Both groups face high rates of poverty: 21.4% of Latinos and 22.1% of African-Americans fall below the poverty line (CQ Researcher 259).  This renders big-government economic policies aimed at helping the poor far more salient to both groups.  Roderick Harrison of the Joint Center for Political and Economic studies sums up the similarities, claiming that “we both favor more spending on education, housing and health care (CQ Researcher 244).”  Additionally, each group lays claim to its own growing middle-class—a unifying factor evidenced by converging stances on certain issues.  In his book, A Different Mirror, Ronald Takaki describes the historical roots of this African-American class division:

Beginning in the 1960s, black America became deeply splintered into two classes.  On the one hand, the black middle class experienced gains: the percentage of families earning $25,000 or more (in 1982 dollars) increased from 10 percent in 1960 ro 25 percent in 1982… On the other hand, there emerged what has been called a “black underclass.”  The distressing situation of this group can be measured by the persistence of intergenerational poverty… (Takaki 411)

One can read the result of this polarization in the patterns of African-American voters, who tend to favor big government despite their social conservatism.  Indeed, both Latinos and African-Americans tend to be more conservative than whites on many social issues; 40% of both groups consider divorce “unacceptable in general,” while 77% of Latinos and 70% of African-Americans find having an abortion unacceptable as well.  On the contrary, only 24% of whites consider divorce unacceptable, and only 53% consider having an abortion unacceptable (CQ Researcher 246).  This social conservatism reflects a combination of factors ranging from the rise of middle-class sentiments to the predominant religious affiliations of each group.  According to a recent study administered by Notre Dame’s Institute for Latino Studies, 93% of Latinos self-identify as Christian, 75% of whom are Catholic.³  These strong ties to the Catholic Church influence their outlook on social issues, weakening ties with the Democratic Party—which have fallen from 54% to 48%, according to surveys administered by the Scripps Center between 1994 and 2004.⁴  Republican candidates, like California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, have capitalized on this trend, culling Latino voters away from the Democratic Party by urging them to vote their stance on social issues.  African-Americans, however, remain firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party, despite their socially conservative leanings and Christian ties.  Reflecting on  African-American’s seemingly paradoxical voting behavior, the University of Florida’s Daniel A. Smith concludes that “while many African Americans self-identify as evangelicals and have a theology that often reflects that of the Christian Right, their voting habits tend to be defined by liberal economic issues.⁵ ”  Thus, despite their shared Christian ties and their conservative social viewpoints, Latinos display less overall partisanship than predominantly Democratic African-Americans.

            The diverse nature of the Latino ethnicity, which includes significant numbers of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans, challenges any comparison with the more unified African-American race.  In fact, many argue that victimization alone has legitimized Latinos as a “race.”  One such ethno-racial philosopher, David A. Hollinger, writes that

Latinos have won more widespread recognition as a historically disadvantaged minority that has suffered wrongs comparable to those suffered by the minority groups earlier called races.  These wrongs include discriminatory acts by whites in the twentieth-century United States, but in the background is a slavery equivalent.  This is the annexation of what is now the southwestern section of the United States from Mexico in 1848.  This conquest is said to confer upon even recent immigrants… the status of an American-oppressed minority.  Hence the logic of racial distinctions comes to embrace Latinos… (Hollinger 37-38)

By this logic, to which Hollinger does not personally ascribe, African-Americans and Latinos should be considered roughly equivalent—united together by white oppression.  Indeed, the two groups are ideologically united on many fronts, but they play a very different role in the U.S. political system, where African-Americans have gained a firmer foothold.  As of the year 2000, Latinos held a total of 198 seats in state legislators throughout the nation⁶, whereas African-Americans held about 600 seats (CQ Researcher 144).  However, many claim that African-Americans are actually losing political clout due to segregationist redistricting.  Indeed, the very geographic concentration of African-Americans, who live predominantly in major urban centers and in the Southeast, works against any national gains.  Regardless, the redistricting backlash against African-American political power confirms their status as an established political power, a status Latinos have yet to achieve.

            Though many point out that the growing Latino population will eventually become a major player in national politics, the group still has a long way to go.  African-Americans, too, must continue to fight for political power—not just against the challenges of white politics, but against the emerging challenge of rising Latino challengers.  Some speak of the potential for a unified African-American and Latino vote, but with the African-American population concentrated firmly in the Southeast and the Latino population in the Southwest, such unification seems unlikely on a national level.  As both major parties contend for the emerging Latino vote, immigration issues might once again rise to the forefront.  Yet the real battle for the Latino demographic will occur in a more inclusive arena: the debate over social policy.  As Republicans focus more and more on “value voters,” courting the socially conservative Christians, they may manage to secure both African-Americans and Latinos.  Though each group possess unique histories, languages, and goal, both reside firmly on the “oppressed” side of the Color Dichotomy, facing high rates of poverty, low voter participation, and few elected officials.  However, African-Americans have a longer history of participation that places them on firmer footing in the U.S. political arena.  As both demographics continue to shift, much rests on whether they will choose to unite or choose to divide.    

Works Cited

¹ U.S. Census Bureau. “The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief.” (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf), August 2001.

² U.S. Census Bureau. “The Black Population: Census 2000 Brief.” (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf), August 2001.

³ Espinosa, Gastón, Virgilio, Elizondo, and Miranda, Jesse. “Hispanic Churches in American Public Life: Summary of Findings.” Interim Reports. Volume 2003.2: 14.

⁴ Hargrove, Thomas. “Survey: GOP Gains Among Hispanics.” Scripps Howard News Service. 21 May 2004.

⁵ Smith, Daniel A. “Was Rove Right? The Partisan Wedge and Turnout Effects of Issue 1, Ohio’s 2004 Ballot Initiative to Ban Gay Marriage.” University of Florida. January 2005.

⁶ Porter, Eduardo. “Rookie Hispanic Office Holders Attend Boot Camp to Help Push Latino Agenda.” The Wall Street Journal. 12 December 2000.