The Nevada primary is an historic event in that it marks the beginning of a serious effort to recognize the significance of the Hispanic vote in American politics, especially within the Democratic Party. But just how significant?
On the one hand, I think the caucus will be just the first of many "firsts." Nevada is still not New Hampshire or Iowa. Nevada's party officials adopted and borrowed from the Iowa model, and turnout in Iowa until this year was always quite low; so I think people should brace for the strong possibility of low turnout generally, and perhaps among Hispanics specifically. After all, a caucus is physical, deliberative democracy that requires face-to-face politicking. For Hispanics who may speak English as a second, not-always-confident language, the kinds of barriers that Iowans feel will be higher still. But even among non-Hispanic Nevadans, the unfamiliarity of the process may be enough to discourage turnout. By Monday, the lesson of Nevada may be "no lesson." On the other hand, issues related to the West and to Hispanics more specifically are unavoidable for candidates of both parties. And though the centerpiece issue is, of course, immigration, there are a raft of "aspirational agenda" issues that affect Hispanics, from education to health care. And yes, many Hispanics are in the military and a subset of them have served (and some of those have died) in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Turning specifically to the Democrats, in many ways John Edwards offers a powerful dose of aspirational agenda themes. He comes from a state with a small, but growing Hispanic population, and one that features one of the Judis-Teixeira "ideolopolis" areas (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) that characterize the "new West," with its Tucson-Phoenix, Albuquerque-Sante Fe, Denver-Boulder corridors. Barack Obama is a racial minority, and there is ample evidence of black-brown coalition building in the political science literature, if more among elites than masses. Finally, there is Hillary Clinton, who has for some time maintained strong support among Hispanics, and may particularly benefit from Latina voters.
But I think, despite the important focus here by NDN and others on the nascent power of Hispanic votes, that the real test of Nevada's significance, and that of the west more generally, will also be the attitudes and preferences of those who have relocated to the West not from Mexico or elsewhere in Latin America, but those who have relocated from other parts of the country. These transplants are trying to make new lives for themselves in the new West, and they bring their own set of aspirations about control over their school boards, and bigger houses/land for the dollar, and new economy jobs, and a desire for open spaces and environmental protection. The candidate that speaks to them will have an edge this week...and the party that speaks to them will have an edge in November. This, in my humble view, is the new calculus of the new politics of the so-called New West in this (hopefully) new political era we find ourselves entering.
Is a caucus really democratic?
Thank you Mr. Schaller for the thoughtful and thought-provoking comments... however, one point I wish to bring further focus to is the contention that "a caucus is physical, deliberative democracy". The point of contention is not with your assertion that a caucus is "physical" or that it is "deliberative" (although one could possibly argue this to the contrary), but with your classification of a caucus as "democracy".
I, and many others (here, here, and here for a few quick examples) consider the caucus process as less democratic than a primary or traditonal secret ballot election. A caucus participant must have the financial and time resources to participate in a drawn out process where they must publicly state and defend their choice. It seems to be a system that effectively dis-enfranchises those who must work, who have small children, dependent/disabled parents, who have viewpoints which may not be shared or welcomed by their neighbors, friends and employers (to whom they must express those views in a caucus system) etc..
I participated in the DFL (Democrat Farmer Labor) caucuses in Minnesota in 2006, which utilizes the caucus system for the party-nomination process, and I found the process extremely long (many caucuses here took more than 5 hours, and anyone that lacks the freedom to devote that much time was effectively barred from participating) and open to gamesmanship and pressure, which I feel are fundamentally counter to "democracy".
To speak to some of the complaints about the Nevada caucus in particular, it further seems un-democratic when a system prefers or enhances the "enfranchisement" of one group over another, by creating a system that favors casino workers or others who have the freedom to participate. This seems to harken to a time when voting was limited to those who "owned property" or could pay a "poll tax" or demonstrate "literacy", all measures designed to limit participation, which I believe is the same result of many caucuses - limiting participation - and how is that "democracy"?
Post new comment