What is the best explanation for the fact that latinos have tended to favor democratic party candidates in national elections?

1 answer:

7 0

Latinos have historically favored the Democratic Party primarily because of the following (this list is not designed to be exhaustive or the final word on the subject, rather this answer is a jumping off point for analysis and review and debate):
1. Large voting blocks of perennial migrant Latino labor from Texas to California - think of the AFL-CIO coming into power in the 30's at the height of the Depression which was then legitimized by FDR as an authoritative voice of the previously voiceless - Farm Laborers as opposed to Farm Owners (Owner being predominantly conservative and Republican) and this came about during the 4 term and decade plus spanning Presidential Administration of FDR (Democrat) and then also the protection and support to migrant farm labor groups of the 60's via the policies of both JFK (Democrat) and LBJ (Democrat) - Presidents who unabashedly supported the inclusion of marginalized people and the ideal that all are created equal and refused to endorse or uphold the segregation of various races and cultures in the United States.

2. Catholicism. JFK (Democrat) was the first Catholic President of the United States. Latinos are OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic. JFK blazed a trail through the WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) Elite that had traditionally lead, ran, and administered the powerful offices of our great nation while mainly excluding everyone else who wasn't in the "WASP club". He appointed exceedingly well qualified but heretofore traditionally marginalized individuals who while being mainly ignored in "Mainstream" America, were however simultaneously dynamic Leaders in their own communities. JFK placed never before seen colors, races, religions, and creeds into positions of power and influence and VISIBILITY. The groups and communities he championed included but were not limited to blacks, asians, latinos, women, liberals, jews, and catholics and JFK placed them into every level of the nation's administration from Ambassadors, to Federal Judges, to Cabinet Ministers, to Federal Department Heads, and the list goes on. He didn't just invite them to the party - he took them "three times 'round the dance floor" - these people were not "Tokens" they were "Trailblazers" and that made all the difference in the world - he wasn't trying to appease anyone; he was championing what it meant to be AMERICAN by producing American leaders who could and then did lead all faiths, creeds, and colors in their secular communities to which JFK appointed them. Catholicism has traditionally practiced inclusion, rather than exclusion, as a basic tenet of faith. Socially, Catholics (and especially Irish Catholics) were dismissed and often viewed with contempt by the WASP establishment - for instance only a very few (a minority of minorites so to speak) catholics, jews, and differing ethnic groups were allowed into the Ivy Leagues which then put them on the correct trajectory for state, national, and international leadership in business, academia, government, medicine, and law but they would never have enough "outsiders" to make a serious play towards leadership of the leadership - limited inclusion is a way of controlling groups that are excluded - basically the WASP establishment could pick leaders for the groups they excluded and by doing so CONTROL ALL GROUPS. In point of fact the University of Notre Dame in Indiana became the way to provide an Ivy League education and IVY LEAGUE STATUS to the children of wealthy Catholics.) It's important to remember that in the 19 aughts, teens, and twenties it was not uncommon to have help wanted signs put up that would state: No Coloreds or Irish need apply. JFK was born into EXTRAORDINARY privilege: wealth, status, looks, intellect, charisma but he was always looked down upon by people who did not possess what he did - they did this because of their prejudice against Catholics and Irish Americans. When he championed people who were excluded because of heritage or faith, he did so from a place of PERSONAL understanding that was informed by HIS heritage and HIS Catholicism. He called Americans to share his view, his exuberance, his confidence, his INCLUSION OF ALL AMERICANS into the fantastic tapestry he was weaving - JFK called to American's BEST NATURES and they answered in staggering numbers - the price for admission to this party was that they had to leave old hates and prejudices outside - no room in his "(Democratic)Party" for haters. They, in turn, passed it onto their children. And those children, have now passed it onto their children, and so on. Now Latinos are Democrats because it is tied up with their faith, their heritage, their culture, and their inclusion. In other words, it is now a part of their IDENTITY and it informs who they want to be and who they will become. And finally, will it make their parents and grandparents proud?

You might be interested in

Who was the first president

Serjik [45]

George Washington was the first president

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What are three types of third parties and what impact can they have on elections?

ale4655 [162]

* The Green Party
* The Libertarian Party
* Natural Law Party
Any type of third party can change the results of the election by claiming any number of the votes.

6 0

4 years ago

The following quotation is from a 1905 newspaper interview with Eugene E. Schmitz,

kotegsom [21]

The Immigration Act of 1924 is the event from the supplied citation that the mayor's remarks hint at.

How does foreshadowing work?

This refers to the literary device that uses predictions to provide hints or clues about events that will happen in the future. As a result, we can infer from the mayor's remarks that he discussed restraining the Chinese and Japanese because they were harmful and would eliminate all competition in the market. With this in mind, it is important to note that the Immigration Act of 1924, which eventually became law and established quotas for immigrants from Asia, served to restrict immigration from that region. Through a national origins quota, the Immigration Act of 1924 set a cap on the number of immigrants who might enter the country. Two percent of each nationality's total population in the United States as of the 1890 census was eligible for immigration visas under the quota.

Learn more about Immigration Act of 1924 here:

brainly.com/question/9603684

#SPJ4

3 0

1 year ago

Which function or role of government is NOT expressed within the Preamble?

Viktor [21]

Protect the bill of rights. Preserving freedom can be seen as securing the blessings of liberty. Maintaining peaceful nations can be seen as insure domestic tranquility. Defending against external enemies can be seen as providing for the common defense.

6 0

3 years ago

What factor encouraged many states to vote for ratification?

AveGali [126]

In all the states, educated men authored pamphlets and published essays and cartoons arguing either for or against ratification. Although many writers supported each position, it is the Federalist essays that are now best known. The arguments these authors put forth, along with explicit guarantees that amendments would be added to protect individual liberties, helped to sway delegates to ratification conventions in many states.

For obvious reasons, smaller, less populous states favored the Constitution and the protection of a strong federal government. Delaware and New Jersey ratified the document within a few months after it was sent to them for approval in 1787. Connecticut ratified it early in 1788. Some of the larger states, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, also voted in favor of the new government. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution in the summer of 1788.

Although the Constitution went into effect following ratification by New Hampshire, four states still remained outside the newly formed union. Two were the wealthy, populous states of Virginia and New York. In Virginia, James Madison’s active support and the intercession of George Washington, who wrote letters to the convention, changed the minds of many. Some who had initially opposed the Constitution, such as Edmund Randolph, were persuaded that the creation of a strong union was necessary for the country’s survival and changed their position. Other Virginia delegates were swayed by the promise that a bill of rights similar to the Virginia Declaration of Rights would be added after the Constitution was ratified. On June 25, 1788, Virginia became the tenth state to grant its approval.

The approval of New York was the last major hurdle. Facing considerable opposition to the Constitution in that state, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, beginning in 1787, arguing for a strong federal government and support of the Constitution. Later compiled as The Federalist and now known as The Federalist Papers, these eighty-five essays were originally published in newspapers in New York and other states under the name of Publius, a supporter of the Roman Republic.

The arguments of the Federalists were persuasive, but whether they actually succeeded in changing the minds of New Yorkers is unclear. Once Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York realized that it had little choice but to do so as well. If it did not ratify the Constitution, it would be the last large state that had not joined the union. Thus, on July 26, 1788, the majority of delegates to New York’s ratification convention voted to accept the Constitution. A year later, North Carolina became the twelfth state to approve. Alone and realizing it could not hope to survive on its own, Rhode Island became the last state to ratify, nearly two years after New York had done so.

8 0

3 years ago