Will Hispanics become more or less marginalized over the next 20 years?
I believe they’ll become more marginalized. Already it is difficult identifying as Hispanic because of the census question that separates out “Are you of Hispanic origin?” And many questions that ask about ethnicity ask you to choose from several that don’t include Hispanic, each adding “(Not of Hispanic origin)” after it. For example, I could normally choose “White/Caucasian”, but then they put it as “White/Caucasian (Not of Hispanic origin)”. Well, poo!But also Hispanic people are incredibly diverse. They share a lot of cultural ideas, but there are a lot of differences, even in how they speak Spanish.I think in America, because of this thing with Hispanic being a somewhat ambiguous ethnic group and the diversity of Hispanic cultures, we’re seeing a strong dilution of “Hispanic/Latino” as a cultural group in this country. Americanization is having a strong effect, perhaps stronger than on other ethnic groups, and many Hispanics are going to end up relegated to small and highly stereotypical subgroups with the majority of them feeling “American” and not greatly identifying with “Hispanic”.There is also the exodus happening from the Catholic Church, which had been a strong unifier among many Hispanics. As the church-going population decreases, the sense of identity and connection it brings will diminish.So while their population will increase considerably, I think Hispanics will be mostly lumped in with the general populace and less effort will be made to target them specifically, and less attention will be given to “Hispanic issues” because of this.
Please help Political Science final.............?
Ok let's first define our terms: my definition of "median voting" is when voters choose the candidate whose policies or positions best match their own. Marginalization basically entails an oppressed group whether it be women, blacks, hispanics, the disabled, etc... that are excluded on a regular basis from the labor force or paid less wages hindering their ability to advance socially. The AA community, or any specific community, has always had in the USA a slightly different culture in their USA experience... ie) their history is different with many having come from slave ancestors. This makes their 'needs' or 'policy expectations' somewhat different than say, an American from English ancestry that grew up with college educated parents. Persons within the AA community tend to look towards the government for help or assistance in order to advance. And rightly so because it was the government that forced civil rights equality, not the populace. The government stepped in throughout history as far back as getting rid of the Jim Crow laws and again in the 60s with civil rights legislation. So obviously, the AA community's policy goals are more governmentally targeted. Now with that said and back to the question at hand, since blacks are in the minority and hold the positions as I described above, under a median voter system where a majority picks the winning candidate, their selection would lose. Why? Because under a median voter system, the AA community would select a candidate that best matches their policies and their policies are based on their specific history and experiences that the majority does not hold. Now let.me throw in my personal opinion on this in relation to the current election. Currently, this does not apply to the AA community in that Obama has overall not been specific on any one policy. The AA community seems to have fallen into Obama's trap of 'connecting' to them. Obama can absolutely brilliantly describe the problems they feel... I mean without leaving any detail out.; but, if you listen to his speeches closely, he never says what he is going to do to fix these problems.
Why has identity politics worked for Obama, but not for the Senators and Representatives in the Democratic Party?
Just today, I read an opinion piece in the New York Times, and it was brilliant because it pointed out with such clarity why Obama nailed identity politics while Hillary Clinton and most Democrats failed at them in 2016.When it comes to identity, left-wing ideology is about celebrating society’s diversity. That’s all well, but it becomes a problem when it’s insistant and contemptuous. In the 2016 campaign, too many voters outside of the Dems’ base ultimately felt that they were making this election about minorities vs. them, about gender-neutral bathrooms rather than fighting unemployment. This exacerbated the SJW stereotypes about liberals, and painted the Democrats as out-of-touch with white middle-class voters.Where Obama succeeded, especially in 2008, was in his choice to celebrate unity rather than diversity. He never made the election about putting a black man in the White House (of course, the subtext behind his message of Change was deeply connected to this, but everybody knew it and it didn’t need saying). He made it about reconciling all fringes of America.Remember what he said in his victory speech on Election Day:“(…) we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.”