 |
| Rachel Campos-Duffy |
Not long after the election I posted an article written by Rachel Campos-Duffy for National Review Online in which she discussed what the GOP needs to do in order to attract voters in the Hispanic community. As she points out, pandering will never work. There are no quick fixes and even if the GOP completely caved on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform that it wouldn't miraculously turn Hispanics into life-long Republican.
Reaching out to Hispanics cannot be simply an election-year tactic. It must be an ongoing recruitment based on engagement in the community:
In the long term, education on American history, economic freedom,
and the principles behind conservatism must be a part of the playbook if
we want to make lasting inroads. The Libre Initiative, a new
organization dedicated to educating Hispanics on the benefits of
free-markets and limited constitutional government, has begun the work.
Likewise, Hillsdale’s highly successful (and free) online Constitution
courses are an excellent model of how we can do it in a cost-effective
manner. Soon, over a million people will have taken Hillsdale’s courses.
At the same time, in our zeal to promote the economic advantages of
our principles, we must not shy away from the social issues. When we
highlight our position on abortion and traditional marriage, we
spotlight the secular and radical social agenda of the Left, an agenda
that is foreign and antithetical to Hispanics’ values.
This is not easy work. Educating children and their parents on the
universal messages of free enterprise and self-determination takes
money. So does grooming political talent within the community and
training and hiring Latino surrogates to bring the message to Spanish-
and English-speaking media. Building community coalitions with pro-life
groups and pro-business groups takes time. It also takes time to earn
the trust of Hispanics and to see the fruits of our work in the dreams
of their children. But make no mistake — we can do this.
I agree completely with her assessment of the situation and what is required to turn the tide. So I was thrilled to see that she had expounded on the theme in an article published in the November issue of American Spectator magazine. In it, she goes into greater detail about her Mexican-American family and how her father gradually switched allegiance from the Democrats to the Republicans.
For a Reagan Democrat like my dad, voting Republican in 1980
created the space to begin questioning his family’s Democrat
heritage, the Catholic loyalty forged by the election of JFK, and
the union rhetoric he grew up hearing. Reagan had a way of
transcending ethnic, racial, and political lines and of making
everyone feel proud to be an American. It was an attractive message
for a first-generation Mexican American soldier raised on Elvis and
baseball. Plus, Reagan delivered results. In 1984, it was morning
again in America. My dad voted for Reagan a second time and
eventually registered Republican when he could no longer square the
Democrats’ position on abortion with his faith, principles, and
values. The decision would make my father the only Republican in
his large Mexican American family.
One of the things that surprised me (though I don't know why it should) is that her political inspiration was Jack Kemp:
Jack Kemp, it turned out, shared some of my roommates’ concerns.
Long before the Hispanic vote became a favorite topic for pundits
and talking heads, he profoundly understood that changing
demographics created consequences for the GOP if it failed to
aggressively and continually engage minorities in ideological
debate.
Today, Harry Reid says he doesn’t understand how anyone Hispanic
could be a Republican. Actor John Leguizamo claims that Hispanics
voting for Republicans are like roaches voting for Raid.
But when Kemp was alive, he specifically and exuberantly made
the case that Hispanics belonged in the GOP. He passionately argued
that the work ethic and entrepreneurialism of Mexican Americans is
quintessentially American—and very Republican. He understood that
our parents and grandparents came north for economic freedom, not
more government. He recognized that Hispanics are inherently
pro-life and very traditional in their principles and values.
Jack Kemp is the reason I became interested in Empower America,
and the reason I brought my roommates and the MTV cameras with me
on that beautiful afternoon. Later, I received a handwritten note
from “Old #15” that I still have framed in my home office. It
reads: “Rachel—I’m sure glad you made it to M.T.V. They need a
young (beautiful), sharp, conservative ‘bleeding heart’ Hispanic
woman from Arizona.”
What Jack didn’t say in that note, but knew to be true, was that
the GOP needed me too.
I was only nine years old in 1996 when Kemp joined Bob Dole on the GOP ticket as the vice-presidential nominee. So his career did not have any impact on me as it did for Campos-Duffy. But after reading her article I was inspired to start reading about Kemp, his career and his methods of reaching out to voter groups. I was very impressed. And was further bolstered by an article written by John Nolte at Breitbart.com in which he acknowledged that he, like Campos-Duffy, had been inspired to be Conservative by Jack Kemp!
The important point is that we are in a competition with the Left for the hearts and minds of a constituency that will continue to play a major role in the outcome of elections while at the same time gradually assimilate into the unique and still-exceptional American culture. The competition is not about who can pander most effectively or make the most cynical promises but which side can do the better job articulating its case. Conservative principles and American values are superior to anything offered by the Left. But that doesn't count for much if the message gets lost or, even worse, isn't offered at all.
So why haven’t more hardworking and socially conservative
Hispanics joined the GOP ranks? The answer has more to do with
tactics and institutions than ideology.
For too long, the party’s strategy has been to hire a few
Beltway conservative Latinos six months before an election and call
it “outreach.” What’s needed is permanent outreach at the
grassroots levels between elections. Conservative Hispanic
activists on the ground know that the GOP needs to take a few cues
from successful groups like the far-left La Raza, which has made
its mark by bringing public policy to the neighborhood level.
Nor can we afford to cede Spanish-language media to the
Democrats. Obama and his team are effectively and aggressively
penetrating the Latino media with ads featuring celebrities like
Cristina Saralegui—the Spanish-language Oprah. At the same time,
Democrat-friendly news producers, reporters, and anchors create the
impression on Spanish-language television that Democrats are the
only ones who care about Hispanics. Publications like People en
EspaƱola and Latina Magazine might as well be arms of
the DNC.
Fox News Latino brings some balance, but conservatives still
need an aggressive strategy to capture Hispanics via their media,
by both advertising and deploying Hispanic surrogates who are
articulate, informed, and can offer classic American stories of
struggle and success.
Which brings us to another problem: The Republican Party has a
shockingly shallow pool of Hispanic surrogates. The left
successfully grooms Hispanic talent at the local level, with the
understanding that the fruits of the effort may not be visible in
the next election. Julian Castro, the young mayor of San Antonio
who gave the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention,
is an example of this.
Republicans have an extraordinary representative in Marco Rubio,
who can sell American exceptionalism with the clarity of Reagan and
the enthusiasm of Kemp. In New Mexico’s Susana Martinez, they have
a relatable Mexican American governor who grew up around a family
business.
But Martinez is being under-utilized, and Rubio cannot do it
alone. The Republican Party needs to work harder to find, train,
fund, and empower Hispanic conservatives who can go out,
particularly during the off years, to present our principles and
our values.
Of course she is exactly right in her assessment that while the GOP definitely has some rising stars in Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez (and Brian Sandoval and Ted Cruz) there needs to be a greater Hispanic presence among our most visible politicians and message-crafters. Rachel Campos-Duffy has now written two excellent articles on this subject at a time when the GOP and the Conservative movement in general are undergoing brutal self-examination and searching for solutions.
This gives me hope that she will continue to raise her visibility and increase her impact in the Conservative movement. She has a compelling personal story, which provides something of a blueprint for others like her. She is the wife of a very promising, up-and-coming GOP Congressman, Sean Duffy of Wisconsin. I anticipate she will become more active as time goes by and her children get older. We Republicans need more leaders like Rachel Campos-Duffy taking care of business in communities all across the country as we work towards making the 21st Century an American success story.
How sweet it is! The "left-wing freak show" as Mark Halperin calls them are having a bit of a meltdown thanks to this article in Slate.
Here's Rubio, in his interview for the December 2012 issue of GQ:
Q: How old do you think the Earth is?
A: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell
you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I
think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing
to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United
States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our
economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m
qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think
there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created
and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity
to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids
what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created
in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer
that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
And here's then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008:
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked
you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world
in 6 days?,” what would you say?
A: What I've said to them is that I
believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible
may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days,
and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those
who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a
legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My
belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this
magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is
fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might
understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to
know.
It is somewhat surprising to see a liberal outfit like Slate thoroughly nullifying the Left's newest meme. But it is certainly helpful. By pointing out that Rubio's comments are essentially no different than Obama's on the same subject, Slate has not only ruined the attempt to smear Rubio but has in effect highlighted the similarities of the two men. And since Obama went on to become POTUS and then successfully ran for reelection, such a comparison can only help Rubio. I love it when members of the "left-wing freak show" make an attempt at character assassination and wind up only bloodying themselves!
Longtime radio newsman/commentator Paul Harvey created the original of this homily around 1965. It was updated as the years went by and therefore versions of it vary over time. This one is probably from about 1996. It is a warning to America about its own decay.
I know this may seem like I'm being a backseat driver but I can't help but wish that our up-and-coming political stars would be as thorough in their preparation for the tricks and traps so carefully laid out by the Establishment Media as Obama was in pandering relentlessly to his base voters. Leave no stone unturned and be prepared for anything and everything! Even though the 2012 elections were only two weeks ago, hunting season for our hopelessly biased media has already started for 2016. First target: Marco Rubio.
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio:
I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what
recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think
that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do
with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.
I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is
going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to
answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are
multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think
this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them
all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their
faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days,
or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's
one of the great mysteries.
My first thought when I heard about this question was to assume that the point of it was to make Rubio look stupid. Or, more specifically, to set him up to be portrayed as ignorant or gaffe-prone by other members of the hostile media.
Marco Rubio may be the future of the Republican Party, but his views on
science appear to be stuck somewhere in the seventeenth century. In a new interview with GQ, Rubio was asked how old he thinks the Earth is, and to anyone who
believes that science is more accurate than the Bible in matters of
geology, his answer is either amusing, depressing, or enraging — or
possibly all three simultaneously. But parse it closely, and it appears
that Rubio does endorse science, albeit subtly and perhaps accidentally...
Tee hee! So snarky! Rubio even merited a special hashtag on Twitter.
But as Allahpundit pointed out:
They want to put Rubio on the spot by seeing if he’ll risk alienating
religious conservatives before the 2016 primaries by rejecting Young
Earth creationism. If he does, then he may have a problem in famously
evangelical Iowa. If he doesn’t, then the media can start hand-wringing
over the next big Republican star supposedly pandering to creationists.
The point is to discomfort him politically, not to explore the subject.
As Bryan Preston says, it’s a small early effort in the project to destroy Rubio before 2016.
It's interesting to strip away Rubio's answers and just look at the sequence of questions asked, as depicted in the article:
- You're the first senator I've ever spoken to who had a transformative
life experience at a South Beach foam party—committing to the woman who
became your wife.
- How do you balance ambition and humility?
- Do you think you're moving too fast?
- We've seen people tend toward inspiring transformational figures. You know you had Barack Obama in 2004...
- Do you want to be one of those people?
- People often talk about how there are politicians and there are leaders.
- By that definition Obama would fall into that, right?
- The Republican strategy after Obama came into office was to make sure
the president didn't have another term. The Republicans didn't have a
plan and were just going to say no to everything the president put
forth.
- One of the poignant moments in your book is when you're hanging out with
your grandfather on the porch. If he were with you now, what are some
things you would ask him?
- You were obviously very moved by your grandfather's dignity and your
father's dignity. What are the qualities that would qualify for a man to
have dignity?
- How old do you think the Earth is?
- You talk a lot to young Republicans. Recently I met a Republican who
said, my kids are in high school and there's a prom. There's straight
kids, gay kids. It's no big deal to them. And he says, my party, the
Republican party, has to stop putting these social issues out there and
talking more about stuff that effects people.
- Who's your best friend?
- Besides your wife.
- Your autobiography also has to be the first time a politician has cited a
love of Afrika Bambaataa. Did you have a favorite Afrika Bambaataa
song?
- Your three favorite rap songs?
- Is there a song you play to psych you up before a vote in the Senate?
- So, Pitbull's too cheesy?
I suspect that Rubio was not expecting a random question about the Earth's age popping up in the middle of a series of personal questions. What has the Earth got to do with getting to know Marco Rubio? Nothing, of course. It's a "gotcha" question. And when I talk about being thoroughly prepared for these kinds of silly questions I mean war-gaming all possible scenarios and deciding how to answer them.
Generally speaking, it should be a simple (if tedious) matter of the potential candidate creating an exhaustive list of issues and then solidifying in his or her mind what he or she believes and then crafting an answer that both accurately conveys that belief and minimizes the opportunity for ridicule from a hostile media. Obviously this is something that Marco Rubio is quite capable of handling with ease. He just has to understand that every media person asking him a question is a potential hostile and that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be taken for granted. There is still plenty time to do this. On the other hand, the time has already arrived. Let's be careful out there!
For all those who have given up hope that any spokesperson of the Obama administration would ever get a grilling from the press corps rather than the usual "glory and praise" or obedient stenography, this one's for you!
Here is Matt Lee of the Associated Press acting like a reporter and demanding answers from State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland on the topic of Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan's description of Israel as a "terrorist state."
The Democrats engaged in a great deal of demagoguery during the 2012 campaign regarding Paul Ryan's dedication to fixing our Social Security and Medicare systems so that they can avoid total collapse in the decades to come. They utilized the standard scare tactics (throwing granny off a cliff) as well as accusing Ryan of being "stupid" and a "liar." The one thing they did not do - because they could not do - was offer any kind of solution of their own. Obama and Reid didn't even bother kicking the can down the road. They simply ignored the can altogether and counted on the ignorance of Democrat voters to see them through to election day.
Well, the strategy succeeded but it was surely a hollow victory since the iceberg is still lurking out there in the future.
A central factor in the looming financial crunch is the fact that our
society is aging. The “Baby Boom” generation has already started to
collect their Social Security retirement benefits. As a result, there
are fewer workers to support each retiree than when Social Security was
created. Increasing life expectancy and the approaching retirement of
more Baby Boomers continues to put increasing pressure on Social
Security each year. Over the next several years, the number of retirees
is expected to grow more rapidly than the number of individuals whose
taxes will pay for future benefits. Because of this, the number of
workers supporting each Social Security recipient is projected to fall.
According to the 2012 Social Security Trustees Report, beneficiaries
will face a painful 25 percent benefit cut in 2033 when the Trust Funds
are exhausted – three years sooner than projected just last year. At
that time, even those who are currently on Social Security – those now
62 and older – may experience indiscriminate cuts in benefits at a time
when they are increasingly reliant on the program.
Luckily, we still have Paul Ryan working hard in the House of Representatives on behalf of the American people.
"If we want millionaires to pay more taxes, then we need an economy where
there are more millionaires."
As Conservatives already understand, our federal government does not really have a revenue problem. What it does have is a spending problem. The runaway spending is a serious problem for our nation. It must be dealt with ASAP. But if you want greater revenue then raising taxes is not the solution. Democrats are functionally illiterate when it comes to economics. They must have it explained to them, so... As Stephen Moore explains:
Let's start with the 1920s. All tax rates were cut during the Calvin
Coolidge administration, including the top rate, which fell to 25% from
the World War I high of 73%. Between 1923 and 1928, benefited by lower
tax rates, the economy surged, raising incomes and living standards for
the middle class. Tax collections in real terms nearly doubled—and the
share of taxes paid by those who made more than $100,000 a year (more
than $1 million today) increased to 51% from 28%.
The top tax rate rose to 63% in 1932,
to 79% in 1936, and to 90% during World War II. The higher rates
persisted after the war, and while the economy grew as the government's
economic role ebbed, high rates generally helped to hold back the pace
of growth.
Tax rates weren't reduced much until the Kennedy administration. JFK
cut rates by about 30% for every income group. He argued that the lower
tax rates would "boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a
future budget surplus." He even called lower rates "an investment in the
future."
The Kennedy tax cut was enacted in 1964 (after JFK's assassination),
lowering the highest tax rate to 70% from 91%. His prediction that the
economy would surge was validated by rapid growth every year from 1965
through 1968. Tax collections grew by 8.6% per year and unemployment
fell to 3.4%. "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues
following the biggest tax cut in history," announced a 1966 U.S. News
and World Report article, "is beginning to astonish even those who
pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place."
Americans earning over $50,000 per year
(the equivalent of about $250,000 today) increased their tax payments
by nearly 40% after the rate cut, according to a report from the Joint
Economic Committee of Congress. Their share of overall taxes paid rose
to almost 15% in 1966 from 12% in 1963. Americans with an income of more
than $1 million nearly doubled their tax payments to $603 million in
1965 from $311 million in 1962.
As Obama is fond of saying: Let's have that discussion...
Whatever you do, don't believe the triumphalist hype flowing like raw sewage out of the mouths of Kool-aid intoxicated, Left-wing concern trolls these days. Instead, Karl Rove makes some good points:
Republicans need not jettison their principles. But they must avoid
appearing judgmental and callous on social issues. Offensive comments
about rape by GOP Senate candidates in Missouri and Indiana gave the
media an excuse to put social issues at the election's center in a way
that badly hurt the entire party, as well as costing Republicans two
Senate seats.
The GOP must reduce the destructiveness
of the presidential primaries. In the first place, activists can
withhold support from candidates who make reckless assaults on
competitors, which happened too often this time. Also, the Republican
National Committee should limit the number of debates and, by showing
wisdom in picking debate moderators, limit the media's ability to depict
the party as a fringe group.
Another idea: Holding the convention in late August made sense when
candidates relied on public financing for the general election. That
will never happen again. The Romney campaign had tens of millions it
couldn't spend for months until he was officially nominated on Aug. 28.
Future conventions should be held as early as late June.
And I also have an idea, which is that the RNC should not only reduce the number of primary debates, insist on objective debate moderators and hold the convention two months earlier but should also go back to having winner-take-all primaries so that the process of winning delegates will be completed sooner. And if the GOP does win the White House in 2016 it would also be extremely helpful if the VP nominee is someone who will be willing and able to make his or her own run for the White House in 2024. This kind of continuity can help avoid the primary bloodletting of 2008 and 2012.
You simply can't make this stuff up. Sadly, with academia largely in the hands of tenured radicals who see indoctrination as their primary responsibility, not education, episodes like this are all too common.
"I have yet to find one crime — yet to find one crime — that Stalin committed," Furr said.
On the other hand, it makes it hard for the apologists to deny the reality of Left-wing subversion on campus. As Ron Radosh points out in Academic Malpractice: The Case of Grover Furr:
So let me note why the employment in an American university of Grover
Furr should be of concern, not just to residents of Montclair, N.J., and
to the poor students who are forced to listen to the drivel and the
lies he puts forth as the truth, but to anyone concerned with higher
education in our nation. Furr is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier, a
person who misuses the doctrine of academic freedom to use the
classroom as a forum for indoctrination, and to use the imprimatur of
being a faculty member as a mechanism to make it appear that he has
something to say and that people should listen to him.
And this is nothing new for Furr. Here's an excellent article about him from 2005, which includes this quote:
"What
[American universities] need, and would much benefit from, is more
Marxists, radicals, leftists – all terms conventionally applied to those
who fight against exploitation, racism, sexism, and capitalism. We can
never have too many of these, just as we can never have too few 'conservatives.'"
This man is an idiot and a disgrace.
If you raise taxes does it automatically follow that you'll raise more
revenue? Is there a point at which tax rates become counterproductive?
UCLA Economics professor Tim Groseclose answers these questions and
poses some fascinating new ones.
 |
| Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico |
Amid the speculation about what went wrong for Mitt Romney and the GOP this election cycle were several articles and on-air opinions regarding the impact of Hispanic voters, both now and going forward. Almost immediately there were calls by prominent Conservatives to take a second look at comprehensive immigration reform, including some sort of of "amnesty." Others went in the opposite, negative direction and pointed out that neither a shift on immigration policy nor promoting GOP Hispanic politicians nor even appeals to common core values would be able to significantly change the current status quo.
For the record, I am not one of those who believe that Romney's defeat was the result of "demographics" in this election cycle. Romney's failure to match even McCain's vote total in 2008 indicates that the election was lost when white Republicans failed to turn out for Romney. Nevertheless, steps must be taken by the GOP to increase its outreach to Hispanic voters in preparation for future battles with the Left regarding the future of our country.
For me, the best advice I've read so far on this topic was written by Rachel Campos-Duffy, wife of Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy. In her National Review article she writes:
First, let's start with the facts. Hispanics rank immigration fourth
in their list of concerns, behind the economy, education, and health
care. Obama has actually deported more Hispanics than any other
president. Hispanics simply perceive him as caring more about them, and this is more an issue of style than of substance.
Hispanics start businesses at twice the rate of the general
population. They are entrepreneurial and naturally averse to governments
that breed economic stagnation, which stands in the way of the upward
mobility they seek. They've experienced centralized, dysfunctional,
crony government in their countries of origin, and they know it doesn’t
lift anyone out of poverty.
I agree with her on the idea that there really is no solid reason for Obama to have received 71% of the Hispanic vote. George W. Bush received 44% of the Hispanic vote during his successful reelection campaign in 2004. Needless to say, if Romney had been able to duplicate that performance last week he'd be busy putting together his transition team and looking forward to his inauguration.
The Democrats want to believe that they've got the Hispanic vote permanently locked down and that demographic shifts in the electorate spell doom for the GOP in the future. This, of course, is merely wishful thinking on their part. The Hispanic community in the United States is far too diverse to ever be tied to one party or another. And there's no reason why the GOP can't do a much better job of attracting Hispanic voters for future elections.
There are three Hispanic members of the U.S. Senate and two of them (Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas) are members of the GOP. There are two Hispanic governors (Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Susana Martinez of New Mexico), both of whom belong to the GOP. Martinez, who was once a Democrat, is also the first female Hispanic governor in U.S. history. A third GOP Hispanic governor, Luis FortuƱo of Puerto Rico, suffered defeat in his reelection bid last week. These are just some of the party's deep bench of future contenders. But we need many more.
Campos-Duffy outlines the reasons why Hispanics, particularly those living in large immigrant enclaves, tend to lean to the Left:
Hispanics come to America for the American Dream. They are “trabajadores,”
and you would be hard pressed to find an American farmer, contractor,
or restaurant owner who would not testify to their work ethic.
Unfortunately, the communities in which they live and work are teeming
with liberal activists: farm and service-industry labor unions,
well-intentioned community-based social services providers and more
radical and racially motivated Latino groups such as La Raza, LULAC, and
Mecha. In addition, the curricula their kids encounter in public
schools are either hostile or silent on the Founding Fathers, the
Constitution, and ideas that are the foundation of conservative
thinking. All of these activist groups and institutions have a common
ideology and an affinity for big and centralized government, and of
course, entitlements. They go out of their way to sign folks up and to
begin the cycle of government dependency. Once hooked to the IV of
government handouts, a steady drip of ideology, and a heavy dose of
raunchy pop culture, the once vibrant American Dreams and traditional
family values of Hispanics drift into a slow, deep coma.
The sad fact is that these activists operate unimpeded. The voices of
economic freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination are
virtually nonexistent in Hispanic communities and media. The Catholic
Church, a potential counter to these secular and socialist ideas, tends
to place its most liberal priests in these communities. Thus, the
“social justice” mantra so effectively co-opted by the Left in the
Obama/Soros era is often reinforced in the churches Latinos attend.
Meanwhile, since Republicans and conservatives prefer D.C. think
tanks and expensive ad buys to the long, hard, dowdy work of community
organizing, we’ve effectively ceded these communities and the culture
that surrounds them to the Left. We simply aren’t playing. And we’re
either too lazy, or enamored with quick fixes, or overwhelmed by the
task, to begin the work.
But here is Campos-Duffy's blueprint for the long-range task of bringing a greater number of Hispanics into the GOP:
In the long term, education on American history, economic freedom,
and the principles behind conservatism must be a part of the playbook if
we want to make lasting inroads. The Libre Initiative, a new
organization dedicated to educating Hispanics on the benefits of
free-markets and limited constitutional government, has begun the work.
Likewise, Hillsdale’s highly successful (and free) online Constitution
courses are an excellent model of how we can do it in a cost-effective
manner. Soon, over a million people will have taken Hillsdale’s courses.
At the same time, in our zeal to promote the economic advantages of
our principles, we must not shy away from the social issues. When we
highlight our position on abortion and traditional marriage, we
spotlight the secular and radical social agenda of the Left, an agenda
that is foreign and antithetical to Hispanics’ values.
This is not easy work. Educating children and their parents on the
universal messages of free enterprise and self-determination takes
money. So does grooming political talent within the community and
training and hiring Latino surrogates to bring the message to Spanish-
and English-speaking media. Building community coalitions with pro-life
groups and pro-business groups takes time. It also takes time to earn
the trust of Hispanics and to see the fruits of our work in the dreams
of their children. But make no mistake — we can do this.
The countdown to the 2014 mid-term elections has already begun, not to mention the long road to 2016. There's plenty of work to be done but it is worth the doing!
