Voters Are Escaping the Boxes We Put Them In

“Is either party doing enough to reach Wisconsin's Latino voters?” was the question asked last week by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The headline both reflected and reinforced how we have become accustomed to understand voters. They come in separate boxes. Sorted and labeled by race, gender, ethnic origin, age, education, religion, occupation, income, and assorted other categories. Who they are determines how they vote.

Adopting that theory 22 years ago, the authors of “The Emerging Democratic Majority” forecast the “dawn of a new progressive era.” Growing minority populations along with women, professionals, and a younger generation becoming more progressive would ensure continuing Democratic victories. “America’s demographic destiny belonged to the Democrats.”

It didn’t happen. Demography did not become destiny. Voters have not stayed in their assigned boxes. Narrowly focused messages addressing specific group concerns have not been effective.

This election, there has been some change in strategy. A story in the New York Times asks, “Can Democrats Win Back Latino Voters by Treating Them Like Everyone Else?”

“Rather than approach Latino voters as if they are an enigmatic niche group with a narrow set of interests, Democrats seem to be recognizing that Latinos have the same hodgepodge mix of priorities as other voters.” Ads have focused on economics, the cost of housing and medication, and the promise of the American dream.

Can votes be won by appealing to common community concerns rather than the special concerns that separate us?

That was the bet made by the Koch brothers in 2011 when they founded LIBRE Initiative with the goal of reducing the share of Hispanic votes going to Democrats. Their website describes their mission. “LIBRE brings people together to make a positive impact in the areas that matter most to Hispanics in this country – a strong economy and good jobs, access to affordable healthcare, safer communities, and quality education for our children.”

Sound familiar? What we all care about. The things that make communities thrive. Reflecting its conservative origins, LIBRE embraces “freedom-minded solutions”. “Limited Government” will result in “Unlimited Opportunities”. More important than the prescribed fix, however, was including Hispanics in the general community discussion.

“Latinos want to be embraced as fully American,” says Carlos Odio, a founder of Equis, a Democratic leaning research group that focuses on Latino voters. “They don’t want to be invited to some separate party. They want to be at the same party as everyone else.”

Polling tells us that the boxes we have constructed are artificial. In a recent survey, the PEW Foundation asked members of different ethnic groups (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian) how they rated the importance of 20 policy priorities. 

There was not much difference on most of the issues, with the exception that Blacks gave much greater importance than other groups to solving problems related to poverty and race, and somewhat more importance to improving education and reducing health costs. Whites were an outlier on immigration, giving it more importance than the other groups. Otherwise, the responses of the four groups tended to be bunched rather closely.

Equally suggestive is that defections from the Democratic Party among Blacks, Latinos and Whites are similar: largely male, no college degree, lower income, a physical job, no particular opportunity for advancement. The underlying problem has to do with what is happening in the economy that effects all of us not just one demographic.

As the economy has changed, some have benefited greatly, some have been left out. There are always winners and losers. A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats. If we see ourselves as a community, we pay attention to those left behind and give them an extra hand. So that when the community gains, we all gain.

If we see ourselves as existing in separate boxes it becomes easy to look at politics and the economy as a zero-sum game. Your gain is my loss, my gain is your loss. We are not invested in the lives of others. We don’t see the connection that your loss made my gain possible.

The approach to politics we have become used to emphasizes our differences. Pollsters break us into groups. The media explains who is winning and who is losing by stories focused on the concerns, attitudes and changes in voting behavior of a particular subset of the population. Campaign messages are tailored to narrow audiences.

We are a coalition of boxes, not a community. Even when we go through a litany of supporters to show how diverse and inclusive we are, the underlying message is we are different. Inevitably, some are left out, not mentioned. They notice.

Geraldo Cadava, professor of history at Northwestern University, suggests. “Instead of talking to American voters as representatives of distinct groups of dairy farmers, autoworkers or suburban housewives … candidates should work to stitch our communities together, making all Americans feel invested in the lives of others.”

He says that idea goes contrary to the usual advice of political strategists who segment Latino voters into Cubans, Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans, and micro-target each with advertisements that feature familiar accents, cultural icons and issues specific to individual national groups.

Despite the general similarity of our concerns our tendency is to separate ourselves into groups of our own kind and think of ourselves as having different interests.

Within the Democratic Party of Wisconsin there are 13 caucuses with 13 agendas that are not that different: Asian American Pacific Islander, American Indian, Black, Disability, Environment, Jewish, Labor, Latino, LGBTQ+, Progressive, Rural, Veterans, Women’s.

Can we get to the common good? Is it possible to get out of the boxes we construct and recognize what we all want is very similar. Although affordable access to health care and quality education for our children may be delivered differently in Milwaukee than in Alma and places in between, we all want the same result.

How should we think about the common good? What might it look like?

The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of government is to secure the life, liberty and happiness of the people. Qianlong, the longest ruling emperor of China, focused on harmony and prosperity. For Aristotle, stability was important.

Safety, liberty, happiness, harmony, prosperity, and stability. What we desire for our own lives. Communities thrive in their presence. As good a way as any of describing the common good.

How do we get there? The political maxim says people vote their pocketbooks. If the economy is strong and employment is high, incumbents are rewarded. When the economy is weak and jobs are scarce, the opposition is given a chance to do better.

It is more complicated than that, though. People think of the economy not just in terms of their own personal circumstances, but also in how their community is doing. Is it a good place to live, have a job, raise a child, have fun, buy what you need, retire? If schools are failing, clinics are closing and stores are leaving the community you live in, it is difficult to think the economy is doing well even if you and those you know have jobs and an income.

People make the connection. Prosperity is personal and communal.

Even with our individualities and differences we are all in one large box together. The politics that focuses on the common good and making it common for everyone is a politics that is  successful.