The politics of espanol

WHEN I FIRST heard that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had agreed to deliver the Democratic Party’s Spanish-language response to President Bush’s State of the Union address, I had the urge to call him up and plead, “Say it ain’t so, Tony.”

There’s certainly nothing wrong with the Democrats producing a political message in Spanish -- Bush also has delivered radio addresses in the language -- but the ethnic politics behind the decision are decidedly lame. If the Democrats had really wanted to offer a powerful message of inclusion that would appeal to the maximum number of Latino and non-Latino voters, they would have invited Villaraigosa to give the party’s response in the language with which he is most comfortable: English.

It is unclear whether the Democratic National Committee actually knew that Villaraigosa is not a native Spanish-speaker. More likely than not, Democratic officials, like so many other people who run major American institutions, made the simple yet ignorant assumption that “Latino” is synonymous with “Spanish-speaking.”

Like many other latter-generation Mexican Americans, Villaraigosa learned Spanish as an adult as a way to improve his skill as a union organizer. Consequently, he speaks it somewhat haltingly. Although English is his primary language, Villaraigosa mostly uses Spanish to appeal to the city’s vast immigrant population. On Tuesday -- with his eyes fixed firmly on the TelePrompTer -- Villaraigosa acquitted himself valiantly, with only a few minor slips. After his address, he admitted to reporters how worried he had been about pronouncing every word correctly.

This poignant admission underscores the bind in which many ambitious Mexican American politicians now find themselves. Even as they strive for the political mainstream and broad pan-ethnic and pan-racial appeal, the parties need them to play the role of ethnic intermediary, appealing to what is perceived as a culturally and linguistically segregated portion of the electorate.

Yet, unlike the adult Latino population at large, which is heavily foreign-born and Spanish-speaking, the Latino electorate is still mostly U.S.-born and, thus, English-speaking. A 2004 study by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 61% of likely Latino voters only view English TV programming, while 28% watch news in both languages. Only 11% watch Spanish-language programming exclusively. That means that on Tuesday, the maximum percentage of the Latino electorate that Villaraigosa probably could have reached was 39%. By contrast, if he had delivered the Democrats’ response on English-language television, he could have potentially reached 89% of likely Latino voters.

It’s difficult to blame Villaraigosa for accepting the party’s offer of a national television platform. Yet the mayor’s Spanish-language address did play into the misconception that Latinos are an undifferentiated -- and permanently foreign -- mass. Indeed, you have to wonder if Villaraigosa explained to his party’s bosses the nuances of Mexican American linguistic and cultural assimilation. Although the use of Spanish persists longer among Mexican Americans than native languages in most other immigrant groups, the shift to English is inexorable. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, by the third generation 71% of Mexican American children speak only English.

Those who are bilingual still tend to have a superior grasp of English. And so it is with Villaraigosa, who is third generation on his mother’s side. It’s one thing to be a fully bilingual politician, such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who gave the Democrats’ Spanish-language response in 2004; it’s another to play one on TV.

Why is it so important for Americans to understand all this? Because as long as national institutions accept the portrayal of Latinos as residing permanently outside the U.S. mainstream, they don’t feel obligated to fully integrate them. While the up-and-coming Anglo governor from Virginia is invited to address a national audience in English, a rising Mexican American politician from the most populous state in the union gets to speak to a tiny sliver of the electorate in Spanish. There is nothing wrong with Spanish-language outreach, but it should not be mistaken for true inclusiveness. Indeed, narrowly targeted outreach, without true integration, is tantamount to ethnic marginalization.

Starting with his broad-based electoral victory over Jim Hahn, Villaraigosa has for the most part done an admirable job of living up to his pledge to be “a mayor for all Los Angeles.” In fact, his administration is more reflective of old-fashioned Democratic inclusiveness than is the contemporary party. But what do you expect from an organization that talks big about diversity, then selects Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont -- more than 95% white and native-born -- to lead it into the multiracial 21st century?