Hispanic Fanatic

It may be bourgeois of us, but my wife and I have decided that we need some nanny help with our newborn.

Not much, mind you, just someone who can help out for a few hours each week while the two of us are working.

So we’ve started interviewing potential caregivers, and at the risk of generalizing, I couldn’t help but notice something about the five nannies we interviewed.

We asked each of them what they planned to do whenever the baby napped during their shift.

Three said they would perform light housekeeping, run errands, and basically keep working.  Two said they would remain on the clock, but they would not do any extra work, unless maybe we upped their salary.

The three who wanted to keep busy were immigrants (from Latin America, Africa, and Europe, respectively). The two who declined work and/or wanted more money were American-born.

Admittedly, this is a small sample size. However, I was struck by how clearly the work ethic cleaved between the two groups.

By the way, we didn’t ask about their backgrounds, but the women either volunteered the information, or it was obvious.

Now, I’m not saying that American-born individuals are lazy. In fact, maybe they have the right idea. After all, why shouldn’t they negotiate for the best wage they can get? That’s the American way.

On the other hand, it’s pretty clear that immigrants are willing to do whatever it takes to snag a job in this country. And they don’t make excuses about a task being beneath them, or whine about too much work. That is also the American way.

I’d like to think that both aspects are admirable, under the right circumstances.

But for right now, we’re still interviewing.

As we careen, cartwheel, and plummet into the finale of this interminable election season, one refrain we hear many times is that Republicans and Democrats are one and the same.

Indeed, there is ample evidence that both parties are indebted to big business and the status quo. And as Latinos know, Obama’s original immigration policies weren’t much of an improvement over Bush’s approach.

Still, there are differences between the two men running for president— besides the fact that one is a communist Kenyan and the other is a money-grubbing fascist (hey, that’s what the internet told me).

For those who have inexplicably not paid attention, Obama is pro-choice, while Romney is pro-life. Obama is against the death penalty, while Romney is fine with it. The president has come out in support of gay marriage, while Romney believes marriage is a straights-only deal. And Obama doesn’t share Romney’s opinion that the US government is inherently inept, corrupt, and/or evil.

I have to admit, those seem to be fairly large differences to me.

Even progressive icon Daniel Ellsberg, no fan of Obama, thinks the president is substantially different from Romney.

So who are the people yelling that Obama and Romney are clones? I mean, besides Lupe Fiasco?

Well, there are true believers who think a leftist or libertarian chief exec is a possibility (it’s not). Then there are self-proclaimed radicals who dismiss the entire American system as corrupt or bourgeois or just plain icky. And finally, there are voters who simply say, “It don’t matter none.” 

But of course it does matter. And for Latino voters, it’s crucial.

Hispanics are the least likely ethnic group to have health insurance, a situation that the infamous Obamacare may alleviate.

On immigration, Obama has endorsed the Dream Act (belatedly, of course), while Romney is still trying to explain how self-deportation would work.

And when it comes to economic policy, Romney’s tax cuts would benefit the upper classes, which are not exactly awash in Latinos. Keep in mind that according to some experts, Romney “cannot deliver all the tax cuts he promised to the wealthy without raising taxes on the middle class.” One can presume that Hispanics will not be among the direct beneficiaries of his tax plan.

However, perhaps some Latinos still believe that it doesn’t matter who wins. Well, think back to those distant days of 2000, when Bush was elected. At the time, many Americans voted for Nader because Gore and Bush were apparently too similar. Therefore, we have to assume that under President Gore, the September 11 attacks, the Great Recession, and FEMA’s horrific response to Hurricane Katrina would have all occurred. Those are rather huge assumptions, to say the least.

But the Iraq War, an obsession unique to neo-cons, certainly would not have happened. So for the families of 4,500 dead US soldiers, there was at least one fundamental, very real difference between the candidates.

By the way, approximately 500 of those soldiers were Latino.