Hispanic Fanatic

It’s that time of the electoral season, when journalists, political scientists, psychologists, and experts in every field (up to and including herbology) spend innumerable hours attempting to figure out what motivates voters.

This is a quest that is never focused on progressives. Apparently, we are easy to figure out. Liberals just want to smuggle a billion undocumented immigrants into America, burn down all the churches, perform forceful abortions on every woman, and make all the guys marry each other. It’s that simple.

But Trump voters? Truly they are a mystery of the modern world.

For example, CNN recently profiled Republican primary voters and included this nugget of pure wisdom: “Trump critics who think his supporters are blindly loyal would benefit from some time in the quarry with McIver, or on the boat with Konchek.”

Well, those are fine all-American names. And in the article, McIver and Konchek come across as admirable, hardworking, humble men.

You see, just like Trump fans will never stop supporting him, the mainstream media will never stop insisting that blue-collar dudes who embrace bigotry and fascism are great guys.

Also, the idea that liberals “would benefit from some time” with Trump supporters reinforces the idea that progressives are obligated to get out of our bubbles, get into that quarry or fishing boat, and work hard to empathize with Trump supporters. 

But we will never ask the same of MAGA. They can go right on screaming that all progressives are pedophiles. To ask Republicans to listen to progressives is ludicrous, even insulting, and we certainly can’t be criticizing conservatives.

The gist of the CNN article is that Republicans are not “blindly loyal” to Trump, and they question some of his actions. But as the article makes clear, they go ahead and vote for him anyway. Seriously, every one of the free-thinking conservatives profiled in the article admits that, come November, they will vote for Trump.

Maybe I’m missing something, but that seems pretty damn loyal to me.

For almost a decade now, media outlets have been straining to portray Trump voters’ motivations as more complex than they actually are.

Mountains of data going back years show that the most accurate indicators of Trump support are racial animosity, a yearning for traditional gender roles, and comfort with authoritarianism.

So if you are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and love dictators, we have the perfect candidate for you.

Of course, not all Trump supporters possess these unsavory characteristics. There are also those who believe, against all logic and data, that the economy does better under Republican presidents. Others have a mortal fear of liberals. And still others, billionaires mostly, stand to benefit from another Trump administration. 

Christian nationalists also love the guy. But so do hard-core conservatives who want to live in a world where nothing changes, ever. These people are the greatest, in that they espouse a made-up legal philosophy, originalism, that insists Americans can carry heavy weaponry that didn’t exist in colonial times even though in just about every other aspect, we should live exactly like Benjamin Franklin did. It doesn’t matter that most Americans don’t want to live in the 1700s, because originalists demand that we do so.

By the way, no other industrialized nation seems to have this hero worship of their leaders from hundreds of years ago. No other developed country says, “Let’s base our laws on the best guess of how our prime minister who’s been dead for 200 years would rule.”

Another aside: Isn’t it odd that conservatives, who shriek that discussions of civil rights are irrelevant because they originated way back in the 1960s, have adopted a motto that clamors for taking America back to the 1950s? And they are straight-up obsessed with Confederate generals from a century before that. It’s all about picking and choosing from the past for these guys.

In any case, media coverage of Trump supporters is invariably fawning or apologetic. This is not a surprise, since the man himself gets more positive spin than most would-be insurrectionists could ever dream of receiving. 

This is because news outlets are constantly striving to “find something that is genuinely suboptimal about the Democratic candidate and dwell on it endlessly to ‘balance’ coverage of the criminal in charge of the GOP.”

The approach works well for Trump and Republican leaders, who want to convince voters that they are “simultaneously just little guys like us — helpless victims of a liberal police state — and strong, powerful father figures who will protect us from the bad guys.”

It’s quite the balancing act.

So I’ve managed to go a couple of weeks without commenting on how the president is mangling America into a twisted, charred homunculus of bigotry and hatred.

The past couple of weeks, I’ve been distracted by my hometown’s embrace of a bigot, as well as my brush with death(when all I wanted to do was go grocery shopping).

In any case, completing this trilogy of non-Trump stories, we have the sad tale of

Paramount Television President Amy Powell, who was recentlyfired “after allegedly making racially insensitive remarks in the workplace.”

Powell, who apparently “made statements about black women being angry for various reasons“ during a conference call, denies the accusations and is considering legal action.

Hey, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what was said in this specific case.

What I do know is that Powell is the “latest exec to be fired over alleged racist remarks.”

Apparently,it is too much to ask of white corporate titans to make it through a meeting without denigrating ethnic minorities or, you know, casually dropping the n-word.

This recent trend of powerful white people getting canned over bigoted statements provokes two thoughts.

First, if this is so commonplace today, just imagine what executives said behind closed doors in previous decades, when prejudice was more overt, ethnic minorities were even less represented, and racist statements just flowed out sans social condemnation.

Second, keep in mind that ethnic minorities — especially Latinos— are still incredibly underrepresented in film and television. Is it hard to imagine why, when top execs feel they have every right to slander non-white people in open meetings? And these are so-called Hollywood liberals too.

No, it will most likely be awhile before I get to pitch my idea for a Latino-themed television show (it’s a killer, trust me). And when I do, I have to hope that the powerbroker sitting behind his desk doesn’t just sneer at me and make a dumb joke about Hispanics.

But he probably will.

I know what you’re thinking.

“Hey, Hispanic Fanatic, wouldn’t this country be better off if huge corporations called more of the shots?”

Yes, I’m nothing if not a shill for the benefits of global conglomerates having even more control over our society. I mean, when has big business ever screwed us over?

While you ponder that most rhetorical of questions, I will draw your attention to a recent study that looked at media company mergers.

Researchers at Columbia University’s Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race analyzed media company mergers after 2008, but they focused on the Comcast-NBCUniversal deal because it was the largest and well documented.

Now, remember that one of the many arguments that media groups make when merging is that their new tentacled beast of an organization will increase racial and ethnic diversity. These new companies will also make the internet free, cure cancer, and teach your dog to speak, but I digress.

So how did the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger do?

Well, the researchers found that “despite a pledge to increase Latino representation in programming, there was no significant increase in diversity behind the camera.”

The percentage of Latino directors went up a meager 0.8% after the merger. But the percentage of Hispanic producers, executive producers, and writers all actually decreased.

Yikes — that ain’t so good.

To be fair, the study also found that the percentage of Hispanic actors onscreen increased from 6.6% before the merger to 7.3% afterward. That’s good news, right? Well, even that mild improvement comes with a caveat, as deeper analysis shows that this increase “was accompanied by a significant rise in Latino stereotypes on NBCUniversal. Latinos who appeared as maids, janitors, [and] inmates” nearly tripled from 2008 to 2014.

Basically, more shows were hiring more Hispanics to appear as servants and thugs.

Yay for progress!

By the way, before the merger, Comcast and NBCUniversal had no Latino executives. But today, 4 out of 130 senior executives are Latino, accounting for 3.1% of upper management. However, only one (yes, one Latino executive in the whole company) holds a position outside of Telemundo.

Now, one can look at this study and link it to the current uproar that Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans are a combined 0-for-40 when it comes to recent Oscar nominations for acting.

When we do that, we must come to the conclusion that, as the researchers so diplomatically put it, “The agreements and promises made before the merger [aren’t] really panning out.”

But I’m sure things will be different when the next big media merger happens. Next time, all their promises will magically come true.

Yup.

The biggest story in America right now — not the biggest Latino-themed story, but the most talked-about news item, period — is the humanitarian crisis at the border. As we all know, tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants — many of them children — are massed in overrun detention centers, awaiting their fate.

Meanwhile, whole towns of god-fearin’ Americans are making it clear that they don’t want no stinkin’ illegals in their neighborhood.

Yes, this is the latest, most impressive imbroglio over immigration. And in the minds of many Americans, all immigrants are undocumented, all undocumented people are Hispanic, and all Hispanics are undocumented immigrants. It’s a nice little A=B=C theorem.

But the funny thing is that there are 11.7 undocumented migrants in the U.S. By comparison, the overall U.S. Hispanic population is 53 million. Although “immigration is the issue most associated with Latinos…it is not necessarily the most interesting issue to Latinos.” One could argue, in fact, that “most Latinos would probably love not to have to deal with it.”

Indeed, Pew Research says that the top issues for Hispanics are education, jobs and the economy, healthcare, the federal government debt, and (in fifth place) immigration. Even among Hispanic immigrants themselves, only one-third say immigration is an extremely important issue to them personally.

The discrepancy between immigration’s status in the media and its actual importance to the Hispanic community has provoked some Hispanic leaders to say that immigration “occupies almost all the Latino policy agenda, sucking up…all the oxygen on Latino issues.”

Latino leaders say that Hispanics “need to strike a better balance” and not allow immigration to stifle “the Latino agenda for the 21st century. We have to get to the point where we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and focus on other things like discrimination, education, and the infrastructures in our communities.”

It’s a fair point. But immigration is not going away as a media hot topic anytime soon. It’s been pointed out that whether “we are talking about health care or voting rights, there are those who keep inserting immigration into the mix, whether it pertains to a particular issue or not – and normally in a detrimental way.”

And let’s not forget that the media “tends to reduce our diversity down to one issue [and] treat us all as perpetual immigrants.” 

But just you wait, someday soon a national Latino leader will be invited to a Sunday morning news program, and he or she will be asked about the deficit or the Israeli-Palestinian problem or guns in schools or whether the president should be impeached for wearing white after Labor Day or whatever.

And nobody will mention immigration. And it will be pretty cool.