Cuban-American ‘Generational Shift’ Doesn’t Shift
For as long as many South Floridians can remember, some politicos and the media, specifically the Miami Herald, have tried to sell the theory that we are witnessing a generational change in outlook among Cuban-Americans that will manifest itself at the ballot box. In particular they allege that younger Cubans are less likely to take a hard line toward the Castro regime and thus less likely to become Republicans. In the past I have disputed this using various sources:
1. A Florida International University poll of Cuban-Americans that shows a remarkably steady proportion of Cuban-American voters registered as Republicans over the last 17 years. That poll has had GOP affiliation among Cuban-Americans ranging between 66% and 69% since 1991.
2. A survey conducted by Sergio Bendixen, a Democratic pollster, for the New Democrat Network, a Democratic think tank. That poll showed an even higher level of Republican affiliation among Cuban-Americans of 72% in September 2006.
Advertisement
3. News reports and scholarly articles about exit polls of Cuban-Americans during presidential elections. Those polls showed that Cuban-American support of Democratic presidential candidates has varied from a low of about 20% for Carter, Clinton in 1992, and Gore in 2000 to a McGovernesque high of about 35% for Clinton in 1996.
4. Actual election results since Ileana Ros-Lehtinen became the first Cuban-American elected to Congress in 1989 with 53% of the vote. The highest any opponent has garnered against the Cuban-American trio of Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, or Mario Diaz-Balart since then was in 2006 when Democrat Michael Calderin received 41.5% of the vote in Florida’s 25th congressional district. A 17-point spread isn’t even close, and that was among all voters in the district, not just Cuban-Americans, the spread for which was surely higher.
Recently I began to wonder when exactly the folks at 1 Herald Plaza in Miami began to sing that song which by now is very tired, so I did an archive search at Herald.com and looked back as far as their archives go (1982) to find out.
The earliest meaningful article I found on the subject was one from December 1983. It was written by Richard Morin and Barbara Gutierrez and appeared with the following headline: “Dreams, Issues Divide Parents And Children.”
In typical newspaper fashion the story was told through anecdotes. In this case it was the story of Walter Alvarez, a 19-year-old who dreamed “of dirt bikes and cars and girls” and believed “the United States should establish diplomatic relations with the country that his parents fled.” I wonder where Walter Alvarez — who would be 43 today — is, what his party affiliation is, and how he voted in the last congressional and presidential elections.
Even at that early date the Herald was conducting surveys to figure out where there might be divisions among Cuban-Americans. At the time, they were splitting hairs about certain statements with which older Cuban-Americans “strongly agreed” while younger ones simply “agreed”.
The next major piece I found was a column by Tom Fiedler, who was then the Herald’s political editor. Fiedler, who achieved notoriety by breaking the story of Gary Hart’s affair with Donna Rice, effectively ending Hart’s presidential bid, later went on to become the paper’s executive editor. Fiedler’s December 1986 column was headlined: “Cubans Find Young Have New Politics.”
The piece contained more of the same sentiment as the one Morin and Gutierrez had authored three years earlier, but Fiedler built his case on the historical precedent of the generation gap as described by Margaret Mead, the famous anthropologist.
He paraphrased Mead, saying she “developed the theory that Americans had entered a ‘prefigurative’ era in which the teachings of the grandparents and parents were irrelevant to youth.” It’s obvious that neither Mead nor Fiedler were Cubans.
Fiedler also used an anecdote to make his point, describing a rally for Ronald Reagan at the Dade County Auditorium, where Pat Buchanan spoke. He noted that aside from “uniformed Catholic school children invited to sing for the crowd,” there were no young people at the event.
Armed with his proof Fiedler hypothesized that although the generation gap among Americans was, at the time, a thing of the past, Cuban-Americans were experiencing a similar phenomenon:
A generation gap is alive and well there, portending change in cultural and political tastes. The Cuban family, like its American counterpart nearly a generation ago, is in Mead’s “prefigurative state” — where the teachings of the elders are largely irrelevant to the experiences of the young. I don’t mean to sound apocalyptic. I don’t suggest that young adult ethnic Cubans will “drop out, turn on, and tune out.” Nor will they shed their facility for Spanish, their taste for plantanos, or their skepticism for liberal Democrats.
But the value changes that I believe were evident at the Reagan rally and are coming to the Cuban family are significant.
Fiedler continued on, arguing that the need to assimilate into the greater culture was driving young Cuban-Americans to reject the ways of their parents. Fiedler quoted sociologist and longtime Castro apologist Lisandro Perez:
Together, says sociologist Lisandro Perez of Florida International University, these experiences have a tempering effect on the younger Cubans that is going to make them less inclined to engage in the bitterly partisan and personal politicking of their parents.
And Fiedler concluded with these predictions:
Some obvious ramifications for this community flow from this. For one, political candidates for local office will find it less necessary in the future to pass litmus tests on foreign policy.
Democrats won’t find themselves automatically regarded in the Cuban community as closet Marxists or, at best, Communist dupes.
Conversely, Republicans won’t always enjoy the unquestioning loyalty of ethnic Cubans because of the appeal of Ronald Reagan’s anti-Communism.
The virtually indistinguishable hard-line stances that this year’s presidential candidates have taken with regard to Cuba policy are testaments to the fact that those who need Cuban-American votes don’t believe Fiedler’s theory.
Though Fiedler’s theory sounded enticing and plausible, he didn’t account for several phenomena. The first is the concept of retro-acculturation, which Hispanic marketers like me have taken note of. Retro-acculturation is the process by which bilingual, assimilated immigrants and their children embrace and seek to maintain their connections to their cultural heritage. As American culture has accepted Hispanic culture — music and cuisine come to mind — it’s actually cool to be Hispanic for perhaps the first time in American history.
Since anecdotes are seemingly acceptable, I will provide one of my own. When I was sixteen you could not get me to listen to Spanish radio or watch Spanish TV. I was into rock music and all the things non-hyphenated American kids liked. But other experiences shaped me and raised my awareness of my Cubania or Cubanness. Among those experiences was going to college outside of the bubble of Cuban Miami and my Cubania has only gotten stronger ever since. Cuban student associations and grassroots organizations that protest the Castro regime and raise awareness about the Cuban reality are popping up on college campuses across the country.
Another thing that Fiedler grossly underestimated is the pull of Cuba itself. It is my totally unscientific opinion that Cuba has some sort of mystical power over human beings. Since Columbus first set foot on Cuba’s fair shores, and reportedly said that it was the most beautiful land his eyes had ever seen, man has been enchanted and taken by its power to seduce. It’s a power that I believe can actually be transmitted genetically to generations that have never been on the island. Generations like mine.
Lastly, Fiedler failed to account for the possibility that the continuing despicable actions of Castro over the next two decades would galvanize Cuban-Americans repeatedly. Whether it was the sinking of the 13 de Marzo tugboat, killing dozens of Cubans trying to escape the worker’s paradise, including women and children; the downing of the Brothers to the Rescue planes, killing four Cuban-Americans in international airspace; or the jailing of 75 dissidents during the black spring of 2003; the regime’s actions have served as sharp reminders to the younger generations that our parents were right about the evil nature of the regime and that negotiations with such monsters would only prove fruitless.
Tom Fiedler ultimately discredited himself when he famously said that “22 people who listen to Cuban radio” were being stirred up by ”little Chihuahuas nipping at our heels.” The Chihuahuas he was referring to were Cuban-American radio personalities who rallied their substantial audiences to protest the Herald’s unfair witch hunt of Cuban-American journalists who had been moonlighting for Radio Marti, the U.S. government-run station that transmits uncensored programming into Cuba. The “Marti Moonlighters” scandal ended up costing Fiedler’s boss his job and further embattled Fiedler himself, who left the paper several months later.
Though Fiedler is gone, his hypothesis is revived periodically in the pages of the Herald. Much fanfare has been made in the paper of the candidacies of three Democrats who are challenging South Florida’s Republican triumvirate in congress. Still, the objective data show that the generational change that the Herald has been forecasting for more than a generation hasn’t materialized.
Henry Gomez works as an Account Planner at a Hispanic Advertising Agency and Blogs at Babalublog.com. He is 38 years old and was born in Philadelphia to Cuban parents.
Very good !!!
Very good article! I myself am a young, 19 year old American, born and raised in Miami to Cuban parents (I am also, I might add, a registered Republican). Like the author, I distanced myself from the Cubanness but became proud of it all once I left for college. I’m very proud, now, to be Cuban and to stand for what I stand for.
Greetings!
I was born and raised in Miami, the son of Cuban immigrants. My father was a card-carrying member of the Grand Ole Party (I still remember letters “signed” by President Gerald Ford arriving at our house addressed to my dad) and virtually all of my family was virulently anti-Castro and, I later learned, profoundly anti-Cuba.
I was taught to hate all that is Cuba and yearn for a Cuba that ceased to exist years before I was born. I bought into this nihilist brand of self-hate, this profound and paradoxical contempt of self. Although masked by bombastic and narcissitic rhetoric, it is the same self-loathing found so commonly in other client cultures.
The only choice left for most “Cubans” reared in Miami is either abdication to this self-emasculation of self-identity vis-a-vis blind and deaft and completely mute lambs following others to social slaughter OR deeply painful feelings of conflict and confusion. That is, those are the choices for those who choose to stay in Miami either physically or emotionally.
The “Cubans” that leave Miami – physically and/or emotionally – are one step closer to returning to Cuba herself even if one or all have never actually experienced Cuba in a first-hand, physically sense.
This shift, this inevitable, inexorable reversion to what is in one’s DNA, in one’s blood, in one’s sinews, in one’s essence is what all right-wing “Cubans” must prepare themselves to accept. Whether old or young, abuelo viejo o padre recien, all neoconservative “Cubans” must realize that sooner or later, all Cubans will return to Cuba in either the physical or at least the spiritual sense regardless of what the “Cubans” try to do to stop them.
CAMBIO … en la Yuma!
HASSAN,
How nice of you to show up here. We’ll be seeing what’s what in November. Have fun until then.
Ditto on the wishes-for-fun.
I know you are going to love every bit of the dilema of having to vote for either Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Citizen Nadar, or your RINO candidate, Senator McCain.
[snicker]
CAMBIO … en la Yuma!
Castro destroyed Cuba. He has brutalized Cuba so long that the country may never recover, as it looks like Russia may never recover from Communist rule.
McCain has one great virtue as a candidate. He understands there is a war on and we must win it. The others, including Harold Stassen wannabe Nader, do not understand the world they live in, and their proposals are futile, false, and dangerous.
I think Hassan has made some interesting statements that reveal feelings many of us didn’t know American Cubans have. He explains how irrational they are to dislike their own former culture, but how firmly held.
I’d say to him, “hang in there.” If older Cubans hate BOTH the Castro regime and Cuba itself, what’s left to be Cuban about?
Latinos bring great enrichment to every aspect of American life. Even in spite of the deep bigotry against them.
The pre-Castro history of Cuba can’t possibly have been all that bad. I don’t claim expertise on the subject, but I’d guarantee there was plenty of good there to take pride in.
I’ve lived in Mexico now for 14 years. I’ve come into a deep love of country – two of them. Mine, the U.S., and the one which accepted me, Mexico, as a foreign resident with such graciousness and generosity of spirit.
Neither nation is perfect. Try to imagine how little I care! I love them BOTH, anyway!
I don’t know Cubanos much, but I’d give dollars to donuts they’re very much like the Mexicanos.
Tell your grandparents that there IS beauty in being a Cubano who dislikes the present regime, but who loves Cuba, warts and all.
Tell them that there is no shame in a U.S. president talking to the bastards running Cuba. The shame will be on the regime, who won’t be able to respond rationally – for all the world to see.
Obama wants to bring democracy back to Cuba. Can any Cuban say they don’t deserve it? There can be no guarantees from his policies – no policies ever come with guarantees of success. But if anyone can do it, it would be Obama.
He means it when he says, “Si! Se puede!”
One thing is for sure, though. The “talk tough, but don’t talk to THEM” policy has given Cubanos a consistent result of – nothing. We now know what won’t work. It’s time to look for something that does.
The Republicans have had years to make their “no-talks” policy accomplish something. Meanwhile, things only got worse.
And now, Cuba and Venezuela are chumming up, based almost exclusively on one shared platform: hatred of the United States. Is HATE a reason for an alliance?
How can changing gears on talking to Castro’s regime possibly be worse than that? It might easily fail – in fact it probably would fail. But it would enhance the prestige of the U.S., because at least they TRIED. And it would show the Castro regime as the oafs that they are.
There was a point in history when Cuba could have been made a state. We didn’t take the opportunity. Maybe we should have. It might have avoided decades of oppression.
Cubanos, you are, most of you, very fine people. Let Obama be your choice for president. You can do worse, but you can’t find a better choice anywhere.
And know that OTHER people know that being a Cubano is something essentially good and worthwhile. I’m white, elderly and disabled. I’m for Obama, and a large part of it is because he would NOT ignore Cuba or Latin America, as the GOP has done. He has a vision to unite the Americas in democracy and prosperity. Even Hillary Clinton’s broadest visions don’t match his.
In today’s evil and volatile world, we need every democracy we can get in order to oppose the forces lined up against human liberty. We can’t afford to ignore a single American democracy. Cuba deserves one, too.
Obama is able to be a president who works “outside of the box” of traditional D.C. politics. That means he will actually be able to get things DONE for us all! Sen. Clinton would be hamstrung, because she’s part of the old system. He isn’t.
Doesn’t that merit a vote of confidence in Obama from Latinos?
Vaya con Dios, Cubanos!
Hassan is a troll and Obama is shameless flip-flopper on Cuba. Four years ago he was against the embargo. Today his position is virtually identical to McCain’s with a small exception.
This is a very well researched and reasoned article by Henry Gomez. His finding that the liberal, anti-Cuban-American media try to confuse, divide, and neutralize the Cuban-Americans every election cycle, with unsupported findings of political divisions is right on target. I noticed the same thing. Whenever I see these articles, they make me laugh. Let them fantasize about Cuban-Americans voting for democrats who will extend a hand of friendship to the Castros and we will continue to rain on their parade by voting our own interests, not that of those who are our enemies or who envy us.
I lived in Miami once and found those “liberal” people to be the most anti-Cuban, anti-Spanish, people that I ever met through my broad travels thru the United States. They are pro-Castro because they can not believe that the “inferior” Catholic, Spanish culture actually had constructed progressive, attractive, relatively well-off societies in Latin America, such as pre-Castro Cuba or pre-Chavez Venezuela. Such success is only for Northern Europeans. Cuban-American success is Miami is a bitter pill for them to swallow. The old black legend of England against all things Spanish continues to have vitality.
My hat off to Henry Gomez. Continue to study, research, and speak out, it is our best defense and the way we can best serve the future of the American nation. I will vote for McCain-Palin, and let The Miami Herald cry.
Just popping in here to say that I’m an 18 year old Cuban-American girl and will be sending in my absentee ballot for McCain this week.
Great article!