Bipartisan caucusing sounds nice, but I’m not sure if it’s practical or necessary, at least in deeply entrenched partisan states, especially as the Latino electorate is extremely varied and mirrors the divide we witness within the general
electorate. Here’s a thought- instead of being a formal caucus, Hispanic/Latino lawmakers should make time for each other as a social construct, for relationship building, not as a formal caucus focusing on policy. This would go farther in healing the polarized nature of the parties and finding cohesiveness than trying to agree on policy within a formal caucus.
I used to live next door to the TX speaker of the house who held office during the transition of the state capital from having no central AC to AC. The nature of the offices at that time in the capital were that they were all in the same area and they saw each other often in the cooler common areas and hallways. Lawmakers of both parties saw and talked to each other daily. In the decades to come, the building of extension offices farther away and the advent of AC kept the lawmakers more divided physically, and one could argue a mental division became more pronounced as well. With no small talk and inquiries about family, etc. the relationships devolved into only partisan exchanges. Taking the time to know each other socially is valid. Taking the time to gather in the name of Latinidad is valid and would probably do more good than formal bipartisan caucuses where MAGA or progressives debate over one another without actually listening to each other as they vie for caucus control.
You describe installation of AC and extended physical distances among TX lawmakers, the building of inter-personal relationships, regarless of party affiliation. Similar thing happened when Gingrich became speaker and told his colleagues not to bring their families to DC, which many had done for decades. It accelerated the divide.
Mike, when I saw in the LAT report about the Latino caucus in Sac, I made a note to ask you about it but now I don’t have to. Great stuff, as usual.
I’m not Latino but I think I can speak for many Americans when I say: why would Democrats and Republicans caucus together for any reason at all? There is no longer any meaningful common ground between the two parties, and even racial/cultural commonalities cannot bridge the gap.
Thank you for taking time to respond, you wrote a great article. And in a better world, there would be coming together across party lines in contexts like these.
Not when the other party is aligning with Russia, instead of other democracies, calling for a trade war with our neighbors, and destroying our democratic principles. It is now a fascist party.
Hispanic communities are not politically monolithic—there are conservative, moderate, and liberal voices. A bipartisan caucus would better reflect the true diversity of political thought within the Hispanic population across the country.
Bipartisan caucusing sounds nice, but I’m not sure if it’s practical or necessary, at least in deeply entrenched partisan states, especially as the Latino electorate is extremely varied and mirrors the divide we witness within the general
electorate. Here’s a thought- instead of being a formal caucus, Hispanic/Latino lawmakers should make time for each other as a social construct, for relationship building, not as a formal caucus focusing on policy. This would go farther in healing the polarized nature of the parties and finding cohesiveness than trying to agree on policy within a formal caucus.
I used to live next door to the TX speaker of the house who held office during the transition of the state capital from having no central AC to AC. The nature of the offices at that time in the capital were that they were all in the same area and they saw each other often in the cooler common areas and hallways. Lawmakers of both parties saw and talked to each other daily. In the decades to come, the building of extension offices farther away and the advent of AC kept the lawmakers more divided physically, and one could argue a mental division became more pronounced as well. With no small talk and inquiries about family, etc. the relationships devolved into only partisan exchanges. Taking the time to know each other socially is valid. Taking the time to gather in the name of Latinidad is valid and would probably do more good than formal bipartisan caucuses where MAGA or progressives debate over one another without actually listening to each other as they vie for caucus control.
This is a great suggestion!
You describe installation of AC and extended physical distances among TX lawmakers, the building of inter-personal relationships, regarless of party affiliation. Similar thing happened when Gingrich became speaker and told his colleagues not to bring their families to DC, which many had done for decades. It accelerated the divide.
Mike, when I saw in the LAT report about the Latino caucus in Sac, I made a note to ask you about it but now I don’t have to. Great stuff, as usual.
I’m not Latino but I think I can speak for many Americans when I say: why would Democrats and Republicans caucus together for any reason at all? There is no longer any meaningful common ground between the two parties, and even racial/cultural commonalities cannot bridge the gap.
Great observation. However unfortunate for our country. Well said.
Thank you for taking time to respond, you wrote a great article. And in a better world, there would be coming together across party lines in contexts like these.
Not when the other party is aligning with Russia, instead of other democracies, calling for a trade war with our neighbors, and destroying our democratic principles. It is now a fascist party.
Hispanic communities are not politically monolithic—there are conservative, moderate, and liberal voices. A bipartisan caucus would better reflect the true diversity of political thought within the Hispanic population across the country.
Mike, I'm here for your "Pollyannaish way of trying to see things as they could be"!