Op-Ed
Bilingual Campaign Debates Are Unnecessary
Email: 
Share: 
Texans Tony Sanchez and Dan Morales, competing in primaries for the democratic gubernatorial bid tomorrow, recently went head-to-head in our nation's first bilingual campaign debate. The candidates packed the dual -- one hour of English followed by one hour of Spanish -- with the standard political promises and anticipated personal slams against one another. More interesting than the stabs taken behind the podiums however, is the spin that a bilingual political debate puts on an election.
Morales agreed to debate in Spanish, but then attacked Sanchez for giving Spanish "equal status with English." He claimed that raising Spanish to the level of English prominence would drive a wedge between Texans. "This is Texas, and in Texas, we speak English as our primary language," Morales argued.
Sanchez countered that it is a "slap in the face to seven million Latinos that live in Texas when you tell them that you do not want to communicate with them in the language that they prefer."
Does a candidate's unwillingness to debate in Spanish indicate a lack of respect for Latino culture? No way. It is practical to debate in English in a state where the large percentage of English-drawling residents outnumber the seven million Latinos, many of whom speak English anyway.
Furthermore, it is customary and expected that political debates for U.S. government offices transpire in English. After all, the United States is a body which touts English as its official language. Subscribing to conventional methods of debate should not offend Latinos. It is understandable however, that a Spanish debate, subtitled in English, could offend and inconvenience English-speaking voters.
Morales put his political eggs in two baskets by agreeing to speak in Spanish and then bashing Sanchez's proposal for the bilingual debate. He bowed to the sizeable Latino contingent of voters, but also tapped the conservative white constituency, which feels threatened by the Latinization of Texas.
Even in the midst of the Spanish debate, Morales translated some of his answers into English -- a move appealing to conservative Democrats and one which caused Sanchez to later accuse Morales of violating the rules of the debate by introducing English into the Spanish segment.
Calling for a Spanish section in the debate was a politically adroit move for Sanchez, on the other hand. A rookie debater relative to Morales, who has 15 years of experience, Sanchez enshrouded the event in controversy with his demand, taking the focus off his own performance. He created a dual, which was a historical benchmark of bilingual incorporation into American culture and strongly emphasized his deep Latino sympathies with an action more powerful than words.
Sanchez's image, and consequently his voter constituency, coincides with the ideals of a Spanish debate. A Laredo oilman and banker, he has anchored his campaign around his apolitical background as an established businessman in one of the state's most lucrative industries. His devotions to the oil industry proven, he needed to reaffirm his dedications to the Latino population. And his adamancy about the Spanish debate did just that.
The Spanish debate also gave Sanchez the perfect opportunity to remind the public about Morales's battle against affirmative action during his term as state attorney general. Rest assured, when Morales dissed the concept of a Spanish debate, Sanchez effectively exposed how Morales exterminated affirmative action from University of Texas schools and thereby dramatically lowered Latino enrollment in professional Texas institutions of higher education.
Sanchez used Morales's rejection of the Spanish debate to criticize his affirmative action policies on a more personal level as well. Sanchez said that Morales had gotten into Harvard due to affirmative action, going so far as to call his opponent, "a baby of affirmative action." Morales denied the claim, though I don't know how he has such insight into the admissions process.
Sanchez wanted the public to believe that his opponent's unwillingness to debate in Spanish could indicate a lack of Latino sympathy. Given Morales's track record, this is a politically effective claim, detrimental to Morales's image. Presumably, if a candidate agrees to debate in Spanish it shows that he has a knowledge of or a background in Latin culture. However, it does not indicate how far a candidate will bend for Latin-American causes when in office.
So let me get this straight. Morales agreed to debate in Spanish, then bashed the debate, only to participate by speaking a mix of Spanish and English. Sanchez challenged his more-conservative opponent to the debate, thereby de-emphasizing his own inexperience and highlighting Morales's apparent lack of a soft spot for Latino causes.
The spin is dizzying, but politicians are learning that bilingual campaign events, debates and speeches speak to Latino voters extremely clearly.
Even President George W. Bush, the white-bred Republican former governor of Texas, hustled his Cuban-American nephew onstage at the Republican National Convention in 2000 to give a speech dappled with recognizable Spanish words.
I wonder what Bush would have done in this situation. Probably issued a press statement in poor English or had his Cuban-American nephew write it for him. Because, I imagine, the trials of truly backing up a bilingual campaign are only too tricky, especially for the most successful politicians.Archived article by Andrea Forker