What does it mean to "cater to blacks and latinos"?

On post-election news commentary programs, some contributors are saying that the Republican party needs to cater to black and latino voters. What does this mean?

Does it mean that they have to advocate more government assistance and food stamps for those who work the system and/or are lazy?

Does it mean they be softer on criminals who are in this country illegally and give them amnesty?

Does it mean they should boost the latino population in a country founded by whites by annexing Puerto Rico and also by the aforementioned amnesty of criminals?

Does a candidate have to have the same race (or half of the same race) as blacks or latinos, and pander to the demographic in that way? In other words, can a white candidate not stand for all Americans anymore?

Do blacks and latinos have different concerns than a stable economy, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, low spending, debt reduction and creating a climate where businesses are able to hire again? Are they against those things? If not, then why should any candidate -- Republican, Democrat, or third party -- do anything that these racial minority groups want?

Update:

Aixian Ling: No, I am actually mystified by the comments of some on political news programs, including Sean Hannity who now believes we should have an about face on immigration and offer amnesty to those in the country illegally, not to mention Schumer and Graham who are now advocating it. I am against all immigration reform. In fact, I'm against all immigration until the country starts to get back on track, as we should be working on creating a stable climate ONLY for those currently in the country legally. All others can go hang.

Also, when people say that candidates need to cater to minority ethnic groups, is that not very racially divisive? Even though we are all Americans, minority groups speak of racial pride. Why are whites not allowed to have that same pride and work to ensure that they remain the majority by halting illegal immigration, and why should any candidate do otherwise?

Update 2:

Daniel: Why should "they" be treated like anything -- positive or negative? Is not a candidate running to be president of the whole country? Is not poverty a universal concern? If the country wants to descend into (i.e., if political commentators want to push the country towards) purely racial politics, as sad as that would be, then just let it all become a wrestling match of racial dominance. If you want to call that bigotry, then so be it, but be honest and also call those blacks who love 0buma because of his dad's race bigots as well. Also, I agree that trotting out token minority candidates (Castro, Haley, Cain, Rubio, Jindal) is despicable for either party.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Instead of finding them work obama gives them lifetime government assistance.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Nah. I think an area where's a lack of pride in the surroundings and where, passing through, you feel a certain vibe can be classed as a bad neighbourhood. It's got very little to do with colour. Poverty, substance abuse, low unemployment can all contribute to a bad neighbourhood. People trapped in that rut may not have any incentives to pull themselves out of it so the area continues to spiral. Those who do "make it" move out and so these neighbourhoods get drained of the self-starters and the motivators who could stay and make a difference. Then when these areas get REALLY crappy, very few people are keen to move in. It can take a generation for mortgages and rents to plummet before a gentrification process kicks in. Professionals, creatives and property developers will come in and hoover up often very good homes for peanuts and then post/zip codes which were once no-go areas become hot property.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    I think this goes to the stupidity or formulaic thinking of most of the media pundits. What the GOP needs to do is seem less the party of elitists who care about no one but the ultra-wealthy. They are always vulnerable to the accusation that they're the party which caters to the rich. This time they stepped right in the bear trap by selecting a silver-spoon candidate who has never worked in the sense that most people in the world understand that term.

    The GOP needs to change this. There is no magic color, race or culture button for the GOP to punch. They just have to seem less elitist to win over more people.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Any news analyst who uses the phrase "cater to" in conjunction with whatever minority is drawing pay to perpetuate the right-wing divide-and-conquer strategy. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, veterans - all want basically the same things as white male private-sector stiffs: equal opportunity, equal justice, and at least a fair shot at upward social mobility for themselves and their families.

    By choosing the phrase "cater to", the narrative reinforces at least three stereotypes: First, that the Democrat party does "cater to" minorities. Second, the word "cater" implies that these minorities are getting special, elevated, privileged treatment, that the playing field is not being leveled but rather tilted in favor of minorities. And third, that minorities are lazy, scammy, overinflated in their sense of entitlement, and eager to milk the system at Whitey's expense.

    This narrative serves the 1% by directing middle-class resentment at minorities and the poor, while the 1% continues to cut deals for ever-larger tax breaks, subsidies and bailouts at everyone else's expense.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Not treating them all like fence-jumpers, carjackers, moochers, and general human refuse to be trotted out just to scare the crap out of white voters in election years would be a good start.

    So would actually showing an interest in minority and multicultural concerns like poverty, lack of education, and poor healthcare access, instead of just throwing them meaningless bones by electing bought-and-paid-for establishment puppets like Marco Rubio and Herman Cain and then pretending like it means we're no longer a racist country.

    But I know what a tall order that is when you're a fearful, paranoid bigot who engages in dishonest, bad-faith sociopolitical dialogue like the question you asked above. So I'm not really expecting much from you or your branch of political thought in this area.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Don't overthink it. You sound rational yet these questions are rather tense.

    And no, a white candidate can stand for all Americans.

    You really know the answer, you just want others to speak it to you.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    The free takers have taken over. They want free healthcare, free welfare, free food stamps, free cell phones, free condoms, free birth control pills, free abortions, and free borders where anyone can walk across. This is crazy because someone has to pay for it and there will soon be more free takers than those working. When that happens everything stops and no one receives anything. We are Greece.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    That's conservative media doublespeak to avoid being called straight up racists or bigots. It doesn't work.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    It means you have to dance the cha cha cha with old black women.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    It means to serve BBQ chicken and burritos to them at their bar mitsvahs.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.