Castro and Rubio

The peculiarity of the U.S. electoral system, in which the victor of the presidential election will not be the winner of the popular vote but rather the winner of 270 electoral votes, has determined that in 2012 the decisions of four states of the union, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Florida — and the Hispanic voters in those states — will carry enormous political weight.

According to most polls, the voters in these four states currently favor President Obama. According to the experts, if Romney does not win the Hispanic vote in the first three states he could still conceivably win the election, but if he also loses the Hispanic vote in Florida there will be no way for him to obtain the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Considering this state of affairs it is no surprise that, with the obvious intention of attracting the Latino vote, both parties have chosen young and talented Latinos — the Democratic mayor of San Antonio, Texas, Julian Castro, and the Republican senator from Florida, Marco Rubio — to play starring roles in their respective conventions.

Both are descendants of very poor immigrants who came to this country to work for a better future, but their world views are diametrically opposed. Rubio says that the state should step aside and let individuals develop their talents in a free market without regulations, stimulus packages or subsidies for anything or anyone. He is also opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. Castro thinks that without public investment in education, health care and worker training, and without regulations that defend citizens from the abuses of corporations and banks, the opportunities for the poor, the middle class and minorities will be extremely limited. Castro supports women’s right to decide what to do with their bodies in case of an unwanted pregnancy and gay people’s right to marry whomever they choose.

Regardless of the politicians’ political affiliations or the partisan predilections of the voters, the entire Latino community should feel proud of their representation in both conventions. Moreover, despite their obviously contrasting points of view I believe that after the election there can be a bridge of understanding between Castro and Rubio on the issue that determines the community’s identity: immigration. It is my dream that if each takes a leadership role in his party the comprehensive, rational and compassionate immigration reform program that has been anxiously awaited could become a reality.

If this were to happen the beneficiaries would not just be undocumented immigrants, but rather all Hispanic voters, who would see the widening of their universe of political options and also, by extension, the Republican Party, which still does not seem to realize that its political base is shrinking and that its future depends on its ability to attend to the interests of women and all minority groups.

In the 2008 election, 70 percent of eligible Latinos voted for Obama; in 2012 63 percent still support him, with only 28 percent favoring Romney. In 2004, however, George W. Bush, who fought for comprehensive immigration reform for eight years, obtained 40 percent of the Latino vote.

Considering this reality, Rubio should make his party understand that its persecution of undocumented immigrants not only offends the community but also represents a very serious threat to them, because every Latino has an uncle, friend, father or mother whom the Republicans would like to deport. If Rubio takes on this mission I am sure that in spite of their vast differences Castro and Rubio would be on the same side.