Positive Feedback Loop: Puerto Rican Statehood

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 14:00


Today, the Senate is debating amendments to the D.C. Voting Rights Act. The act will grant permanent, full voting rights to the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives, add a fourth Representative to Utah, increase overall membership in the House to 437 (from 435), and increase the number of electoral votes to 539 (538). It has achieved cloture, and is certain to pass.

During a time when we are expanding civil rights in America by granting D.C. full voting rights in the House, and when part of the great promise of our civil rights legislation is realized through President Obama, it is high time that the issue of Puerto Rican statehood receive more attention from the federal government. Puerto Rico has a population of over four million (3.8 million according to the 2000 census), which is larger than 24 states according to the 2000 census. To have such a large territory not receive full voting rights in the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and in Presidential elections is a travesty for our democracy. While Puerto Ricans do not have to pay income tax, and thus don't face the taxation without representation problem D.C. faced for so long, it is still inexcusable to deny the franchise to so many United States citizens.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Positive Feedback Loop: Puerto Rican Statehood
The politics for Puerto Rican statehood have never been better. The pro-statehood New Progressive Party holds a super-majority in both branches of the Puerto Rican Congress. A recent poll showed statehood has reached an all-time popularity on the island, favored 57%-34% over the current commonwealth status (although the poll was commissioned by a pro-statehood organization, so take it with a grain of salt). The wide Democratic trifecta in D.C. would make it much easier to pass legislation authorizing a plebiscite on statehood, too. Finally, the new, more positive opinions the world holds to the United States as a result of President Obama's election would make full membership in the United States particularly attractive at this point in time.

If Democrats are truly interested in making the United States more democratic, then pushing for Puerto Rican statehood is a no-brainer move. Also, it is a positive feedback loop for progressives, as both of Puerto Rico's Senators would probably be Democrats (which would really be handy right now), its eight electoral votes would always swing toward Democrats, and five or six of the six Representatives they would send to the U.S. House would be Democrats. I have always been a believer that if Democrats do the right thing for the country, they will benefit politically. This is one situation where that is obviously the case.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I agree they should get to choose (4.00 / 1)
I am a little less sure that it would actually pass, and I worry about the english as the official language debate that would be stirred up.

But yeah, they should get to decide.


Yup… (0.00 / 0)
...the language debate would be a stickler, though if I'm not mistaken, the newest mayor of San Juan ran successfully using progress toward statehood as part of his platform...surprised everyone.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
Agreed. Long time coming (4.00 / 4)
I hadn't realized the Puerto Rican politics had changed this much, recently.  I've always favored making Puerto Rico a state, even back when it meant more Republicans.  It is just the right thing to do.

The facts (0.00 / 0)
Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood. Last summer the Puerto Rican head of government went to the United Nations to reclaim Puerto Rico's sovereignty. Most independence supporters voted for him and his party in favor of Puerto Rico's sovereignty and nationalist stance (abandoning the decades old independence party called Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño).
references:
1)BBC 'Puerto Rico in independence bid' June 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ame...

2)United Nations resolution on Puerto Rico, 2008
http://www.un.org/News/Press/d...


[ Parent ]
LONG overdue (4.00 / 1)
and the time is right. Lets get it on the docket before the GOP has time to lure the Versailles media to the anti-statehood position.

My response to Republicans who told me to leave the US if I didn't like the 2004 Election results:
"To hell with that, we're taking this place back!"


Versailles is not in the US... (0.00 / 0)
Therefore there is no Versailles media...

Now the main stream media, the Beltway media, etc... that would be accurate.


[ Parent ]
It is time... (4.00 / 2)
to either make Puerto Rico a state or to give it independence. Having it be a colonial "Commonwealth" -- and disenfranchising 4 million people -- is not untenable.

Bill in 110th congress (0.00 / 0)
There was a bill introduced into the 110th Congress to create a process that would lead to either statehood or independence. As far as I can tell no similar bill has been introduced in the 111th Congress. The original sponsors were Jose Serrano in the House and Ken Salazar in the Senate.

Think independence is a better idea (4.00 / 1)
Statehood points towards a bilingual country, and even progressive, developed countries in that category (e.g., Canada, Belgium) have serious, chronic problems -- I really don't think we want to go there.  Agree the current colonial status has to end.  I understand independence is not popular in Puerto Rico, but liberal "separation" terms, including a long window to claim U.S. citizenship (lifetime for at least current population), fair financial settlement could change this.

I disagree (4.00 / 2)
Telling $4 million Americans we don't want 'em because it would be "too hard" is a terrible precedent to set. And look at the economic state of Puerto Rico today and imagine it trying to stand completely on it's own. If the Puerto Ricans vote for Statehood, we MUST support.

My response to Republicans who told me to leave the US if I didn't like the 2004 Election results:
"To hell with that, we're taking this place back!"


[ Parent ]
Sorry about the dollar sign (0.00 / 0)
lots of talking about budgets today got me in the habit

My response to Republicans who told me to leave the US if I didn't like the 2004 Election results:
"To hell with that, we're taking this place back!"


[ Parent ]
Sorry about the dollar sign (0.00 / 0)
lots of talking about budgets today got me in the habit

My response to Republicans who told me to leave the US if I didn't like the 2004 Election results:
"To hell with that, we're taking this place back!"


[ Parent ]
shouldn't it be up to citizens of PR? (4.00 / 1)
My understanding (mostly from Wikipedia) is that past plebiscites have had muddled outcomes because the status quo or "none of the above" often won plurality support. It seems to me that the solution then would be to hold a plebiscite with only two choices -- independence or statehood -- and let the people of PR decide. That would guarantee a permanent settlement of status and be fair and democratic.

[ Parent ]
Why shouldn't the status quo be an option? (4.00 / 1)
If that's what they want?

Oh, heck, I propose the use of IRV to decide between independence, statehood, and commonwealth status.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Which kind of statehood? (0.00 / 0)
The problem here is that the US congress has not told Puerto Rico WHICH statehood is available. Many Puerto Ricans who favor this option think that Puerto Rico can have what they enjoy now under statehood: spanish as main language in all areas, their own national flag and olympic team, their own international representation as a separate nation in Ms. Universe and other events. If Puerto Ricans are told (the truth!) that US statehood means English as main language in public schools, No olympic team and No separate international rep. or national flag, and on top of that you add Federal taxes then the US Statehood option would have less than 15% of support.

[ Parent ]
Language isn't the issue (4.00 / 4)
I'm sorry, but there are many countries with more than one official language -- Switzerland, Finland, Peru, India, Luxembourg, Wales, The Philipines, Wales, South Africa, Bolivia, Italy ...

Some of these countries have had a lot of turmoil, and many have not.  It's not because of the language.

Regarding Canada, it's such and incredible oversimplification -- I'd suggest, pretty inaccurate -- to say that Canada has "serious, chronic problems" in the first place, and in the second place to suggest that this is because it is a country with two official languages.  Canada has had problems because it has historically had a distinct cultural minority.  

The United States IS a bilingual nation, or more accurately, a multilingual nation, already.  Whether there is an official language or not doesn't change this fact.

If you want to talk about language, your contentions are unfounded.  If you want to talk about keeping an ethnic/cultural minority out of the USA, please grow a pair and say what you mean.  And if you think that a majority of Americans is so bigoted as to think that we can't handle such diversity, wait until 2042 when white folks are a minority in this country, and then see what happens.


Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.


[ Parent ]
I come from a border city that's 80% Hispanic (4.00 / 1)
And it's laughable to imagine that bilingualism is planting the seeds there for any sort of separatism, or posing an existential threat to the nation.

As Ms. Bluezone says, lots and lots of nations are bi- or multilingual without that diversity causing "serious, chronic problems" - India alone has like a billion languages. Meanwhile, the one time this nation nearly did split up, it had nothing to do with language differences.


[ Parent ]
I endorse the comments above (0.00 / 0)
To complete the pile on, let me point out that language isn't the problem in Belgium either - the problems in Belgium are that

a) Wallonia is in a state of post-industrial decline with high unemployment, and many in the Flemish community are unwilling to subsidise it
b) Third way politics have removed most issues that don't come down to ethnicity from the table
c) Belgium isn't really linguistically integrated at all - a line was drawn and one side does everything in Flemish, the other in French, even though that line no longer marks the linguistic boundary (and mutual intelligibility was never a problem before people went around codifying things).

Sure, if Puerto Rico is integrated into the US with a lot of unnecessary and unworkable restrictions about what language can be used where, then in 150 years we may have problems. But if the problem is dealt with in a relaxed and pragmatic matter, it shouldn't be an issue.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Ah, my favorite subject (4.00 / 4)

  I am Puerto Rican. Though I was born on the continent and live in Maryland now, I grew up on the island, and my family's been in Puerto Rico for generations.

  The status issue is THE issue in Puerto Rico. It completely dominates and drowns out everything else, and it's an issue everyone has a passionate opinion about. It's an emotional and polarizing issue; when I was a kid I remember walking into a local pizza parlor a couple of weeks before the 1972 election and seeing a big hand-scrawled sign on the window: "PROHIBIDO HABLAR DE POLITICA". (Political Talk Prohibited.)

  Puerto Ricans for many years have been split more or less down the middle on statehood vs. commonwealth -- independence advocates are a small minority. Though this is probably because the commonwealth option allows "independentistas" a safe haven in which they can have their cake and eat it too; if commonwealth is ever taken off the table, independence support would probably spike up dramatically.

  Statehood is a tougher sell in Puerto Rico than one might expect. The language issue is a factor; Spanish is the main language on the island, and it reflects the island's long and rich cultural heritage. Commonwealth advocates argue that statehood would destroy the island's cultural identity, which locals feel very strongly about. I'm personally skeptical about that claim; Louisiana and Massachusetts are both US states, and have vastly different cultures. Still, the issue is there, and arguing against it is awkward ("You mean you don't like our culture?").

  Commonwealth is popular, mainly, because it's an easy way to avoid making a decision as to what course to take. (The PDP, the commonwealth party, once featured as a campaign slogan "The best of both worlds.") It's convenient.

   Statehood advocates have been gaining ground steadily over the decades, but not spectacularly so. (That 57-34 split is so off the charts compared to my experience that I have a very hard time accepting it, even if it's a partisan poll.) The current administration got into power because the previous one was just knee-deep in corruption -- but lest one assume PR would be a Democratic state, note that the current governor, Luis Fortuno, is an uberwingnut. Heck, if PR ever did become a state he'd be fast-tracked within the Republican hierarchy with a speed that would wrench Bobby Jindal's neck.

 Congress takes actions like these periodically, but they don't usually go anywhere. Any movement on the status issue is going to have to originate on the island, not on the mainland.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


Let Puerto Rico lead on this. (4.00 / 1)
If Puerto Rico wants statehood, then I wouldn't stand in the way, but I think it should be primarily their decision and not ours.  Apparently enabling legislation may need to be passed by our Congress to establish the referendum, which complicates matters a bit, but still my general attitude is to not try to actively engineer statehood for them because we think it's right.  It's their home, and if commonwealth works for them and they like it, and prefer it, then I'm perfectly ok with that.

Saying that we think statehood is more just and so we're going to impose it on them is just as imperialist, actually, as forcing them into independence would be.  (Or establishing a resolution that doesn't include a maintenance of the status quo as an option would be.)  Deciding what we think is right for them is not the way to go.  Letting them tell us what they want (and yes, passing enabling legislation if there is clearly demand for it) is better.

Just to clarify, I'm responding as much to the comments so far as to the original post.  The fact that the pro-statehood party commands supermajorities is significant.  Granted, parties gain control for various reasons, but apparently single-issue polls bear out this preference.  Anyway, there is some evidence that PR does prefer statehood.  I'm just saying that I think it's important that their preferences and beliefs, not ours, be in the lead here.


Serious Question (0.00 / 0)
If Puerto Rico was likely to become a Republican stronghold, would anyone here admit that they would be less open to the idea of statehood?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

No, I support Alaska's statehood too (0.00 / 0)
Less glibly, I couldn't care if they were a libertarian stronghold. We're not an Empire, we shouldn't have "territories" of several million people who have no voting representation.

My response to Republicans who told me to leave the US if I didn't like the 2004 Election results:
"To hell with that, we're taking this place back!"


[ Parent ]
Excellent question (0.00 / 0)
If PR would be a Democratic stronghold, as Bowers suggests, with two Dem Senators and a majority of the House members being Dems, the Republicans would fall all over themselves reaching for the phonebook to filibuster. Lacking 40 members, they would practically set themselves on fire in protest. Look at how long they delayed action on D.C., even when they were promised a house seat in Utah! They'll try to turn the country against the idea, and bring up the language and cultural issues for sure, and having to change the precious flag. And think about how much harder the math will be if you have 102 Senators instead of an even 100! Not that any of them believe in math. It'll be one big mess of racism and false patriotism. This is all but guaranteed, and that would only further alienate them from Puerto Ricans.  

However, I always understood PR to be fairly conservative, especially on social issues. Maybe that's because of Luis Fortuno, who is now Governor, after serving as the non-voting member of Congress. I believe Pierluisi (the new rep) has aligned himself with the Dems, but it still doesn't seem to me like PR is a guaranteed Massachusetts in the Caribbean, especially after Obama leaves office.

I would love to for PR to become a state because I think it would make things really interesting in politics. But I'm in favor of letting PR decide either way, for sure.


[ Parent ]
If that were the case... (4.00 / 1)
...I'd still say they deserve statehood, but would by happy to be passive in my support and let the Puerto Ricans (and Republicans in Congress, who are far more intelligent than our side is about this sort of thing) spend their time and energy pushing for it.

And I won't fault any Republican so sits back and doesn't take the initiative pushing for this.


[ Parent ]
I would. (0.00 / 0)
The Senate is biased toward conservatives enough as it is. Wyoming has as many votes as California for crying out loud!

[ Parent ]
Would DC getting a representative mean... (4.00 / 1)
... that fivethirtyeight.com would rename itself fivethirtynine.com?

First DC, then PR (0.00 / 0)
then we should be revisiting the status of every territory controlled by the US.  

This is, for the record, a response to those who want to say that pushing for political rights for DC or PR is just about politics - we believe (I hope) in eliminating colonial status for all territories, not to mention voting rights for all citizens over 18 (at least.)  


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox