Moreover, the upcoming release of the 2010 census will not provide sufficient clarity but probably provoke a debate on the accuracy of the Latino population numbers and the statistical definitions of the overall Latino community. Also, the changing political landscape in Washington and the state houses bodes a tough slog ahead. Plainly, the Latino community’s challenges persist and often appear to become even more muddled. The apparent political meltdown of the Obama Administration suggests an even more difficult time for the traditional Latino Democratic Party consensus. They are coming up empty-handed by and large. The GOP also faces a real dilemma with its feverish anti-immigrant emerging majority and its pragmatic need to continue to attract Latinos beyond the social conservative mantra.

This past election Latino GOP candidates achieved better results than their Democratic counterparts. As the political passing of Democrat Governor Bill Richardson occurred, with the end of his tenure, there were no Latino Democrats running for governor in any of the 50 states, yet, Republican Latino candidates for Governors were elected in Nevada (Brian Sandoval) and in New Mexico (Susana Martinez).  Three or two new Mexican-American GOP Congressmen (depending on whether Jaime Herrera of Washington State considers herself Latina) were elected. Texas chose two of these newly elected legislators: Kiko Canseco and Bill Flores. Additionally, in Idaho, another Republican Raul Labrador was elected to Congress; Labrador is Puerto Rican. The GOP also sent three Florida Cuban Americans to Congress, two were re-elected (Ileana Ross-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz Balart) and one was newly elected (David Rivera). While Marco Rubio, the newly elected GOP Senator from Florida, restored the number of Cuban-Americans in the US Senate (2), after Mel Martinez’ departure; Senator Bob Menendez is the only Latino (Cuban-American) Democrat in the Senate. While two Democrat Latino congressmen from Texas lost their seats (both Mexican-American) Solomon Ortiz and Ciro Rodriguez; three Democrat Puerto Ricans Congressmen were re-elected (Serrano, Velazquez and Gutierrez). Let’s not forget that Mexican-American Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado left the Senate in 2009 to become President Obama’s Secretary of Interior and was replaced by a non Latino. At the same time, Democrat Congresswoman Hilda Solis left the House of Representatives to become Secretary of Labor and saw her seat also go to a non-Latino.  The sum of all these musical chairs further suggests that neither party has nor will have, any time soon, a solid in-run into the Latino community.

While the Democratic Party still appears to garner more Latino support over all, the question is whether this may hold solidly in the out years. The growing willingness of Latinos to vote for either party makes them most attractive to court since this vote will increasingly be ‘up for grabs’. But for the GOP to reap the benefits of this voting population, it will have to become more welcoming to the Latinos. Lately we have seen some GOP leaders seeking to augment their outreach to Latinos by restating their outlook on issues such as immigration reform. For example, Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, has made an about face. Though historically he was Tea Party-ish on immigration, he is now openly seeking to position himself favorably with the Latino community by calling for the legalization of all workers residing in the country.

As the GOP begins to position itself for the 2012 presidential elections, we may yet see Jeb Bush (President George W. Bush’s brother) emerge as the GOP’s leading candidate who can deliver the Latino vote, especially Cuban Americans, the more conservative segment of the Latino community. Jeb is Roman Catholic, has a Latina (Mexican) wife, speaks fluent Spanish and has a solid base among both Florida and Texas Latino Republicans. Though his dynastic family name could still be an obstacle, given the current lack of potential candidates, the Bush name still could re-emerge. The biggest impediment for Latinos to vote solidly GOP is the troubling tenor or anti-immigrant tone among many of the rank and file members and some extreme sectors of its leadership.

The most immediate challenge to the Hispanic/Latino community is the conduct in addressing the undocumented or illegal conundrum: how do you satisfactorily resolve the status of over ten million undocumented people? The Latino community faces a formidable challenge in making the case for amnesty. An expanded Cuban Adjustment Act is not in the cards for the rest of the undocumented Latino immigrants. Getting to the front of the line is politically unacceptable. Plainly, politically the conditions for a reasonable and just resolution are distant. Especially when while the economic conditions are bleak or at best uncertain the mantra from some quarters seems to be: blame the illegals.

Immigration, educational achievement and equal economic opportunity are the most important and pressing issues on the Latino agenda. They remain unresolved or unmitigated. The Latino socio-economic indicators reveal a huge underclass in the making. Though, some progress is also apparent: more college graduates and an increasing middle class; the vast influx of immigrants in the last three decades has raised the numbers in poverty.  Educational statistics show a startling under-achievement among Latinos. Health and income conditions among Latinos are most unsettling. They continue to confront the Latino community. Most disturbingly the election of the first Black-American to the Presidency has sadly unearthed and aroused many racist sentiments in the body politic. Obama inherited two costly undeclared wars, the deepest recession since the Great Depression, a run-away debt crisis, the clear lack of vision among the leadership in Congress, a fractious body politic, a lame press, a growing income inequity, a withering national infrastructure, an underfunded and weakened educational system and a shrill tax sharing burden debate. The GOP take over of the House of Representatives will further hinder the President’s range of action. This is a daunting scenario. Obama is now weakened and is in no position to take up the Latino agenda. In sum, the national Latino leadership should be readying itself for a monumental struggle in addressing the key issues confronting the community. Moreover, the bruising political effort to attain some rational discussion and resolution of the tangled issue of immigration will not be swift. Success or failure will serve test the Latinos’ ability to manage formidable issues.

Lastly, Latinos seem to be totally disengaged from the global agenda. When a Latino soldier’s body is brought back home from war seems to be only occasion we discuss the war and the security challenges facing the country. Security policy is virtually absent from the Latino national agenda. Hence, it seems almost premature to discuss the Latino participation in globalization or its engagement in foreign policy and trade. The way forward is indeed a true challenge.

Photo Credits: NV Governor-elect Brian Sandoval, taken from his campaign’s Facebook page, and NM Governor-elect Susana Martinez, campaign website photo

Obama and his fellow Democrats appear to lack the political bravery to take strong leadership on immigration reform. This suggests they have lost whatever courage they may have possessed early on. It increasingly indicates that the President is listening to his top political advisors who have convinced him like Rove did to President Bush that CIR is ‘lose lose’ proposition. They read the polls and know how to count. California for instance has 42 percent white population, but this group represents 70 percent of voter registration within the state. Then combine this reality with the deep divisions among the Hispanic community plus general Latino voter apathy. Further exacerbating this situation are the potential high negative feelings toward immigrants held by some in the Black and Asian communities. All this may be telling Mr. Obama to turn tail on CIR or anything related to immigration reform that could result in positive action for illegal aliens. Moreover, the current Administration is militarizing the US-Mexico border while faintly apologizing over the recent shooting of a Mexican teen by the Border Patrol. In sum, there is no penalty for not doing anything to resolve or achieve some progress on the current immigration tangle. Enforcement or clamping down on the presence and flow of the undocumented into the country seems to be the preferred way forward. However, a severe penalty lies electorally should any constructive attempt be made to help alleviate the current impasse to do the right thing.

On top of it all, the Latino national leadership is AWOL as usual. One big problem appears to be that our narrative lacks passion. With passion, one moves mountains and captures the imagination of the majority. It seems the Latino narrative plainly may not evoke deep feelings like slavery did or the drama of the Cubans fleeing communism or the high seas trek of many immigrants over the last two centuries. Jumping fences, digging tunnels under the border, hiding under the car’s floorboards, and fording river puddles are not captivating. Chases across the desert are equally uninspiring as opposed to the high drama of immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, NY. Add this to the unjust perception that Latino immigrants are a motley lot seeking hand outs. When the vast majority of immigrants came to America before mid 20th century, the US had not established a social safety net to provide those in need. An exception was made for Cuban exiles because their narrative coincided with the height of the Cold War. Hence, their flight from Communism was readily embraced. Now with a social safety net (medicaid, food stamps, etc.) available the dominant white majority in this recent economic downturn has grown mean-spirited and appears to fear these immigrant ‘hordes of mendicants’ who will feast on their largess. Hence, the Latino narrative becomes even more unappealing. Latinos are viewed like the Native Americans who were colonized and occupied by Anglo-Americans simply putting a stake in the land and proclaiming it was no longer Native American property. Likewise the Alamo and Gold Rush served to conquer the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest. This may explain why Latino narrative does not fit into the traditional American immigrant saga. Distressingly, high hopes for a practical, timely and humane resolution seem to evaporate as time passes. Then again, the Washington approach may be to get out from under the problem (encontrar una salida) and not to resolve it.

Escalante’s message that resonates with me is a basic one: if an educator raises the bar and has high expectations of his students and provides a support system for success, then the students will rise to meet those expectations. And Mr. Escalante did just that motivating and encouraging his students, demanding that they practice their math exercises after school, and going the extra mile for the kids in his class by even providing supplemental tutoring without extra pay. It is teachers like Escalante, who believe in their students and then demand the best from them, who produce successful college students and young adults. While schools may lack Mr. Escalantes, parents can demand the same expectations that he did and create ‘no excuse’ environments, and I think that this is something the Latino community as a whole needs to start doing regardless of what kind of school one’s child attends because we cannot wait around for school reform or for the establishment to do it for us.

I highly recommend, in addition to watching Stand and Deliver if you haven’t already, that people read this story originally published in December of 1982 in the Washington Post about Jaime Escalante and the success that he produced.

In other education news, President Obama signed important student loan legislation today, which should be beneficial to students in our communities. Essentially, there will be an increase in the Pell Grants, which are similar to vouchers for higher education, changes in student loan payments that help ease the burden on students who borrowed to educate themselves, and extra assistance for community colleges and minority serving institutions. Many Latino students begin their higher education journey at the already burdened community colleges, so it will be interesting to see if the infusion of funds produces more positive results. Additionally, I know that many of my Latino peers did have to borrow to attend college and graduate school, so any lessening of student loan payments will be most helpful, especially in this economy.

Dr. Jill Biden, the Vice President’s wife, appeared in the following video explaining the new changes. I think that she’s a credible source on this subject given her 20+ years as an educator in both the K-12 system and community college system. Check it out, and let us know what you think:

Edited to Add: DonPalabraz has an interesting blog post citing Escalante’s opposition to bilingual education, which is worth a read. And the Los Angeles Times discusses Escalante’s conservative leanings in his obituary, as he considered becoming an education advisor to President George W. Bush and was an educational consultant for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign.

“One of them, Representative Solomon Ortiz, Democrat of Texas, is quoted by the news service as saying that he sees no difference between himself, a high school dropout who joined the Army to help his mother support his family, and his more credentialed colleagues. “They put their pants on the same way I put my pants on,” the article quotes him as saying.”

Obviously, we don’t want to confuse education for intellect, and yes, we can always say that former President George W. Bush held degrees from Yale and Harvard and did not prove to be the brightest bulb in the box, but higher education is truly transformative in that provides opportunities for those of us who don’t aspire to win popularity contests and is requisite to enter many professions. Furthermore, education enables one to analyze situations within historical and philosophical contexts. I’m saddened that Solomon Ortiz, one of the leaders in our community, would make such a crass statement about academic credentials and then reach for the lowest common denominator of putting on pants. Sure, we all put on pants and have similar bodily functions, but there certainly is a difference in how lives are led, decisions are made and problems solved when one examines those who have made education a priority versus those who have not. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be formal education either, but it certainly helps in our credential driven world.

I would like to note this particular part:

“In some ways, Obama is simply following his predecessor’s example. Until the Obama administration, Bush’s Cabinet was widely considered the most ethnically diverse in U.S. history, with Hispanics serving as secretaries of commerce and housing and as attorney general. Less than half of Obama’s Cabinet consists of white men.

About half of Obama’s picks trace their roots to Mexico and the former Spanish holdings in the Southwest, not surprising since two-thirds of Hispanics in the U.S. identify themselves as Mexican-American. But the administration also includes about half a dozen people of South American descent and nearly a dozen Hispanics from the Caribbean.”

Two things worth noting in this piece that I agree with. First, the appointments obviously don’t give Obama a free pass on immigration or other issues important in our communities. We still need to hold our officials accountable and put pressure on them, who can in turn pressure the President. Second, at the end of the piece, there is a statement about the effect of these appointments not being felt for possibly 15-20 years down the line as mid level officials often continue to climb in the bureaucracy or eventually run for higher office. This is true and makes a lot of sense. Right now people are building networks in their new positions. Some may run for office, go into the private sector, or in turn mentor other Latinos who seek to work in the federal government. Building a larger presence in the federal bureaucracy will take time, and of course, a lot of this will hinge on our community’s educational attainment and ability to network early in our careers.

The piece also noted, “More than half of the appointees hold an Ivy League degree, and more than a quarter, like the president, have a diploma from Harvard, an Associated Press review found.” Our high school dropout and subsequent college retention and graduation rates are going to have to improve to remain competitive.

Since 1992 and the fall of the Soviet Union, US policy toward Latin America has been generally ‘insufficient’ or one of ‘benign neglect’.  In fact, many observers have concluded that both the Clinton and W. Bush administrations basically handed the lead on Latin policy to the Cuban American lobby in order to secure Florida, a swing state in the Presidential elections. The Summitry Process began by Clinton which some critics considered an every four year photo op and not much more. It did have two substantive themes: a hemispheric free trade area and strongly endorsing democracy by pointing out that Cuba was the only non-democratic country in the region.

After 9/11, Latin America was readily served up and all but forgotten so it seemed. At first, the Bush Administration catered to the fiercely anti-Castro sector which had strongly voted for him. In W’s second term, the policy was pretty much given to the bureaucracy to manage and handle. This disappointed many hardliners. The objective evolved to keep the region’s problems from distracting Secretary Rice from more serious and important areas of concern. The designated hitter for Latin Policy became a fourth level bureaucrat, an Assistant Secretary was left to fend for himself without much visible top cover. Obama reached the White House and Hillary Clinton was ensconced as Secretary of State after having successfully blocked Bill Richardson from the job. Admittedly, Gov. Richardson was in the midst of a brewing scandal in New Mexico. Several political and media wags noted that all the key Latin foreign policy slots have been given to Latinos. These included Dan Restrepo at the NSC, Arturo Valenzuela at State, Frank Mora at Defense and Carmen Lomellin as Ambassador to OAS. This has been applauded notably by the Latino constituency groups. The issue has become now one of policy. Does the Obama administration care about the Latin American region? Where does it stack up? The fact is that the region once again finds itself vis-a-vis the US on the back-burner. It is not on the cutting edge of foreign policy. Yet early on Obama found himself in a tussle on two issues: Cuba and Chavez.

When Obama attended the Summit of the Americas meeting in the spring in Trinidad Tobago, he ran into unexpected or unscripted situations: is the US now ready to re-admit Cuba to the OAS? The vast majority of the Hemisphere’s countries were angling to get Cuba back into the OAS. The Obama team seemed surprised and almost unprepared for this challenge. The other one was how to deal with Chavez. Obama showed class and engaged Chavez briefly but certainly in awkward photo ops. The Cuba question dogged Hillary in the June OAS ministerial in Honduras. At the eleventh hour the Obama team was able to scramble and cobble a mutually acceptable communiqué that did not re-admit Cuba but addressed the irregularity of Cuba being absent from the OAS family. Some labeled the new Administration’s performance “Bush Light.” At the same time the US Mexico relationship was steadily moving forward. Obama revealed his support of Plan Merida to enable Mexico to better take on the drug cartels which have created enormous instability. But the funding for Merida was largely held up because of bureaucratic lack of clarity and other requirements. The other US Mexico challenge is undocumented immigration. No political bravery has emanated from the White House to wrangle with this most sensitive political public policy issue. In fact, no one is able now to predict if immigration reform will be an agenda item in the first two years of the Administration. So far it seems like the Democrats have concluded that the immigration reform bill is a lose-lose situation. The post 9/11 anti-terrorist sentiment coupled with the global economic downturn has inflicted pain on the US body politic. The US public has become more reluctant if not hostile to new immigration flows. This has plainly put a crimp into Obama team’s outlook. The continuation of building the border wall and draconian Homeland Security illegal-immigrant raids on job sites have not been seen sympathetically in Latin America and among Latino audiences in this country.

The more defining moment for the Obama Administration has been the on-going Honduras ‘golpe’ or coup crisis. The Obama team initially sided with the ousted President Zelaya and declared that the sacred principles of democracy had to be adhered and respected. Hence, Zelaya’s restoration to power became the battle cry for US interests in the initial months. Five months later the Obama administration is backtracking on the defense of democratic principles. The Administration appears to have tired of the Honduran crisis. The de facto regime in Honduras dug in and used PR and propaganda cleverly. More interesting seemed to be the Administration’s inability to persuade the defacto regime to cede power. Honduras is small with no political influence, no economic power nor military might — only diplomacy is in its arsenal. The US having all these options thinks in exhausting the first three before employing diplomacy. Hence, the Hondurans readily resorted to the old small country approach to concerns: use diplomacy but follow the rules of not speaking first, do not get angry and finally if unable to resolve favorably the problem then tangle it more. In using these tactics, Honduras wore out the US. The Obama administration slowly began to show  impatience and wariness. They saw Honduras as a small pesky country becoming increasingly more annoying and troublesome on the international stage.

Finally, the US after having declared itself initially pro-restoration of Zelaya and passing the problem to the OAS and Nobel Laureate President Arias of Costa Rica to resolve saw itself being drawn back into the fray. The contentious process dragged out in the discussion of whether the ouster of the Honduran President was legal or not. It attracted Republican die-hearts who defended the coup (because of the Chavista factor against Zelaya) while the Administration and the whole international community condemned the coup as anti-democratic. Obama’s team began to see themselves politically caught between a rock and a hard place: do we support and restore a Chavista (enemy of the US ) while defending democracy? After five months, Secretary of State Clinton and her Assistant Secretary for Latin America (who was being denied confirmation as Ambassador to Brazil by the Republicans) sought to cut a deal and injected themselves finally into the process to basically extricate themselves from this tar-baby. This required an about face or a betrayal of the previous US position. This has now become most troubling in Latin America to see the young dynamic US Administration as less than gracious in this process. In fact, many pundits in and outside the US are remarking or noting that the Administration not only demonstrated confusion or ineptitude or at best a maladroit approach, but callously left most of the OAS membership holding the bag.

To shore up support and bring someone high-level from the US Administration, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was chosen to be the senior US participant in a so-called Verification Commission to secure the recent signed accords now being hailed as the final solution. Solis, practically unwitting or unfamiliar with the situation, was carefully choreographed by the State Department to ensure that she would stick to the diplomatic script and not become a freelancer. Hilda had been initially hailed as the most liberal member of the Obama cabinet but by the time she left Tegucigalpa she was seen as apologist for the defacto ‘golpista’ government. She now takes the hit, not Hillary. Rather clever and cynical maneuvering it was indeed. As soon as Tom Shannon, the State Department’s overseer of this whole show announced that the Hondurans no longer had to restore Zelaya to get international recognition of the upcoming elections, the defacto government felt it was off the hook and home free.  The Brazilians, who are housing Zelaya in their Embassy and waiting for his restoration, feel the US has behaved at best negligently and indifferent. The problem could have been avoided or minimize by having initially forceful high-level US leadership on the issue. The OAS  had its Secretary General and all the countries in the region had their Presidents or Prime Minister through their Foreign Ministers decry this US perfidy. The US has had a fourth-rung bureaucrat (the Assistant Secretary) in the lead.  Obama’s team failed to recognized from the beginning the limitations of the State Department if not given top White House cover. Moreover, in handing over the volatile issue in this case to the bureaucracy, it plainly did not understand that ‘diplomats seek the path of least resistance, they believe in nothing and everything to everyone’ and as bureaucrats they adhere to: never get between a bureaucrat and his/her ambitions. They mow you down….the additional factor is that while the US behaved like a world power during the Cold War: it basically ordered everyone except the Soviets to do its bidding. In Spanish it was referred to as the ‘dedazo’…now in the post Cold War-era even the tiny insignificant powers have begun to lose their fear of the US. Yet this muddle and lack of focus produce the image of a Gulliver with Lilliputians throwing ropes over his back to bring him down. The US Latino community regardless of partisan bias will feel that if this is all the Obama Administration can provide in terms of moral leadership and support for democratic ideals and most of all the lack of consistency in policy toward Latin America then a closer  look at the expectations must be undertaken. Disappointment is the only word to describe the first real test of fortitude, skill and determination in dealing with Latin America. Arturo Valenzuela the new Assistant Secretary will now have to rectify, re-define as well as need to provide the real Obama vision of the region.

Well, NBC has done it again — this time hiring Jenna Bush Hager, the daughter of former President George W. Bush to be a correspondent covering education issues. I know a bit about education issues myself, having worked in a few higher education institutions while finishing my terminal graduate degree in the field, and let me tell you, I could probably rattle off a dozen more qualified people than Jenna Bush Hager for such a job. Sadly, my colleagues don’t have the privilege of being a President’s child.

But what makes this hiring more disturbing is the possibility that Jenna is a chip off the old block.

“I hope to focus on what I’m passionate about because I think I’d do them best job on them — education, urban education, women and children’s issues and literacy,” said Hager.

I’m hoping that the Associated Press misquoted her or made a typo because she doesn’t sound very articulate in the above cited statement, but time will tell, right?

But in light of today’s news, I wonder if this is the reason why President Obama is extending secret service protection for Dick Cheney. Vice Presidents do not get extended secret service protection after leaving office.  But as the blogger at Gawker speculates, “…so Obama is protecting Cheney from someone. Or maybe he is protecting all of us from Dick Cheney?”

Some people have suggested that Latinos are only interested in comprehensive immigration reform or domestic policy matters, but as Seneca has pointed out, we are sorely underrepresented in US foreign policy and aren’t readily perceived as players in that game. Hopefully, with the participation of scholars like Nathan Gonzalez in Middle East foreign policy, we can change that perception and learn more in the process. Check out some of the questions I was able to ask him, and feel free to add your own thoughts:

1. Why should Latinos here in the US be concerned with what is happening in Iran? Some in our community have argued that we should stay focused on the domestic issues at hand and foreign policy as it relates to the Americas.

Luckily, I have not heard anyone wonder aloud why we should care about what is happening in Iran. That would make as much sense as someone saying, “Why should I learn Spanish, I live in America!” However, something I have been asked is why I, as a Latino, spend so much time studying and commenting on Iran. But the beauty of your site, and the various efforts underway to increase Latino participation in politics and civil society, is that they provide avenues for Latinos to take part in the larger social fabric. You have Latino doctors, Latino lawyers, and now we’ll have a Latina Supreme Court justice. Why not have Latinos who study the Middle East?

2. You have been a proponent of engaging with Iran. Some have argued that engaging with the current regime would be like legitimizing the leadership, which is kind of like the arguments that have been tossed around for not engaging with Cuba or Venezuela. Do you think that the Obama administration should be more proactive in its approach with Iran?
 
I would be lying if I said that the current crackdown on protesters doesn’t complicate things politically for President Obama here at home. However, the Bush administration aligned our interests very closely to those of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is the country with the second greatest influence over Iraq, after the United States. This means that for our troops to come home safely, we need to coordinate closely with the Islamic Republic. The same goes for another one of Iran’s neighbor, Afghanistan. We have no choice but to work with whoever is in power in Iran, and that is one of the unfortunate and seldom-told legacies of the Bush presidency.

3. One of the things that comes to mind in watching the demonstrations is that the US has had problems in claiming the legitimacy of its own elections in recent years (2000 & 2004). Do we appear hypocritical if we start to attack Iran’s electoral process?

I don’t agree with those comparisons, which I’ve been hearing a lot. What we saw in Iran was the Interior Ministry proclaim a winner without even taking the time to count votes. It would be like George Bush convening the Electoral College to vote for him before the states even announced their vote tallies. We only mock the disenfranchisement that took place in Florida and Ohio when we make such a moral equivalence.

4. If the protests continue despite warnings from the Supreme Leader Khamenei, what does this say about his authority or power?

The minute the supreme leader took President Ahmadinejad’s side was the moment he lost his above-the-fray status. As the arrests of key political figures continue, such as those targeting the family members of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and one of the country’s wealthiest individuals, it becomes more likely that a coup will be attempted through the Assembly of Experts. This is the body headed by Rafsanjani which has the constitutional authority to remove the supreme leader.

5. For me, watching the situation unfold in Iran has been a good reinforcement of why we have a separation of church and state here in the US. In light of recent events in the US that have been tinged with religious thought such as the killing of Dr. George Tiller and the gay marriage debate, do you think it is fair to draw parallels or comparisons of what could happen here if we inched toward more converging of religion with public policy?
 
I think it is a fair comparison. For example, there is nothing in Shia Islam, as traditionally practiced, that allows a mere cleric to take executive authority over the state. But this is exactly what Ayatollah Khomeini did following the Iranian Revolution (1978-79). In other words, just because we think we understand how the Bible or the Qur’an works, it doesn’t mean that popular religious figures can’t hijack those Holy texts to advance their narrow political ambitions, and in the process make life miserable for the rest of us. We can avoid this problem by keeping a sturdy wall separating church and state.

6. Finally, what are you thoughts about the use of social media in disseminating information about the situation in Iran?

I have personally learned a lot from what is happening in Iran. I only started using Twitter after seeing how powerful a communication tool it has been for Iranian protesters. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the role of social networking sites. The last time Iran had a revolution there was no Twitter, no Facebook, and no cell phones. Only courage and determination.

Author Peter Dreier penned a response to the Los Angeles magazine’s “Failure” article framing Villaraigosa’s accomplishments in the political climate of larger failures attributed to former President George W. Bush, the governor, and the state legislature. The first part of the piece tries to put the plight of the city and Villaraigosa in that context. It also discusses many initiatives started by the Mayor that are still being implemented, so we cannot definitively say what the end result will be. Also glaringly absent from the piece is the disappointment that many in Los Angeles and in the greater Latino community have felt regarding the Mayor’s personal indiscretions and news of yet another girlfriend, while his divorce from wife Corina Villaraigosa is not yet finalized. The mayor has been criticized for time spent away from City Hall, but it seems that he has plenty of time for photo ops and dating. This playboy persona doesn’t add to his image of success in my view and doesn’t endear him to many of the more family oriented citizens of Los Angeles.

I do think that the suggestions for what Villaraigosa can do in his second term, as offered by Dreier in the article, are good ones. The four suggestions include: making the city cleaner and greener, attracting more green jobs, push for more housing (especially a mixed income housing ordinance), and making neighborhoods more livable with improved public transit. Hopefully, Villaraigosa will take these suggestions in stride, but many still wonder if he will hit the campaign trail and run for governor instead.