Racial Polarization,

Ressentiment and White Standing

Jim Deitsch

Joao Hoffmann

Briana Tucker

What is Racial Polarization?

 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 2

The ideological gap between Republicans and Democrats has continued to widen in every

election since the 1970s (Thomsen 2017). Even though polarization remains an ambiguous

concept, understanding the various facets of polarization has important consequences for how we

understand partisan conflict, how we evaluate congressional governance, assess representation and

ultimately seek to improve our political system. Most political scholars agree that polarization is

occurring and, perhaps of more noteworthy importance, increasing; how and why is open to debate.

In this paper, we explore a new method of explaining polarization: namely, we examine the

complicated interactions between racial groups and Congressional actors, and hypothesize how

they create additional polarizing behavior in the electorate and in Congress. In order to lay the

groundwork for this discussion, we will first turn to existing scholarship on the topic of

polarization.

Prominent literature from noteworthy political elites tend to define polarization in terms of

a roll call vote-based measure. It does not matter why someone votes the way they do, it only

matters what their actual vote is. It is an impersonal method, but it is much easier than assessing

the alternative, which would be the difficult project of quantifying why someone votes the way

they do. As an example of the roll-call based polarization technique, McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal

(2006, 3) define polarization as “a separation of politics into liberal and conservative camps” based

on voting patterns. This method assumes that all votes are “liberal” or “conservative.” Although

Theriault (2008) doesn’t offer an explicit definition of polarization, his work illuminates some of

the central features of polarization, including, “disagreement about procedures,” “members who

cast increasingly ideological votes,” greater differences between the parties and increased party

voting and the division of parties into separate camps on vote-based measures (Theriault 2008).

Polarization as a concept, which focuses on ideological disagreement, is not necessarily the same
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 3

thing as polarization as a measure, which generally captures all votes that separate Democrats from

Republicans (Harbridge 2015). Conventional wisdom links polarization to a lack of common

ground, which can be summarized by a statement from Dodd and Oppenheimer: “Given the

growing regional base of the two parties in the House and Senate, the decline in the number of

moderates in both parties, the increased ideological polarization, and the strength of party voting”

makes finding common ground and opportunity for compromise increasingly difficult (Harbridge

2015). By contrast, other scholars, including Fiorina, who frames her discussion of polarization

through mass behavior, suggests that there is no mass-level polarization in America, but only party

sorting, or the homogeneity of the Democratic and Republican party that results in ideological

divergence of the two parties (Fiorina 2008). We think these definitions of polarization are useful

in some circumstances, but are missing a critical element. That element is race.

The added layer of race makes this inquiry more nuanced than it already is because of the

pervasive and divisive nature that race has played in society. Simply put, one definition of racial

polarization is as follows: “a consistent relationship between [the] race of the voter and the way in

which the voter votes, or to put it differently, where black voters and white voters vote differently”

(U.S. v. Charleston County 2003). In order to examine how racial polarization intersects with

congressional polarization, it is necessary to understand that an issue that is racially polarized in

the electorate can also be politically polarizing in Congress, which leads to a multi-dimensional

power structure. This structure creates the end result of different racial groups identifying with

different political parties, and different issues becoming associated with race relations, whether

they are inherently racial or not. For example, one of major consequences of the Obama presidency

has been the racialization of ostensibly non-racial policy areas (i.e., healthcare). The correlation to

this is that differing racial groups identify with a particular party and reject the other political party
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 4

as “against their interests.” This distaste and distrust of the opposing party is often manipulated by

Congressional players to further the partisan divide-- a division supposedly based on the “interests”

of their various constituents, but is really based on the manipulation of their constituents’ racial

biases.

The Plight of African-Americans Throughout History

A prevailing belief throughout the history of the United States is that there is a biological

difference between the races, and that this difference should lead to an inequality concerning how

the different races should be treated. A manifestation of this belief was white colonists exploiting

this supposed inequality in order to enslave African-Americans, with no underlying moral qualms.

Once slavery was abolished, things ostensibly got better, but in practice, structures of white

domination were still enforced. Many whites still believed that there were biological differences

between African-Americans and white people, and used this belief to justify the creation of policies

that used paternalization methods to keep African-Americans disadvantaged. Often, African-

Americans would work at plantations for free, which had the practical effect of continuing to

advantage the wealthy white capitalists who previously thrived on slave labor. As the years went

on, and paternalization broke down to a certain extent, African-Americans moved from the rural

South to Northern cities in search of manufacturing jobs. The idea that blacks could achieve the

‘American Dream’ finally achieved a mildly relevant presence in American society. However,

institutional barriers made this idea harder to achieve in reality than should have been the case.

Due to the cheap labor of African-Americans in factories, whites, particularly those in the middle

class, moved from the inner cities to the suburbs, a phenomenon called the white-flight. African-

Americans became stuck in the inner cities with low paying jobs and surrounded by businesses

owned by whites (Wilson 2012). Stuck in the inner cities without much hope for socioeconomic
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 5

mobility, African-Americans were caught in low paying jobs with deteriorating institutions. They

had followed whites to the cities, and the whites had left, once again creating a physical barrier

between the racial groups. Wilson claims that this is the reason that, on average, African-

Americans are disadvantaged in today’s society as compared to the white race. In the current age,

the belief that there is an intellectual or moral difference between races is no longer socially

acceptable, but the leftover racial biases of that belief and the harmful effects of the structure that

accompanied it still linger. Due to these biases, African-Americans still make less than white

individuals, are less likely to be hired by employers (Pager and Quillian 2015), and are more likely

to die at the hands of police than other races. The Black Lives Matter movement was started in

order to create awareness for and protest the mistreatment of African-Americans at the hands of

the police, especially after the murders of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner. This

movement has been successful at raising awareness, especially through the use of social media,

but has received major backlash, with the Republican President Trump adamantly opposing the

movement. It is now more important than ever to make sure that there is research and awareness

of how African-Americans are treated not only in society but through politics as well. This reality,

combined with the clear polarization, is why our paper came into existence.

Basis For Research

The dramatic increase in the racial and ethnic diversity of the American public has

prompted major societal and cultural shifts. These demographic changes have sparked important

questions, debates, and moral dilemmas regarding the American identity and the role that

minority’s presence plays in shaping that understanding. Current conversations about immigration

and related policies, upticks in prominent white nationalist propaganda, and social movements

echoing the structural and systematic oppression of African Americans by and within the criminal
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 6

justice system have drawn a line in the sand in Washington and forced Congressional leaders to

take a stand on these issues. Since these issues are, sadly, quite divisive, Congressional leaders

often must take a stand that may leave a portion of the electorate discontent.

The growing racial divide between the two parties is not only evidenced by the racial

composition of their respective members, but also evidenced by their respective stances on many

“social issues.” Differing experiences and opinions of and concerning minority populations,

including African Americans, prompts differing views on the role of government, party

identification and voting behavior that accompanies racial and ethnic issues. If minorities comprise

the base of a particular party and support its electoral victory through increased voter turnout, it is

likely that polarization will be somewhat affected, which in turn is likely to exacerbate this divide.

However, it is also likely to force political leaders to adopt and espouse new views that could unite

Americans, if done correctly. Sadly, this has rarely happened. Ultimately, the current political and

cultural climate of the country provides a strong basis for our research topic.

For the purposes of our research, we would like to focus our discussion of racial

polarization on the analysis of the dynamics between African Americans and White Americans.

Given the history of intense racial resentment between these two groups - from the early days of

slavery and Civil War to the Civil Rights movement and the BLM movement- it is important to

focus our analysis on these two racial groups, since any conversation concerning race relations in

America necessitates their inclusion. The racial resentment that has existed and continues to exist

between the two groups, we hypothesize, contributes to the aforementioned polarization, which is

often manifested in individuals’ racial attitudes that have spillover effects into ostensibly non-

racial policy areas. For example, issues such as health care and social welfare programs, although

not racially charged in theory, have developed extremely racialized connotations due to the
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 7

inherent racial biases of whites and their need to maintain a white racial standing against African-

Americans.

Whiteness and Racialization

Joel Olsen (2008), in his work, Whiteness and the Polarization of the American Politics

explores the role race plays in political polarization, or the tendency for politicians and voters to

act along partisan and ideological lines. He argues that polarization has resulted, in part, from the

changing nature of white identity, or whiteness, and the strategic response to this change by

political elites. He suggests that the transformation of whiteness and subsequent polarization lies

at the root of what he deems are “culture wars,” which embody the intense political separation

between the two racial groups.

During slavery and segregation, white identity functioned as a form of racialized standing

that granted all whites a superior social status to all those who were not white, particularly African

Americans. The loss of individualized standing due to the victories of the civil rights movement,

however, led to anger, anxiety, and ressentiment among many whites, and a desire to restore white

standing. This “white standing” was more than a hypothesized hierarchy because of the

accompanying sociopolitical power that the white skin color provided (Olsen). This white

ressentiment, as Olson calls it, presented a political opportunity for the minority party, if they could

mobilize it, to create backlash against the African-American constituency to form a party focused

on low-class working whites (Olsen 2008). Yet given post-civil rights movement norms against

overt racism, Republican strategists could not do so in a way that directly evoked white standing.

Republican leaders overcame this dilemma by creating a narrative that portrayed the Democrats

as the party of “intellectual elites and undeserving rabble”- a word used by Spiro Agnew to

describe minorities (Olsen 2008). The GOP, meanwhile, presenting themselves to low income
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 8

working class whites as the "virtuous middle," squeezed in between. In constructing this conflict,

Republican elites implicitly racialized both the virtuous middle and the "snobs" as white, while

completely ignoring the growing African-American constituency (Olsen 2008).

Prior to the 1960s, party identification among white voters tended to reflect regional,

ethnic, and religious differences, at least as much as ideological ones (Olsen 2008). But the

aggressive effort to distinguish a virtuous middle from the snobs and the rabble contributed to,

according to Olsen, the splitting of the white vote along ideological lines. In turn, increased

ideological coherence created an incentive for each party to bundle positions on racial issues with

hot-button “cultural issues” such as welfare, abortion and gay marriage (Olsen 2008). This

contributed to a partisan realignment that made the base of each party more ideologically consistent

and more antagonistic to the other party’s ideology, paving the way for an increasingly polarized

public susceptible to cultural wars.

Furthermore, world renowned sociologist, Arlie Hochschild (2016), contributes to this

discussion of the deep political separation of blacks and whites along racial lines in her work.

Hochschild left her liberal home in Berkeley, California to visit the deep Louisiana Bayou in an

effort to understand low-class, working, white, conservative Trump supporters. As Hochschild

began to interview more Trump supporters, she began to realized that these working class whites

were voting against policies that would benefit them due to racial biases, most particularly social

welfare reform (Hoschild 2016). While social welfare is available to those who need it regardless

of race, these conservative working class whites saw it as only helping minority communities.

Deemed the “Great Paradox,” Hochschild explained that working class whites felt that they were

waiting in line for the American Dream only to have immigrants, African-Americans, and women

have policies favor them and allow them to cut the line (Hoschild 2016). Hochschild’s analysis
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 9

prompted her realization that most of the policies that the conservative population voted against

had racial context and exhibited voter patterns that would seem to help whites as a whole instead

of minorities. This causes a clear shift in which people vote against policies that would help them

because they view it as helping those who do not deserve it, i.e. minority communities.

Olson’s work highlights the shift that the Republicans made to protect their own racial

power, that is the white standing of the minority party on the electorate level against those of

different races. This white standing allows for a glass floor in which no matter “how poor, mean,

or ignorant one might have been, or whatever discriminations on the basis of gender, class,

religion, or ethnicity one may have been subjected to, one could always derive social esteem by

asserting ‘At least I’m not black’” (Olson 708). This notion appealed to the poor white constituency

that followed along with the Republicans due to the belief that the Republican party would make

sure that no matter what happens, lower-class working whites would be protected and their voices

heard, unlike the “pretentious” Democratic party that would rather focus on the rich whites and

minorities in society. Hochschild’s ethnographic study proves the point that low-class whites have

such high trust in the Republican party due to the belief that the Democratic party does not care

about them. The Republicans that she spoke to voted against liberal social welfare and

environmental policies that would ultimately help their living conditions more than conservative

policies, due to the mistrust and the idea that minorities, blacks, and women will benefit from

liberal policies, while the low-class whites will be left behind. Race and white standing became

the main determinant of the way in which these people voted on representatives and policies. The

ideal set by the Republican party at the end of the Reconstruction period created not only racial

polarization, but set in place a structure of racialized society in which actors have certain roles and

boundaries placed on them through a person’s skin color. No longer is race just a social construct,
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 10

but has been transformed to a structural institution that suppresses minorities, while praising and

giving privileges to those of the white race (Schachter 2016).

The Racialization of Political Issues

Henderson and Hillygus’ model includes measures of race and racial resentment to

evaluate claims made by many political pundits and journalists that health care debate became

racialized. In a Huffington Post Article, Ray Hanania articulates that although many Republicans

and “blue dog” conservatives Democrats claimed they opposed Obama’s health care plan because

it would increase the nation's debt, the real reason is “driven by racism and the fact that the majority

who would benefit from health care reform are minorities, the poor and families burdened by

uninsured health challenges” (Hanania 2009). Although highly speculative, Hanania claim echoes

findings by other prominent political theorists that “deep-seated beliefs and values generally – and

those about race specifically” – have been shown to shape attitudes across a range of policy areas

(Kinder 2001). Although public opinion on social welfare policies has been found to be tinged

with racial undertones, scholars found to health care to an interesting case.

Michael Tesler (2011) in his work Post-Racial Most Racial, found evidence that racial

resentment has become more predictive of health care opinion since the election of Obama, but

the analysis does not explicitly consider individual-level opinion change. Henderson and Hillygus

found that none of the demographic factors – except race – were related to changes in health care

attitudes. The theorists found a large and statistically significant effect of racial attitudes on health

care attitudes. Those with the highest levels of racial resentment were 29 percentage points more

likely to change in the negative direction between 2008 and 2010, confirming Tesler’s conclusions

that health care policy has become more racialized in the Obama presidency (Henderson, Hillygus

2011).
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 11

Additionally, Henderson and Hillygus assessed the effects of partisanship on changes in

health care attitudes. “Republicans whose earlier attitude did not match their party’s position were

much more likely to flip to the opposing side by 2010 than were Democrats who expressed similar

positions in 2008, contributing to party polarization at the mass level” (Henderson, Hillygus 2011).

There was no parallel net increase in support for universal health care among Democrats because

a notable share of weak Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents also moved in the negative

direction (Henderson, Hillygus 2011).

The more interesting question for Henderson and Hillygus concerns the interplay of

partisanship and self-interest. In 2008, 27 percent of Republican constituents reported that they

worried a lot about major unexpected medical expenses. Interestingly, these Republicans were

likely following Republican leaders who opposed universal health care. Henderson and Hillygus

then asked, “does self-interest moderate the effect of partisan attachment?” The scholars found

that the probability that a partisan comes to oppose universal health care is often conditional on

perceived self-interest. Moreover, that effect is strongest for self-identified strong Republicans.

While there was some polarization in public opinion, these results offer clear evidence that health

care attitudes are not simply reflection of elite rhetoric but instead have roots in more fundamental

considerations (Henderson, Hillygus 2011). Republicans in the electorate seem to worry that

universal health care would assist African-Americans and minorities more than working-class

whites. Even though health care should not be a racial issue, due to the implication that the

“virtuous” white Republicans want to maintain their white standing, they could not and still will

not support universal health care due to the minority constituency that it is perceived to help the

most. However, their attitudes are based on racial biases, not substantive facts, and the end result
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 12

is often Republican health care policy that helps neither racial minorities nor the main Republican

base.

Racial attitudes were also already reflected in attitudes toward universal health insurance

by September 2008, suggesting either that health care policy had already been racialized in the

presidential campaign or that the measure of racial resentment could tap something other than

racism. Either way, their racial resentment measure is more strongly related to health care attitudes

in 2010 than in 2008. This is more evidence that attitudes and the tangible consequences of these

attitudes are leading to further polarization.

Racial Politics in Congress

Ross Douthat’s work entitled “Republicans, White Voters and Racial Polarization” (2013)

provides a commentary on Sean Trende’s argument that the G.O.P. should try to build a “whites-

only” majority, which would, in effect, intensify the political divide and increase racial

polarization of the electorate. Douthat (2013) presents arguments from prominent political

scientist, Alan Abramowitz, who argues that the growing dependence of the Democratic Party on

nonwhite voters has contributed to the flight of racially and economically conservative white

voters to the G.O.P. This “White Flight,” according to Abramowitz, further increases the size of

the racial divide between the party coalitions. The article, also differentiates between Clinton-era

Democrats, who tried to appeal to working class whites, and Obama-era Democrats, most of whom

used “scorched earth” campaign tactics to minimize the G.O.P.’s margin. Additionally,

particularly sensitive and racially charged issues such as immigration have been indoctrinated into

the Republican strategy. Recently, Republicans’ efforts to defeat immigration reform, by

increasing support amongst their predominantly whites base and through efforts to make it harder

for nonwhites to vote is, according to Abramowitz, “a recipe for a future in which America’s two
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 13

parties are largely defined by race” (2014). As a result, racially sensitive issues – welfare, social

and criminal justice reform, affirmative action– fracture both parties on racial lines. If both political

parties take stricter stances on these issues, such polarization is likely to exist within each party’s

racially distinct bases. These bases are likely affected, at least to a certain extent, by the racial

makeup of Congress itself.

The new 115th U.S Congress of 2017 has become officially the most diverse Congress in

history. Now, one in five voting members are of an ethnic minority group. However, nonwhites

still only make up 19% of the current congress, with the other 81% being white. While some may

argue that this closely-enough resembles the diverse population of the United States, it can (and,

we think, should) be argued that this number is still not good enough, with 38% of the U.S

population composed of non-white Hispanics and African-Americans (Pew Research Center,

2017). Since 2001, the Republican party has increased the number of minority representatives from

four to twelve, while Democrats have increased from 27 to 83 members. Thus, like Olson and

Hochschild argue, we believe that Republicans choose to be the party of the “virtuous” white, not

particularly inclusive to the needs of those outside of the white race, while they labeled the

Democratic party the party of the “snobby” white and “undeserving rabble” (Olson 2008). Because

the racial demographics of the politicians themselves likely affect how the politicians vote on

specific issues, the fact that Republican Congressional members are mostly white and Democratic

Congressional Members are much more diverse, supports our conclusion that polarization exists

in Congress as a tangible extension of the racial polarization of the electorate.

Additionally, because members of Congress are drawn from and shaped by their

constituencies, it’s likely that if the electorate is polarized, then members will also be polarized.

Congressional leaders are ideologically representative of their districts, suggesting that this
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 14

dynamic polarize the electorate. The adoption of ideologically distinct positions by Congressional

parties further exacerbate polarization in Congress through a direct feedback loop to the mass

population.

Minority Members of Congress will often try to represent their own minority group’s

interests, even if those issues or minorities don’t make up their constituency. For example, through

symbolic representation, black members in Congress are more likely respond to black constituents.

This seems to suggest that there is more racial and outgroup awareness that is likely to affect voting

in Congress. By the same token, the few minorities in Congress are driven to act as a voice for

minority interests regardless of the districts they represent. For an example, in an interview Rep.

Luis Gutierrez spoke passionately about immigration reform, solidarity and the U.S. government’s

responsibility to help Puerto Rico develop economically. When asked about the campaign to free

political prisoner, Oscar Lopez, an issue very important to him, Gutierrez remarked how it was

“important for him to put his life as a Puerto Rican in the United States” and spoke broadly about

migrants experiences in the United States (Muniz 2014).

William Curtis Ellis and Walter Clark Wilson, in their article Minority Chairs and

Congressional Attention to Minority Issues, look at the effect of descriptive representation in

positions of institutional power. Descriptive representative are “representative who share

politically salient physical characteristics like race or ethnicity with their electoral constituencies

and are widely viewed as important to the representation of marginalized groups” (Ellis, Wilson

2013), much like Rep. Gutierrez.

Their findings revealed that hearings chaired by Latinos and African Americans in the

House between 1979 and 2008, were more likely to address racialized issues like civil rights, social

welfare, and housing issues. For Ellis and Wilson, these findings confirm that descriptive
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 15

representation in positions of influence over committee agendas, facilitates institutional attention

to minority issues and suggests that “the acquisition of institutional power by black and Latino

representatives is critical to the functional representation of minority interests” (2013). Thus, if

descriptive representation changes patterns of issue attention in Congress and affects the

congressional policy agenda, then descriptive representation is extremely important to minority

representation. By contrast, while white committee chairs presided over 90% of the hearing

examined during the three decades Ellis and Wilson considered, the same chairs presided over

fewer than 70% of hearings on minority issues (Ellis, Wilson 2013). The race and ethnicity of

committee chairs seems to have a direct affect on the presence of minority issues on the

congressional policy agenda.

Institutional barriers, often referred to as “glass ceilings” can act as a substantial hurdle to

the incorporation and representation of minority interests that preclude minority representatives

from being elected in the first place (Ellis, Wilson 2013). Ultimately, electing descriptive

representatives is a starting point for marginalized groups to received substantive representation

that shapes policy agendas, outputs and outcomes (Ellis, Wilson 2013).

Other scholars argue that as an alternative to increasing the number of racial minorities in

Congress, blacks and other minorities would be more politically effective if they represented a

significant minority across many districts (i.e., “influence districts”), rather than an absolute

majority in a relative few (Cameron, Epstein, and O’Halloran 1996). In the article, Congressional

Representation of Black Interests, Hutchings, McClerking and Charles (2004) explore how the

linkage between race and representation might occur because of a kind of unconscious policy

agreement between constituent and legislator. On the other hand, black constituency size might be
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 16

influential because of more conscious efforts on the part of the MC to represent their black

supporters.

Implications

The increasing racial tensions between black and white communities in America has

continued to fracture the nation, the electorate and Congress along racial lines. As a result, certain

issues, including social welfare, education and health care, have not only become racially charged

but have become increasingly partisan. With Congress members seemingly taking stricter stances

on these issues and programs that are perceived by both members in Congress and the electorate

to help minorities, Congress’ efforts to make change in these areas has come to a halt. With the

upticks of political activism reminiscent of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, more blacks

and whites are expressing their distaste and distrust of elected officials to truly get things done.

Ultimately, people can’t be what they don’t see. If minorities continued to perceive a

Congressional systems that oppresses and disadvantages them, it follows that less and less

minorities with hold seats of higher offices. This not only squelches minorities voices and

concerns, but also gives them no platform to vocalize these issues. Furthermore, this while further

the divide between minorities and politics. By contrast, low income white voters, who feel that the

current system only caters to the needs of minorities, will continue to support policies that would

actually help them. This drives whites and blacks further away from one another with little

opportunities to see the other person's side and to truly work toward substantive policy agreement.

As a result, the future looks pretty pessimistic. There is no definite way to fix the issue of racial

polarization, and to be frank, there might not be a way. However, a step in the right direction is to

present the issue and hope that other researchers and those in power will work on creating a

solution.
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 17

Work Cited:

Abramowitz, Alan I. “How Race and Religion Have Polarized American Voters.” The
Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Jan. 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2014/01/20/how-race-and-religion-have-polarized-american-
voters/?utm_term=.2d8f773daf83
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 18

Bialik, Kristen, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. “115th Congress Sets New High for Racial, Ethnic
Diversity.” Pew Research Center, 24 Jan. 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2017/01/24/115th-congress-sets-new-high-for-racial-ethnic-diversity/

Cameron, Charles, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran. 1996. “Do Majority-Minority
Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” American Political
Science Review 90(4): 794–12

Congressional Representation of Black Interests: Recognizing the Importance of Stability

Author(s): Vincent L. Hutchings, Harwood K. McClerking and Guy-Uriel Charles Source:
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 66, No. 2 (May., 2004), pp. 450-468 Published by: The
University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association Stable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00159.x Accessed: 25-04-
2018 17:32 UTC

Douthat, Ross. “Republicans, White Voters and Racial Polarization.” The New York Times, The
New York Times, 6 Aug. 2013, douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/republicans-white-voters-
and-racial-polarization/. 26 March 2018.

Ellis, William Curtis, and Walter Clark Wilson. “Minority Chairs and Congressional Attention to
Minority Issues: The Effect of Descriptive Representation in Positions of Institutional
Power.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 5, Jan. 2013, pp. 1207–1221.,
doi:10.1111/ssqu.12023.

Michael Henderson, D. Sunshine Hillygus; The Dynamics of Health Care Opinion, 2008–2010:
Partisanship, Self-Interest, and Racial Resentment. J Health Polit Policy Law 1 December
2011; 36 (6): 945–960. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1460533.

Muñiz , Andre Lee. “Interview with Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, A Champion of Freedom and
Solidarity La Respuesta.” La Respuesta, 24 Feb. 2014, larespuestamedia.com/luis-
gutierrez-interview/.

Hanania, Ray. “Opposition to Obama Health Care Reform Driven by Racism Not Fear of
Increasing Debt.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 May 2011,
www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-hanania/opposition-to-obama-healt_b_242938.html.

Henderson Michael, Hillygus Sunshine D.; The Dynamics of Health Care Opinion, 2008–2010:
 Deitsch, Hoffmann, Tucker 19

Partisanship, Self-Interest, and Racial Resentment. J Health Polit Policy Law 1 December
2011; 36 (6): 945–960. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1460533

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning On the American
Right. New York: The New Press, 2016.

Hutchings, Vincent L., et al. “Congressional Representation of Black Interests: Recognizing the
Importance of Stability.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 66, no. 2, 2004, pp. 450–468. JSTOR,
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00159.x.

Kinder, Donald R., and Nicholas Winter. "Exploring the Racial Divide: Blacks, Whites, and
Opinion on National Policy." American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 2 (2001): 439-56.
doi:10.2307/2669351.

Pager, Deva and Lincoln Quillian. 2005. “Walking the Talk? What Employers Say versus What
They Do.” American Sociological Review 70: 355-380

Olson, Joel. "Whiteness and the Polarization of American Politics." Political Research
Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 4, 2008, pp. 704-718, https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908322408,
doi:10.1177/1065912908322408.

Schachter, Ariela. 2016. “From ‘Different’ to ‘Similar’: An Experimental Approach to

Understanding Assimilation.” American Sociological Review 81: 981-1013.

Wilson, William Julius “The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American
Institutions.” 3rd edition.
2012. University of Chicago Press. ISBN-10: 0226901416 (paper).