OPPOSING THE INTERESTS OF MINORITIES IS THE PRICE::

To make sense of why racially prejudiced white Americans are willing to support some Black candidates, it is worth considering why they so strongly oppose Black Democrats in the first place. Given the racialized nature of the two-party system in the United States, most Black political candidates are Democrats who embrace liberal positions on issues of race and justice. When asked whether they would support such a candidate, research shows that racially prejudiced white voters worry that these candidates will represent the interests of Black Americans, both because of a shared African American identity  and because Democrats are perceived as the party more supportive of Black interests. So, it makes sense that racially resentful white Americans oppose candidates like Obama, as his racial identity and partisanship signaled to voters that he was more supportive of Black interests than prior presidents. 

Put another way: Racially prejudiced white voters are not opposed to Black candidates simply because they are Black, but because they believe that most Black candidates will fight for "those people" and not "people like us."

Black Republicans, on the other hand, are perceived differently by racially prejudiced white Americans. Their embrace of the Republican Party and its conservative ideology help assure racially prejudiced whites that, unlike Black Democrats, they are not in the business of carrying water for their own racial group. Instead, they are viewed as distinct from other Black elites. If Blackness is viewed as intertwined with a kind of racial liberalism that is antagonistic to the interests of white Americans, Black Republicans' partisan and ideological commitments allay concerns that they are for "them," not "us."

This argument is buttressed by more recent scholarship in political science, which has found that Black candidates who embrace a "bootstrap" ideology -- an ideology that focuses on individual versus structural explanations of inequality -- are more positively evaluated by racially prejudiced whites relative to their white competitors. Explaining this finding, the authors note that racially prejudiced white voters "might find black Republicans delivering an individualism message more favorable than they might find other candidates delivering a similar message precisely because the aesthetic character and the partisan affiliation of the messenger contradict racial and political expectations." LaFleur Stephens-Dougan, a professor of political science at Princeton University, similarly shows in her book "Race to the Bottom" that racially resentful whites respond well to Black candidates who take stances against the expected positions of their racial group -- a phenomenon she calls "racial distancing."

Finally, voting for Black Republicans may also be especially appealing to racially prejudiced whites because it assuages concerns of being seen as racist by enabling them to say, in essence, "I can't be racist! I voted for a Black candidate!" Psychologists call this "moral credentialing," and there's even some evidence that voters who expressed support for Obama shortly after the 2008 election felt more justified in favoring white Americans over Black Americans. Electing a Black Republican like Sears, who railed against critical race theory during the run-up to the election and supports voting restrictions that adversely affect racial minorities, is similarly used as a symbolic shield by the entire party from inevitable charges of championing racist policies. 

Tweet   @brothersjudd