In Chapter 5, we examine whether Black and non-Black elected officials differ in their discussion of what Mansbridge (1999) describes as uncrystallized issues. Mansbridge (1999) argues that uncrystallized political issues are those which have not been on the political agenda for very long and politicians have not yet taken public stances. As a result, uncrystallized issues provide another good avenue to explore whether Black elected officials engage in more proactive racial rhetorical representation than non-Black elected officials. While Mansbridge’s (1999) hypothesis was theoretical, in Chapter 5 we set out to empirically assess whether descriptive representatives are the most likely to speak out on Black centered uncrystallized issues. We find empirical support for Mansbridge’s (1999) uncrystallized issues hypothesis using the hand coding of race-based appeals in press releases during the 114th through 116th Congresses and a case study of press releases and Tweets discussing racial health disparities in the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This chapter explores whether there is a link between racial rhetorical representation and legislative behavior. We take a more nuanced examination of the link between rhetorical outreach and legislative activity than previous research. Rather than treating all discussions about a topic as being the same, we explore whether proactive (as measured by low-profile racial outreach) and reactive (as measured by high-profile racial appeals) rhetorical representation differ in their correlation to legislative activity. This allows us to better understand whether some forms of rhetorical outreach provide more accurate information to voters about the member of Congress’ legislative intent. Using our rhetorical outreach data and 18,025 primary sponsored bills, 417,925 co-sponsored bills, 108,255 statements from congressional hearings, and 1,300 unique voting scores, we find strong evidence that elected officials who engage in racial rhetorical outreach also engage in racial legislative actions across all of our measures. We also find that both high- and low-profile forms of racial rhetorical outreach are consistently significant correlates of legislative activity. However, elected officials who engage in more lower profile (i.e. proactive) forms of racial outreach are generally the most likely to advance Black political interests through the primary and co-sponsorship of legislation. Overall, racial rhetorical representation provides an accurate picture of how legislators behave in elected office. However, some forms of racial outreach provide a clearer signal of legislative priorities than others. While legislative communications are aimed at winning votes, they also are communicating to each other and forming alliances. While it is not guarantee that these bills will turn into laws, racial rhetorical representation is linked to other forms of substantive representation.

Chapter 9 explores whether racial rhetorical representation matters in the presence or absence of tangible legislation. To answer this question, we return to our experiment and inform respondents that the topic the elected official spoke about in the press release either became law or failed. After providing information about the fate of legislation, we ask respondent whether this changes their opinion of the elected official. We find that even when rhetorical representation does not lead to policy, most Black and White respondents do not view the hypothetical politician as engaging in cheap talk. Instead, their qualitative responses reveal that they understand that a single politician cannot will the passage of legislation. They also express appreciation for the elected official for speaking out about a particular topic as they perceive it as laying the groundwork for future action. In this sense, rhetorical representation without legislation still matters to voters. With that said, when rhetorical representation was matched up with the passage of pertinent legislation, respondents gave the elected official a boost in approval. Thus, speaking out about a topic and failing does not hurt elected officials, engaging in rhetorical representation and succeeding leads to a bonus in support.

In the introductory chapter, we define racial rhetorical representation and outline its significance in comparison to other forms of substantive representation. In this review, we speak about the particular meaning of this form of representation for African Americans who have historically been overlooked by political parties and rely on political actors to keep their issues on the agenda. Following this discussion, we argue that elected officials who make targeted appeals largely differ in their motivations. Some are motivated by external pressure to advance group interest, something we define as reactive racial representation. Others, we argue, are more intrinsically motivated to speak out in support of particular groups. We define this form of outreach as being proactive racial representation. We argue that the latter likely better predicts correlations with other legislative activities and will receive higher levels of approval from the targeted population. We then discuss how we use a combination of hand-coding and computer-assisted content analysis to categorize a large corpus of press releases and tweets as being centered on Black political interests or not. We use this data as the basis for much of our analysis in the manuscript. We conclude the chapter with an overview of the book and a description of several of the data sources used in this study.

In Chapter 2, we rely on interviews with 29 communications directors in the U.S. House of Representatives to better understand the strategic considerations that influence their rhetorical outreach. Here we ask when and how do legislators, offices engage in proactive and reactive forms of rhetorical outreach? What shapes these decisions? And how does this vary by the race of the member of Congress? We demonstrate that proactive rhetorical outreach is a key component of most legislator offices’ communications strategies. In an effort to build favorable brands for their member, which is not only important in their efforts to appeal to their constituents but also to accrue influence in Congress, communications directors regularly engage in proactive rhetorical outreach. However, what they focus on in that outreach varies by office based on a host of variables, including legislator identity and constituency demographics. In that vein, we show that Black legislators regularly engage in proactive racial rhetorical representation and that their racial identity, along with the large presence of minority constituents in their district, help explain why. In contrast, though non-Black legislators engage in proactive rhetorical outreach, they tend to be more reactive in their racial rhetorical outreach.

In the conclusion, we speak about the growing significance of racial rhetorical representation in demonstrating that elected officials are working on behalf of their constituents in an era of increasing political gridlock. We also connect our findings to the continued importance of Black representation in a period where the salience of race and racial inequality has grown. Not only do we find that Black legislators provide Black people with the most rhetorical representation on race, we also find that they are more proactive, speaking out on issues that are not widely known and pursuing interests that are not yet part of the national agenda. Black elected officials continue to play a crucial role in advocating for Black interests, and they appear necessary for the full and equal representation of Black people. We then discuss why this advocacy is particularly important in a period where debates over crucial policies face political reckonings. For example, the advocacy behind the 1965 Voting Rights Act which has been challenged in court and expires in 2032 will likely shape Black politics into the future. We also address whether racial rhetoric will continue to be enough to voters of underrepresented groups who yearn for federal legislation to address critical societal disparities. We conclude the chapter by discussing how the Democratic Party notably has liberalized with regards to race since the 1990s and we contend that the racial advocacy by Black members of Congress is behind this liberalization.

In Chapter 3, we explore who provides Black centered racial rhetorical representation. This chapter allows us to first examine whether a link between descriptive and rhetorical representation, which has been absent in previous research on this topic (See Price 2016, Gillion 2016, Haines et al. 2019), has strengthened in recent years. In addition to this exploration, this chapter makes two important contributions to our understanding of race and rhetorical representation. First, we move beyond the Black-White paradigm and explore the rhetoric of Latino/a and Asian American elected officials. Second, rather than treating each racial/ethnic group as a monolith, we explore how the intersections of gender, class, educational attainment, and age within racial groups may shape levels of rhetorical representation. For example, do African Americans who attended a Historically Black College or University provide more rhetorical representation to co-racial individuals? Are White women more likely to engage in rhetorical representation than White men? By moving beyond the dichotomy of race (Junn and Brown 2012), we can explore the nuanced ways that individuals with various intersecting identities may provide different levels of rhetorical representation.

In Chapter 8, we use an experiment which presents a large sample of Black and White respondents with a press release from a hypothetical politician. The press release differs by whether it discusses a non-racial liberal issue (climate change), a high-profile racial issue (police reform), and a low-profile racial issue (manufacturing employment discrimination). We also vary the race of the hypothetical politician. The results demonstrate that racial rhetorical representation improves perceptions of both Black and White politicians among African Americans. However, White elected officials benefit most from speaking about lower profile racial issues. This demonstrates that the form of racial outreach that White elected officials are the least likely to engage in may help them the most with Black people. Qualitative responses reveal that Black respondents perceive more policy congruence, empathy, and trust in Black elected officials when they engage in both forms of racial rhetorical representation. However, Black respondents are much more trusting of White politicians to follow through their rhetoric with action when it is tied to a low-profile racial issue.

This chapter discusses the contested place of the Declaration of Independence in black political thought. As a document that provided a rationale for American independence, the Declaration of Independence in its own way also provided one for black political equality in the United States. This tension between intention and interpretation has made the Declaration stubbornly immune from attack by black intellectuals, politicians, and movement leaders. With rare exception, the Declaration has been attacked mostly for its exclusivity, not its content or core ethos. Even Critical Race Theory’s (CRT) modest dissent from the Declaration has been limited in its ability to transform the persistence of black support for it, making arguments for CRT’s abandonment of America’s founding principles ring hollow. Instead, the history of black political thought from Frederick Douglass to W. E. B. Du Bois to Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, stands squarely on the side of the Declaration’s essential truths, while admonishing America’s enduring failure to live up to them.

“Manners” alternates between the portrayal of self-reliant “gentlemen” like Montaigne, Socrates, and El Cid, who are “original and commanding” and “fashion,” an imitative “hall of the Past” where “virtue [has] gone to seed.” But near the end of the essay he turns away from forms of aristocratic morality by introducing two new heroes: a woman, “the Persian Lilla,” who reconciles “all heterogeneous persons into one society”; and then “Osman,” a poor beggar at the gates of the Shah who is a “great heart … so sunny and hospitable in the centre of the country,” and whose wealth lies in his ability to “harbor” madness without sharing it. The introduction of Lilla and Osman late in “Manners” raises the question of how they align with its other heroes. Are they part of a turn or contrary tendency showing up late in the essay, or a deeper exploration of forms of virtue – especially love – already introduced?

Chapter 10 charts Emerson’s long engagement with Hinduism, from his college years, when he rejected what he thought of as “Indian Superstition,” to the presence of the Vishnu Purāna and Bhagavad Gīta in some of his greatest essays. In “Plato, or the Philosopher,” Emerson draws from these works the idea of a fundamental unity – “The whole world is but a manifestation of Vishnu” – and credits Plato with absorbing, enhancing, and representing the “unity of Asia and the detail of Europe.” Emerson’s Plato is a representative of Emerson himself, a man who made lists of opposing East-West properties and tendencies on the same pages where he recorded passages from the Vishnu Purāna. Emerson finds a skeptical strain within Hinduism, particularly in “Illusions.” But he also weaves in the contrary vision of deep, but momentary, insight: “by and by, for an instant, the air clears, and the cloud lifts a little.”