Old-Fashioned Racism

A new study published by Michael Tesler in the Journal of Politics suggests that, for the first time in many years, old-fashioned racism is having an effect on party preference and voting behavior in the United States. Specifically, old-fashioned racists are more likely to be Republicans and vote for Republican candidates.

Old-fashioned racism (OFR) refers to the endorsement of statements that are obviously and blatantly racist, such as the belief that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, that blacks and whites should be segregated and maintain social distance from one another. OFR has declined steadily in this country since World War II. The most likely reason is that OFR has always been positively related to age. Old-fashioned racists have not changed their attitudes; they have died. Another contributing factor in the decline of OFR is that it has become less socially acceptable to state obviously prejudiced attitudes in a survey.

Sometimes the mass media present the decline of OFR as evidence that prejudice is no longer a problem in this country. However, OFR has been gradually replaced by modern (or symbolic) racism (also known as racial resentment). Modern racism is prejudice revealed in subtle, indirect ways, such as the claim that blacks do not respect traditional American values, or in opposition to social policies perceived to help black people. It allows people to express beliefs and endorse policies that are harmful to African-Americans, but still deny being prejudiced. Modern racism has been related to voting behavior and party preference ever since the civil rights era. Richard Nixon's “Southern strategy” was designed to help the Republican party to take advantage of racial resentment, and the strategy remains successful today.

Tesler begins his article by noting that OFR has never been related to white Americans' partisan preferences in the post-civil rights era. Although modern racists have tended to vote Republican, old-fashioned racists have been evenly distibuted among the two parties. However, that appears to have changed since Barack Obama became president in 2008. To make this point, Tesler presents three studies.

The first study looked at the effect of OFR on candidate preference in the 2008 election. Tesler reanalyzed data collected by the Pew Research Center in early 2008. In this study, OFR was measured by endorsement of items stating that whites and blacks should not date or intermarry, an undeniably racist belief still held by about half the white population. The study asked participants their preferences in two hypothetical presidential contests, John McCain vs. Hilary Clinton, and John McCain vs. Barack Obama. Results showed that OFR had a significantly greater effect on the McCain-Obama contest than the McCain-Clinton matchup. The difference between those highest and lowest in OFR was 10% on the McCain-Clinton question, but 35% on the McCain-Obama question. This difference was statistically reliable even after controlling for the effects of party preference, political ideology and modern racism.

 All rights reserved by Huffington Post

The remaining two studies looked at the spillover effect, sometimes referred to as the racialization of politics. It refers to the possibility that racial attitudes will affect political behavior in contexts having nothing obviously to do with race. For example, since President Obama is associated with health care reform, the spillover effect predicts that old-fashioned racists will oppose the Affordable Care Act, even after controlling for the influences of party preference, political ideology and modern racism. 

In Study 2, the Pew data were used to examine the relationship between OFR and party preference from 1987 through 2009. From 1987 through 2007, there was no significant relationship between OFR and partisanship. However, in 2009, there was a significant association between OFR and self-identification as a Republican. Further analysis showed that, consistent with the spillover hypothesis, this relationship is mediated by attitudes toward President Obama. That is, when the effect of evaluation of President Obama is statistically removed, the association between OFR and partisanship disappears. (See my earlier post for a more thorough explanation of mediation.)

Finally, Tesler did a survey of his own in which respondents were asked to state their preference for candidates for the House of Representatives in the midterm election of 2010. This study contained a manipulation designed to test the spillover hypothesis. Before stating their voting preference, a randomly selected half of the respondents were reminded that President Obama had been campaigning for Democratic candidates in the midterm election and asked whether this affected their preference. This reminder, called the “Obama prime,” was omitted for the other participants. Without the Obama prime, OFR had no effect on voting intentions in the midterm election. However, with the Obama prime, those highest in OFR were 13% less likely to prefer the Democatic candidate than those lowest in OFR.

It is important to note that Tesler is not saying that OFR has increased in recent years. As far as I know, it is still slowly declining. However, prior to 2008, old-fashioned racists were randomly distributed among the two political parties. Since many of them are what are euphemistically called “low information voters,” some of them self-identified as independents. The effect of the Obama presidency and related changes in the political culture, such as the rise of the Tea Party, has been to drive these folks into the Republican party. Thus, being a Republican is now associated not only with modern racism but with OFR as well. Since party identification tends to persist throughout the life cycle, this realignment may affect our politics long after Obama's presidency. Tesler also predicts an increase in overtly racist rhetoric, since it is now useful in mobilizing the Republican base.