A Democratic Dilemma: Racial Attitudes, Authoritarianism, and Whites’ Evaluation of Minority Legislators

Abstract

The United States prides itself on its immigrant heritage and diversity, yet historically, minority advancements have faced opposition and violence. Little scholarship exists on how whites evaluate minority representation when represented by a minority in a legislative chamber. Prior research suggests that diversity may trigger negative racial and authoritarian attitudes among whites. Given recent political events in the United States and increases in the number of racial minorities running for and winning political office, we investigate white responses to minority representation in the United States Congress. Using the 2022 CES data, we examine how racial and authoritarian attitudes predict whites’ evaluations of Minority House Members. We expand beyond the Black and white binary to include whites’ evaluations of Hispanic legislators and broaden the study of racial attitudes beyond the Racial Resentment index. Our findings demonstrate that whites’ evaluations of minority legislators are linked to racial attitudes and endorsements of policy-based authoritarianism, varying by the representative’s race. White respondents who are in districts that are not represented by a Black or Hispanic legislator exemplify higher levels of racial resentment, disagree that whites have advantages, and agree that racial problems are rare. They also support more authoritarian policies than in districts represented by a Black Representative. White respondents’ approval of minority legislators relies on authoritarian policies and racial attitudes when the member of Congress is Black or Hispanic. In these districts, white respondents who disapprove of their Congressmember have more racial resentment, disagree that whites have advantages, and support more authoritarian policies than white respondents who approve of their Congressmember. This research provides insights into the complexities of minority political representation and its connection to policy-based authoritarianism, as well as its implications for American democracy.

1. Introduction

On 17 September 1787, at the constitutional convention, historical accounts contend that when Elizabeth Willing Powel famously asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”, Benjamin Franklin is recorded as having replied, “A republic if we can keep it”. The framers of the United States Constitution had formed a new democratic republic, where universal freedom had been declared and denied, setting up a system of government that to this day continues to struggle with its treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. The institution of slavery and racial hostility would eventually plunge the nation into civil war, two reconstructions, and a failed insurrection. From its inception, the struggle to keep the Republic has revolved around a fight to extend and preserve the rights and political representation of marginalized racial groups. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States have long struggled for equal access to the American Dream and, despite a long history of disenfranchisement, these groups have run for and won a host of political offices in the United States. While racial and ethnic minorities are still underrepresented in Congress, in recent years, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have made substantial gains in political representation. Shifts in demographics have largely facilitated these victories, leading to increasing levels of diversity both in the U.S. population and in U.S. national politics. This diversity has resulted in several historic firsts across a wide range of identities. Hakeem Jeffries has been elected as the first African American to serve as a Minority Leader. In addition to these accomplishments, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and others have all won seats in the chamber. As we have seen a diverse set of politicians elected to political office, the nation has also experienced a period of extreme racial redemption. This redemption has expressed itself in the racialized coverage of minority legislators, rollbacks in civil rights, the rise of MAGA Republicans, an insurrection (6 January), attacks on voting rights, attacks on diversity, equality, and inclusion, and a host of other radical policies. All of these elements have created a political context in which the nation has become more polarized. At the core of America’s political turmoil is a deep-seated resentment of Black progress in politics and society at large. While there is much work to be done, many whites see their own lives as under attack as a consequence of this perceived progress and are concerned that racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. have achieved too much. Minority members of Congress have been subjected to racialized tropes and frames. Some have even been “othered” and told to “leave” the United States. This polarization has spilled over into the internal politics of the chamber, leading to the Republican caucus holding one of the thinnest majorities in modern American politics. This thin majority resulted in removing the sitting speaker, creating instability in the U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, the success of politicians such as Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Greg Abbot, as well as the rise of authoritarian leaders in other parts of the world, should spark scholars to have a renewed interest in investigating the links between authoritarian attitudes and political preferences. Prior research suggests that racial diversity and minority political representation may trigger authoritarian attitudes among whites; however, political scientists have neglected to investigate if racial and authoritarian attitudes influence how white Americans evaluate their minority representatives. Political scientists studying American politics have neglected to give serious consideration to the study of authoritarianism because an overwhelming majority of the literature has limited its definition to regime rule (Parker and Towler 2019). We also know that the primary mechanism that has maintained institutions such as Jim Crow, police violence, and racial inequality has been instituted through authoritarian means (Parker and Towler 2019). Racism and authoritarianism in the United States are birds of the same feather because authoritarian practices are the vehicles that work to maintain the craft of racial inequality. As more racial minorities run for and win seats in Congress, this article enters the debate and advances the literature by empirically investigating how racial and authoritarian attitudes impact white constituents’ evaluation of minority legislators in their districts. Moving beyond the Black and white paradigm and the Black dyads, we investigate the attitudes and evaluations of whites who are represented by Blacks and Hispanics. We also expand the study of racial attitudes by including newer measures of racial attitudes that tap into the fear of other races, an acknowledgment of institutional racism, the perception that racial incidents are rare, and expressions of anger about racism (DeSante and Watts Smith 2020). While some prior studies of authoritarianism have limited their conceptualization to regime rule, we create and test a new measure of policy-based authoritarianism. Our measure taps into beliefs about maintaining existing authorities and regarding police and forced compliance, even if such compliance includes violence. Moving beyond the authoritarian personality trait measure, our measure focuses on concrete actions such as increased police funding, opposition to suing officers, opposition to banning chokeholds, and support for transferring military equipment to local police departments.

Prior research in political science has not considered how minority political representation may influence authoritarian attitudes. Existing research on minority officeholding has devoted significant attention to investigating the nuances of white support for minority officeholders and the role of negative racial attitudes in facilitating opposition and support (Tesler and Sears 2010; Riley and Peterson 2024; Visalvanich 2016). The conclusion of most of these studies shows that white Americans who hold negative views about race are more likely to oppose minority office-holding and race-targeted policies and have exemplifd negative attitudes towards Black political figures. These studies demonstrate that it is something about Black office-holding in particular that activates negative racial attitudes, which in turn explains a majority of white opposition (Schuman 1997; Citrin et al. 1990; Hajnal 2001; Tesler and Sears 2010). Recent studies by scholars of Black Politics have pushed the literature in new directions by examining the role of aesthetics in voters’ perceptions of African American women candidates (Brown and Lemi 2021). However, the political science scholarship on Black political representation in Congress specifically has overwhelmingly focused on vote choice and perceptions of minority lawmakers, neglecting to evaluate white reactions to Black officeholding, especially when whites are represented by an African American or Hispanic in the United States House of Representatives during this period of racial redemption. We mention the period of racial redemption because it is beneficial for helping us understand the political context in which contemporary rollbacks in voting rights, affirmative action, and diversity, equity, and inclusion are occurring. Scholars such as Hanes Walton (1997) have cautioned political scientists against studying politics without considering the political context variable. Scholars such as Garcia and Stout (2020) show that negative racial attitudes such as racial resentment directly influence the legislative behavior of legislators by leading such legislators to adopt more racially charged language. Attitudes reflect values, values reflect priorities, and priorities reflect which policies are implemented and which are not. As a result, we contend that the presence of negative racial attitudes holds important consequences for public policy and who gets elected, re-elected, and the stability of the republic.

Since the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and the subsequent election of Donald Trump, political scientists have had a renewed interest in studying racial attitudes. At the same time that we have seen a rise in negative racial attitudes driven primarily by the changing demographics in the nation, the Black Lives Matter Movement, the centrality of racial attitudes in American politics, and a more diverse electorate and Congress, we have also seen a resurgence of the elements of authoritarianism. Consider, for example, the multiple levels at which authoritarian behavior has been exemplified by politicians: Donald Trump’s attack on the press, the January 6 insurrection in which Trump supporters seized control of the United States Capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 Presidential Election, and Trump’s military parade. As if this were not enough evidence, consider Donald Trump’s own words in which he indicated that he only wanted to be a dictator for one day. Looking beyond the actions and words of Donald Trump, there are several other elements of authoritarianism in the U.S. For example, multiple states have advanced and passed legislation banning books and critical race theory, making voting more difficult, and banning diversity, equality, and inclusion. Although these patterns are shocking to some, scholars of Black politics and race are not that surprised given that the intersections of race and authoritarianism are not at all new in the American political system. Several studies have linked the association of racial hostility, anti-Blackness, and prejudice to endorsements of authoritarianism (Parker and Towler 2019; Velez and Lavine 2017). Franklin and Block (2020) argue that the loss of power among African Americans in the state of Tennessee has ushered in a period of anti-democratic policies leading to the future exclusion of African Americans in the state. Although previous research has found important links between authoritarianism and the rise of Trump, traditional political science has been reluctant to investigate the link between diversity and the endorsement of authoritarian views and how they might influence political considerations in contemporary American politics.

James Madison once said that for a system to be truly representative, the legislative body must mirror the population. We assert that investigating white attitudinal responses to minority office-holding presents an ideal opportunity to uncover how white Americans are responding to “diversity” in political representation in the United States House of Representatives and to evaluate if endorsements of authoritarianism and racial attitudes influence how whites evaluate such representation. Prior studies have not applied these considerations of white experiences with minority political leadership, and these studies have relied almost entirely on racial attitudes that are conceptualized as racial resentment.

Understanding the extent to which racial attitudes and endorsements of authoritarian views influence how whites respond to minority house members holds important political and social implications for public policy, electoral politics, and the long-term sustainability of American democracy. This research is also important for gaining better insights into the way in which political scientists study the intersections of race and policy-based authoritarianism in democratic institutions. If these attitudes are found to influence how whites evaluate minority office-holding, then we should expect increasing levels of resentment to continue to play a central role in American politics, creating an environment that supports more racially conservative candidates and policies designed to restrict the political and social rights of racial and ethnic minorities. In recent years, the U.S. has been rocked with political turmoil and protests, with both an insurrection and the BLM movement designed to eradicate systemic racism. How the nation is responding to these two movements is indeed telling. From a scholarly standpoint, this research enters the debate among two lines of research in political scholarship. Hajnal’s (2007) informational hypothesis contends that white Americans fear Black leadership because they believe that Black politicians will use their authority to channel economic and political resources to the African American community. According to this theory, once white voters experience Black political leadership and see that the material condition of their lives does not change, they should be able or willing to accept Black leadership (Hajnal 2007). On the other hand, Velez and Lavine (2017) find that the presence of diversity increases the dominance of authoritarianism. Finally, this research has implications for the overall strength of American democracy and rather or not this democratic experience will maintain itself or disintegrate into peril like other great democracies.

This article is structured as follows. First, we begin by reviewing the existing body of literature on minority office-holding and provide a critical review of what scholars know and what we need to know more about. We then explore the shortcomings of the existing literature and present a pathway to understanding the current findings on racial attitudes, minority office-holding, and authoritarianism. We then present a theoretical framework that helps social scientists understand the intersection of white reaction to diversity, racial attitudes, and authoritarian attitudes. In the next section, we present a description of our data and our methodological strategy for investigating our research question. Finally, we present our major findings as well as the implications of our research for American politics.

2. Literature Review

2.1. White Reaction to Minority Office-Holding in the United States

Racial progress, particularly in minority office-holding, has created a democratic dilemma in the United States. While our system of government proclaims that “all men are created equal,” racial and ethnic minorities still face significant challenges. Solutions to race-based problems created by the government often employ race-blind approaches and elicit strong opposition from whites. However, as the country has become more diverse and elected more diverse leaders to positions of power, white reactions to this diversity have sparked renewed interest in understanding the centrality of race and its influence in white politics. This opposition is nothing new. In fact, scholars such as Walters (2003), Anderson (2016), Parker and Towler (2019), and Velez and Lavine (2017) have extensively documented white opposition to Black advancement, which has manifested itself in the legislature, the courts, the executive branch, lynchings, intimidation, authoritarianism, and civil war. Mack Jones (2013) argues that Black politics manifest itself in four distinct ways: including a struggle within the white community regarding maintaining white control, a struggle within the Black community over the best strategy for liberation, conflict and collaboration between Black and white factions, and a struggle within formal governmental structures over authoritative policy decisions. Considering the findings of scholars such as Walters (2003), Anderson (2016), Parker and Towler (2019), and Velez and Lavine (2017) and the current political environment in the U.S. in which we are seeing an erosion of democratic norms, it is perplexing that scholars of American politics are not devoting much attention to the influence of authoritarianism during this period of racial retrenchment (see Hetherington and Weiler 2009). We suspect that this is because most scholars who study American politics see authoritarianism only through the lens of regime rule. It is all too often forgotten that Hitler’s rise to power was through democratic institutions and that Germany’s degeneration into autocracy happened with the erosion of one norm at a time.

Scholarship on minority office-holding suggests that race matters in complex ways. Many studies focused on state and local elections have found race to be a significant barrier for minority office-holding. Scholars of Black politics consistently note that minority candidates and politicians are often penalized because of their race. Whether through aggregate-level analyses, survey data, or experimental research, evidence shows that minorities face challenges in overcoming the influence of race (Williams 1990; Tate 2003; Wilson and King-Meadows 2016; Knuckey 2011; Leone and Presaghi 2018; Tesler 2013; Sigelman et al. 1995). For example, Williams (1990) found that white voters were more likely to rate Black candidates negatively compared to white candidates, viewing them as less intelligent, trustworthy, and capable of achieving goals. Visalvanich (2016) also finds that white respondents discriminated against Black and Latino candidates and saw them as less competent and ideologically extreme. Despite electing its first African American President and Vice President, the U.S. still sees few minorities elected outside of majority-minority districts, indicating that racially polarized voting persists in American politics.

Several theoretical frameworks have been employed to explain the persistence of race in American politics. While these theories differ in explaining why race remains important in the political considerations of whites, they all lead to the same conclusion: race matters. The Information hypothesis suggests that white voters’ reluctance to support African American politicians stems from limited exposure to African American leadership (Hajnal 2001). According to Hajnal (2001), “Once Blacks have the opportunity to prove that their election does not harm white interests, white fear should decline, opposition to Black candidates should diminish, and white attitudes towards Blacks and Black leadership should improve.” (604). Conversely, some argue that whites’ responses and evaluations of Black leadership are rooted in racial prejudice and are unlikely to change (Allport 1954; Hurwitz and Peffley 1998; Macrae et al. 1993). Another perspective suggests that there is something about Blacks in power that triggers negative reactions from whites (Blumer 1958; Bobo 1983; Giles and Evans 1986; Peterson and Riley 2022; Maxwell et al. 2013). Despite these differing theories, the consensus remains that race plays a significant role in white responses to Black politicians, which in turn holds implications for how whites respond to racial diversity.

The scholarly inquiries in this area have predominantly focused on local elections, largely overlooking how whites respond to diversity in congressional representation. Scholars have also not systematically studied how whites have responded to either Black or Hispanic representation at the congressional level. This gap is significant, especially considering the rapid growth of the Hispanic population in the U.S. and increases in political participation (Abrajano and Alvarez 2010; Hajnal and Lee 2011). Social scientists have faced limitations due to small sample sizes, hindering systematic evaluation of the silent white minority formally represented by minorities in Congress. In a recent study, Visalvanich (2016) pushed the literature on evaluations of minority legislative representatives across racial groups by studying Asian, Latino, and Black representation. Using survey data from the CCES survey, Visalvanich (2016) theorized that minority representation, specifically the candidate’s race, provides an important information heuristic to voters about the candidate’s ideology and competence. Visalvanich’s theory goes on to suggest that the influence of race varies across contexts and is conditional on the race of the candidates and the political party of the candidates. This finding is consistent with scholars who have found that race matters because the presence of a Black candidate in a political contest activates racial considerations among whites. However, Riley and Peterson (2019) found no support for the idea that having a Black representative in Congress facilitates racial learning among whites.

Previous studies on congressional representation have linked descriptive representation to political engagement and substantive policy outcomes (Gay 2002). However, few have investigated the role of racial attitudes in congressional evaluation (Banducci et al. 2004; Bobo and Gilliam 1990; Gay 2002; Cannon 1999; Lublin 1997; Whitby 2007; Haider-Markel 2007). Racial attitudes, which refer to beliefs about race and racial minorities in society, have primarily been studied using the racial resentment index. This index measures racial resentment, which is based on the idea that racial attitudes shifted from explicit racism to beliefs about Blacks violating the American work ethic after the 1960s. Racial Resentment is measured using four questions: 1. Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. 2. Blacks should do the same without any special favors. 3. Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out of the lower class. 4. It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they would be just as well off as whites. 4. Over the past few years, Blacks have gotten less than they deserve Kinder and Sanders (1996). These questions are placed into an additive scale where respondents with higher scores are classified as racially resentful. Several scholars have found racial resentment to be a major explanatory variable of white political preferences and voting behavior even after controlling for partisanship and ideology (Tesler and Sears 2010; Maxwell et al. 2013). Although racial resentment has been found to be an empirically valid measure of white racial attitudes, it has also faced criticism (Feldman and Huddy 2005; Sniderman et al. 2000). Scholars have debated whether racial resentment reflects principled politics, ideology, or simply conservatism. This debate has been primarily led by traditional political scientists who have not seriously considered the findings of scholars of Black politics. In this work, we do not take up the debate regarding the measures of racial resentment primarily because we are convinced by the work of scholars such as Sears and Henry (2005) that racial resentment is an empirically valid measure that taps into racial antipathy. However, to those who still argue that racial resentment captures principled politics, individualism, and ideology, we point them to the works of the late Robert C. Smith’s (2010) Conservatism and Racism, and why in America they are the same. In this seminal work, Smith asserts:

“African American thought has always been mainly a system-challenging, dissident thought. However, until the 1950s and 1960s, this thought had not been linked to a powerful mass movement. And ‘the mere articulation of a dissident ideology does not produce conservatism until that ideology is embraced by significant social groups.’ Once it appeared that the black movement presented ‘a clear and present danger’ to the existing order, a self-conscious conservative movement would necessarily emerge, and it would also necessarily be for the most part a racist movement” (10).

Smith’s assessment of conservatism is very similar to how Walters (2003) in White Nationalism, Black Interests describes white nationalism describes it. Walters (2003) asserts that the American political system is structured around what he calls an equilibrium and that this equilibrium is usually white dominance. He contends that at every point in American history where African Americans have demanded rights or disrupted the equilibrium through Black progress, such advancement is usually followed by a period of what he calls a radical form of conservatism whose aim is to rebalance the system. Both the assertions of Walters (2003) and Smith (2010) point to explicit examples of this radical reform in the American political system. When African Americans acquired freedom, the nation experienced a civil war. When African Americans gained the right to vote, there was a rise in racial gerrymandering and political violence. When the Supreme Court struck down separate but equal in Brown v. Board of Education, violence erupted throughout the South. When America elected its first Black President, we have seen and are still seeing increased racial violence, restrictions around teaching critical race theory, and banning books about race and African American history. We have also seen increased harassment/violence against Blacks at grocery stores, etc. Considering all of these findings and these explicit events that are incompatible with democratic principles and norms, it is perplexing that scholars of American politics have not considered, in any systematic way, the role of authoritarian attitudes in the political preferences of white Americans.

2.2. Racial Attitudes and Minority Office-Holding

The Obama era sparked renewed interest in studying racial attitudes and how the political environment became racialized due to whites’ reactions to diversity in the White House (Tesler 2012). Tesler (2012) argues that negative racial attitudes explain a large portion of white political preferences, to the extent that partisanship attachments are even associated with negative racial attitudes. Scholars have noted the impact of racial resentment on the legislative behavior of white lawmakers in Congress (Garcia and Stout 2020). This work suggests that racially resentful voters in congressional districts influence their legislators to adopt more racially resentful behaviors. The evidence presented in these studies supports the idea that negative attitudes may also influence whites’ evaluation of minority lawmakers, especially since racial attitudes have been found to shape the evaluation of Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, white partisanship attachments, and a wide range of racialized and non-racialized policy preferences (Riley and Peterson 2024).

Racial politics in the United States is complex and ever-changing in terms of how it influences political preferences and decision-making. The evolution of racial politics has pushed some scholars of racial attitudes to challenge social scientists to explore new ways to capture the depth and breadth of contemporary racial attitudes in America. Leading the way are DeSante and Watts Smith (2020), who have developed and tested the FIRE model, which captures feelings and acknowledgments of white privilege, institutional racism, fear of other races, and anger about racism. The theory behind the FIRE model suggests that the way whites think about race has changed, and as a result, white racial attitudes might be shifting. In applying this model to white millennials, DeSante and Watts Smith (2020) contend that while a large portion of American attitudes is captured by the racial resentment index, reliance on the 1981 model may result in scholars missing a wide range of attitudes that are not necessarily linked to beliefs about Blacks being lazy and wanting handouts from the government. Finding support for this shift in racial language and norms is Valentino et al. (2018), who find that “many citizens recognize racially hostile content in political communications but are no longer angered or disturbed by it” (751). In the years prior to Valentino et al. (2018), scholars had concluded that white Americans reject explicit racial appeals because they violated the norms of American society (Mendelberg 2001). However, Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence despite using multiple instances of objective racial appeals has caused scholars to revisit the applicability of prior findings.

The study of minority representation and racial attitudes is often studied as attitudes that have profound consequences for policy, vote choice, and other political preferences. We also know that diversity in the form of Black progress has often been followed by white opposition and that this opposition has at times been maintained through practices that are the antithesis of democratic systems and practices. A series of political events in the United States have signaled a renewed interest in understanding the contours of authoritarianism, especially as the nation has become more diverse. An insurrection, a U.S. President who has attacked and disregarded democratic norms, a wave of populism, the Black Lives Matter protest, and increased racial hatred and attacks should concern social scientists about the long-term suitability of American democracy. This concern is even more intriguing if we consider some of the theoretical findings of existing scholarship on authoritarianism, whose findings have apparently missed scholars of American politics.

2.3. Authoritarianism and Racial Progress

Existing scholarship in the areas of American politics has treated the theory and findings of the literature on authoritarianism as if there are no links between white racial hostility and endorsement of authoritarian views. Before getting into a discussion of authoritarianism, it is important to define the concept. Political scientists have generally characterized authoritarianism as a political regime controlled by a party where power is concentrated in the hands of a single figure or party; these regimes often possess weak political institutions, unchecked executive power, political repression, and violence. In authoritarian states, dissent is silenced and media and civil liberties are repressed (Linz 1964). Authoritarianism also exists on the micro level, which is the kind of authoritarianism we are most interested in for this discussion. We are, however, convinced that there are inherent links between both regime authoritarianism and micro-level authoritarianism. The academic literature on authoritarianism provides important insights and theoretical justifications as to why whites exposed to diversity in terms of minority congressional political representation may be associated with authoritarian views. According to Altemeyer’s (1988) theory of right-wing authoritarianism, there are three main components, which, according to Stellmacher and Petzel (2005), are “Authoritarian submission—a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives; (2) Authoritarian aggression—a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons and/or out-groups, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities; and (3) Conventionalism—a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities” (247). In the United States, law enforcement has been one of the primary government forces used to suppress Black political movements and terrorize Black and Brown communities. Even during the period of slavery and certainly during the Civil Rights Movement, Americans have witnessed the militarization of the police and have seen military-style policing during protests. The tragic murder of George Floyd ushered in a period where Americans seemed ready to have a racial epiphany. Scholars such as Riley and Peterson (2020) cautioned against such beliefs, especially if support for the movement hinged on negative racial attitudes. Now, four years after what looked like a racial epiphany in America, support for Black Lives Matter has dwindled, conversations about race are being banned, and the country’s political institutions are weak and fragile. According to most studies that examine micro-level authoritarianism, the psychological impulse behind authoritarianism is rooted in the imposition of social order within the context of events that produce anxiety, causing individuals to submit to authorities and reject differences or pushes for inclusion. If individuals fail to conform, aggression is usually employed as a tool of compliance (Parker and Towler 2019, p. 511). Scholars have argued that “The worldview of authoritarians stresses conformity and obedience, as well as the belief that too much individual autonomy and diversity in general will result in social rebellion and instability of the status quo” (521). It is important to note that there are various dimensions of authoritarianism because the concept is so wide (Altemeyer 1998). Additionally, work by Velez and Lavine (2017) found strong support for the claim that “as diversity rises, however, authoritarianism plays an increasingly dominant role in political judgment” (519). Hetherington and Weiler (2009), in “Authoritarianism in American Politics”, convincingly demonstrate the degree to which authoritarianism at the individual level is driving polarization on core political issues such as race, gay rights, and immigration. MacWilliams (2016) provides strong empirical links between the rise of Donald Trump and authoritarian voters in the Republican Party. Despite the various measures of authoritarianism by various scholars and the different theoretical approaches, many of the early studies provide evidence that those who endorse authoritarianism tend to have negative feelings towards diversity and also maintain negative racial attitudes. As a result, we seek to investigate policy-based authoritarianism that captures the state’s capacity to use brutal force as a coercion mechanism to force compliance. With the saliency of police brutality at center stage in American politics, we contend that such measures capture racialized authoritarianism because they focus on attitudes about increasing police funding, banning chokeholds, opposition to suing police officers, and the use of military-style equipment to police civilians. As such, we believe that the current descriptive composition of the U.S. Congress and the available data at CCES present an ideal opportunity to evaluate if authoritarian views among Americans influence the judgments that whites make about the leadership of minority house members.

3. Data and Methods

The data utilized in this study come from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CES), previously known as the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Historically, the CES has collected comprehensive data on states, congressional districts, and individual respondents. This dataset is particularly advantageous for our analysis due to its extensive coverage of questions relevant to the American population while also providing insights into dynamics within Congressional districts. With a substantial sample size of 60,000 cases, the CES dataset offers a unique opportunity to address a wide range of political inquiries.

Our focus centers on understanding the attitudes of Congressional districts represented by legislators who self-identify as Black or Hispanic.1 Specifically, we examine data from 7977 respondents residing in Black districts, 3868 in Hispanic districts, and 46,359 in districts without Black or Hispanic representation. Notably, Black and Hispanic districts exhibit demographic differences from each other and from other districts as well. Descriptive analysis reveals distinct patterns among respondents in Black districts (see

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Districts.

	White Districts	Black Districts	Hispanic Districts
Party	2.09	2.38	2.27
Ideology	3.0	3.25	3.13
Income	6.49	6.24	6.04
Education	3.54	3.58	3.47
City	0.23	0.46	0.45

). We divide the districts into 3 types. The first type of district is one represented by a Black legislator. The second type includes districts that are represented by a Hispanic legislator. The final type of district2 includes districts that are represented by a white legislator. We use this final type of district as our comparison group to understand how behavior in districts represented by a Black or Hispanic3 legislator impacts political attitudes. The data in Table 1 help us to understand the political context representatives are faced with in the various districts.

We calculate the district mean value for party, ideology, income, education, and city for all respondents (Table 1).4 Party ranges from 1 to 3, with higher categories indicating that the respondent identifies as a Democrat, and ideology ranges from 1 to 5, with higher numbers indicating that the respondent identifies as liberal. The range for the education measure is 1 to 6, with higher numbers representing higher levels of education, while income categories range from 1 to 16, with higher numbers indicating higher levels of income. The measure for city is a dummy variable that ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating that the respondent lives in a city. Respondents are asked to describe where they live: city, town, rural area, or other. We code all “city” responses as 1 and other responses as 0.

Table 1 shows that respondents in all three district types have similar education levels. Black districts generally have slightly more education when compared to white districts, as well as respondents in Hispanic districts. At the same time, respondents in Black districts are more likely to identify as liberal, as a Democrat, and predominantly reside in urban areas. Districts represented by a Hispanic Congressmember are the poorest of all three districts. There are marginal differences between respondents when they live in the Black and Hispanic districts, but these differences are likely to have a significant impact on the attitudes of people who reside there. We also know that marginal differences are often exacerbated when dealing with local politics as the competition for scarce resources can be a breeding ground for cutthroat politics and in-group out-group dynamics (Bobo and Hutchings 1996; Gay 2002; Johnson and Oliver 1989; Oliver and Johnson 1984; Peterson and Riley 2022).

In this work, we take heed to the wise advice of Professor Hanes Walton (1997) by recognizing that the political context in the various types of districts impacts the political attitudes of the people who live in them. In fact, we find various important attitudinal differences when whites are represented by Black people, but also when their Representative is Hispanic. In order to assess these attitudinal differences, we calculate support for 4 variables, of which the first 3 capture racial attitudes: racial resentment and 2 FIRE measures. We use 2 of the longstanding measures to operationalize racial resentment: 1. Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up and 2. Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out of the lower class (Kinder and Sanders 1996).5 These measures are used to create a scale that ranges from 1 to 8, with higher numbers indicating more racially resentful attitudes. Although there are several questions that scholars use to create the FIRE model, we operationalize FIRE with two measures to gauge the racial attitudes across district types: 1. White people in the US have certain advantages because of the color of their skin and 2. Racial problems in the US are rare, isolated situations (DeSante and Watts Smith 2020).

The work on authoritarianism is dense and extends beyond the American case. In an attempt to create a more robust measure of authoritarianism that extends beyond the personality traits Altemeyer (1988) identifies in his broad scale of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), scholars have questioned the validity and reliability of the measure, thereby improving the way we discuss and explain political orientations. Much of Altemeyer’s RWA scale received harsh criticism from several scholars cautioning against the reliance on personality measures and arguing that authoritarianism is more complex than suggested by Altemeyer. While Altemeyer (1988) defends his unidimensional specification of RWA, others contend that the essence of this scale is better captured as a multidimensional scale measuring authoritarian aggression, conservatism, and traditionalism (ACT) (Duckitt 1989; Duckitt et al. 2010; Duckitt and Bizumic 2013). Although the scholars differ in the number of dimensions, as well as the connection and overlap of the dimensions, they argue that there is utility in at least a subset of the scale (Carriere et al. 2019; Johnson et al. 2024; Rattazzi et al. 2007). We share some of the concerns of our colleagues and therefore create a scale that focuses on the subset of Altemeyer’s RWA scale that addresses maintaining social order as maintaining social order is at the heart of the conservative dimension of authoritarianism (Duckitt and Bizumic 2013). While the earlier measures present rely on personality traits such as support for social order, child-rearing, and world view, for example, we include policy measures (Altemeyer 1988; Hetherington and Weiler 2009; Duckitt 1989). To accomplish this, we specify authoritarian beliefs as they relate to the police, an institution that all in the United States are familiar with in some capacity. We attempt to go beyond personality to test the beliefs about concrete actions that express obedient support for existing societal authorities and institutions. Our measures are designed to address people who believe it is so important to maintain existing authorities that they are willing to do whatever is necessary, even if it means using tax dollars to do so. To accomplish this, we include 4 measures: support for increased funding for police, opposition to suing police officers, opposition to banning the chokehold, and ending the transfer of surplus military equipment to local police6. Higher numbers indicate more support for these positions that we identify as authoritarianism (Altemeyer 1988). The data are presented in

Table 2. Attitudes Across Districts.

	White Districts	Black Districts	Hispanic Districts
Racial Resentment	5.08	4.40	4.94
Authoritarianism	1.71	1.37	1.76
FIRE (Advantage)	3.32	3.80	3.60
FIRE (Rare)	2.40	2.16	2.35

.

According to Table 2, white respondents in Black districts are more inclined to agree that Whites have special advantages and express lower levels of racial resentment and authoritarianism, while also being less likely to agree that racial incidents are rare (see Table 2). White respondents in Hispanic districts do not have attitudes that are as extreme as those in Black districts, but they too differ substantially from typical white attitudes. Respondents in Hispanic districts are more likely to agree that whites have special advantages (3.60), but not as likely as when compared to respondents in Black districts (3.80). However, they demonstrate lower levels of racial resentment compared to respondents in districts that do not have a Black or Hispanic Representative, yet higher racial resentment compared to respondents in Black districts. Interestingly, white respondents in Hispanic districts have the most authoritarian attitudes. While whites in white districts typically score 1.71 on the authoritarian scale, they score 1.76 when they live in Hispanic districts. This nuanced examination of attitudinal variations among respondents in different district types underscores the complex interplay of demographic and attitudinal factors and begs for more rigorous testing of how these variables impact attitudes toward legislators.

As we review the data, there is a clear understanding that whites who live in Black districts tend to have attitudes that are more in line with Black interests than whites in white districts. They have the least racial resentment, are the most likely to believe whites have special advantages because of their race, and are the least likely to say that racial incidents are rare. Moreover, looking at the differences between those who approve of their Congress members and those who do not approve provides valuable insight into how constituents evaluate Representatives based on the race of the Representative.

Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 allow us to compare the differences between those who approve and those who do not approve of their Congressmember. Additionally, we have created tables that show the attitudes of whites in white districts compared to the attitudes they have when they reside in Black or Hispanic districts. We calculate the mean value for those who approve and those who disapprove of their Congressmember for the following four variables: resentment, agreement that whites have advantages, agreement with the statement that racial problems are rare, and support for authoritarian policies. We then use a line to visually represent the difference between those who approve and those who disapprove. A longer line indicates that there is a greater difference between those who approve and those who disapprove within each district. The tables show a substantial change in the difference in these attitudes when individuals are in Black districts, but also a change when the individual is in a Hispanic district. Although whites in Black districts had the lowest racial resentment, they showed the greatest difference between those who approve of their Congressmember and those who do not. In white districts, racial resentment has a difference of 0.49 between those who approve and those who do not approve, but for Hispanic districts, there is a difference of 1.11, and for Black districts, a difference of 2.3. A similar pattern is shown for each of the attitudinal variables. The differences between those who approve and those who do not approve are greater in the Black districts when looking at authoritarianism, beliefs about white advantages, and agreement that racial incidents are rare. Not only is the difference greater in Black districts, the sign changes when comparing the attitudes of whites in white districts with the attitudes of whites in Black and Hispanic districts. White respondents who approve of their Congress Member in districts that are not represented by a Black or Hispanic person typically have more racial resentment, disagree that whites have advantages, agree that racial problems are rare, and support more authoritarian policies than white respondents who disapprove of their Congressmember. The direction changes when the Congressmember is Black or Hispanic. In these districts, white respondents who disapprove of their Congressmember have more racial resentment, disagree that whites have advantages, agree that racial problems are rare, and support more authoritarian policies than white respondents who approve of their Congressmember. This pattern suggests that the race of the Representative matters. People who live in Hispanic districts and Black districts appear more separated, perhaps deeply separated, by racial and authoritarian attitudes.

It is equally valuable to note that constituents respond differently to Black and Hispanic legislators. In each of the figures, the difference between white approval of Black and Hispanic legislators is in the same direction, but the differences between those who approve and those who do not approve are always greater when looking at Black districts. Clearly, the approval of both of these types of districts is most different from the approval in white districts, but they are not the same. This pattern cautions scholars on the use of minority as a general concept and warrants future research and conversation about the differences between the various groups we consider “minority” (Peterson and Riley 2022).

H1. 

Whites who have negative racial attitudes will be more likely to disapprove of their Congress members in Black districts.

H2. 

Whites who have negative racial attitudes will be more likely to disapprove of their member of Congress in Hispanic districts.

H3. 

Whites who support authoritarian policies are more likely to disapprove of their members of Congress when they live in Black districts.

To investigate the relationship between approval of Congressional Representatives and racial attitudes among white constituents, we conducted a logistic regression analysis. The dependent variable in our analysis is operationalized as the approval of the respondent’s Representative. Specifically, we investigate whether white individuals residing in districts represented by legislators self-identifying as Black or Hispanic express approval or disapproval of their Congressmember. Through this methodological approach, we seek to expose the distinct responses of White constituents towards legislators of different racial backgrounds. By isolating the racial identities of the Representatives, we aim to uncover any disparities in approval ratings based on the race or ethnicity of the legislator.

This analytical framework allows for a nuanced examination of how whites assess and perceive their elected representatives, particularly with regard to racial and ethnic considerations. By disaggregating the data based on the racial identities of the Representatives, we can gain insight into the complexities of racial attitudes and their influence on political evaluations within diverse constituencies.

Racial dynamics significantly influence how white individuals assess various political phenomena. The concepts of racial resentment and those encompassed within the FIRE (whites’ fear of other races, the denial of institutional racism, the belief that racial incidents are rare, and white empathy about racism) model have notably shaped white attitudes towards candidates, issues, and policies (DeSante and Watts Smith 2020; Kinder and Sanders 1996; Riley and Peterson 2019, 2020; Tesler 2012; Wilson et al. 2015). In this study, we investigate the relevance of these issues in shaping white approval of Black and Brown legislators.

Racial resentment, a central focus of our analysis, is operationalized using two measures drawn from the CES (Cooperative Election Study) dataset and has been previously used to gauge constituent racial resentment (Riley and Peterson 2019). These measures capture attitudes towards Black people being able to work their way up and a belief that discrimination against Black people is a problem. As mentioned earlier, this measure is scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 8, with higher scores indicating greater levels of racial resentment. We expect racial resentment will have an impact on Congressmembers in Black districts and that whites who disapprove of their Representative will have higher racial resentment than whites who approve. Consistent with the racial reaction theory, we expect racial resentment to be especially important in its influence on how constituents evaluate Black legislators because it is uniquely connected to Black people (Riley and Peterson 2020). Additionally, we incorporate two FIRE measures to assess the impact of racial issues on the evaluation of Black and Hispanic Representatives. These measures include agreement with statements asserting that whites have special advantages and agreement with the statement that racial incidents are rare (DeSante and Watts Smith 2020).

Although the FIRE measures are much more extensive than these 2 measures, we use them as a subset to ascertain the impact that FIRE might have on political attitudes. Higher numbers for each of these indicate more agreement with the statement, while lower numbers indicate less agreement. Since these measures indirectly address Black issues, we do not expect them to have a significant impact on how Black legislators are evaluated. Because of the persistence of race and various political debates regarding issues such as critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion, which center conversations around marginalizing whiteness, we suspect the FIRE measures to have an impact on how people evaluate Hispanic legislators.

The last independent variable of interest in this study is authoritarianism, derived from a portion of the construct of right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer 1981, 1998; Duckitt 2001). Right-wing authoritarianism encompasses attitudes that are perceived as instrumental in maintaining social order against perceived threats posed by unconventional ideas, individuals, and values (Duckitt 2001; Stenner 2005). In alignment with previous research, we operationalize authoritarianism as support for authoritarian policies.

We use the authoritarianism scale we created that includes four policy-related items: support for increased funding for police, opposition to suing police officers, opposition to banning the chokehold, and ending the transfer of surplus military equipment to local police. While not exactly the measures Altemeyer (1988) uses in his authoritarianism scale, we base our measure on the understanding that authoritarianism is multidimensional and contextual (Duckitt 1989; Duckitt and Bizumic 2013). More specifically, our measure is based on the conservative dimension of authoritarianism (Duckitt and Bizumic 2013) or the authoritarian aggression and submission items (Rattazzi et al. 2007). We use policy positions that we believe reflect respondents’ respect for authority and obedience as the most important qualities. In this case, “authority” is the police. The responses to each of the items are added to create a scale ranging from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater support for authoritarian policies. The scale is constructed to capture respondents’ overall endorsement of policies perceived to uphold authoritarian principles as identified in previous works (Altemeyer 1981; Duckitt 2001; Stenner 2005). Although we agree that racial attitudes and authoritarianism seem to go hand in hand (Parker and Towler 2019; Velez and Lavine 2017), we attempt to separate the influences of each of these variables to determine their relative impact on legislator approval. We expect people who support more authoritarian policies to be more likely to disapprove of their Black or Hispanic members of Congress.

The control variables utilized in this analysis are age, gender, education, ideology, trust, income, congruence of party affiliation between the respondent and Congressional Representative, and urban residence. Each of these variables has been selected based on their theoretical relevance and the prior literature, suggesting their potential influence on political attitudes and behaviors. Age and gender are included as demographic controls given their documented associations with political attitudes (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995; Peterson et al. 2020; Reed 2006). Education and income serve as a proxy for socioeconomic status, which may impact individuals’ perceptions of political representation (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995). Ideology is included to capture respondents’ political orientations, which may shape their evaluations of Congressional Representatives.

Additionally, we control for congruence of party affiliation between the respondent and their Congressional Representative. Research suggests that individuals may be more inclined to approve of Representatives who share their party affiliation as they are found to approve of Congress when the majority party is the same party as the respondent (Kimball and Patterson 1997; Patterson et al. 1992). Therefore, controlling for party congruence helps to isolate the influence of racial attitudes on approval ratings. Lastly, we include urban residence as a control variable, recognizing the potential differences in political attitudes and behaviors between urban and rural populations. Urban areas are more likely to have diverse populations and, as a result, whites often harbor more negative feelings about minoritized populations when in these areas (Bobo 1983; Huckfeldt and Kohfeld 1989; Giles and Hertz 1994). Through the utilization of these measures, we aim to comprehensively capture the influence of racial attitudes and perceptions on white evaluations of legislators who are Black and Hispanic. This methodological approach allows for a rigorous examination of the role of racial dynamics in shaping political evaluations.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 3. Determinants of House Member Approval.

Independent Variables	White Districts (Coefficient (SE))	Black Districts (Coefficient (SE))	Hispanics Districts (Coefficient (SE))
Racial Resentment	0.02	−0.24 ***	−0.01
	(−0.02)	(0.06)	(0.08)
FIRE (Advantages)	−0.01	0.07	0.29 ***
	(−0.02)	(0.08)	−0.11
FIRE (Rare)	0.09 ***	−0.07	0.05
	(−0.02)	(0.07)	(0.09)
Authoritarian	0.07 ***	−0.18 **	−0.12
	(−0.02)	(0.07)	(0.11)
Trust	0.13 ***	0.61 ***	0.38 ***
	(−0.03)	−0.09	−0.12
Age	−0.01 ***	0	−0.02 **
	(0.00)	(0.00)	−0.01
Liberal	−0.04 *	0.08	0.17
	(0.02)	(0.08)	(0.11)
Education	0.04 ***	0.04	−0.07
	(−0.02)	(0.05)	−0.07
Party Congruence	−2.79 ***	−1.98 ***	−2.07 ***
	(−0.04)	−0.15	−0.2
Gender	−0.16 ***	0.07	−0.42 **
	(−0.04)	−0.14	(0.18)
City	0.07	−0.29 **	−0.12
	(−0.05)	−0.15	−0.2
Income	0.02 ***	−0.01	0
	(0.01)	−0.02	(0.03)

Note: The results are based on data from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study. The models are restricted to white respondents only. The models use logistic regression with the dependent variable measuring whether the respondent approves or disapproves of their current Congressional Representative. The Nagelkerke Pseudo-R-Squared is 0.42 for White Districts, 0.58 for Black Districts, and 0.41 for Hispanic Districts. The N in the White Districts Model is 15,748, the N in the Black Districts Model is 1831, and the N in the Hispanic Districts Model is 730. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

displays our logistic regression findings across three models. The first model displays the determinants of white support for their Congressmember, which allows us to compare how attitudes differ when the race of the Congressmember is Black or Hispanic. The second and third models show the determinants of the approval for Representatives when they are Black (Model 2) and Hispanic (Model 3). Our analysis compares the approval of Congressional Representatives across different racial contexts: Black districts, Hispanic districts, and white districts. As indicated earlier, we are interested in understanding how white respondents in Black and Hispanic districts hold opinions different from the opinions they hold in white districts. Table 3 shows a significant difference in the determinants of legislator approval when the Representative is Black or Hispanic. When the Representative is white, their approval is determined by nine variables: their age, income, ideology, belief that racial incidents are isolated situations, how much political trust they have, education, gender, support for authoritarianism, and whether they share the same political party as their Representative. Notice that only one of our racial attitude variables is significant in this model, which is very different from the findings in the other two models. The model for whites in Black districts indicates that only five variables are significant in explaining approval: racial resentment, authoritarianism, trust, whether they live in a city, and political party congruence between the respondent and the legislator. Similarly, the model of Hispanic districts indicates that approval of their member of Congress is determined by five variables: age, their belief that whites have special advantages, trust, gender, and political party congruence. At a minimum, these findings suggest that respondents use different factors to evaluate their Congress Members when they are Black and Brown. Moreover, as found in other research, the traditional variables such as age and education that political scientists use to describe white behavior become less relevant when explaining support for Congressmembers who are not white, requiring scholars to have more nuanced discussions about political behavior (Peterson and Riley 2022).

H1. 

Whites who have negative racial attitudes will be more likely to disapprove of their Congress members in Black districts.

Our first hypothesis addresses the importance of racial attitudes in the evaluations of Black legislators. According to the model of Black districts, whites rely on their beliefs about Black people to make judgements about the job performance of Black Representatives. The variable measuring racial resentment is significant, although it is not significant in white districts, and the negative value indicates that those who have more resentment are more likely to disapprove of the member of Congress. Racial resentment is also not significant in the models for Hispanic Representatives, indicating its unique impact within the context of Black representation. Moreover, this relationship underscores our earlier claim that Black districts and Hispanic districts are different from each other. This concept that explicitly addresses Black people does not significantly influence the approval of Representatives who are white or Hispanic.

We plot the predicted probabilities in Figure 5 to visually show how racial resentment impacts the attitudes of whites in Black districts. Notice that the approval declines as respondents have more racial resentment. Those who have the highest racial resentment are much less likely to approve of their Representative. In fact, those at the highest level of racial resentment are highly unlikely to approve of their member of Congress if they are Black. This is strong support for our first hypothesis that whites in Black districts who have negative racial attitudes will be less likely to approve of their Representative. We find it interesting, although not surprising, that the FIRE measures are not significant in the Black district model. Previous research suggests that racial resentment continues to be important in how whites evaluate politics and Black people and that racial resentment outperforms the FIRE measures when explaining white political attitudes toward Black people and our work supports that finding (Riley and Peterson 2024).

H2. 

Whites who have negative racial attitudes will be more likely to disapprove of their member of Congress in Hispanic districts.

In the model assessing approval in Hispanic districts, racial resentment is not a significant predictor of legislator approval. Rather than racial resentment, the FIRE measure capturing attitudes about whites having special advantages emerges as a significant predictor. The positive value in Table 3 indicates that individuals who perceive whites as having special advantages are more likely to approve of their Hispanic Representative. Figure 6 visually represents how this racial variable influences the disapproval of Hispanic Congressmembers. Although this line is not as steep as the predicted probability for racial resentment in the Black district model, there is clearly a pattern where those who have the greatest agreement with the statement that whites have special advantages have the highest probability of approving of their Congressmember. Notably, this predictor does not attain significance in the other models. In Hispanic districts, the newly developed FIRE measures matter. Although only one of the measures is significant, this finding suggests that racial issues matter for Hispanic legislators as well as for Black legislators. Additionally, this finding demonstrates that the way racial issues are conceptualized has consequences for assessing their impact. Relying on the previous operationalization, racial attitudes such as racial resentment are inadequate to address whites when they are in Hispanic districts. Relying on the relatively new conceptualization of racial attitudes, such as the FIRE measures, proves inadequate to capture white reaction to Black legislators.

Overall, racial attitudes demonstrate importance across all racial contexts, with racial resentment emerging as a longstanding determinant of white attitudes towards Black Representatives. However, the newer conceptualization of racial issues using the FIRE model shows importance in explaining white attitudes when evaluating Hispanic Representatives. Despite this, the FIRE model appears limited in its ability to explain attitudes towards Black Representatives, highlighting the complex nature of racial attitudes and their impact on political evaluations and the necessity to disaggregate minoritized populations to explain political behavior.

H3. 

Whites who support authoritarian policies are more likely to disapprove of their members of Congress when they live in Black districts.

The analysis reveals significant findings regarding the influence of authoritarianism on the approval of Representatives among different types of districts. Firstly, among White participants, a clear pattern emerged indicating a positive relationship between authoritarianism and approval of Congress members. Specifically, whites who exhibited higher levels of authoritarianism were generally more likely to express approval of their elected Representatives. We show this with the significant positive value for authoritarianism in Table 3, but also with the predicted probabilities for authoritarianism that we plot in Figure 7. Although the predicted probability line is rather flat, the probability of disapproving of the legislator is significantly less than the probability for those who support authoritarian policies.

However, when examining the impact of authoritarianism on approval in Black districts, notable distinctions emerged. Among white individuals, the presence of a Black Representative resulted in a negative value for the authoritarian variable and this is a substantial difference in the probability that the respondent will approve of the Representative (see Table 3). Figure 8 plots the predicted probabilities and the differences are much more pronounced than the patterns observed in Model 1. In Black districts, whites who do not support authoritarian policies are less likely to disapprove of the Representative than those who support all of the authoritarian policies. This means that those who are more likely to reject authoritarian policies are the most likely to approve of the Representative. This suggests that the race of the Representative plays a significant role in shaping approval perceptions and supports our hypothesis that those who support authoritarian policies will be more likely to disapprove of their Congress member in Black districts. This relationship did not hold true for whites when the Representative was Hispanic.

These findings underscore the complex interplay between authoritarianism, race, and approval of political representatives. While authoritarianism may generally predispose individuals towards approval of their Representatives, the racial identity of the Representative appears to alter this relationship. Specifically, the disapproval of Black Representatives among white individuals with authoritarian tendencies suggests the importance of race in legislator evaluations. It is obvious that the race of the Representative influences the relevant factors and the direction of those factors when it comes to their approval.

The research is very clear about white approval of their Congressional Representative. Whites tend to like their Congress members, but dislike Congress as an institution (Fenno 1978). White approval of their Representative is explained by the typical political variables and our research supports those explanations (see Table 3). Like other scholars, we find that when whites are in districts that are not represented by a Black or Hispanic Congressmember, their approval is explained by their age, income, education, gender, trust, ideology, and whether they share the same party as the Representative. In addition, we find their approval depends on the FIRE measure7 of racial attitudes that asks whether they believe racial incidents are rare. White support for authoritarian policies also impacts white approval of members of Congress. This means that whites who agree with authoritarian policies are more likely to approve of their Congressmember. Their support partially depends on the respondent being more authoritarian in white districts, but when in a Black district, attitudes change. Whites who approve of their Black Congressmember are less likely to agree with authoritarian policies. Support for authoritarian policies has a different impact on the approval of the Representative depending on whether the individual is in a white or Black district.

5. Conclusions

The rise of Donald Trump, increasing levels of diversity in the House of Representatives, and the recent insurrection have renewed interest in authoritarianism within American politics. Using the 2022 Cooperative Election Study, we examine white reactions to minority representation in the United States House of Representatives by investigating the extent to which racial attitudes and authoritarian views influence evaluations of minority members of Congress. The results of our analysis suggest significant implications for how whites respond to minority political representation, and that the influence of racial attitudes seems to be activated by the racial identification of the specific representative. Our findings show that authoritarian attitudes predict evaluation when the minority house member is Black. These findings suggest that certain kinds of “diversity” activate authoritarian attitudes. It may be that having a Black representative in Congress activates authoritarian attitudes in a way that makes these attitudes salient and triggers a negative reaction. Some have argued that racial resentment does not capture anti-Black affects (Davis and Wilson 2023). We disagree and are convinced that while racial attitudes are indeed more complex than the racial resentment index, this index actually captures deeply ingrained anti-Black sentiments about Black people. Research has found increasing levels of authoritarian attitudes among Republican voters (MacWilliams 2016; Velez and Lavine 2017). It is also important to note that our findings show that racial attitudes, when conceptualized using the FIRE model, also predict whites’ evaluations when they are represented by a Hispanic in Congress. This evidence suggests that different kinds of racial attitudes are activated by different kinds of diversity. Taken together, these findings confirm that white responses to diverse political representation are tied to their attitudes about race and endorsements of policy-based authoritarianism.

In recent years, the United States has witnessed increased racial hostility and increased racial hatred as a result, renewing social scientists’ interest in uncovering the extent to which American democracy may be at risk. This was highlighted more extensively during the 6 January insurrection and the emergence of presidential candidates who do not seem to be committed to the ideas of American democracy. The evidence uncovered in this study has profound implications for American politics in the sense that we are already seeing anti-democratic bills and legislation make their way through a number of state legislatures. On the one hand, the evidence here highlights the role of racial antipathy in whites’ views; there is always a reaction from a segment of voters who are uncomfortable with racial advancements. We do see that there is something to be learned from minority representatives among whites. When whites are under Black or minority political representation, they tend to have more positive attitudes, but that is not the end of the story. We know from an abundance of academic literature that racial attitudes can be activated by racialized policies, racialized rhetoric, and racialized candidates. We also know that whites respond to policy preferences in political candidates differently when they see that their livelihood is under threat. The evidence in this particular paper should be taken with caution about the overall health of American democracy in the sense that we are currently in a moment in American political history where different candidates and political parties are taking very polarizing positions on issues of race. This has the capacity to continue to divide the country along racial lines, and we know from the established bodies of literature that the maintenance of minorities in secondary status is primarily achieved through anti-democratic policies that are authoritarian (Parker and Towler 2019). In our view, racial prejudice and hostility are incompatible with American democracy and threatens the very fabric of democratic societies. We cannot, on the one hand, profess to be a model democracy for the world and, on the other hand, oppose and gaslight efforts to bring about a more inclusive society. If, as we have shown here, diversity results in whites having a negative reaction to diversity, then these patterns certainly help us understand why there is a move to oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts across the nation. These efforts, quite frankly, are inherently linked to negative racial proclivities. We hope that this particular work will inspire more scholars to investigate the contemporary patterns that we see in American politics with respect to the role of diversity and diverse candidates contesting political office during a period of heightened racial tension. Future research must invest more resources in uncovering the exact causes of authoritarian attitudes among white voters.