Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


What Academic Research Really Says About Race and the Obama Presidency

• August 29, 2012 • 2:16 PM

Whether or not Obama serves another term, Ta-Nehisi Coates’ new 10,000-worder for The Atlantic will probably stand as one of the totemic deconstructions of race and the Obama presidency. Coates weaves together various racially charged events and trends, historical and current, in arguing how and why a man with demonstrably nuanced views on race came to scrupulously avoid the issue of race in his public statements as president. There’s much more than that, too; suffice it to say it’s worth reading, if only to keep up with the discussion that has ensued.

But one research paper Coates cites deserves scrutiny, because it might actually complicate his case. Half-way through the article, he brings up Michael Tesler, a political scientist at Brown University, who took a close look at public opinion in a 2010 paper to analyze the impact of race on views towards health-care reform. Tesler collected data via panels and interviews with 3,147 registered voters that roughly matched the country’s demographic makeup; he also looked at the oft-cited American National Election Study, which has regularly measured respondents’ level of racial resentment and support for government health insurance since 1988. Different respondents were presented specific health care reform policies, framed as Clinton proposals, Obama proposals, or un-framed, neutral proposals. Coates quotes Tesler summarizing how white Americans’ views on reform could be predicted by their level of ‘racial resentment’:

“Racial attitudes had a significantly greater impact on health care opinions when framed as part of President Obama’s plan than they had when the exact same policies were attributed to President Clinton’s 1993 health care initiative.”

Coates calls the findings “bracing”—empirical evidence for contemporary, subtle forms of racial animus operating like “quaking ground beneath Obama’s feet”. He cites a host of similar research into the white public’s views on race, as well as instances of undeniable race-baiting rhetoric from Republican leadership in recent years. He concludes:

“What we are now witnessing is not some new and complicated expression of white racism—rather, it’s the dying embers of the same old racism that once rendered the best pickings of America the exclusive province of unblackness.”

But do Tesler’s findings entirely support this thesis? As he states in the paper: “There is simply no way of knowing whether the growing polarization of public opinion by racial attitudes…was caused by the president’s race or another factor like his party affiliation”. Tesler does show that race increased in importance as Obama became the face of health care reform, but only “relative to nonracial considerations”. That is, race was not the most important consideration for respondents, just likely a more important factor than if absent a black president. Also, the level of ‘importance’ of race for respondents didn’t necessarily correspond with diminished support for Obama’s policies, except among a small fraction of respondents who reported the highest levels of resentment.  Overall, Coates’ brief presentation of Tesler’s research implies that race plays a more central, negative role in white Americans’ lack of support for Obama’s policies than what the research supports. More striking in Tesler’s data, white Americans seemed to override their own morally indefensible resentment in gauging the merit of Obama’s policies.

As Seth Ackerman pointed out in Jacobin last year, responding to Tesler’s research (and a body of similar research):

The effects of respondent’s party and ideology, after controlling for racial resentment, were each one-and-a-half-times as large as the effect of racial resentment…[and] two-and-a-half times as large as the effects of anti-black stereotypes and judgments….

Tesler’s study also looked at the correlation between racial resentment and the stimulus.  Compared to the neutral frame, or a frame that presented the policy as authored by congressional Democrats, Ackerman notes:

The overall level of white support for stimulus was higher when Obama was cited as the policy’s author…[Racial resentment], triggered by the mention of Obama’s name, actually had the net effect of increasing support for his stimulus policy.”

Again, he’s referring to the numbers seen among those that reported any racial resentment (See Figure 3 in the paper).

So why split hairs with Tesler’s research like this?  Because the Left systematically gloms to studies like Tesler’s to impugn the Right’s racial motives.  It’s a major pillar of their argument against modern conservatism. But, as Ackerman argues, this might be a sign of weakness: critiques of racial motives are just easier to construct and more convincing than anything the Left has been able to muster against the Right’s more significant, consistent embrace of unmitigated frontier capitalism. Tesler’s study more readily supports the idea that the Right’s brand of economic individualism, more than their racial politics, has driven their electorally successful messaging since Reagan.

I don’t want to give the impression that Coates’ whole argument falls apart because one section of his article analyzes research in a mildly reductive way. But Ackerman offers an important alternative interpretation to the growing body of work on racial resentment produced by social scientists in recent decades.  Many on the left tend to ignore or avoid the many constraints and countervailing evidence found in studies like Tesler’s, perhaps to the long-term detriment of their cause.

Michael Fitzgerald
Michael Fitzgerald is an associate editor at Pacific Standard. He has previously worked at The New Republic and Oxford American Magazine.

More From Michael Fitzgerald

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

December 20 • 10:28 AM

Flare-Ups

Are my emotions making me ill?


December 19 • 4:00 PM

How a Drug Policy Reform Organization Thinks of the Children

This valuable, newly updated resource for parents is based in the real world.


December 19 • 2:00 PM

Where Did the Ouija Board Come From?

It wasn’t just a toy.


December 19 • 12:00 PM

Social Scientists Can Do More to Eradicate Racial Oppression

Using our knowledge of social systems, all social scientists—black or white, race scholar or not—have an opportunity to challenge white privilege.


December 19 • 10:17 AM

How Scientists Contribute to Bad Science Reporting

By not taking university press officers and research press releases seriously, scientists are often complicit in the media falsehoods they so often deride.


December 19 • 10:00 AM

Pentecostalism in West Africa: A Boon or Barrier to Disease?

How has Ghana stayed Ebola-free despite being at high risk for infection? A look at their American-style Pentecostalism, a religion that threatens to do more harm than good.


December 19 • 8:00 AM

Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.


December 19 • 6:12 AM

All That ‘Call of Duty’ With Your Friends Has Not Made You a More Violent Person

But all that solo Call of Duty has.


December 19 • 4:00 AM

Food for Thought: WIC Works

New research finds participation in the federal WIC program, which subsidizes healthy foods for young children, is linked with stronger cognitive development and higher test scores.


December 18 • 4:00 PM

How I Navigated Life as a Newly Sober Mom

Saying “no” to my kids was harder than saying “no” to alcohol. But for their sake and mine, I had to learn to put myself first sometimes.


December 18 • 2:00 PM

Women in Apocalyptic Fiction Shaving Their Armpits

Because our interest in realism apparently only goes so far.


December 18 • 12:00 PM

The Paradox of Choice, 10 Years Later

Paul Hiebert talks to psychologist Barry Schwartz about how modern trends—social media, FOMO, customer review sites—fit in with arguments he made a decade ago in his highly influential book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.


December 18 • 10:00 AM

What It’s Like to Spend a Few Hours in the Church of Scientology

Wrestling with thetans, attempting to unlock a memory bank, and a personality test seemingly aimed at people with depression. This is Scientology’s “dissemination drill” for potential new members.


December 18 • 8:00 AM

Gendering #BlackLivesMatter: A Feminist Perspective

Black men are stereotyped as violent, while black women are rendered invisible. Here’s why the gendering of black lives matters.


December 18 • 7:06 AM

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.


December 18 • 6:00 AM

The Very Weak and Complicated Links Between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

Vanderbilt University’s Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish address our anxieties and correct our assumptions.


December 18 • 4:00 AM

Should Movies Be Rated RD for Reckless Driving?

A new study finds a link between watching films featuring reckless driving and engaging in similar behavior years later.


December 17 • 4:00 PM

How to Run a Drug Dealing Network in Prison

People tend not to hear about the prison drug dealing operations that succeed. Substance.com asks a veteran of the game to explain his system.


December 17 • 2:00 PM

Gender Segregation of Toys Is on the Rise

Charting the use of “toys for boys” and “toys for girls” in American English.


December 17 • 12:41 PM

Why the College Football Playoff Is Terrible But Better Than Before

The sample size is still embarrassingly small, but at least there’s less room for the availability cascade.


December 17 • 11:06 AM

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.


December 17 • 10:37 AM

A Public Lynching in Sproul Plaza

When photographs of lynching victims showed up on a hallowed site of democracy in action, a provocation was issued—but to whom, by whom, and why?


December 17 • 8:00 AM

What Was the Job?

This was the year the job broke, the year we accepted a re-interpretation of its fundamental bargain and bought in to the push to get us to all work for ourselves rather than each other.


December 17 • 6:00 AM

White Kids Will Be Kids

Even the “good” kids—bound for college, upwardly mobile—sometimes break the law. The difference? They don’t have much to fear. A professor of race and social movements reflects on her teenage years and faces some uncomfortable realities.



Follow us


Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

The Hidden Psychology of the Home Ref

That old myth of home field bias isn’t a myth at all; it’s a statistical fact.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.