Perspectives on Latino-Black
Relations in the U.S.:
Mass and Elite-level Analyses*
*(Or…here’s part of what I’ve been working on the last 8
months)
Rodney E. Hero
(With LNS Colleagues, and with Robert Preuhs)
CSDP Presentation
May 1, 2008
Some Issues addressed
in (my) recent research:
An overview and summary of some recent work:
• Demographic change and the Evolution of American politics
• ‘Minority’ and other (inter)group relations
Ideas and/or Interests
How these may differ in different arenas of politics
federalism, “scope of conflict,” etc. - Institutions
Previous related research
1. Mass-level:
* Recent survey findings on Latino Attitudes
•
•
Raleigh-Durham study (McClain, JOP 2006) – on Latinos and stereotyping
Latino National Survey
2. Other research questions: Institutions and Policy (Representation)
* Urban politics focus (case studies, and aggregate studies)
Browning, Marshall, and Tabb (1984, and several later)
McClain – on socioeconomic and political competition in cities
…Mixed, complicated findings
* Little/no research at level of the States regarding Inter-group relations
(studies focus on one group or another)
Often assumes conflict/competition OR cooperation
This presentation
a. Begin to bring together two strands of research on
issues regarding Latinos and Blacks (and Whites)
* public opinion (mass)
* representative institutions (elites/national)
b. Builds on prior research -- evidence from the LNS
and elsewhere regarding questions about competition
or cooperation assumption of Latino inter-group
relations
The Hypothesized Relative Importance of
Ideas and Interests at the National v. Local (Institutions) Levels
of American Politics in Relation to Black and Latino Relations
•
National
Local
Ideas
Interests
How much does Latinos doing well depend on
African Americans doing well?
Respondents in 2006
Latino National Survey
Nativity
“Linked Fate” with African Americans
Some/A lot
Native Born (2408)1
53.4%
Foreign-born2 (5704)
67.0
Latino Sub-Groups
1
2
Colombians (139)
66.9
Cubans (419)
61.3
Dominicans (335)
72.2
El Salvadorans (406)
68.2
Guatemalans (149)
64.4
Mexicans (5690)
62.4
Puerto Ricans (759)
61.8
The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category
The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S.,
including being born in Puerto Rico.
Extent of Commonality among Latinos regarding Jobs, Education
and Income Attainment with African Americans and Whites
Respondents in 2006
Latino National Survey
Commonality with
African Americans
Commonality with
Whites
Some/A lot
Some/A lot
Native Born (2408)1
67.9%
56.1%
Foreign-born2 (5704)
45.9
45.1
Colombians (139)
46.8
53.2
Cubans (419)
51.3
55.4
Dominicans (335)
53.7
43.6
El Salvadorans (406)
48.8
45.1
Guatemalans (149)
40.9
43.6
Mexicans (5690)
51.0
47.2
Puerto Ricans (759)
65.5
54.2
Nativity
Latino Sub-Groups
1
2
The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category
The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S., including being
born in Puerto Rico.
Extent of Commonality among Latinos regarding their
Political Situation with African Americans and Whites
Respondents in 2006
Latino National Survey
Commonality with
African Americans
Commonality with
Whites
Some/A lot
Some/A lot
Native Born (2408)1
62.8%
48.7%
Foreign-born2 (5704)
43.4
64.1
Colombians (139)
49.6
41.7
Cubans (419)
51.3
49.9
Dominicans (335)
52.8
43.3
El Salvadorans (406)
45.3
40.9
Guatemalans (149)
40.9
39.6
Mexicans (5690)
46.9
42.6
Puerto Ricans (759)
60.6
47.7
Nativity
Latino Sub-Groups
1
2
The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category
The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S., including being
born in Puerto Rico.
Unpacking Latino Views further:
Contexts (‘traditional’ vs ‘emerging’ states)
• The Latino population, especially immigrants, has
moved well beyond traditional states such as
California, Texas, and New York to include
considerable and increasing presence in such states as
Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina.
• These latter states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and
North Carolina – are also states that had previously
had little experience with immigrants and/or have
substantially large African-American populations.
Latinos Seeing Commonalities
with Other Groups
• Response Choices: nothing, little, some, a lot, DK/no answer
• Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational
attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term]
have in common with other racial groups in the United States
today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have….. in
common
with African Americans:
• In all 7 states more respondents say “some” or “a lot” -ranging from 46% to 57% -- than say “nothing” or “little.”
• However, in the 4 “emerging states” all are at 50 percent or
less saying “some” or “a lot,” while more in the other states
say “some” or “a lot”: CA (51%), TX (52 %), NY (57%)
Socioeconomic Commonalities
with Whites
• Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational
attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term]
have in common with other racial groups in the United States
today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have
common with whites:
• Varied pattern, hard to summarize, except that in all states
fewer respondents answer “some” or “a lot” than they did for
the similar question regarding Blacks. Also, CA only state
where more say ‘nothing/little’ than ‘some/a lot’ (47%/44%).
Latinos’ views of
Inter–Group
Competition with Blacks
JOBS:
Some have suggested that [selected ethnic term] are in competition with African
Americans
.…Would you tell me if you believe there is strong competition weak competition or
no competition at all with African Americans? How about…
•
“competition in getting jobs”
•
In all seven states (only) about a quarter (25-28 percent) perceived “strong
competition” and about 15-20 percent or so sees “weak competition;” the plurality
choice in every state is “no competition at all.”
•
New York stands out in having clearly the highest proportion, 36 percent, saying
“strong competition.”
Competition in…“having access to
education and quality schools?
• In 4 emerging states, 47-52 percent say “no
competition at all;” consistently 25-27 percent
in these states say “strong competition.”
• Percent saying “strong competition” is highest
in NY (35%) and TX (32%)
Competition re “getting jobs with the
city or state government?”
• 42 to 48% in emerging states say “no competition,”
and roughly 28 % say “strong competition.” GA
stands out in this group, with 33% percent saying
“strong competition”
• The other three states tend to have higher percentage
(than “emerging”)
• saying “strong competition”: CA 35%; TX 33% and,
most strikingly, NY 43%.
Competition in
…Political Representation
• “Having [selected ethnic term] representatives in elected
office” In all 4 emerging states
•
‘no competition’ is the most common answer (41, 39, 42, and
28 percent for AR, GA, IA, and NC, respectively). GA is
highest with “strong competition,” 36%.
• IN CONTRAST:
• In the three others states, ‘strong competition’ is the most
common answer: CA 38%, TX 38%, and NY 42%
Concept of “Linked Fate”
with Others
How much does [Latinos] doing well depend on
African Americans doing well?
• Percent saying “some” or “a lot” in 4 emerging
states ranges from 58% (NC) to 65% (AR).
• Interestingly, percent saying “some” or “a lot”
is highest in NY (67%).
• In TX is 64% and in CA 53% say this.
II.
Latino-Black Relations -- Elite level:
Latinos and Blacks in the U.S. House
(using ‘advocacy group’ evidence)
Dimensions examined:
Agendas (advocacy group scorecards)
Positions (advocacy group scorecards)
* Voting patterns (Black and Latino MCs voting, on advocacy
group scorecards)*
Initial Findings
on Salience and Congruence
(Supporting data follow on next 2 slides)
• Salience (agendas, in NAACP and NHLA scorecards)
similarity/overlap on group scorecards
little overlap found
• Congruence (positions, in NAACP and NHLA scorecards))
very high (complete congruence when scorecards do
overlap)
We also examined (a) Congressional testimony and (b) filing of “friend of
the court” (amicus) briefs.
* Overall: We found no evidence of conflict; we think there is lots of tacit
non-cooperation/independence, (coordination?)*
Policy Salience and Congruence of Minority Advocacy Groups’ Agendas
(Number of cases included in Congressional Scorecards
and Degree of Salience and Congruence)
Shared Salience
Congruence
Congress
NHLA
NAACP
105th
(1997-1998)
33
23
7
(21.1%; 30.4%)
7
(100%)
106th
(1999-2000)
36
30
6
(16.67%; 20.0%)
6
(100%)
107th
(2001-2002)
34
50
12
(35.3%; 24.0%)
12
(100%)
108th
(2003-2004)
24
63
3
(12.5%; 4.8%)
3
(100%)
Total
127
166
28
(22.1%; 16.9%)
28
(100%)
(% of NHLA Total; % of NAACP
Total)
(% of Shared)
NAACP Votes
NAACP and NHLA Votes
NHLA Votes
Welfare
Voting Rights
Telecommunications
Tax and Spending Policy
Other
Litigation
Language
Labor
Judicial Nomination
International Relations
Immigration
Health Care
Hate Crimes
Gun Control
Foreign Aid - Africa
Faith-Based Initiative
Election Reform
Education
Economic Mobility
Cuba
Crime
Civil Rights
Budget
Bankruptcy Overhaul
Aid to states
Affirmative Action
AIDS/Health
0
10
20
30
40
Figure 1. Salient Votes by Topic
Counts of Votes Included on Scorecards
Basic Evidence on
Voting Patterns
Mean NAACP and NHLA Support, by Party and Racial/Ethnic Background of
the Member of Congress, 104th – 108th Congresses.
NAACP Scores
BD=Black Dems, LD=Latino Dems, WD=White Dems,
WR=White Republicans, BR=Black Republicans, LR=Latino Republicans
100
NAACP Support Scores
LD
WD
BD
BD
LD
BD
LD
WD
WD
BD
LD
WD
LD
50
60
70
80
90
BD
WD
40
LR
LR
20
30
WR
BR
WR
BR
WR
LR
BR
0
10
LR
WR
BR
WR
LR
104th Congress
105th Congress
106th Congress
107th Congress
108th Congress
NHLA Support Scores
80
90
100
NHLA Support Scores
LD
BD
WD
BD
LD
WD
BD
LD
LD
BD
WD
LR
40
50
60
70
WD
BR
WR
LR
LR
WR
WR
BR
10
20
30
LR
WR
0
BR
105th Congress
106th Congress
107th Congress
108th Congress
ExaminingVoting Patterns
Theoretical Expectations
Design
Findings
Predicted Effects of Black and Latino Representation
and Minority Population Proportions
on NAACP and NHLA Scorecards
Cooperation/
Compatibility
Tacit NonCooperation
Independence
Conflict/
Competition
NAACP
Scorecard
NHLA
Scorecard
NAACP
Scorecard
NHLA
Scorecard
NAACP
Scorecard
NHLA
Scorecard
Black Rep
Positive
Positive
Positive
No Effect
Positive
Negative
Latino Rep
Positive
Positive
No Effect
Positive
Negative
Positive
Proportion
Black
Positive
Positive
Positive
No Effect
Positive
Negative
Proportion
Latino
Positive
Positive
No Effect
Positive
Negative
Positive
Repstv.
Population
Two Questions
regarding Voting patterns
• Degree to which descriptive representation, partisan
affiliation, racial/ethnic constituency and class affect
voting patterns
• Most important of the two (here):
Degree to which racial and ethnic descriptive
representation leads to support that crosses
racial/ethnic groups
Design
• 104th – 108th U.S. House Members Ratings
• NAACP and NHLA Scorecards as Dependent variables
Limitations of these
Limitations of alternative measures
• Independent Variables
– Race/ethnicity of legislator
– Party Affiliation (Republican dummy variable)
– District Demographics
• Racial Composition
• Social and Economic Indicators (urbanization, poverty, income, education)
– Interactions between Party and Race/Ethnicity
Estimates of NAACP and NHLA Scorecard Ratings,
104th through the 108th Congresses
[abbreviated Table]
104th
105th Congress
106th Congress
107th Congress
108th Congress
Independent Variables
NAACP
NAACP
NHLA
NAACP
NHLA
NAACP
NHLA
NAACP
NHLA
Black
Representative
28.40***
(3.73)
11.45**
(1.44)
16.62**
(4.00)
10.72**
(4.00)
15.09**
(3.40)
12.52**
(2.78)
14.49**
(2.90)
8.93***
(2.38)
5.36
(3.70)
Black Rep X
Party
-23.04**
(8.81)
-5.80
(10.09)
-14.19
(10.45)
-22.25
(14.65)
-23.49
(12.46)
-18.03
(9.94)
-16.50
(10.76)
N/A
N/A
Latino
Representative
12.56*
(5.01)
.23
(4.59)
-1.04
(5.07)
3.45
(5.22)
11.57**
(4.43)
12.06**
(3.57)
11.19**
(3.88)
5.44
(2.96)
2.25
(4.62)
Latino Rep
X Party
-7.42
(11.40)
17.95*
(8.60)
28.71**
(8.99)
10.31
(8.81)
12.19
(7.49)
-10.92
(6.92)
-5.60
(7.66)
-6.65
(4.77)
3.52
(7.52)
Republican
-32.94***
(1.50)
-67.12**
(1.44)
-62.50**
(1.50)
-49.31**
(1.53)
-67.77**
(1.30)
-55.78**
(1.07)
-56.76**
(1.15)
-54.46**
(0.95)
-72.35**
(1.48)
Rep
Party
Estimates of NAACP and NHLA Scorecard Ratings,
104th through the 108th Congresses
Excluding Descriptive Representation Variables
[abbreviated Table]
104th
108th
107th
106th
105th
Independent Variables
Party
and
Population
Interactions
NAACP
NAACP
NHLA
NAACP
NHLA
NAACP
NHLA
NAACP
NHLA
Republican
-29.07***
(2.43)
66.78**
(2.31)
-5.98***
(2.45)
-4.17***
(2.45)
-6.44***
(2.14)
-5.45***
(1.70)
-5.53***
(1.84)
-4.07***
(1.45)
-6.65***
(2.26)
Party X Prop.
Black
-14.63
(12.56)
-22.11
(11.85)
-31.74*
(12.47)
-29.49*
(12.86)
-30.08**
(11.20)
-24.87**
(9.03)
-28.49**
(9.31)
-2.52***
(7.68)
-19.00
(12.07)
Party X Prop.
Latino
4.55
(15.68)
19.50
(13.45)
4.77
(14.92)
-30.90*
(15.33)
1.34
(13.35)
-7.44
(10.84)
-10.59
(11.81)
-2.79
(9.12)
-1.04
(13.88)
Party X Prop.
Foreign
Born
-44.24*
(22.54)
-6.08
(20.59)
-1.57
(22.65)
38.55
(22.43)
-12.15
(19.53)
-23.94
(16.52)
-14.25
(18.14)
-33.46*
(14.42)
-35.15
(22.20)
Summary of Findings
on Black-Latino MCs’ Voting
in Congress on NAACP & NHLA
•
Importance of representatives’ political party affiliation (re)affirmed
•
Racial background of representative matters (beyond party); is clearest for Blacks,
modestly for Latino MCs
•
Absence of independent effects of districts’ racial/ethnic composition
(though evidence of racial ‘backlash’)
•
Little support for ‘class-based’ interpretation (i.e., impact of indicators of income,
education, poverty)
•
* Some degree of heightened support across minority groups, but not uniform *
Some General Implications
considering mass v. elite analyses:
* Different findings when
considering:
• cooperation vs conflict is more complicated than usually understood.
• elites’ relations (two types of elites) vs mass attitudes
• national versus local (‘scope’)
* Latinos’ views, Blacks’ views, Whites’ views of importance, and types of
issues
* Race and Representation – findings question the view minority
representatives not essential to adequate minority representation
* American multi-ethnic pluralism & democracy
Indeed multi-dimensional, more so than typically acknowledged
Impact of institutions, and various actors in different arenas
Whites’ and Latinos’ (Mexicans’) Views of
“What it means to be fully American in the eyes of most Americans”
(% saying ‘very important,’ in LNS and CCES)
Perceptions of
‘Ethnocultural’ Americanism
70.60%
59.10%
80%
12.30%
3.60%
60%
40%
20%
17.10%
43.90%
37.60%
0%
20%
83.70%
Whites
40%
60%
Mexican
80%
100%
English
Mexican
American Born
Christian
Whites
White
Policy Typology
Canon (1999):
Directly racial
(explicitly)
Race
Partly racial
(implicit)
Non-racial
Class and race
Also, procedural/opportunity vs outcomes orientation
Party/Class
(and/or..?)
Bill Sponsorship by Type (Racial, Part Racial, and Non-)
by Black, Latino, and White MCs
(103rd Congress – Data from Canon 1999)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Racial
Part Racl
Non Racl