Race and Ethnicity in Presidential Campaign Rhetoric, 1964-2004

This dissertation traces presidential rhetoric regarding race and ethnicity from 1964 to 2004 to determine why presidents rarely promote redistributive racial policies. Analysis shows that after the civil rights era, presidents struggled to appeal to their various coalitions with redistributive rhetoric. Presidents won when they used racial and ethnic rhetoric to back appeals to racial resentments. During the 1950s, presidents argued that civil rights reforms were needed to protect America's image and quell domestic tension and Lyndon Johnson helped pass relevant reforms in 1964. However, in 1965, he used race-neutral rhetoric to address economic and educational inequality to maintain appeal among moderate whites. During the 1970s, Republicans established a strategy to harness the resentments of whites and white ethnics through racially coded messages. Nixon used the term "ethnicity" to back the message that Americans, though diverse, reject redistributive policies like welfare, busing, and affirmative action. These appeals were the first time presidents used the word ethnicity to refer to domestic political groups. The strategy was successful. Republicans who used more racial and ethnic rhetoric gained higher approval. In contrast, Democrats who used more racial and ethnic rhetoric had lower approval ratings, even though presidents from both parties used similar words to contextualize race and ethnicity. Republicans refined the strategy during the 1980s. Ronald Reagan expanded this framework by appealing to Latinos and using it to support his plan to dismantle civil rights reforms, public education, and welfare. By 1992, George H.W. Bush argued that racial inequality no longer needed legislative fixes and that racism was a problem that primarily impacted foreign countries. In 1996, Bill Clinton adopted Republican strategies and won re-election -- a first for a Democrat during this period. By focusing on presidential campaigns rhetoric, this analysis helps explain why presidents rarely address racial inequality. Presidents fail to sway public opinion so they craft appeals to win elections. Regardless of a candidate's party, support for redistributive racial policies fails to win votes because these appeals do not attract to centrist voters. Today, presidents use either coded racial appeals framed through egalitarian language or they avoid race altogether.