In the weeks since Newark, New Jersey’s Democratic mayor Cory Booker admitted he found the early attack ads of this general election cycle to be “nauseating” and that, in implicit contrast to President Obama, he saw the public benefits of private equity firms like Bain Capital, his comments have been used as a Republican fundraising tool and excoriated by liberal critics. While many analysts have focused on the efficacy of Obama’s Bain Capital offensive or debated the merits of surrogates openly critiquing the candidates they support, it is important to also consider the advantages and disadvantages of being a politician who brands himself as politically transcendent.

When we refer to political transcendence in the American context, we often mean racial transcendence, particularly the ability of minority candidates to appeal to voters beyond their racial or ethnic community. Scholars have been debating the utility of racially transcendent political campaigns since the 1970s, when political scientist Charles Hamilton urged Democratic candidates to deracialize their campaign platforms. Hamilton was concerned that white voters would defect to the Republican Party because they found the racial rhetoric of the Democratic Party to be too heavy-handed. By casting a progressive platform in racially transcendent terms, he argued that Democrats would be able to unite a rainbow coalition around issues that would benefit everyone, including blacks.

Booker himself gained national prominence as part of a fresh, young cohort of African American politicians who put their own spin on deracialization. They have been unafraid to challenge the orthodoxy of the civil rights establishment that dominated black electoral politics for a generation. Their embrace of pragmatic, market-based remedies for social inequality and their rhetorical de-emphasis of racial issues has a special appeal beyond the African American community, in which many had grown weary of perceived stridency of activists and elected officials who wore their racial politics on their sleeves.

Much of the scholarly work on deracialization has focused on the impact of such deracialized campaigns on voter behavior or whether deracialized politicians proved to be more effective officeholders. While this has certainly been a worthwhile path of inquiry, there are other important facets to study. Young, deracialized black politicians often seek to be post-partisan in addition to being post-racial. These politicians were as inspired by Bill Clinton and his ability to triangulate issues as they were by early practitioners of deracialization like Tom Bradley and Doug Wilder. In fact, appearing to transcend partisanship may actually help burnish a politician’s post-racial credentials. Showing some independence from the Democratic Party may help prove that a deracialized candidate is not beholden to traditional black interests, still heavily identified with the Democratic Party.

Post-partisanship, though, may be an even more difficult ideal to pursue than post-racialism. While black candidates have ridden race-neutral platforms through the glass ceilings of high elective office in recent years, many scholars have opined that American politics is in an era of increasing party polarization. From the Tea Party forcing a rightward shift in the Republican Party to the high profile defeats or retirements of many centrist Democratic and Republican members of Congress, there is often little incentive for politicians of either party to work across the aisle. Those who try may find their efforts thwarted and their electoral futures jeopardized.

Post-partisan politicians may also find themselves at odds with their partisan bases, just as deracialized politicians have sometimes found themselves at odds with African American constituents who seem to prefer some acknowledgment of racialized interests. If post-partisan politicians spend too much time trying to charm voters on the other end of the partisan or ideological spectrum, they may end up alienating more voters in their base than they gain on the other side.

As a rising presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama highlighted his bipartisan work as a Democratic state senator in a Republican controlled legislature. He even touted his ethics work with conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) in the U.S. Senate. Since becoming President (and especially since Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress), he has had to contend with a Republican caucus that is firm in its opposition to his agenda. Those experiences have tempered President Obama’s enthusiasm for bipartisanship and probably informed, to some degree, his willingness to exploit any weakness in Mitt Romney’s background—even if it makes other Democrats a little queasy.

This grim reality of trying to govern and gain reelection in the most hyperpartisan environment in recent memory collided with Booker’s rosy partisan transcendence when he spoke out about attack ads in May. Booker can afford to be bipartisan because his electoral campaigns have heretofore been non-partisan and his biggest political fights have been with other Democrats. Obama does not have that luxury; he must make a strongly partisan attack. The negative reaction from the left to Booker’s comments, though, leaves many wondering if Booker can afford to be post-partisan much longer, either.

Recommended Reading

Gillespie, Andra, ed. 2010. Whose Black Politics? Cases in Post-Racial Black Leadership. Provides a theoretical overview of young, deracialized, black politicians and illuminates their successes and challenges using case studies of ten leading black politicians of the 2000s.

Charles V. Hamilton. 1977. “De-Racialization: Examination of a Political Strategy.” First World. March/April: 3-5. Articulates Hamilton’s original deracialization proposal.

Joseph McCormick, II and Charles E. Jones. 1993. “The Conceptualization of Deracialization: Thinking Through The Dilemma.” In Dilemmas of Black Politics, ed. Georgia Persons, p. 66-84. A chapter that outlines the normative implications of deracialization from a political science perspective.

Carol A. Pieranuzzi and John D. Hutcheson. 1996. “The Rise and Fall of Deracialization: Andrew Young As Mayor and Gubernatorial Candidate.” In Race, Politics, and Governance in the United States, ed. Huey L. Perry, p. 96-106. Uses the case study of Andrew Young’s failed 1990 gubernatorial bid to highlight normative concerns with deracialized political candidates’ balance between reaching out to non-black voters while maintaining strong relationships within the African American community.

Alexandra Starr. 2002. “We Shall Overcome, Too.” Business Week. July 15. Provides a short synopsis of young black politicians and their neoliberal vision.

Andra Gillespie is in political science at Emory University. She is the editor of and a contributor to The New Black Politician: Cory Booker, Newark, and Post-Racial America.