Over the course of the past several decades, the overall composition of the American urban population has undergone dramatic changes. These changes are commonly attributed to immigration, suburbanization, internal migration, and the aging of population, just to name a few. The new groups are replacing the old groups, but the change does not end at that. Demographic shifts mean alterations in the lifestyle and behavior as well as the social, political, and economic choices of residents. Amidst the ongoing transformation, American cities find themselves at a turning point. Urbanism in the United States has already had its host of challenges: the juxtaposition of suburbs and inner cities, the uneven distribution of resources, and problematic power dynamics. The question arises as to how the new multiethnic and multiracial city will further affect the urban politics and relationships between social groups. This essay argues that the new composition of the American urban population requires cities to acknowledge the emerging problems or pay heavy costs.
New demographic trends are complicating the familiar distinctions made about the American urban environment. For the entirety of the post-war era, urbanists have observed the growing gap between suburbs and inner cities. It was a common consensus to think that Black people and other racial minorities were residing in cities while Whites would flee to the outskirts where they would lead a more prosperous and peaceful existence. Today, there is a need for a new typology because the key distinction is not between Black and White but between immigrants and natives. In the last two decades, the population growth in cities such as Los Angeles, Houston, San Diego, Miami, and Dallas has been almost purely attributed to international migration. American cities are becoming as multiracial and multiethnic as ever, which makes the social and political dynamics within them intricate and challenging to conceptualize.
While today the racial and ethnic diversity of the US is seen as almost a given, an indispensable part of the country’s culture and heritage, immigrants have not always been fully accepted by American society. The struggles faced by newcomers were seen as an opportunity for politicians back in the 1960s and 1970s. Seizing the opportunity to convert vulnerable immigrants to new voters led to the emergence of the so-called political machines. As Judd and Swanstrom explain, political machines formed mutually beneficial relationships with immigrants. Emerged in the absence of effective local governments, they helped newcomers assimilate by offering resources for upward social mobility and sponsoring leisure activities such as sports games, picnics, and other events. Today, political machines are not as common as they used to be: they have grown local and incidental.
While party machines might have indeed become a matter of the past, politicians still persist in their attempts to use race and ethnicity as a vehicle of gaining more votes. Back in the 1960s, the common approach to immigrant and minority groups was that they were expected to give up at least a part of their ethnic and racial identities as they were assimilating. However, a few decades later, that approach did not prove to be quite consistent with reality. Wolfinger’s mobilization theory in particular theorizes that ethnic ties have the potential to override partisanship. In other words, even communities that are showing a high degree of assimilation remain prone to ethnic voting – backing up candidates of the same race, origin, or ethnicity. As a result, politicians now gained another point of leverage and a way to reach out to wider voter bases.
Moreno and Rae provide a quite telling example of the Cuban vote in the 1980s. With the majority of Cubans being first-generation immigrants, it was only logical to expect them to lean toward Democratic policies. However, in the 18th district Congressional district elections, Cubans overwhelmingly sided with the Republican party that was anti-comminist. Democrats, on the other hand, sided with Fidel Castro, which caused the contempt of Cuban voters. The 18th district Congressional district elections themselves took place in Miami Dade – an ethnically diverse area with no consensus on the most essential political and social issues between residents belonging to different groups.
Such situations used to and still do push politicians to make racial and ethnic issues part if not the focus of their agenda. On the one hand, the need to appeal to a multiethnic, multiracial population means that politicians have to understand these communities and how to serve them better. On the other hand, however, strong racial and ethnic division within a district opens a gateway to political manipulations. Candidates resort to nitpicking each other’s agendas and political histories in search of problematic artefacts and behaviors instead of concentrating on problems at hand.
Interestingly enough, the growing diversity of the major American cities has an unexpected side to it. While these cities are diverse on the whole, they are internally segregated: each member of a particular racial group stays close to others. Logan and Mollenkopf state that in some of the most racially diverse cities such as New York and Los Angeles, it is actually quite challenging to find a neighborhood where these demographics would be mixed. Cruz contributes to by stating that these days, urban conflicts often mean interethnic conflicts, or conflicts between racial minorities because middle-class, White Americans typically live in the suburbs. Cruz shifts his focus from voter behavior such as racial and ethnic voting that has already been extensively researched to the purposive relations between political elites, using blacks and Puerto-Ricans as an example. As mentioned previously in this paper, there is a significant divide between immigrant and native-born populations, but the said divide does not imply that all immigrants are able or willing to unite their forces and collaborate on the political arena.
Black people and Puerto-Ricans have vastly different stories of coming to America, and there is barely anything relatable for the members of one group about the experiences of the other group. Secondly, as noted by Cruz, since a long time ago, black people in the US have been in an ambiguous position politically as both powerful and oppressed. This context of the ambiguous power status breeds further disagreement between blacks and Puerto-Ricans. It is safe to assume that the immigrant and minority populations are often internally diverse to the point of having incompatible attitudinal framework and even certain hostility toward each other.
Logan and Mollenkopf go as far as to theorize that growing diversity may be associated with increasingly high levels of segregation. For politics, this tendency may have ambiguous outcomes. On the one hand, the separation and insular existence of racial and ethnic groups are consistent with poor communication and impeded collaboration. When racial and ethnic groups do not interact, they cannot arrive at mutually beneficial decisions. On the other hand, however, segregation may compel each group to work toward better political representation. Logan and Mollenkopf justify this hypothesis by explaining that electoral strength is concentrated in particular places.
At the same time, some groups will benefit from segregation and the political leverage that it has the potential to give more than others. According to the evidence provided by Logan and Mollenkopf, black people are far more segregated than Latinos and Asians. The latter two may also refrain from associating with each other because they tend to further segregate based on religion, country of origin, and other factors. To conclude, segregation as it is unfolding at the moment means a lot of uncertainty about its ability to build stronger political representation or fail to unite minorities.
The logical question arises as to what happens when urban minorities decide to take action and reclaim power. Bloemraad, Voss, and Lee describe a rare event in which racial and ethnic minority groups overcame their differences and took their dissatisfaction to the streets. Between February and early May of 2006, more than 160 US cities were swayed in an urban march for immigrant rights. The social protest was primarily led by Latinos and joined by Asians, Africans, and even some Europeans.
From the analysis conducted by Bloemraad, Voss, and Lee, it becomes apparent that leadership in communities of color, especially in immigrant communities, is a double-edged sword. While immigrant protests do indeed raise awareness about the problems plaguing the community, some people interpret the strengthened presence of immigrants as a threat. Bloemraad, Voss, and Lee report that 2006 immigrant protests led to the formation of anti-immigrant groups among other things. The evidence suggests that minority leadership and its implications are still associated with ambiguity and uncertainty.
The election of Obama as the president of the United States in 2008 has been a significant milestone for black leadership in the country. However, as more black leaders come to prominence and find their voices on the political arena, it remains unclear what meaningful possibilities and real risks this trend may bring about. Any black leader that is elected to the office faces the challenge of governing a mixed population that is growing ever more divided. Even before the election, black candidates have to overcome difficulties that are most likely to be unknown to their white counterparts. Hajnal notes that today, white voters are still apprehensive of black leadership because they suppose that leaders of color will only favor and meet the needs of their own racial or ethnic group.
However, according to the data provided by Hajnal, after having been elected to the office once, black leaders are trusted more and experience less bias. Black challenger candidates often have a racial flair around their campaign; on the contrary, black incumbents are judged on the generic criteria such as candidate quality and political endorsements. Hajnal concludes that based on the shifts in white vote, it is safe to expect a further decline in racial division and a fundamental change in the nature of biracial politics in the US.
Nevertheless, in the light of the current events, it would not be unreasonable to tame one’s optimism in regards to how minorities are making their way through the multiethnic and multiracial urban environment. Saito addresses the state of the Asian-American communities and questions the progress that has been made in removing discrimination and other barriers. According to Saito, Asian Americans are often seen as “new whites”: social groups that have gained enough access to the social mobility mechanisms to find their place at the top of the hierarchy. However, as noted by Saito, generalizing a group as being not only assimilated but also successful may lead to the erasure and dismissal of its persistent problems.
To conclude, social forces as well as global trends such as mass migration have dramatically changed the composition of urban population in the United States. American cities have become more multiracial and multiethnic; however, the growing diversity has an unexpected side to it. While one would expect a more diverse urban environment to lead to better interconnectivity between social groups, in actuality, it may be contributing to more segregation. Politically, it means that disparate racial and ethnic groups cannot unite and collaborate to stand up for common interests. On the other hand, these common interests might not even exist in the first place because given the differences in the histories of minority groups, there might be no place for sweeping generalizations. However, not only the lack of collaboration erodes political leadership in communities of color. The United States remains wary of such leadership and does not show much trust for challenger political candidates of color. Still, there is optimism that growing diversity and acceptance will change the outlook of American urban politics.
Bibliography
- Bloemraad, Irene, Kim Voss, and Taeku Lee. “The Protests of 2006.” In Rallying for Immigrant Rights: The Fight for Inclusion in 21st Century America, edited by Kim Voss and Irene Bloemraad, 18-43. University of California Press, Oakland, 2011.
- Cruz, Jose E. “Interminority Relations in Urban Settings.” In Black and Multiracial Politics in America, edited by Marie Alex-Assensoh, Yvette, and Lawrence J. Hanks, 84-112. NYU Press, New York City, 2002.
- Hajnal, Zoltan L. “Black Incumbents and a Declining Racial Divide.” In American Urban Politics in a Global Age, edited by Paul Kantor and Dennis R Judd, 184-197. Routledge, Abingdon, 2015.
- Logan, John, and John Mollenkopf. “People and Politics in America’s Big Cities.” Issue Lab.
- Moreno, Dario, and Nicol Rae.”Ethnicity and Partnership: The Eighteenth Congressional District of Miami.” In Miami Now: Immigration, Ethnicity, and Social Change, edited by Guillermo Grenier and Alex Stepick, 187-204. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1992.
- Saito, Leland T. Race and Politics: Asian Americans, Latinos, and Whites in a Los Angeles Suburb. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998.