Introduction
The article assesses the contribution two predominant political parties in the United States (US) have made in enhancing the well-being of the country’s racial and ethnic minorities. The Democratic and Republican Parties have strongly claimed that they have enacted policies to benefit disadvantaged groups. However, the claims have been based on political proclamations rather than a solid and systematic pragmatic assessment. The omission poses a challenge, given that democracy is grounded on the voting public’s ability to gauge the ruling party’s receptiveness. The article by Hajnal and Horowitz evaluates the claims made by the Democrats and Republicans. The researchers collected data for the study based on yearly income, poverty, and unemployment changes over the last half-century for all racial and ethnic groups in the US. The findings indicate that under Democratic regimes, racial and ethnic minorities in the country managed to attain better well-being while they suffered losses under Republican administrations.
Measuring the Well-Being of Different Racial Groups
The research into the well-being of different racial groups in the US was measured using a simple and relatively new approach. Hajnal and Horowitz indicate that the measurement strategy entailed three main steps (104). The starting point involved categorizing core ethnic and racial groups in American society and outlining their well-being using impartial, experiential procedures. The last step encompassed linking the comparative advancement of the ethnic and racial groups under the different political party administrations. Hajnal and Horowitz argue that the measurement strategy is broadly used in many comparative works that evaluate the government’s responsiveness to the electorate’s demands (104). In addition, the test can be applied to virtually all groups or sets of groups regardless of their democratic setting.
In assessing the well-being of different racial groups in the US, the research focused on the primary measures of the economy, including poverty, income levels, and unemployment. Hajnal and Horowitz indicate the need to appreciate non-economic factors’ influence on life changes (104). In this case, the researchers preferred to include education and arrest records. The researchers stated that they desired to find that the different types of outcomes collectively point to one direction such that the results boost the understanding of the comparative effect of different governing administrations. Therefore, the research involves contrasting races and party politics in the US, specifically focusing on the well-being of different racial and ethnic groups under Democratic and Republican presidents (Hajnal and Horowitz 104). The dependent variables were derived from the economic and social outcomes. The outcomes were evaluated using mean family income, mean and median household income, the overall family poverty rate in each racial and ethnic group, and the adult unemployment rate for the separate demographic groups.
In addition, non-economic indicators comprised part of the dependent variables with a particular focus on criminal justice, employment, and health. Criminal justice was crucial because of the high crime rate connected to the US black population. The researchers collected data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) through the organization’s yearly publications of the Uniform Crime Reports. The specific measures entailed the adult homicide arrest rate, the overall arrest rate for all adults, and the juvenile homicide arrest rate (all per 1,000 residents) (Hajnal and Horowitz 104). Data to measure educational outcomes was collected on the proportion of adults with a four-year college degree and the fraction of adults with high school education. Data on health outcomes was based on the infant mortality rate (per 1,000 births) and life expectancy (measured in years) (Hajnal and Horowitz 104). The education and health data were obtained from the Bureau of the Census reports on the current population survey.
The research involves numerous independent variables but was majorly centered on presidential partisanship. Hajnal and Horowitz indicate that the numerical figure one represented the Democratic administration for all years it was in power, while the Republican administration was represented by a zero (104). The researchers needed to catch up on the measure of presidential control by one year, given that it takes time for the economy to feel the effect of a new president. Given that the presidency cannot singularly impact the well-being of different groups in society, the research integrated two other independent variables, including Congress and the courts, which also have an impact on influencing racial outcomes. The variables were adjusted depending on whether the Democrats were the majority in the House and the Senate. Hajnal and Horowitz further conducted tests to asses alternate tests the share of Democrats in each arm of legislation along with the median political score in each body (105). They further adjusted the testing model to account for the role of government division and partisan polarization.
The test on the impact of the court system was conducted by evaluating different measures of court philosophy and partisanship. In conducting the alternate tests, the researcher added approximations of the median ideology of the Supreme Court. They assessed the impact of other federal courts by incorporating an annual measure of the ratio of all active US Court of Appeals judges chosen by a Democratic president. All court and Congress variables are lagged one year to account for the time changes would take to take effect, just like in the presidential case. Hajnal and Horowitz state the need to study various non-political factors (104). The researchers considered oil to be the most unpredictable and economically perilous commodity.
Oil is considered to be beyond the control of American political actors. Therefore, the researchers adjusted the model to factor in the annual increase in the actual price of oil based on the data derived from the Federal Reserve Bank. Hajnal and Horowitz indicate that changes in family income and other aspects of well-being were accounted for, given the sensitive nature of changes in workforce participation (104). Therefore, they used data collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to control for the yearly change in the percentage of adults in the labor force. Additional fundamental economic forces were accounted for using the current rate of inflation and the lagged median income; the alternate tests conducted included changes in GDP.
The researchers acknowledge that several other constant variations may sway the comparative well-being of the racial and ethnic minority groups. An example is the rising divorce rates that are connected to educational outcomes. Typical divorce cases mean that more Americans are having children later in life or not at all, which has constantly reduced the average size of families (Cross and Pruysers 490). Other factors that could have been included in the analysis involve the effect of globalization on American economic wealth.
Authors’ Research Conclusions and Voting Behavior
The research mainly focused on analyzing data on the well-being of African Americans. The research findings indicate that African Americans experienced significant gains under Democratic presidents on every primary economic indicator. However, the black population incurred huge losses or did not realize a change to their well-being under Republicans. African Americans realized a significant and substantial increase in income by an average of $895 annually under Democrats, but the growth under Republicans averaged only $142 annually (Hajnal and Horowitz 106). The change in poverty rates represented a significant change, with African Americans reporting an average decline in the poverty rate of 2.41 points annually under Democratic presidents (Hajnal and Horowitz 106). The poverty level increased by 0.15 points every year under Republicans. The African American unemployment rate went down by about 0.36 points yearly under Democratic presidents, while under the Republicans, it increased by over a third (Hajnal and Horowitz 106). The difference in unemployment was the most remarkable change noted in the well-being of the black community.
The findings for Latinos are similar to the conclusions from the African Americans. Data shows that Latinos benefit from Democratic leadership and often endure losses under Republicans. The population experiences considerable income growth every year at an average of $628 under Democrats, while the incomes decreased by an average of $197 per annum under Republicans (Hajnal and Horowitz 110). The Latinos further experienced a decline in the average poverty rate by about half a point yearly under Democrats. However, poverty grew at an average annual rate of about a third of a point under Republicans. In addition, the annual unemployment rate for Latinos declines by an average of a one-quarter point under Democrats but increases by about a one-third point annually under Republicans (Hajnal and Horowitz 110). The conclusions side with the favorable Democrats liberal policy, just like for the African Americans.
The results for Asian Americans point to the same direction of gains. Under Democrats, Asian Americans realized an annual growth in family income by just about $1,000, while under Republicans, they realized a yearly increase of about $142 (Hajnal and Horowitz 111). Therefore, in the Democratic years, Asian Americans managed to close the income gap with whites, but no progress was made in the Republican years. Similarly, Asian Americans realized annual declines in poverty under Democrats by 0.81 points than they could manage under Republicans by 0.15 points (Hajnal and Horowitz 111). Asian Americans have a more advantaged economic position than all racial and ethnic minority groups.
The remarkable gains that racial and ethnic minorities encounter under the Democratic Party rule make it necessary to evaluate whether they were accomplished at the cost of the whites and their well-being. The findings indicate that the whites realized average annual well-being changes under both parties’ leadership (Hajnal and Horowitz 111). Surprisingly, the whites realized better incomes, lower poverty rates, and reduced unemployment rates under Democrats as opposed to Republican presidents.
The general indication is that the Democratic presidential leadership improved the well-being of America’s racial minorities, while Republican administrations tended to widen the gap between whites and minorities. The conclusions on the black population are connected to their close connection to the Democratic Party. Hajnal and Horowitz indicate that African Americans benefit more due to the Democratic Party’s racially liberal agenda (106). Other minority groups also stand to gain from the Democrats’ policy, especially Latinos and, to a lesser extent, Asian Americans. Therefore, the racial and ethnic minority groups have always voted for Democratic Party candidates. The people of color felt that the Democratic Party could address their issues and challenges, and the majority consistently voted for the party’s candidates. Hajnal and Horowitz indicate that the voting pattern was expected due to the “bottom-up vision” policy aimed at social progress developed by the Democratic Party in the 1960s (111). However, the policy was understood as a means to favor minority groups, causing the white and middle-class voters to adopt the Republican Party ideologies. Since then, whites have been voting mainly for Republican presidents.
The Rationale for the Research Conclusions
The outcome of the research on voting patterns in the United States indicates that racial and ethnic minorities attain better material well-being under the Democratic Party regime than the Republican Party administration. The research conclusions are connected to the liberal policy of the Democrats that accommodates the disadvantaged groups’ interests. The patterns in the well-being of racial and ethnic minorities support the perspective that American society involves contestation between two political commands. One party is established on racial equality and transformation, while the other is restrained along racial lines (Cross and Pruysers 490). As a result, the Democratic leadership has managed to attain notable and helpful improvements for the minority groups as it is more inclined to a racially transformative direction.
Even though the Republican Party has enacted policies to shore up its support, it has not worked in its favor. Hajnal and Horowitz state that the Democrats’ policies have worked for the party (112). The same has been supported by prior findings by Larry Bartels and Douglas Hibbs, who established that the Democratic Party policies have been more successful than the Republicans’ propositions (Lowi et al. 56). The patterns observed are also connected to the capacity of the Democrats to implement various measures defined by a racial agenda. Some of the policies included the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and Truman’s executive order to have inclusion in America’s armed forces (Lowi et al. 58). In addition, people of color have seen a more remarkable improvement in their material quality of life under the Democratic presidential administration because of the retribution efforts touching on spending and tax policies. The retribution has been manifested through Clinton’s expansion of earned income tax credit, the APSA Taskforce on Inequality in American Democracy, and Johnson’s war on poverty.
Conclusion
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the dominant political parties in the United States. The country is inhabited by people from diverse racial and ethnic groups, particularly African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Whites. There has been no empirical data to support the narrative that racial and ethnic groups strongly support one political party over the other. The research was based on providing practical support to the theory using different variables to test various hypotheses. The findings indicate that racial and ethnic minorities realized significant gains under Democrats. However, their well-being either declined or stagnated under the Republicans. Therefore, the groups have supported mainly Democratic presidents. While the whites have supported Republican presidents, their well-being was better under Democrats. The whites continued to experience better incomes and lower poverty and unemployment rates. The Democratic Party has an established racial policy agenda under which it managed to enhance the well-being of minorities alongside that of whites, all at the same time.
Works Cited
Cross, William, and Scott Pruysers. “Sore Losers? The Costs of Intra-Party Democracy.” Party Politics, vol. 25, no. 4, 2017, pp. 483–94, Web.
Hajnal, Zoltan L., and Jeremy D. Horowitz. “Racial Winners and Losers in American Party Politics.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 12, no. 1, Mar. 2014, pp. 100–18, Web.
Lowi, Theodore J., et al. American Government: Power and Purpose. W.W. Norton and Company, 2019.