Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 526 pages, ISBN 0-521-80886-3, $30.00.

Paul M. Kellstedt, The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 174 pages, ISBN 0-521-82171-1, $60.00.

Carol M. Swain's book, The New White Nationalism in American: Its Challenge to Integration, is an ambitious and, in many ways, novel blend of traditional social science and social advocacy. At the outset, Swain informs the reader that this book breaks with “… the tradition of impersonal, value-free social science insofar as I do not pretend to be neutral and do not hesitate to interject many personal observations and comments into the body of the text.” She does not disappoint on this score. This nearly 500-page book combines original interviews and survey and focus group data, with Swain's reflections on a range of topics including reparations, affirmative action, racial hate crimes, and the redemptive power of religion. To Swain's credit, she also steps outside her role as a (nominally) dispassionate social scientist to offer a range of policy prescriptions near the end of her book to combat what she views as the potentially alarming growth of the White power movement. In many ways, Swain's passion for her subject is refreshing, and even commendable. Unfortunately, her passion is also the source of the principal weakness of this book: its inability to match its uncompromising rhetoric with persuasive, or even plausible, supportive evidence for readers who do not already agree with her arguments.

Although the title of the book implies that the reader will be introduced to the obscure, and at times bizarre, worldviews of an assorted variety of neo-Nazis, ex-Klansmen, Confederate sympathizers, and White supremacists, it turns out that this is only one of Swain's objectives. Much of the book also addresses Swain's examination of, and objections to, the policy of affirmative action. Indeed, most of the original data collected for this book (i.e., the survey & focus group data) are devoted to the issue of affirmative action, and not White nationalism, per se. The book is most successful, however, in its exhaustive depiction of the views of White nationalists. Swain, relying on a White assistant, collected interviews from ten relatively prominent White nationalist leaders from across the country. Perhaps the most prominent include former Klansman David Duke, and William Pierce, head of the National Alliance and author of the White supremacist book, The Turner Diaries. Swain makes a persuasive case in this part of her work as she describes the nuanced philosophy of these organizations. She points out that many in this new White power movement often see themselves as distinct from the blatantly racist organizations of the past. For example, at least some of the spokespersons interviewed for this book indicate that they reject the term “White supremacist” in favor of “White separatist” because the former implies a desire to dominate non-White races in contrast to the goal of the latter, which is “merely” physical separation (often by dividing up the territory of the U.S.).

Swain persuasively argues that this newer breed of White nationalist is savvier about the media and the limits of politically acceptable rhetoric. Her interviews and observations of nationalist Websites indicate clearly that overt calls for racial violence and (usually) derogatory references to racial minorities are a thing of the past. The more sophisticated among these organizations are actively seeking new recruits, and political influence, and rightly recognize that the cruder tactics of the past serve simply to marginalize them. To the extent that such efforts to legitimize their views are effective, Swain's concerns about the danger posed by these organizations may have some validity. Unfortunately, what is missing in this examination is convincing evidence that the reader should regard these organizations as anything more than politically impotent curiosities. Although the book is replete with fairly alarmist language about the dire threat posed by the new White nationalists, very little evidence is presented that these groups are growing in number or influencing the views of a significant number of Americans. The facts that she does report are far from persuasive. Relying on data complied by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Swain reports that from 1992 through 2000, the number of racist hate groups has increased from 300 to 554. However, a close read of this data reveals that the very year in which the number of such groups began to increase (1996) was also the year in which the SPLC changed their classification scheme to be more expansive. She does note that more precise information on membership rolls is hard to come by, but even the indirect evidence she presents (e.g., number of “hits” at various Websites, which boasts of less than impartial group leaders, etc.) is unconvincing. In the end, the reader has little reason to believe that the retooled message of these modern-day White supremacists (and their belief in rigid racial hierarchies does make this term applicable) is in fact drawing a significant number of new adherents to their movement.

In light of the dubious evidence that the new White nationalists represent a credible threat to racial harmony, it is curious that Swain adopts a surprisingly sympathetic ear to many of their core complaints. Aside from the traditional racist arguments that Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites, and genetically prone to violent and sexually irresponsible behavior—which Swain lays out in great detail before eventually rejecting—the primary target of White nationalists' complaints is the policy of affirmative action. Not surprisingly, White supremacists reject this policy as an illegitimate effort to supplant deserving Whites in prestigious occupations and at selective universities with lesser-qualified racial minorities. Swain argues that most Whites are, however, sympathetic to this charge, and the reluctance of the liberal establishment to address these concerns is one of the chief reasons she believes that the White nationalist movement has the potential to attract wide-spread support. Swain does not, however, merely argue that mainstream elites should address criticisms of affirmative actions, in order to short-circuit the recruitment efforts of White nationalists. She endorses these criticisms (absent the overt racist components). Specifically, Swain raises the following objections to affirmative action policies: They do not adequately address the problems of the “truly disadvantaged” within the minority community; they increase racial tensions by spurring resentment among Whites; they do not produce diversity and, in any case, diversity can be effectively achieved without such a “divisive” policy; beneficiaries of affirmative action are stigmatized, both by others and by themselves; they set beneficiaries up for failure by placing them in contexts for which they are unprepared and unqualified; they set up an incentive structure wherein minorities are encouraged not to try as hard (knowing that affirmative action will allow them to succeed regardless of their qualifications); and, affirmative action runs counter to the principles laid out in the Christian bible.

Swain is right in identifying affirmative action as one of the most controversial policies in contemporary America. Moreover, reasonable people can and do disagree about its desirability. What is most striking about her lengthy discussion of this issue is that, given Swain's training as a social scientist and legal scholar, she makes almost no effort to provide support for her argument. Most of her survey and focus group data from chapter 7 add nothing new to this debate, merely confirming what countless other studies have shown: Blacks and Whites differ sharply on the issue of affirmative action, with Asian Americans and Latino/a/s following somewhere between these two groups. Additionally, Swain seems only vaguely aware of the vast public opinion literature on the source of White opposition to affirmative action. For example, she fails to cite the work of the influential scholar, David Sears, whose work on racial attitudes dates from the late 1960s to the present.

Swain's specific criticisms of affirmative action, outlined above, spring in part from her ideological and religious views. This much one cannot fault her for, as many other Americans surely share these views. Still, a number of empirical claims embedded in her argument require some factual support. On this score, Swain is not convincing. For example, does affirmative action create resentment among the White working class, as Swain argues (p. 434)? Does it fail to assist the “truly disadvantaged” among the minority community (pp. 369–371)? Is affirmative action an ineffective tool for generating diversity (pp. 172–173)? Does it produce a stigma in the minds of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (pp. 174–175)? Does it create an incentive for Blacks and other minorities not to try as hard to succeed (pp. 176–179)? These are all plausible arguments and hardly original to Swain. She offers little by way of evidence for these hypotheses other than her assurances that her views are in fact correct. On the ineffectiveness of affirmative action in creating diversity, Swain writes “… it would also be foolish not to see that they have contributed to a heightened racial consciousness on campus that makes true interracial friendships difficult to maintain (p. 173).” On the sense of stigma that affirmative action is supposed to generate among beneficiaries, Swain writes, “… it doesn't take a genius to figure out how people would react in such circumstances (p. 174).” At a minimum, the reader deserves more from the author than mere assurances that their point-of-view is unassailable.

Swain makes somewhat more of an effort to address the charge that affirmative action negatively impacts the motivation to succeed, although here, too, she mostly relies on personal anecdote and a brief reference to the work of Claude Steele. Regarding Steele's work, on “stereotype threat” Swain writes, “It seems hard to believe and contrary to all common sense that a policy of racial preferences in university admission would lessen the consciousness of negative stereotypes concerning intellectual abilities on the part of those being favored (p. 177, note 97).” Thus, affirmative action should be opposed because it contributes to the perception that minorities are intellectually inadequate. As it turns out, however, Steele does not view stereotype threat as an inevitable consequence of affirmative action programs. Steele, along with colleagues Steven Spencer, Richard Nisbett, Kent Harber, and Mary Hummel, demonstrated this by designing a modest program at the University of Michigan that managed to diminish significantly the effects of stereotype threat by fostering greater interracial contact among freshmen at the university (Steele 1999). Swain also cites the observations of linguist and conservative commentator, John McWhorter, to support her contention that Black students exert less effort to achieve academic excellence because of their belief that affirmative action programs will reward mediocre performance. Unfortunately, this particular argument is undermined by Swain's own survey data. In chapter 13, she reports the results of a national survey experiment that manipulated the race of two hypothetical college applicants in the vignettes presented to her respondents. Sometimes the lesser-qualified applicant was White, and sometimes he (or she) was Black. Respondents were asked, among other things, to assess which student would likely be admitted. If, as Swain and McWhorter claim, affirmative action provides a disincentive for Black students to achieve academically, then presumably Blacks would be more apt to assume that the lesser-qualified Black would be admitted over the more-qualified White student. In fact, this is not what she finds (see p. 364). Ironically, given Swain's argument, Blacks are far more likely to believe that a lesser-qualified White applicant would be selected over a more-qualified Black applicant, rather than the reverse.

Paul M. Kellstedt's The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes addresses similar themes, but does so from a very different perspective than Swain. Of course, both books spend more than a little time focusing on attitudes about race in general, and affirmative action in particular. Kellstedt, however, adopts a more traditional social scientific posture in examining the role that the mass media have played in shaping racial attitudes over the past fifty years. He argues that, although there is a large and growing literature on the antecedents of Whites' racial attitudes, there has been surprisingly little attention devoted—empirically or theoretically—to the influence of the media. More specifically, he argues that Americans have historically adhered to two partially inconsistent values: egalitarianism and individualism. At various times throughout the last half-century, one of these values has typically occupied a more central role than the other in public opinion on racial issues. Kellstedt argues, and provides some persuasive evidence in support of the proposition, that the media represent the most proximate source for the waxing and waning of Americans' support for policies designed to assist African Americans. This occurs primarily through the relative weight the media give to egalitarian or individualistic cues in racially relevant stories.

One of the more interesting results uncovered by Kellstedt involves his analysis of media coverage of racial issue over time. Specifically, he assesses the shift in the relative influence of egalitarian and individualistic cues by designing an impressive content analysis of over 3,000 Newsweek articles from 1950–1994. Egalitarian themes are defined as articles that remind readers “… about that strain of American beliefs which emphasizes the equal worth of all people (p. 34).” Individualist cues, on the other hand, describe “… any type of government policy that discriminates against whites in its effort to help blacks… (p. 41).” In one of the book's more surprising findings, Kellstedt shows that egalitarian themes do not simply peak during the time of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, after which they quickly fade, but that they are also fairly popular during the late 1980s and early 1990s. As one might expect, Kellstedt shows that individualist cues peak during the mid-to-late 1970s, when the controversial busing policy began to be implemented throughout the nation. Perhaps counter to expectations, he finds that these cues are particularly strong during the early 1990s—just as egalitarian themes also receive significant coverage. The ascendancy of affirmative action as the preeminent racial issue, and its implications for each of the core values examined by Kellstedt, undoubtedly accounts for this similarity. In later chapters, the author links the content analysis data with aggregate level survey data to show persuasively that the former precedes (and therefore, presumably causes) the latter. Again, Kellstedt does a fine job laying out the evidence for his argument. In the end, my biggest criticisms have less to do with his thesis, and more to do with what he leaves out.

As indicated above, Kellstedt's argument seems a reasonable one, as far as it goes. One of the areas I wish he had explored more thoroughly, however, is the source of the media's fluctuating emphasis on egalitarian versus individualistic themes. After all, to argue that the media's depiction of racial attitudes significantly influences the public's support or opposition to racially targeted policies begs the question of what drives the shifts in media coverage. To the extent that Kellstedt addresses this issue, he seems ambivalent as to the role played by political elites. On the one hand, he allows for a pivotal role for elites such as Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater when discussing the fusion of welfare attitudes with attitudes about race (see p. 76). As Carmines and Stimson have argued, the stark contrasts presented by the 1964 presidential contest sent a clear signal to Americans that the Democratic Party was now the party of both social welfare liberalism and racial liberalism (Carmines and Stimson, 1989; although see Lee 2002 for an alternative perspective). On the other hand, later in chapter 3, Kellstedt interprets his results to indicate that politicians are as likely to react to shifts in public mood as they are to engender them. Regarding the decline in support for racial liberalism of the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, Kellstedt writes “… because of the timing of the conservative peak, Ronald Reagan did not create a wave of racial conservatism; he rode it… [These results] portray public opinion as a leading force and belies the myth of a fickle public being led around haphazardly by manipulative politicians (pp. 81–82).” This conclusion seems a bit premature, in light of the evidence presented. Clearly, Reagan and other conservative political elites began their efforts to influence public opinion well before 1980. Moreover, if media discussion of racial politics is not being driven by elite discourse, then what is driving it?

Another area where Kellstedt's work might have been strengthened is in its reliance on the extant literature on media influences on racial attitudes. Kellstedt's research does represent a contribution, but he often seems to ignore or underplay relevant work. For example, Frank Gilliam and Shanto Iyengar have demonstrated that local television coverage of crime stories has a racial bias and a significant impact on attitudes about crime and race (Gilliam et al., 1996; Gilliam and Iyengar, 2000; also see Iyengar 1991). Similarly, Tali Mendelberg provides extensive evidence that exposure to racially coded television news stories can powerfully prime racial attitudes with respect to candidate evaluations (Mendelberg 2001). These works are important because they provide direct evidence, in a way that Kellstedt's reliance on survey data cannot, that media frames influence public opinion on racial policies. Another scholar whose work is cited by Kellstedt is Martin Gilens. As indicated by Kellstedt, Gilens shows that attitudes about welfare are heavily influenced by the attitudes Whites have about race. In addition to his survey work, however, Gilens also spends considerable time in his book, Why Americans Hate Welfare, exploring how the news media has racialized the discussion of poverty (Gilens 1999). Although this is clearly relevant for Kellstedt's thesis, he makes no reference to this element of Gilens' research. Kellstedt's work does not merely duplicate the work of Gilens, but readers familiar with both works would have benefited from a discussion about their differences.

In many ways, The New White Nationalism and The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes provide a roadmap for what the sub-field of race and politics should strive for, and for what it is still struggling with. Swain introduces the reader to a disturbing world of racial extremists who are, perhaps not so far removed from the political mainstream. She provides a balanced and cogent analysis of this sub-culture and speculates about the implications of ignoring their views. Additionally, Swain brings to bear some of the standard tools of social scientists (e.g., surveys and focus groups) on an issue that preoccupies White nationalists, and Americans more generally. Also, she provides what is often lacking in research in this area: concrete policy suggestions. Not everyone will agree with these suggestions (and I frequently did not), but Swain's efforts both to describe the social world and to seek to improve it, represent a strategy I would like to see followed by others. Kellstedt is more restrained in the area of policy proposals, but his extensive use of multiple methods and across-time data represent the best tradition in social science. Finally, although both books at times raise more questions than they answer, they do so by addressing one of the most intractable problems in modern America. Thus, when scholarship of this sort succeeds, it has the potential not only to expand our knowledge, but also to alleviate long-standing racial inequities.