I wrote Governing with Words because there was, and remains, a palpable fear and uneasiness in government for politicians to engage in policy discussions that specifically address racial injustice and racial inequality in America. Many were surprised by these claims in 2016, given that we were living through the administration of the first black president. I can remember Ta-Nehisi Coates, a writer for the Atlantic, calling me back in 2012, more than four years before the book was published and when I was at the beginning stages of collecting data for the project. He was interested in President Obama’s discussions of race. I told him, much to my chagrin, that my research had revealed that in the first couple of years in office, Obama did not speak as frequently about race as his democratic predecessors. My remarks would later appear in the Atlantic and then be recycled in several newspaper outlets and discussed on major television news networks. The reception of the book still clings to this narrative.

Although the topic was intriguing and sensational at the time, I should say that Governing with Words was never just about how one man, President Obama, spoke about race, but rather how all federal politicians avoided making explicit references to race. This lack of discussion in government during a period of progressive thought created missed opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities to have their political grievances addressed in congressional floor speeches, policy debates, and executive statements—all of which change the substance of policy outcomes. Given these missed opportunities, Melanye Price asks how we deal with black voters’ desire for descriptive and substantive representation. I answer that we must implore politicians, through political activism and electoral demands, to speak about the social conditions of black America, which inevitably leads to the undeniable acknowledgment that inequality still exists. After such imploring, other politicians must engage in this exchange to discuss and evaluate policy solutions. Although one person can start a conversation, he or she cannot sustain it.

Unfortunately, not all discussions regarding race are favorable or flattering. Price recognizes this duality and astutely asks about the societal implications that negative political rhetoric can have on race relations. She is worried, and rightly so, that politicians’ negative discussions of race can lead to actions against minority groups. Her concern is amplified by the belligerent racial remarks made in the Trump era. The antidote to such vitriolic hate is the openness that comes from publicizing this information to the world.

My theory of discursive governance argues for a continuous conversation about race—not a monologue. Thus, when President Trump, or any politician for that matter, states that brown and black countries such as Haiti and El Salvador are “shit-holes,” Mexican immigrants are rapists, or the first black president was not born in the United States, he cannot simply offer this rhetoric in the public sphere and run into the shadows, never to be heard from again and his message left unaddressed. Politicians must endure constant interaction with the media and the American people, allowing the public to reflect on these words and offer a response that pushes back against such hate. This back-and-forth with our elected officials allows the American people to consider who we are as a nation and what we need to become. The political discussion on race, both uplifting and at times degrading, is the barometer to assess our progress. My hope is that Governing with Words will always serve as a reminder of this point.