The racialized nature of the 2020 election, the rise of racial social movements, and the continuing struggles for racial equality raise important questions that I address in The Case for Identity Politics. In this book, I argue that, in contrast to calls for elected officials to distance themselves from progressive racial outreach, the current political context incentivizes them to speak forcefully about these issues. Lowndes and HoSang provide a thoughtful and thorough review of this research in this critical dialogue. They also raise important questions that require further discussion.

The Case for Identity Politics is focused on a specific debate between discussing race in a progressive manner and avoiding mentions of racially tinged topics. However, as Lowndes and HoSang rightfully identify, how candidates address race is often more nuanced. Although my work was centered around the idea that politicians who take progressive positions on racial issues may improve their standing, it is important for future research to fine-tune this analysis by exploring whether some forms of racialized outreach are more effective than others. For example, would a candidate who advocates for Black Lives Matter attract the same level of support as a candidate who champions voting rights?

Although the focus of The Case for Identity Politics was on the present political context, one of its main goals was to situate this moment in historical patterns around racialized movements in the United States. In fact, the concluding chapter begins with a discussion of the rise and fall of the relationship between Blacks and the Republican Party during the period of Reconstruction. This discussion was meant to both identify the pitfalls that political organizations face when they ignore key portions of their coalition and to demonstrate the cyclical nature of organizations’ willingness to represent Black political interests. Like Reconstruction and the period that gave rise to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, The Case for Identity Politics describes how this current political moment fits into a larger historical pattern of limited windows for Black political advancement. It also encourages politicians and activists to make the most of this moment.

Lowndes and HoSang also raise important points about the shortcomings of behavioralist research. In particular, they argue that many metrics used to approximate individual political behavior and attitudes are divorced from larger political processes. The Case for Identity Politics focuses on these metrics but only as a vehicle to better understand the impact of contextual processes on individuals’ outlooks. It is likely that systematic changes in the political system manifest themselves in changes in individuals’ public opinions. Most of the analyses in the book are centered on changes in attitudes over time, with time/context being the key independent variable.

Nonetheless, the debate around the significance of racial outreach in a turbulent period in American politics deserves more attention from a variety of fields, methodologies, and perspectives. The Case for Identity Politics should be one piece in this larger puzzle.