Table Of ContentINTRODUCTION
One ofthe greatest Americans ofthe last century, W.E.B. DuBois, once
said that the problem ofthe twentieth century was the color line. We can
extend this insightful comment, for this color line is still in many ways
the problem ofthe twenty-first century. Indeed, virtually every week, the
national news media report on some type of debate or conflict over is-
sues of race, ethnicity, racism, or immigration in the United States.
At the center of these issues are white Americans, and especially elite
white men. This book is about this rather neglected group of white
Americans. Surprisingly enough, the views, perspectives, and proclivi-
ties of this group have received relatively little detailed attention in the
research literature or in popular magazines and periodicals. Indeed, we
know considerably more about the views of ordinary white men and
women than we do about the white men in the local, regional, and na-
tional elites.
As we were writing this introduction, news programs were report-
ing on highly controversial remarks made by Trent Lott, the former
leader of the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate, and once one of the
most powerful white men at the very top of the U.S. elite. Remarking
nostalgically on Senator Strom Thurmond's run for president in 1948 as
an outspoken segregationist, Lott said that the people of Mississippi
voted for Thurmond and that "we're proud of him. And if the rest ofthe
WHITE MEN ON RACE
country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems
over all these years either." Lott soon apologized for this and earlier re-
marks supportive of Thurmond, who had run under the banner of "Seg-
regation Forever." Soon Lott was also apologizing for other actions such
as his cozying up to neo-confederate groups, and for his votes against ex-
tending the Voting Rights Act.' Somewhat belatedly, the white-domi-
nated mass media linked their discussions to the fact that many in the
Republican Party had long catered to the racial views of white voters to
garner support. In the debates over Lott's remarks, however, it became
clear that many white men, among many others, did not agree with his
remarks or with the Republican Party's often racialized strategy to se-
cure white votes. Though some leading white officials said they thought
Lott did not mean what he said, eventually many white leaders tardily
censured his remarks as unacceptable, including President George W.
Bush. Clearly worried about the impact on moderate voters' opinion,
many Republicans moved to prevent Lott from becoming Senate major-
ity leader, and Lott withdrew.
While only a few white leaders have so far used this incident as an
occasion to call for aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws and new
efforts to end systemic racial discrimination in the United States, a num-
ber ofthe nation's white leaders did go beyond condemning Lott's nos-
talgic remarks to censure the racialized strategies that many conservative
white Republicans and other conservatives have used to try to win over
white voters. Thus, former president Bill Clinton spoke out strongly
against Lott's remarks, and further noted that many Republicans have
"tried to suppress black voting, they've ran on the Confederate flag in
Georgia and South Carolina." He added, "Look at their whole record. He
embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back-
roads every day."'^
Over time, white commentators in the mass media gave Lott mixed
reviews. Three days after Lott's comments, for example, columnist
Robert Novak made a comment that was typical of some early assess-
ments: "I don't think he was at all serious, and I don't even think we
should dwell on it." It took a few more days for the Lott remarks to get
critical reviews in most major national newspapers and on major tele-
vision news programs. Several white commentators deserve credit for
their critical analyses of Lott's actions early on. One of the first colum-
INTRODUCTION
nists to examine the story critically was Salon.com columnist Joe Cona-
son, who suggested that "the attitude that ignores or downplays Lott's re-
marks is what used to be called 'institutional racism.' "^ Clearly, such
critical assessments of Senator Lott's racialized remarks and actions in-
dicate that there is still significant debate within the white male elite over
how to discuss and handle the continuing reality of racial prejudice and
discrimination in the United States. In this incident we see that numer-
ous white men disagree with the subtly or overtly racist actions and strat-
egies of yet other whites, and will indeed speak out about them. Clearly,
there is diversity of opinion within the white male elite on racial matters.
As we will see in the chapters that follow, the nearly one hundred re-
spondents in our sample provide much insight into how white men in
the upper reaches of U.S. society think about a significant range of racial
issues. While only a few are from the top echelons of the national elite,
most are powerful or infiuential men, at least in their local communities.
Moreover, while they share the views and opinions of ordinary white
Americans on many racial issues, they often seem more complex and nu-
anced in their views. Most also differ in that they have a greater ability to
shape community and national views on racial matters than do most
Americans. We will also see that, as was the case among the prominent
whites debating the Trent Lott episode, there is significant diversity in
their views and understanding of racial matters. One significant find-
ing is that almost none of our respondents share Trent Lott's nostalgia
for a time of legal segregation and blatantly racist discrimination. They
therefore demonstrate that there has been a major shift in this regard
among whites in the upper reaches of U.S. society. Many of them seem
critical of the openly racist past and view the move away from the era of
legal segregation in positive terms. Indeed, numerous respondents are
willing to take, at least some of the time, interpretive positions contrary
to the white majority's views on racial matters. Still, as we will also see,
many of these men are now hesitant about, or opposed to, aggressive
efforts to continue in the direction of eradicating racial inequality. And
only a handful, albeit a significant handful, report that they have spoken
out routinely and aggressively against the forms of racial prejudice and
discrimination that they encounter in their daily lives. In our view, this
latter group of white men suggests the direction in which the country's
white population and leadership now need to move.
