Race, Democracy, and the Politics of Pain: A Review of America’s New Racial Battle Lines

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization Symposium on Rogers M. Smith and Desmond King, America’s New Racial Battle Lines: Protect versus Repair (University of Chicago Press, 2024).

Alexandra Filindra 

In America’s New Racial Battle Lines: Protect v. Repair, Rogers Smith and Desmond King revisit their examination of America’s racial orders, offering a deep dive into the ideological battlegrounds defining the MAGA era and beyond. The book builds on themes from Still a House Divided and dissects the political and social landscape shaped by racial politics in the wake of the Obama and Trump presidencies. Smith and King argue that America’s racial divide today is defined by two opposing institutional and policy orders—the “Protect” and “Repair” alliances—each representing a network of narratives, actors, and policy goals that respond to perceived threats and opportunities in American society. These alliances are newer incarnations than those seen in the post-civil rights era, bearing distinctive features that reflect the impact of modern media (especially social media), demographic shifts, and evolving narratives about race and identity.

The “Protect” Alliance: A Reconfigured Conservative Reaction

Smith and King’s analysis begins by mapping the contours of the “Protect” alliance, a coalition of conservative forces brought together in reaction to the Obama-era policy shifts and racial dynamics. The roots of this alliance trace back to the Tea Party movement, which galvanized opposition to President Obama’s policies, notably the Affordable Care Act. Conservatives within the “Protect” alliance viewed Obama’s presidency as aggressively race-conscious and a sharp departure from America’s perceived European and Christian origins. To these conservatives, the cultural and demographic changes symbolized by Obama’s rise represented an existential threat to the foundations of American identity—namely, a nation rooted in the ideals of Anglo-American, Christian, patriarchal governance and market-based individualism. This sense of a disrupted national identity was further exacerbated by demographic changes and increased immigration, which the “Protect” camp views as eroding traditional American values.

The “Protect” alliance also deeply resents what it sees as the “rival constitution” proposed by progressives—an ideological shift toward diversity and inclusion, which the alliance interprets as a direct challenge to their values. As Smith and King note, this viewpoint isn’t novel; its rhetoric echoes the “Black and Red” fears of the 1920s, blending anxieties about both racial and ideological threats into a singular narrative. For example, today’s “Protect” coalition associates leftist movements with a blend of racial and anti-nationalist elements, echoing the fear of communism prevalent during the Red Scare. Though this perspective might seem outmoded in the post-Cold War landscape, Smith and King reveal that it has resonated strongly among many conservatives, especially in an era where former color-blind policies are replaced by a more explicit ascriptive focus on protecting traditional white, Christian male authority.

The policy agenda of the “Protect” alliance is a complex mix of conservative governance and culture-war issues. Policies include dismantling affirmative action, enacting draconian immigration controls, militarizing police forces, rolling back voting rights, and restricting civil rights. Symbolic “cultural outrage” projects like opposing critical race theory and curtailing LGBTQ+ rights also feature prominently. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan galvanized this alliance, providing a rallying cry that mobilized conservative elites, everyday citizens, and newly formed MAGA organizations. As Smith and King argue, Trump’s often incendiary rhetoric, amplified through social media, has spurred the rise of armed militia groups and contributed to the January 6th Capitol riot.

One notable characteristic of the “Protect” alliance is its tendency to frame itself as the righteous underdog, fighting against “anti-white” bigotry that they consider the most dangerous form of racism in modern America. This sense of victimhood has galvanized white conservatives and fostered a narrative in which they see themselves as the defenders of an embattled, virtuous tradition. Smith and King reveal that this framing has brought about a substantial shift away from color-blind conservatism toward an openly ascriptive ideology that prioritizes white, Christian, and patriarchal traditions as the backbone of American society. 

The “Repair” Alliance: Seeking Justice and Inclusion

Countering the “Protect” coalition is the “Repair” alliance. This loose coalition emerged during the Obama era and reached prominence with the viral rise of Black Lives Matter (BLM) following the 2013 death of Trayvon Martin. Smith and King trace the “Repair” alliance’s roots to the abolitionist and Reconstruction movements, mid-20th century civil rights struggles, and Black feminist activism. Unlike the “Protect” alliance, the “Repair” coalition sees in America’s racial history a debt that the nation has yet to pay, advocating for transformative policies to address structural inequalities and historical injustices.

The “Repair” coalition’s demands revolve around reparations—though this term represents a broad and often loosely defined spectrum of goals. For some, reparations encompass a continuation of civil rights-era demands for protections against state-sanctioned violence, mass incarceration, and economic inequality. Specific policy goals include investment in housing, education, and economic opportunities within Black communities, as well as reforms to policing and democratic control over local law enforcement. The “Repair” alliance is not solely concerned with rectifying economic injustices; it also seeks to shift power structures to enable self-determination and political representation for marginalized groups.

Though the “Repair” alliance echoes some aspirations of 1960s civil rights activists, including the late 1960s radicals, Smith and King underscore its more gradualist, institutional approach to reform. Rather than advocating for revolutionary restructuring, the “Repair” coalition largely operates within the framework of existing American institutions, aiming for incremental reforms. Though some factions within the alliance call for land redistribution or challenge capitalist structures, much of the BLM agenda today prioritizes Black economic empowerment rather than dismantling the broader capitalist system.

A distinctive aspect of the “Repair” coalition is its emphasis on intersectionality, recognizing how race, gender, sexuality, and other identities interact in shaping systemic inequalities. This inclusivity has created a “rising majority” that includes not only communities of color but also progressive white allies, LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and other marginalized groups. The “Repair” coalition frames itself as an inclusive, bottom-up force for justice, and its decentralized structure has deliberately impeded the development of charismatic leadership. 

Competing Narratives of Victimhood and the Politics of Pain

Smith and King suggest that competing narratives of victimhood drive both alliances. This focus on harm and injustice has come to define the politics of pain in the United States, wherein claims of victimization serve as a rallying point for political mobilization. While historically marginalized groups have used this politics of pain to highlight structural injustices, the “Protect” coalition has adapted it to frame themselves as victims of anti-white discrimination and a loss of traditional social hierarchies.

The Civil Rights and Women’s Rights Era ushered in a significant awareness of the government's obligation to safeguard individuals from various forms of suffering. According to Alyson Cole, author of The Cult of True Victimhood, this shift in priority led to the establishment of organizations and government agencies dedicated to addressing issues such as hate crimes, domestic violence, natural disasters, gun violence, and other harms. In The Culture of Complaint, literary critic Robert Hughes noted that this period has "democratized pain," suggesting that while we may not all achieve wealth and fame, we can all assert our experiences of suffering. Some have referred to this phenomenon as “the empire of trauma,” characterizing victimhood as a fundamental political and moral state of contemporary life, particularly in Western societies. As communications scholar Lilie Chouliaraki has noted in Wronged: The Weaponization of Victimhood, various groups are seeking to gain political power by asserting claims to victimhood. Moreover, redefining the idea of the “true victim” to suit their agendas aims to undermine the recognition of the opposing side's legitimacy.

This competitive victimhood feeds polarization, as each side sees the other’s claims to pain as illegitimate or exaggerated. In a world where victimhood has become politicized, the “Protect” coalition’s sense of grievance often centers on perceived status loss. At the same time, the “Repair” alliance’s claims are based on material and historical injustices. This dynamic mirrors broader trends in Western democracies, where victimhood claims increasingly shape political discourse. 

Institutional Orders and Ideological Foundations

A significant contribution of Smith and King’s book is its conceptualization of “racial institutional orders,” frameworks that structure these competing coalitions. By examining these alliances as “racial orders,” the authors emphasize how racial ideologies influence institutional power structures and public policy agendas. However, they implicitly acknowledge that the term “racial” does not fully capture the complexity of these alliances, which are shaped not only by race but also by intersectional identities such as religion, gender, and sexuality. Given this complexity, the term “ascriptive,” which Smith used in earlier work, might better describe the ideological basis of these coalitions, which defines belonging and hierarchy according to inherited traits and socially constructed identities.

An “ascriptive” lens helps explain why some racial minorities are drawn to the “Protect” alliance, as aspects of traditional American identity like Christianity, masculinity, and nationalism resonate with segments of Latino and African American communities. These “ascriptive” identity dimensions—centered around race, religion, and gender—may transcend racial categories, attracting a diverse array of supporters despite the coalition’s primary focus on preserving white privilege. 

Democracy, Identity, and the “Demos”

The book intimates but does not discuss that the current ideological rift between “Protect” and “Repair” goes beyond policy disagreements and reflects a deeper division over the meaning of American democracy. Political scientists traditionally view democracy through institutional frameworks, focusing on structures and mechanisms of governance. However, contemporary American politics also hinges on conflicting conceptions of the “demos,” or the imagined community that constitutes the polity. The “Protect” and “Repair” alliances embody opposing visions of who is entitled to American citizenship and political participation, with each side seeking to define the boundaries of belonging.

This division is evident in public opinion. As Deborah Schildkraut’s research on Americanism and my work on militarism and gun politics show, Americans hold divergent views of national identity—some prioritizing traditional markers of identity like whiteness and Christianity, and others embracing multiculturalism and civic engagement. The combination of the two lines of research suggests that this ascriptive polarization could intensify, particularly as citizens selectively interpret democratic norms and values to favor those who align with their conception of American identity, and the appetite for political violence increases. 

A Foreboding Future

Smith and King’s outlook on the future is cautious, if not outright pessimistic. They argue that both the “Protect” and “Repair” alliances are likely to continue shaping American racial politics for years to come, driven by a politics of pain and grievances that fuels further polarization. The authors doubt that these ideological divides can be bridged and caution that the electorate may lean toward the “Protect” agenda, given the authors doubt that these ideological divides can be bridged and caution that the electorate may lean toward the “Protect” agenda, given the persistent influence of nationalism and cultural conservatism. They note that as long as each side views the other as an existential threat to its values and survival, the prospect for reconciliation remains dim. The authors suggest that unless there is a shift toward a politics that prioritizes shared democratic principles over ascriptive identities, the U.S. may face a future marked by intensified political conflict and social fragmentation. Smith and King ultimately call for Americans to critically assess and redefine their ideas of identity, belonging, and justice to forge a more inclusive and resilient democracy.

In sum, America’s New Racial Battle Lines offers a sobering yet insightful look into the dynamics of contemporary racial and ideological polarization in the U.S., highlighting the profound challenges facing the nation as it grapples with questions of identity, power, and justice in an era of shifting demographics and divisive rhetoric. 

Alexandra Filindra, Ph.D.

Professor of Political Science & Psychology

University of Illinois Chicago

A Public Voices Fellow

@afilindra.bsky.social