At the Table… Still Negotiating, The Politics of Black Incorporation

March 31, 2025

Written and Edited By: Kaleah Baylee Taylor

Introduction

The history of the Black liberation struggle in the United States is one of great complexity. From subtle tactics and outright revolts in antebellum America, to the present day incorporation into the political assembly, many strategies and theories have developed in an attempt to guide and describe Black political life. In the mid-twentieth century the liberation struggle reflects what some scholars understand to be a shift from protest to politics. This phrase, from protests to politics, is meant to capture this shift from intense early direct action to extensive legislative efforts. Throughout the movement, scholars have developed theories surrounding both the causes and consequences of the creation of the Black vote. This paper will discuss leaders like Bayard Rustin who recognized the potential power of the Black electorate in American society, as well as scholars such as Robert C. Smith and Katherine Tate who have analyzed both the mechanisms and consequences of this shift. This paper will ultimately discuss how incorporation, or inclusion, into American electoral politics provided new opportunities for representation and policy influence while also introducing unique constraints. It will further explore how scholars like Michael Dawson, Chryl Laird, and Ismail White account for the continuous political unity within the Black community, despite it growing increasingly diverse socially and economically.

Incorporation 

Several aspects account for the shift from protests to politics in the mid-twentieth century including legislation, fatigue, and adjustments in definition of movement focus. The transition was primarily driven by legal access to voting and the adamant recognition that institutional engagement ought to be leveraged (Smith, 22.1). The passage of landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that outlawed discrimination and segregation in public accommodations, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, fundamentally dismantled formal barriers to political participation, changing the lives of millions of Black Americans (Rustin, 111.1). These pieces of legislation enabled an increase in Black voter registration and participation, particularly in the South. These influential pieces of legislation are, however, direct results of protests. Mass mobilization forced conversations on a national scale demanding politicians to address civil rights rather than going about their routine lobbying and litigation roles, and this is before Black Americans are formally part of the assembly (Smith, 16.3). Nonetheless, as a result of voting rights being realized, activists began to shift their focus from demonstrations to electoral strategies, recognizing that voting, campaigning, and holding office could potentially better shape public policy and help remedy unjust conditions. Scholar Bayard Rustin was a pioneer of this idea, writing, “...Negro needs cannot be satisfied unless we go beyond what has so far been placed on the agenda. How… to be achieved? The answer is simple… through political power (118.2).“ Finally, fatigue of the limitations of protest, especially as it responded to (or lacked the structure to respond to) economic, educational, and law enforcement concerns, encouraged leaders to pursue change through institutional channels (Rustin, 112.2). After attacking racial discrimination scholars began to intentionally ask themselves how they should address the nuances mentioned that continued to plague Black populations across the country. Although goals of the movement were commonly understood, strategies lacked consensus. Scholar Robert Smith writes, there was conflict between Black leaders about if the shift to systemic politics from protests is the most effective strategy to obtain material change in areas beyond race relations, particularly on the issue of economic injustice and the national poor peoples campaign (18.2). Some thinkers favored the institutional shift while others like Dr. Martin Luther King clung to mobilized organizational projects. Despite the growing factionalization that emerges, eventually the movement moves exclusively to prioritizing the Black vote.

As briefly mentioned, one of the uncompromising leaders of the movement includes strategist Bayard Rustin, who adamantly advocates for this prioritization of newly acclaimed inclusion. Rustin dives into this point in his 1965 seminal essay, originally published in Commentary magazine (Harris). In this piece, Rustin’s position clearly views the emerging Black vote as a powerful tool for achieving the goals of the movement. He asserts that the classical (i.e., mainstream) civil rights movement was revolutionary but not victorious, writing, “But I fail to see how the movement can be victorious in the absence of radical programs for full employment, the abolition of slums, the reconstruction of our education system, new definitions of work and leisure (118.1.).” He acknowledges the movement’s foundational impact and the substantive challenges it posed to discrimination and segregation. These challenges directly lead to civil rights legislation, but he emphasizes that the Black liberation movement is continuous and ongoing as conditions in the Black community have minimally improved. Additionally, the second point Rustin emphasizes is the importance of coalitions. Rustin writes, ”We need allies… the contradictions of this society can be resolved by a coalition of progressive forces… (119.2)” This quote demonstrates his preference for coalition-based politics rather than continued mass protest or “closing ranks” - unity, independence, and goals articulated away from white political control. He argued that the expansion of Black suffrage creates an opportunity to increase influence on national elections and policy by aligning with broader political coalitions, particularly within the Democratic Party. For Rustin, the future of the civil rights movement depended on translating protest energy into organized political power that could secure economic justice and additional social reforms. He ultimately urged Black Americans to more or less buy-in to institution reform by broadening their “social visions,” developing “functional programs with concrete objects,” proposing alternatives to urban decay, etc. (122.3). In the piece, Rustin briefly engages with criticisms of coalition building, as some argue that Black politicians, and Black Americans more broadly, will be forced to surrender their true objectives in order to align with white liberals. Scholars Kwame Ture, Charles V. Hamilton, and later Katherine Tate write about this dynamic. Critics like Ture and Hamilton in Black Power (1967), warn that without first “closing ranks,” Black Americans not only risk, but are bound to be “absorbed into the Establishment (Rustin, 119.3).” In response, Rustin contends that there are structural limits to what Black Americans can achieve independently within this political context. He writes, “... there is a limit to what Negros can do alone (122.3).” Here he concludes the piece by emphasizing that the struggle is an imperfect one that remains ongoing, he also alludes to the fact that his framework contains a broader economic position that black power ideology lacks. This position serves to support his view that there are limits to what the Black assembly can accomplish on its own contemporarily. While he acknowledges that an idea of cooptation is plausible, he nonetheless advocates for the community to take advantage of representation and make the most of the moment (119.3).

Consequences of Incorporation 

Several consequences were born out of the inclusion of Black Americans in the American political system. This specific kind of political incorporation is one that scholars have examined over the last few decades, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Scholars ultimately have developed different theories about the ramifications of this inclusion, both negative, positive, and "neutral," raising broader questions within academia about whether the outcomes of the civil rights movement justified its costs, or whether alternative paths to improving the conditions of Black Americans exist, and to what extent the interests of Black Americans diverge from or align with mainstream liberal ideology.

Roughly three decades after the original publication of Baynard Rustin’s “From Protest to Politics,” Robert C. Smith explores how the incorporation of Black individuals into the polity occurred in his work We Have No Leaders, African Americans in the Post-Civil Rights Era (1992). Smith’s piece is most interested in how social movements become a part of a mainstream ideological and structural expectation. To him, the incorporation of Black Americans into the polity was done essentially through instances of cooptation and repression (Smith, 17.2). Smith writes, “... since every system wishes to govern by consent rather than repression cooptation is usually the preferred alternative… in some circumstances cooptation is not enough… therefore repression becomes necessary as well (7.2).” In this quote he simply claims that this an intentional practice of preference, in order for systems to sustain legitimacy and attempt to maintain itself even after “succumbing” to the demands of the classical civil rights movement (5.1). In the case of Black Americans he writes, “... results of incorporation are that blacks have lost the capacity to effectively press their demands on the system and that the system has consequentially responded to their demands with symbolism, neglect, and an ongoing pattern of cooptation… (21.1).” Smith argues that despite inclusion being achieved electorally, and Black political actors, assuming they represent Black political interests, gained access to resources, patronage, and electoral opportunities, this dynamic has seen relatively few substantive gains for the group and tends to undermine the goals and gains of the group in the future. While this sounds pessimistic, and indubitably stalls Black progress, Smith notes that some scholars recognize that cooptation is simply a realistic core aspect of the democratic procedural tradition (20.2). He acknowledges that this sort of dynamic could be a plain symptom of mass movements trying to attack structural issues through their institutions. Finally on the point of cooptation, Smith notes that the responses to Black legislative maneuvers and interests more broadly is usually “... neglect or, at best, symbolism (24.1).” In this quote he’s furthermore stating that the material conditions are minimally improving for Black populations, and representatives of Black interests have lost the power to substantively alter it through systemic measures. Another aspect Smith briefly talks about is repression. He writes that political repression occurred through denial of employment opportunities, access to media, harassment and discreditation of movement leaders, and attempts to infiltrate and subvert the efforts of organizers through campaigns like the FBI’s COINTELPRO (19.3). All of these tactics and systemic maneuvers are some of the ways scholar Robert C. Smith describes the transition of Black individuals into the American political system. 

In conversation with Smith’s central claim, roughly two decades later scholar Katherine Tate published a theory of concordance featured in her work Concordance, Black Lawmaking in the U.S Congress from Carter to Obama (2014). In this piece Tate argues that the increase in Black representation in Congress has produced both significant gains and notable limitations for Black political influence. She theorizes that Black political actors are becoming increasingly moderate with increased time and interactions with the institution, simultaneously she claims that the institution, the Democratic Party specifically, is becoming increasingly liberal and responsive to Black interests (Tate, 16.3). Tate argues that while Black representatives have provided a degree of substantive representation by advocating for policies that address racial inequality and adding a minority perspective to Congress, they also are consistently repressing the radical interests of their constituencies and possibly themselves (15.2). Tate attributes this institutionalization to aspects like physical location and increased interactions with elites, political ambition, and appeals to the median voter (pp. 13-17, 134). In addition to her claim about the moderation of Black Congress members individually, Tate adds that the Congressional Black Caucus is also becoming more moderate, assimilating to American procedural traditions in an attempt to maximize its power (pp. 131, 141, 144). Despite this dynamic, Tate argues that the presence of Black representatives partially accounts for the liberalization of the Democratic Party which is generally helpful to Black interests; other contributing factors include polarization, broader shifts in societal attitudes over time, and increased coalition building (Tate, pp. 18, 140). In all, Tate’s theory of Concordance is one that captures the institutionalization of Black interests, while balancing the majoritarian rule, two party tradition, conservative nature, and coercive nuances of the American political system (141). She ultimately argues that the institutionalization of Black interests is not unique but a broader pattern affecting minority groups like gays and Latinos, where cooptation emerges from the procedural traditions of the system as a somewhat inherent feature of democracy (142).

Theories of Solidarity

While clearly articulated, Tate’s theory rests on two key assumptions: first, that Black interests are distinct, and therefore defined, from those of mainstream America, and second, that the Black community’s framework operates almost exclusively within the Democratic Party. The first point is highly nuanced and warrants a more in-depth analysis beyond the scope of this paper. The second point however is grounded in the fact that Black Americans are consistently the Democratic Party's most loyal voting constituency, with 89% of Black votes going to them in 2016, 87% in 2020, and 86% in 2024 (Black Americans Remained, 0:33). Scholars like Michael Dawson, Chryl N. Laird, and Ismail K. White have examined underlying factors and developed theories that help explain the persistence of this unity. 

In Dawson’s Behind the Mule (1994), he adopts a psychological take claiming that Black people often vote in the interests of the Black community generally, not in the interests of themselves. He describes a sort of “utility heuristic" in which individuals use group interests in place of their own, because of a term he coins “linked-fate” (Harris). Linked fate is the idea that individuals believe their personal well-being is inextricably tied to the overall status of their racial and/or ethnic group. For Black Americans it’s theorized that the permanence of racism fuels this perspective, transcending economic status. That said, to Dawson, despite the increasing heterogeneity within the Black community, political unity has been maintained through a strong sense of linked fate and shared historical experience. This unity is further reinforced by common policy priorities, including civil rights protections, economic justice, and criminal justice reform, things commonly associated with the Democratic Party. Additionally, social institutions like the church, HBCUs, Black media, and community organizations historically play a key role in both articulating and sustaining shared interests and perspectives (Harris). These institutions historically have defined and dictated what Black interests are. This in addition to ongoing racial inequalities, all add to this sense of group solidarity and linked fate.

Conversely, Laird and White introduce an interesting alternative theory. The pair argues in the second chapter of Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior (2020) that it is racialized social norms and expectations that pressure members of the Black community to vote for the Democratic party. They argue that everyday interactions, among friends, family, churches, and community organizations, and especially social media create expectations about “appropriate” political behavior, and that support for the Democratic Party becomes a visible signal of racial group commitment (pp. 70, 78). In this context, individuals are not simply choosing based on policy preferences, rather, they are responding to social incentives and pressures that reward conformity and discourage deviation, helping sustain high levels of Democratic alignment across time. The pair however argues that this is not a new phenomenon, they trace prescriptions of political expectations and punishment back to abolition and Reconstruction movements (61). This is a rather convincing and interesting alternative to Dawson’s theory. It’s persuasive particularly because it situates Black political solidarity within a broader understanding of social movements, highlighting how community cohesion is understood to be essential for collective action and successful liberation struggles (McAdam 51, Ture and Hamilton 80). It’s very possible that this is one contributor to sustained political unity. 

Conclusion

This paper has provided a brief overview of key thinkers in Black political thought and intellectualism, showing how their ideas remain relevant amid today’s reactionary politics, social media, and current events. Arguably, these theories are all well-substantiated assessments of history and relevant in explaining contemporary politics. However, equally attentive to the well-being of Black communities is a body of scholarship that challenges the notion that Black political and socioeconomic interests are fundamentally distinct from broader liberal concerns. From this perspective, issues such as poverty, chronic underinvestment, and educational inequality are not uniquely Black, but rather structural problems with universal dimensions that seem to manifest with particular historical context, intensity, and consequence within Black communities. Ultimately, as the Black liberation struggle endures, both scholarship and political ideology will continue to evolve in response to shifting conditions and emergent challenges. The contemporary racist MAGA movement, in particular, may serve as a catalyst for the re-radicalization of the struggle, prompting renewed institutional engagement and grassroots mobilization across Black communities nationwide. In this sense, it has the potential to intensify existing tensions in ways that could precipitate a new phase of collective action, and now oriented not only around civil rights, but also toward economic and social transformation. This ongoing development underscores a central imperative, that the pursuit of Black liberation remains not only unfinished, but necessary and inevitable.

Works Cited 

Black Americans Remained Loyal to the Democratic Party in 2024 | The Big Deal. Produced by Spectrum News, YouTube, 6 June 2025,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pp33nxwO-Y

Dawson, Michael. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton University Press, 1994. Chapter 3.

Harris, Fredrick Cornelius. Seminar discussion, African-American Politics. 10 Mar. 2026. Personal notes.

Laird, Chryl, and Ismail White. Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior. Princeton University Press, 2020. Chapter 2.

McAdam, Doug. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Rustin, Bayard. “From Protest to Politics.” Commentary Magazine, 1965.

Smith, Robert. We Have No Leaders: African Americans in the Post-Civil Rights Era. State University of New York, 1996. Chapter 1.

Tate, Katherine. Concordance: Black Lawmaking in the U.S. Congress from Carter to Obama. University of Michigan Press, 2020.

Ture, Kwame, and Charles V. Hamilton. Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. Vintage Press, Random House, 1992.