When it comes to race and US elections, ethnicity matters

Political analyst Michael Barone recently recalled how a Boston woman some years ago made her voting decisions: “I just go down the ballot and vote for all the good Irish names.”  

For decades, party bosses relied on ethnicity as a means of balancing their tickets. 

John Bailey, the Connecticut Democratic Party boss, would fashion his party’s slate of candidates by relying on the “three Is”: Ireland, Italy and Israel. Candidates from those ethnic backgrounds frequently held the top three slots on his Democratic tickets. 

Republicans likewise played the ethnic card. 

In 1960, Richard Nixon stressed his solidarity with those mostly Catholic countries locked behind the Iron Curtain. American Nationalities for Nixon-Lodge distributed 48,000 foreign-language buttons, held freedom rallies in cities with large Polish populations (including Buffalo and Chicago) and printed thousands of postcards showing the famous Nixon-Khrushchev “kitchen debate.”  

In 1979, I interviewed Democratic Connecticut Gov. Ella T. Grasso and argued that ethnicity was becoming passe, thanks to the role television and image makers were playing in political campaigns. Her response was a sharp rebuke: “You’re very wrong. Ethnicity is alive and well and it is a factor in the country.” 

She was right.

In our binary world, we often think of race and ethnicity in simple terms: It’s either Black or white; majority (whites) or minorities (other races). But the world has changed. 

More than 33 million people chose two or more races when filling out their 2020 Census forms. This rising group of Americans, particularly prevalent among young people, matters in 2024. 

A recent Pew Report, for example, found that among all registered voters, 41 percent believed that Kamala Harris’s African and Asian heritage would help her in November. As for Trump, 51 percent said his ethnic background as a white male would make no difference. 

The Harris and Trump campaigns have prioritized appealing to racial and gender groups. Kamala Harris has support from Black Women for Harris, White Dudes for Harris and Latinos con Harris Walz. Donald Trump has organized support from Women for Trump, Black Voices for Trump and Latinos for Trump. 

For Harris, making those appeals has paid political dividends. For example, 40,000 Black women joined a Zoom call for Harris, while a celebrity-fueled White Dudes for Harris raised $4 million during one internet outing. 

However, organizing on the basis of race and gender alone ignores a more complex political reality. Quite often, white voters think of themselves not by race but according to their ethnic heritage.  

The Harris campaign has begun a concerted outreach to these voters, including Irish Americans for Harris-Walz and Paisanos for Harris. The latter is led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (R-Calif.) who, having been immersed in the ethnic politics of Baltimore as a native, understands the need to appeal to ethnic groups.

Voters of Irish and Italian heritage still command large numbers of voters. The most recent U.S. Census found nearly 39 million people in the U.S. were of Irish heritage, while nearly 17 million Americans were of Italian background. 

But one overlooked group of voters are those whose ancestries trace back to countries located in central and eastern Europe. The so-called Blue Wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in particular have high concentrations of voters hailing from those countries.  

And Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, another key 2024 target because it allocates its one electoral vote separately from the rest of the state, has the highest concentration of Czech Americans found anywhere in the U.S.  

During the Harris-Trump debate, Kamala Harris made a specific appeal to Polish Americans in Pennsylvania. Noting that should Russia prevail in Ukraine, “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe starting with Poland.”  

Harris then issued this challenge to her opponent: “Why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly what you would give up [in Ukraine] for the sake of a favor . . . to a dictator who would eat you for lunch.” Donald Trump ignored her taunt and even refused to say which side he wanted to win in Ukraine.  

This runs contrary to the sentiments expressed by a vast majority of Americans. A recent poll found 63 percent sympathized with Ukraine while only 3 percent sympathized with Russia — a 21 to 1 ratio. And when asked directly which side they wanted to win, 72 percent answered Ukraine. 

The Harris-Trump exchange is reminiscent of the 1976 Ford-Carter debate when President Gerald Ford wrongfully asserted, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration.”  

Jimmy Carter immediately pounced on Ford’s unforced error: 

“I would like to see Mr. Ford convince the Polish Americans and the Czech Americans and the Hungarian Americans in this country that those countries don’t live under the domination and supervision of the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain.”  

In an extremely close election, Ford pollster Bob Teeter remembered, “The controversy used up valuable campaign days when there were all too few left when a steady climb had to be sustained.” 

As Politico recently recounted, Ford’s remark potentially changed the course of history. Without that error, Ford might have made up the difference with Carter and the Reagan revolution would have never happened. 

The Harris-Trump race is extremely close, and appeals to ethnicity matter. Consider: Nearly 9 million Americans of Polish heritage live in the U.S., making Harris’s appeal to the 67 million watching the debate an exercise in very smart politics.  

Close elections are won or lost at the margins. The campaign that can best reach voters who strongly identify with their ethnic heritage is a campaign built to win. Right now, give the edge to Kamala Harris. 

John Kenneth White (johnkennethwhite.com) is a professor emeritus at The Catholic University of America. His latest book is titled “Grand Old Unraveling: The Republican Party, Donald Trump, and the Rise of Authoritarianism.”