“The Poet” is what Adorno calls a “carpet essay,” which weaves its announced topics of the poet and poetry into a host of other subjects: character and expression; reception and abandonment; beauty and love; the present, new, and near; the Neoplatonic One or “whole”; and a fundamental “flowing” or “metamorphosis.” Chapter 8 focuses on Emerson’s romantic and proto-existentialist pronouncement that “the man is only half himself, the other half is his expression”; his theory that language “is fossil poetry”; and the proto-pragmatic picture of language in his statement that “all language is vehicular and transitive, and is good, as ferries and horses are, for conveyance, not as farms and houses are, for homestead.” Other topics treated are the place of what Kant calls “unbounded” ideas in Emerson’s account of poetry, thinking as a mixture of reception and activity, and the connections and differences of “Experience” and “The Poet.”

The essays in this volume resemble the dialogue with the four children that takes place at the Passover Seder. The wise child is prepared to honor the commitments and aspirations made in 1776 but needs instruction on how to do so. The wicked child refuses to identify with the commitments made in 1776, either because the child identifies with some status hierarchy or, more likely, the child refuses to take seriously the pleas of faux revolutionaries who were committed to illegitimate status hierarchies during the late eighteenth century. The simple child does not understand the significance of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or in 2026. The fourth child cannot figure out how to frame a question in the twenty-first century about a document written in the eighteenth century. The wise child assumes without adequate reflection a commitment to the Passover story and the Declaration of Independence. American independence was forged on a foundation of soldiers who died for lower taxes and, arguably, more secure rights to hold others in bondage. These problems require retelling both the Passover and the Declaration stories, so that the simple child can determine intelligently whether commitment to either (the same?) tradition is warranted.

This chapter focuses on how Native Americans have understood and purposed the Declaration. By asserting tribal sovereignty, Native American nations have been declaring independence since 1776. Cast as “merciless Indian savages” in the Declaration of Independence, Native Americans have cited the document in speeches, published writings, and legal briefs since the founding of the United States. They did so not to claim national belonging, but to argue that in its dealings with Native Nations, the United States should honor its founding document’s principles of self-determination and natural rights. Divided paths through the American Revolution, nineteenth-century disputes about responding to US territorial and cultural pressure, and twentieth-century efforts to balance tribal citizenship, US citizenship, and intertribal advocacy show how the citizens of tribal nations have consistently debated and adapted strategies for maintaining tribal sovereignty. Especially among Native American leaders subjected to assimilative schooling, the Declaration of Independence was a consistent feature of Indigenous arguments for independence from the United States.

The Afterword recalls the importance of “emphatic experiences” throughout Emerson’s thought, especially in Nature, “The Over-Soul,” “Circles,” and “Spiritual Laws.” It also registers the many oppositions discussed in Emerson, the Philosopher of Oppositions: Reality and Illusion in “Experience,” “Unity” and “Variety,” “rest” and “motion,” in “Plato”; dead language and living poetry in “The Poet,” nominalism and realism in “Nominalist and Realist,” fate and freedom in “Fate.” Emerson “accepts” his “contrary tendencies” by building them into his essays, one after the other: “‘Your turn now, my turn next,’ is the rule of the game.” Skepticism pervades Emerson’s thought, as he registers doubts about knowledge, other minds, freedom, or meaning. But skepticism can also be understood as a way of life, as in ancient Greek philosophy and in Montaigne’s Essays, and Goodman argues for the attractions of Emerson’s own version of the skeptical life, what he calls a “wise skepticism.”

This chapter explores how the Declaration of Independence was drafted and ratified. Congress created and assigned the task of drafting a declaration of independence to a committee of lawyers. When the draft went to the Congress, lawyers like Edward Rutledge had their chance to weigh in. The draft document and the final version was a legal document designed to place rebellion on a legal foundation. Jefferson later recalled that his draft of the Declaration of Independence merely recombined ideas that had long been discussed, and terminology long adopted, by Congress. The Declaration assumed independence, otherwise it would have had no foundation. Following this logic, as the members did, surely Jefferson among them, the Declaration was simply stating the reasons – a justification like the Declaratory Act of 1766, by which Parliament explained its authority over the colonies – for an event already transpired. The ringing elaboration of the rights of mankind, various borrowings from John Locke, echoes of natural law, and the language of prior resolves and declarations were not really pertinent to a declaration for the independence of a continent, but make sense in the more limited framework of Virginia constitutional change.

This chapter situates the Declaration of Independence in relation to another founding document of the United States, the federal Constitution. It assesses the Declaration’s role in debates over the Constitution, first during the latter’s framing in 1787, then in the struggle for ratification, and then later as political actors sought to interpret each document in light of the other. From the outset, debate over the Constitution highlighted the Declaration’s multivalence as well as its rhetorical power. Both defenders and opponents of the Constitution have sought to show how their cause best aligned with the ideals and aspirations expressed in the Declaration. Anti-federalists and their successors constructed a powerful narrative which juxtaposed the Declaration’s call to liberty with the Constitution’s blueprint for authority. Yet there was from the beginning an equally strong tradition that saw the Constitution as a consummation of the Declaration’s promise. Either way, this chapter argues, the Declaration continues to help shape the meaning of the Constitution – and to have its own meaning remolded in turn.

In the sixth chapter of the book, we use structured topic modeling to identify the number of different ways that elected officials speak about race in their press releases and tweets. This analysis allows us to explore what the most salient topics around racial rhetorical representation are in a pivotal period for racial politics (2015-2021). It also allows us to determine whether descriptive representatives engage in a more diverse array of racial outreach in terms of the number of Black centered topics they speak about in each session in press releases and on Twitter. Given that Black elected officials engage in both proactive and reactive racial representation at greater rates than non-Black elected officials, they also engage in racial rhetorical representation in significantly more categories than non-Black elected officials.

Do Black and non-Black elected officials differ in how much of their rhetorical outreach is centered on high-profile racial issues? We address this question in Chapter 4. We argue that discussions of high-profile racial topics represent a reactive form of outreach. In contrast, elected officials engage in proactive racial rhetorical representation when they discuss issues which are not politically salient. Using a combination of over 500 race-related terms and google trends data, we identify high-profile forms of racial outreach which include racial issues like voting rights and discussions of popular Black public figures like Rep. John Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr, and Rosa Parks. We combine this analysis with our previously coded press releases and tweets to explore the percent of racial outreach which contains reference to a high-profile topic. We find that a smaller proportion of racial outreach from Black elected officials in press releases and on Twitter are centered on high-profile topics than racial outreach from White, Latino/a, and Asian American elected officials. We further test our hypothesis that Black elected officials will speak about lower profile topics by exploring whether discussions of police reform are greater during periods where Black Lives Matter is being searched more on google. We find that when Black Lives Matter is a high-profile topic, non-Black elected officials are more likely to speak out about police reform. The salience of Black Lives Matter in the public is a weaker predictor of these same discussions for Black elected officials. Overall, this chapter demonstrates than when Black elected officials speak about race, they are more likely to discuss topics which are not in the public eye.

In Chapter 5, we examine whether Black and non-Black elected officials differ in their discussion of what Mansbridge (1999) describes as uncrystallized issues. Mansbridge (1999) argues that uncrystallized political issues are those which have not been on the political agenda for very long and politicians have not yet taken public stances. As a result, uncrystallized issues provide another good avenue to explore whether Black elected officials engage in more proactive racial rhetorical representation than non-Black elected officials. While Mansbridge’s (1999) hypothesis was theoretical, in Chapter 5 we set out to empirically assess whether descriptive representatives are the most likely to speak out on Black centered uncrystallized issues. We find empirical support for Mansbridge’s (1999) uncrystallized issues hypothesis using the hand coding of race-based appeals in press releases during the 114th through 116th Congresses and a case study of press releases and Tweets discussing racial health disparities in the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This chapter explores whether there is a link between racial rhetorical representation and legislative behavior. We take a more nuanced examination of the link between rhetorical outreach and legislative activity than previous research. Rather than treating all discussions about a topic as being the same, we explore whether proactive (as measured by low-profile racial outreach) and reactive (as measured by high-profile racial appeals) rhetorical representation differ in their correlation to legislative activity. This allows us to better understand whether some forms of rhetorical outreach provide more accurate information to voters about the member of Congress’ legislative intent. Using our rhetorical outreach data and 18,025 primary sponsored bills, 417,925 co-sponsored bills, 108,255 statements from congressional hearings, and 1,300 unique voting scores, we find strong evidence that elected officials who engage in racial rhetorical outreach also engage in racial legislative actions across all of our measures. We also find that both high- and low-profile forms of racial rhetorical outreach are consistently significant correlates of legislative activity. However, elected officials who engage in more lower profile (i.e. proactive) forms of racial outreach are generally the most likely to advance Black political interests through the primary and co-sponsorship of legislation. Overall, racial rhetorical representation provides an accurate picture of how legislators behave in elected office. However, some forms of racial outreach provide a clearer signal of legislative priorities than others. While legislative communications are aimed at winning votes, they also are communicating to each other and forming alliances. While it is not guarantee that these bills will turn into laws, racial rhetorical representation is linked to other forms of substantive representation.

Chapter 9 explores whether racial rhetorical representation matters in the presence or absence of tangible legislation. To answer this question, we return to our experiment and inform respondents that the topic the elected official spoke about in the press release either became law or failed. After providing information about the fate of legislation, we ask respondent whether this changes their opinion of the elected official. We find that even when rhetorical representation does not lead to policy, most Black and White respondents do not view the hypothetical politician as engaging in cheap talk. Instead, their qualitative responses reveal that they understand that a single politician cannot will the passage of legislation. They also express appreciation for the elected official for speaking out about a particular topic as they perceive it as laying the groundwork for future action. In this sense, rhetorical representation without legislation still matters to voters. With that said, when rhetorical representation was matched up with the passage of pertinent legislation, respondents gave the elected official a boost in approval. Thus, speaking out about a topic and failing does not hurt elected officials, engaging in rhetorical representation and succeeding leads to a bonus in support.

In the introductory chapter, we define racial rhetorical representation and outline its significance in comparison to other forms of substantive representation. In this review, we speak about the particular meaning of this form of representation for African Americans who have historically been overlooked by political parties and rely on political actors to keep their issues on the agenda. Following this discussion, we argue that elected officials who make targeted appeals largely differ in their motivations. Some are motivated by external pressure to advance group interest, something we define as reactive racial representation. Others, we argue, are more intrinsically motivated to speak out in support of particular groups. We define this form of outreach as being proactive racial representation. We argue that the latter likely better predicts correlations with other legislative activities and will receive higher levels of approval from the targeted population. We then discuss how we use a combination of hand-coding and computer-assisted content analysis to categorize a large corpus of press releases and tweets as being centered on Black political interests or not. We use this data as the basis for much of our analysis in the manuscript. We conclude the chapter with an overview of the book and a description of several of the data sources used in this study.