Why do Asian American and Latino voters, many of whom lack US‐born parents to pass down party loyalties, nonetheless line up so consistently, and so differently, behind the two major parties? In “Partisans of Color,” Efrén Pérez, Jessica Hyunjeong Lee, and Gustavo Mártir Luna argue that the answer lies in how these populations juggle two powerful, and increasingly partisan, identities: their racial group and American nationality. Because Democrats have come to symbolize racial inclusion while Republicans have become guardians of a narrower national ideal, the identity that feels more central at any given moment tilts Asian and Latino adults toward one party or the other.
The authors build their theory based on two societal trends. First, Asians and Latinos are persistently racialized as outsiders, yet in different ways: both are seen as “foreign,” but Asians are accorded a stereotype of competence, whereas Latinos are often assigned lower social status. Second, severe polarization now links Democrats with racial liberalism and Republicans with an American‐first ethos. Individuals must therefore decide which self, racial minority or American national, they emphasize. That private prioritization, the authors contend, is a key psychological bridge to a public partisan label.
The authors test their argument through four layered studies. First, they draw on a set of large national surveys of Asian and Latino adults collected over the past two decades. Analysis of these surveys confirm that people vary in how much they value their racial identity versus their American identity. Those who lean more heavily on their racial identity tend to think of themselves as Democrats, while those who lean toward an American identity tilt Republican. This broad pattern persists even after taking into account background factors such as birthplace, ideology, religion, age, and experiences with discrimination.
Photo Credit: SiberianArts
Second, to be sure these survey links are not just “talk,” the authors turn to rapid-fire “implicit” tests with college students. When forced to sort words and images in split-second tasks, participants instinctively matched “Asian” and “Latino” cues with Democratic symbols and “American” cues with Republican ones. The reflex was especially strong among Latino students but was present for Asians as well, indicating that the identity-party connection is wired into quick, automatic thinking.
Third, the researchers ask when and how these identity priorities actually surface in political choices. They introduce the idea of categorization threat: if public messages describe one’s group in a way that clashes with how an individual sees themselves, the person may use party labels to push back. In an online experiment with Latino adults, participants read a short news piece framing Latinos either as a racial minority facing discrimination or as ambitious new Americans. Those who already felt closer to a Latino identity became more Democratic when they saw the racial frame, while the same frame nudged American-oriented Latinos toward Republicans. The American frame flipped the pattern.
Finally, a parallel experiment with Asian Americans largely replicates these dynamics. Describing Asians as a racial group had little effect—perhaps because Asians are often portrayed as fitting both racial and national molds at once. Yet when the article highlighted Asians as model new Americans, American-focused participants moved leftward, whereas race-focused participants edged away from the Democrats.
Across the four studies, two take-aways stand out. First, the tug-of-war between racial and national identity is prominent: people differ in how they rank the two, and that ranking can predict party allegiance. This connection is deep enough to surface in split-second lab tests yet flexible enough to shift when public messages cast their group in a new light. Second, these patterns upend easy clichés. Many Asian and Latino Republicans are not voting chiefly on economics; they are signaling an “American-first” self-image. Likewise, Democratic rhetoric that highlights the issue of discrimination can solidify support from racially focused voters yet drive away co-ethnics who see themselves foremost as Americans.
For scholars, the article sharpens the focus on which identity within a multi-layered self gets politicized and when, urging a rethink of classic socialization models for a more complete understanding of how today’s multi-racial electorate chooses sides. Partisanship among voters of color, Pérez, Lee, and Luna conclude, is neither fixed inheritance nor random drift; it is a psychologically grounded response to how the nation tells them who they are allowed to be.
