In The Anger Rule, Antoine J. Banks and Ismail K. White examine how Black politicians are uniquely penalized for expressing anger, especially anger related to race. Drawing on social psychology and philosophy, Banks and White demonstrate how this anger penalty helps sustain racial inequality. They argue that anger infers power because it propels individuals to change the status quo. When Black politicians are constrained from expressing anger, it limits their ability to mobilize against wrongs and rally fellow group members; it also signals a lack of power to Black voters. This argument is assessed using a multi-method approach of national survey experiments and content analysis of United States presidential and House congressional speeches and remarks. The findings show that Black politicians and voters are aware of the anger penalty, therefore constraining their anger in political spaces to avoid backlash from those who maintain the racial status quo.

In The Anger Rule, Antoine J. Banks and Ismail K. White examine how Black politicians are uniquely penalized for expressing anger, especially anger related to race. Drawing on social psychology and philosophy, Banks and White demonstrate how this anger penalty helps sustain racial inequality. They argue that anger infers power because it propels individuals to change the status quo. When Black politicians are constrained from expressing anger, it limits their ability to mobilize against wrongs and rally fellow group members; it also signals a lack of power to Black voters. This argument is assessed using a multi-method approach of national survey experiments and content analysis of United States presidential and House congressional speeches and remarks. The findings show that Black politicians and voters are aware of the anger penalty, therefore constraining their anger in political spaces to avoid backlash from those who maintain the racial status quo.

Politicians, scholars, and pundits often disagree about whether race has been injected into a political campaign or policy debate. Some have suspected that race sometimes enters into politics even when political elites avoid using racial cues or racially coded language. Anger and Racial Politics provides a theoretical framework for understanding the emotional conditions under which this effect might happen. Banks asserts that making whites angry - no matter the basis for their anger - will make ideas about race more salient to them. He argues that anger, and not fear or other negative emotions, provides the foundation upon which contemporary white racial attitudes are structured. Drawing on a multi-method approach, he demonstrates that anger plays an important role in enhancing the impact of race on whites' preferences for putting an end to affirmative action, repealing health care reform, hanging the confederate flag high, and voting for Tea Party-backed candidates.

In The Anger Rule, Antoine J. Banks and Ismail K. White examine how Black politicians are uniquely penalized for expressing anger, especially anger related to race. Drawing on social psychology and philosophy, Banks and White demonstrate how this anger penalty helps sustain racial inequality. They argue that anger infers power because it propels individuals to change the status quo. When Black politicians are constrained from expressing anger, it limits their ability to mobilize against wrongs and rally fellow group members; it also signals a lack of power to Black voters. This argument is assessed using a multi-method approach of national survey experiments and content analysis of United States presidential and House congressional speeches and remarks. The findings show that Black politicians and voters are aware of the anger penalty, therefore constraining their anger in political spaces to avoid backlash from those who maintain the racial status quo.

In The Anger Rule, Antoine J. Banks and Ismail K. White examine how Black politicians are uniquely penalized for expressing anger, especially anger related to race. Drawing on social psychology and philosophy, Banks and White demonstrate how this anger penalty helps sustain racial inequality. They argue that anger infers power because it propels individuals to change the status quo. When Black politicians are constrained from expressing anger, it limits their ability to mobilize against wrongs and rally fellow group members; it also signals a lack of power to Black voters. This argument is assessed using a multi-method approach of national survey experiments and content analysis of United States presidential and House congressional speeches and remarks. The findings show that Black politicians and voters are aware of the anger penalty, therefore constraining their anger in political spaces to avoid backlash from those who maintain the racial status quo.

Politicians, scholars, and pundits often disagree about whether race has been injected into a political campaign or policy debate. Some have suspected that race sometimes enters into politics even when political elites avoid using racial cues or racially coded language. Anger and Racial Politics provides a theoretical framework for understanding the emotional conditions under which this effect might happen. Banks asserts that making whites angry - no matter the basis for their anger - will make ideas about race more salient to them. He argues that anger, and not fear or other negative emotions, provides the foundation upon which contemporary white racial attitudes are structured. Drawing on a multi-method approach, he demonstrates that anger plays an important role in enhancing the impact of race on whites' preferences for putting an end to affirmative action, repealing health care reform, hanging the confederate flag high, and voting for Tea Party-backed candidates.