Jane Mansbridge (Reference Mansbridge1999) challenges critics of descriptive representation, writing that it leads to improvements in substantive representation. Theorists, however, continue to debate the degree to which groups can be represented by single individuals in government as gains in descriptive representation fail to be transformative. The effects of descriptive representation are more complex than they are often presented as new descriptive representatives do not always win acceptance. Even as there are substantive policy gains through descriptive representation, there are also setbacks for groups through the mobilization of opposition groups. There is also pressure on descriptive representatives to moderate their positions and be less vocal. Given the dominant position of privileged groups and their conservative ideologies that defend inequality, substantive gains from descriptive representation are less than implied by descriptive representation advocates.

The empirical work has mostly supported Mansbridge’s claims of improved government legitimacy. In my 1996 survey, I found that Blacks feel better represented in Congress when represented by Blacks, even taking into account the political party of the House member (English, Pearson, and Strolovitch Reference English, Pearson and Strolovitch2019; Tate Reference Tate2003). However, in my study, Blacks represented by Blacks were no more trusting of government or efficacious than Blacks represented by other races. In another study, Blacks were more likely to contact Black representatives when represented by Blacks (Gay Reference Gay2002).

Latinos express lower levels of political alienation when represented by Latinos (Pantoja and Segura Reference Pantoja and Segura2003). For women, in one study, women appeared more engaged in politics in states where women were running for governor or the U.S. Senate (Atkeson Reference Atkeson2003). In another study, women were not more likely to be mobilized by the candidacies of women in House races (Dolan Reference Dolan2006). Women give women U.S. House representatives slightly more favorable ratings than male representatives, all things being equal (Lawless Reference Lawless2004). In another study, gender congruency did not improve the legislator’s rating for women (English, Pearson, and Strolovitch Reference English, Pearson and Strolovitch2019). Women represented by women were no more efficacious or participatory than women represented by men (Lawless Reference Lawless2004). Another study found that women generally support women candidates more than men do (Martin Reference Martin2019).

Descriptive representatives, as Mansbridge wrote in 1999, enlarge the political agenda. Black legislators are more likely to sponsor Black interest bills than White legislators (Grose Reference Grose2011). Black members of Congress are also more active in committee hearings to advance Black interests than White Democrats (Gamble Reference Gamble2007; Minta Reference Minta2011). Government has increased its hearings on civil rights and social welfare because of its growing diversity (Minta and Sinclair-Chapman Reference Minta and Sinclair-Chapman2013). Similarly, the research on women legislators has found that women are more likely to sponsor women’s interests and feminist bills than men (Burrell Reference Burrell1996; Dodson Reference Dodson2006; Swers Reference Swers2002; Thomas Reference Thomas1994). There is additional work showing that women of color legislator act on both race and gender (Brown Reference Brown2014; Brown and Banks Reference Brown and Banks2014; Orey et al. Reference Orey, Smooth, Adams and Harris-Clark2006). Diversity in government enhances its responsiveness to minorities, and therefore increases its legitimacy. Recently, however, Hardy-Fanta et al. (Reference Hardy-Fanta, Lien, Pinderhughes and Sierra2016) found that men legislators were just as strongly committed to women’s rights as women were.

Beyond better deliberation and legitimacy, Mansbridge claims that group members win acceptance as political leaders. Acceptance is not automatic, and Mansbridge does not acknowledge prejudice and rejection even as she coauthored an important piece on political reprisals and threats (Mansbridge and Shames Reference Mansbridge and Shames2008). In 1983, Harold Washington, the first Black mayor of Chicago, found it difficult to win his race and govern because of the city’s racial divisions. In a solidly Democratic city, a White Republican challenger was able to mount an effective campaign (Kleppner Reference Kleppner1985). David Dinkins, New York City’s first Black mayor, won in 1989, only to be defeated for a second term in 1993 by a moderate White Republican. Minority legislators, even today, like Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), have experienced Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, and death threats. President Donald Trump referenced her and other progressive Democrats in tweets advising them to “go back” to their native countries. Some speculate that Trump’s election in 2016 was the result of a political backlash to Barack Obama, the first Black president of the United States.

Racism remained a problem during the Obama presidency. Obama was repeatedly asked whether he had been born in the United States, despite no evidence otherwise. There were some signs of resistance to his presidency in the public and within Congress (Hardy-Fanta et al. Reference Hardy-Fanta, Lien, Pinderhughes and Sierra2016, 74–75). Two years into Obama’s first term, the Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, famously stated his goal to make Obama a one-term president if Obama was too liberal. Using survey data, Jardina (Reference Jardina2019) shows that the Obama presidency triggered White in-group identities and fed beliefs about Whites being losers. Obama, however, did much to limit a backlash over race. He downplayed public perceptions that he was a race advocate (King-Meadows Reference King-Meadows, Shaw, Brown and McCormick2021; Price Reference Price2016; Shaw, Brown, McCormick Reference Shaw, Brown, McCormick, Shaw, Brown and McCormick2021). Shaw, Brown, and McCormick (Reference Shaw, Brown, McCormick, Shaw, Brown and McCormick2021) write that Obama did not view himself as a spokesperson for Blacks, while Price (Reference Price2016) claims that Obama failed to talk explicitly about race. Harris (Reference Harris2014) writes that the Obama presidency did not improve conditions for Blacks.

The same criticisms of the Obama presidency would likely carry over to a first woman president. Social norms, power, and inequality cause women representatives to avoid divisive issues such as establishing a national right to abortion and reproductive health. Congress became a focal point for abortion debates in the 1980s (Ainsworth and Hall Reference Ainsworth and Hall2011). Notably, women have found it impossible to remove the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976 has blocked Medicaid from funding most abortions. Republicans continue to attack opponents for advocating public funding for abortions. Swers’s (Reference Swers2013) study of women U.S. senators found that some Democratic female senators were reluctant to take strong public positions on abortion rights because of the public divide over it, despite having clear legislative records in this area.

Ambition may also reduce the substantive representation of marginalized groups. Female lawmakers may wish to represent majority interests, such as national defense, to appeal to the larger voting public in future elections. Swers (Reference Swers2013) found that women senators, like men, have equally strong records on defense and national security even though women are less likely than men to favor large defense budgets. In a study of Black lawmakers, those in Congress who later ran for statewide office were more moderate ideologically than those who had not (Tate Reference Tate2020). Women and minorities may strategically embrace dominant values and stake out positions that do not challenge them in order to advance politically. Group conflict theories (Blumer Reference Blumer1958) posit that power is a zero-sum good, with dominant groups viewing minorities as endangering their privileged positions. Survey work bears this out (Bobo and Hutchings Reference Bobo and Hutchings1996). Filindra (Reference Filindra2019), in analyzing immigration policies at the state level, found evidence for both welcoming and hostile reactions to the growth rates of immigrant groups. Women and minorities enter government and represent in ways that are not overtly threatening to the position, power, privilege, and resources of dominant groups.

Women and minorities have pressured the Democratic Party to liberalize. Still, political parties are inherently conservative. Samuel Alito’s nomination to replace retiring Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court was not filibustered by the Democrats. A lone Democratic senator filibustered, and it failed (Swers Reference Swers2013). In 2021, Senator Tammy Duckworth vowed to block President Joe Biden’s non-diversity appointments until more Asian Americans were added to his administration. Senator Mazie Hirono joined Duckworth. Duckworth’s and Hirono’s defections could have cost Biden his non-diversity appointments in an evenly divided Senate. Again, diversity goals run against the dominant cultural norms of a meritocracy and individualism. Having women and minorities in government make the case is why this issue of diversity and fairness will not go away.

Watershed events like the election of the first Black president in 2008 fail to be dramatically transformative because of a stratified social order, conservative dominant ideologies, and a majoritarian electoral system. Descriptive representatives may also fail to challenge the existing social order as they moderate their positions to gain legitimacy and to win votes. Change does occur, as descriptive representation elevates the group. But this is not automatic, and it can be met with pushback from the dominant group. McAdam (Reference McAdam1999) writes about a changing political opportunity structure, or the degree to which the political system is open or closed to reform and challenge. Groups can lose standing and there can be repression, as we saw with the Trump administration’s conservative immigration policies. In the end, a theory of descriptive representation should posit that its effects are complex and radical change is generally elusive.