We saw some evidence, in Chapter 5, that minority lawmakers act as both strong advocates for their own group’s interests and also as conduits for interminority group support. Specifically, black and Latino members of Congress (MCs) tended to support NAACP and NHLA positions at least as much, and in some Congresses to a greater extent, as their white counterparts (even after accounting for other f actors). A central conclusion of that chapter is present throughout this study: there is virtually no evidence of conflict or competition between advocates for black and Latino concerns; there is much evidence suggesting independent group advocacy, and some evidence of cooperation across minority groups at the national level.

In this chapter we extend this analysis in related, but different, directions. Rather than directly examining advocacy we seek to identify the source(s) of cross-group support that may help us understand the lack of interminority group conflict at the national level. We again focus on the behavior of members of Congress and their support for NHLA and NAACP legislative positions. The results suggest several important points consistent with larger themes in our analysis regarding (a) the importance of broad (versus narrower) interests in national politics (especially when compared to local politics) and its implications for dampening conflict and (b) the frequently independent behavior and/or unique foci or orientation of blacks and of Latinos (both advocacy groups and MCs) in national politics relative to each other and to white elites. We find that black and Latino MCs appear to have different cues or heuristics that magnify support for their own group’s positions compared to what shapes their views on the other group’s positions. Specifically, ideology (in terms of a standard, general liberal/conservative conception) plays a lesser role regarding support for representatives’ own racial/ethnic group’s policy positions; those are significantly animated by within-group considerations.