The racial composition of elected officials in the United States has significantly diversified in recent decades. Nevertheless, the proportion of candidates of color still fall far short of the underlying voter population, particularly as the minority demographic continues to grow at a rapid pace. To explain the source of racial disparity in government, scholars have long examined various political opportunity structures under which minority candidates arise, suggesting that whether candidates of color emerge or not is a strategic matter: minority candidates enter politics when they perceive high electoral viability, which they estimate using information such as the racial composition of a district and prior electoral success of co-ethnic candidates. However, absent from this scholarship is a comprehensive understanding of how minority individuals enter the emergence process in the first place and how the factors that advance them through the pipeline to power evolve over time. This dissertation investigates the process by which racial minorities decide to enter politics, examining the entire pipeline to power from developing an initial interest in running for office to officially becoming a candidate. First, I examine political ambition among the general American public, focusing on the racial differences in the development of political ambition and the factors uniquely influencing ordinary minority voters' entry decisions. Through an online survey on a sample of ordinary American voters, post-stratified to be representative of each racial population, I find that factors commonly used to predict political ambition, such as encouragement from personal or political sources, political efficacy, and community participation, operate differently between minority respondents and their white counterparts as well as across different racial groups. A conjoint experiment designed to examine entry decisions among ordinary minority voters both confirms existing theories and offers a new insight. I find that the perceived electoral viability is higher in electoral districts with larger share of co-ethnic populations, which aligns with conventional wisdom that minority population is often used to gauge the primary voter base among minority candidates. Furthermore, I find that among politically ambitious minority respondents, perceived electoral viability is higher when an incumbent shares the respondent's ethnicity. However, this effect is reduced when both the incumbent and the challenger share the same ethnicity, indicating that minority status is no longer a comparative electoral advantage. Second, in two field experiments embedded in real-world candidate recruitment efforts, I investigate the relative influence of intrinsic and extrinsic appeals on developing nascent interest in running for office. I find that intrinsic motivation to run, such as a desire to bring about social change, increases not only the immediate information-seeking behavior but also a longer-term commitment to candidacy, including applying to and attending a campaign training program. On the other hand, extrinsic appeals intended to increase the perceived likelihood of winning generate a significantly smaller effect on the immediate consideration of political candidacy while exerting a modest amount of influence on the longer-term commitment. Third, through a conjoint experiment on minority individuals situated at different stages of the emergence process, I study how the motivation to run evolves as they progress through their political journey. I find modest evidence of a shift in priority, from intrinsic to extrinsic, as minority individuals advance through the pipeline to power. Specifically, those with low levels of political ambition prefer to run in districts that have undergone a surge in violence targeted toward co-ethnic groups. In contrast, those with a high level of political ambition prefer districts with a substantial share of their co-ethnic population. Fourth, I examine how both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to run play out in real-world elections. Leveraging city-level exposure to police brutality, I find that the share of Black candidates running in municipal elections increases in cities after a fatal police shooting of a Black resident, suggesting that racial violence politicizes group consciousness among the Black community, which, in turn, influences their desire to enter politics. However, exploring individual cases of who those candidates are and when they appear on a ballot reveals that Black candidates emerge for both intrinsic and strategic reasons: political veterans emerge immediately after the incident as they take advantage of increased minority voter turnout and open seats, whereas political newcomers arise several years later as they require more resources. The empirical findings challenge the conventional wisdom that attributes minority under-representation to strategic calculations alone. Instead, they highlight the importance of examining both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations at each stage of the emergence process to fully understand why racial minorities run for office. In doing so, this research offers new insights into the nuanced dynamics of minority candidate emergence and, in turn, minority representation in the United States.

This dissertation brings the works of Antonio Gramsci and W.E.B. Du Bois in conversation with each other to theorize transformative hegemony as a project aiming to overcome racial capitalism despite the backlashes and resilience of this social order. The dissertation argues that racial capitalism is sustained by a strategy that divides the subalterns, the non-ruling classes, through coercion and co-optation in a way that perpetuates cycles of crises and violence. The project of transformative hegemony aims to overcome this by forming a broad passionate coalition of the subalterns around a new worldview that can offer a genuine answer to the contradiction of this socio-economic system. To form such a coalition despite the pervasive division amongst the subalterns, Gramsci and Du Bois present a strategy of war of position that is meant to empower the subalterns and destabilize the ruling coalition. They compare this strategy to a form of trench warfare because it prepares the subalterns for a long-term struggle, requires mobilizing a broad coalition from different groups with diverse needs, interests, and grievances, and creates trenches to foster transformation in different spheres of society. The dissertation develops Gramsci and Du Bois’s insight into the role of culture, leadership, science, and the organization of movements as trenches of transformation meant to empower the subalterns and destabilize the ruling coalition to bring about a transformative hegemony.