In recent years, political campaigns have seen a resurgence of explicitly racially charged attacks and appeals—tactics once considered unacceptable in mainstream politics. Meanwhile, the nation’s rapidly changing demographics have forced candidates to grapple with how to appeal to racial minorities who increasingly hold the power to sway national elections. Asian Americans, the fastest-growing racial group in the U.S., are central to this shift. However, how they respond to these racially charged messaging remains unclear.
California’s 45th congressional district provides a unique lens to explore this question. Over the past two election cycles, this rare Asian-plurality district, anchored by Little Saigon, has seen a notably unique phenomenon: two Asian candidates facing off in a nationally competitive race, each vying for the coveted Asian vote.
Michelle Steel, a Korean American Republican, has built a reputation for controversial and divisive campaign tactics throughout her political career. Representing CA-45 — one of the most politically competitive districts in the country, and home to the largest Vietnamese enclave in the U.S. — Steel has relied on aggressive tactics to appeal to Vietnamese voters and attack her political challengers.
One of Steel’s hallmark strategies has been that of “red-baiting”—associating her Asian opponents with communism, an influential issue for many Vietnamese Americans who fled communist rule. In 2022, Steel used this tactic effectively against Jay Chen, a Taiwanese American Democrat. Her campaign ads associated Chen as a puppet for the Chinese Communist Party, and Vietnamese language-mailers painted him as a threat to the community’s anti-communist values. Despite widespread criticism of anti-Asian racism from Democrats, and even amongst a national backdrop of anti-Asian hate crimes, she retained her House seat in 2022, comfortably defeating Chen in a 52.4% to 47.6% margin.
This year, Steel employed the same divisive tactics against Derek Tran, a Vietnamese American Democrat, military veteran, and the son of refugees. Her campaign again relied on red-baiting, distributing mailers that linked Tran to Mao Zedong. However, Steel escalated further, questioning Tran’s fluency in Vietnamese and declaring on a Vietnamese-language television program that she was “more Vietnamese” than Tran, invoking her experience as a Korean immigrant to parallel the Vietnamese refugee experience.
Steel’s strategy of co-opting Vietnamese identity, questioning Tran’s ethnic authenticity, and associating him with communism appeared to have crossed a line, with protests of the linkage between Tran and Communism erupting across Little Saigon. For many Vietnamese voters, Steel’s identity-based attacks may have felt personal—an affront to the community itself. By accusing a Vietnamese American of being insufficiently Vietnamese while simultaneously attempting to co-opt their identity and tie one of their own to communism, Steel may have alienated the very constituency she depends on.
Why didn’t her red-baiting succeed this time? Unlike her previous opponent, Jay Chen, Tran’s Vietnamese heritage and deep ties to the local community position him as an “in-group” member. While Asian Americans are often grouped together as a racial bloc in politics, many identify more strongly with their ethnic origin. In this context, while Steel and Tran share the same racial classification, Steel’s Korean background ultimately sets her apart from the Vietnamese community she seeks to represent, giving Tran a potential advantage as someone who shares their distinct cultural and historical experiences. Steel’s attempt to position herself as a representative for the Vietnamese community while simultaneously attacking a Vietnamese American opponent likely came across as both inauthentic and contradictory.
As votes continue to be counted in this high-stakes race, which could determine the balance of power in the House, Tran holds a razor-thin lead – but a lead nevertheless. The outcome will reveal whether Steel’s controversial racist tactics resonated with voters or alienated them. In a political climate where explicit racially charged attacks have sometimes proven to be a high-risk, high-reward strategy, and as both parties struggle to engage minority voters, a loss for Steel could serve as a stark reminder that such tactics can just as easily lead to significant backlash.
Regardless of the final election result, Steel’s campaign may become a cautionary tale of the dangers of targeting a challenger’s identity in a district defined by its deeply connected and culturally proud community.
Joyce Nguy is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at UCLA, with concentrations in Race, Ethnicity and Politics, American Politics, and Methods. She studies elections, campaigns and candidates, descriptive representation, and Asian American political behavior.
Leave a Reply