She also made clear that it is not the sole responsibility of candidates of color to talk about racism. It was refreshing to hear and should be the start of a new way of talking about race.

In contrast, when the moderators asked the other candidates about how they would deal with racial hostility, they all made the same rhetorical pivot, talking about blacks and other people of color instead. They decried urban blight, school segregation, health care disparities and problematic law enforcement. As an African-American woman raised in the urban South, I am happy they’re willing to acknowledge these issues. But all candidates should start to speak to white people about race and the ways that policies they take for granted are directly implicated in creating these social problems.

Ms. Gillibrand’s response was years in the making. Before President Barack Obama, scholars of black politics noted that black candidates usually ran campaigns that avoided explicit discussions of racially sensitive issues and eschewed behavior that might play into racial stereotypes. After Mr. Obama’s presidency there will be no more campaigns where identity politics can be ignored. His presence in the White House required all Americans to contend with the changing demographic of this country and with the fact that we will continue to see more leaders of color.

In 2016, Democratic candidates, under pressure from movement activists, began to talk more openly about systemic forms of racism. Now, anyone wanting the party’s nomination has to be able to identify examples of racial disparities.

This is significant because we are in a political moment where open expressions of racial bigotry and intolerance are more frequent and belligerent. The number of hate crimes and membership in hate groups are both increasing. The president has chosen to use issues like immigration, crime and the census to foment racial fears among whites. There are no more dog whistles; our leaders are using bullhorns to spread their racism.