Many Americans have expressed their unhappiness with the 113th Congress and its ineffectiveness. (See Cristina's post from last week discussing the low productivity levels of our current Congress.) In fact, a Gallup poll from November revealed that our current Congress has received the lowest approval ratings thus far.
Anyways, I stumbled across an opinion column in the Washington Post by Danielle Thomsen which asserts that election of more Republican women would remedy the ineffective Congress. I found this piece particularly interesting because it reminded me of something in our chapter 7 reading. Our book talked about some data from the “NBC/Wall Street Journal poll [which] found that a majority of people agreed that it would be ‘better for society’ if ‘most of the members of Congress were women,’” (page 252). The book explains that voters might believe that women are more interested and perhaps better qualified to make decisions on domestic issues.
Thomsen's column essentially asserts that Republican women are able to compromise and generally tend to be moderate which leads to their success. Do you think that there should be more Republican women elected? Should more women, regardless of their party, be elected?
Considering that our current Congress is comprised of 98, or 20 percent, of women, how do you feel about the gender imbalance that Congress currently boasts? There are a total of 98 women in Congress - 20 on Senate (16 Democrat/ 4 Republicans) and 78 in the House (59 Democrats/19 Republicans). The Democratic party has roughly three times the amount of women that the Republican party has. How do you feel about the imbalance of women in the two different parties? Check out this really, really cool, albeit slightly dated (it's the 112th Congress) infographic graphic detailing the demographic of Congress (here's a small preview)!
Here's another infographic; this one is just on women senators in the 113th Congress.
Disclaimer: The clever post title is taken from Thomsen's original column.
7 comments:
I think it’s an interesting idea, particularly along the lines of representation. While I certainly won’t object to the idea of more women in Congress, I believe that the fact that they are an underrepresented constituency is the far more important point to look at. If I may quote the Washington Post column, “Research shows that Republican women tend to hold views to the left of their male co-partisans and that voters perceive them to be more liberal than they actually are.” So yes, it’s probably fair to say that this is one of the reasons why more women aren’t elected to the Republican leadership. It’s also just plain difficult to change the demographics quickly in the Senate (6 year terms and incumbency advantages among the reasons).
Some of the poll results released in this article possibly attest to this as well.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/only-23-of-republicans-want-more-women-elected-to-congress/281045/
But I also came across this article a couple days ago…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/05/us-usa-politics-women-idUSBRE9B410720131205
Not extremely informative, but what it does say is that the Republicans are thinking about 2016, and the effects that female voters had in the 2012 election. Sure, the “legitimate rape” quote will remain a memorable gaffe, but a gaffe it was—I’d say that it’s fair to assume that Todd Akin meant exactly what he said. The mistake wasn’t the language; it was saying it.
So, again, if we look back at the results and voting patterns of the 2012 election…
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2012/12/12/47916/how-women-changed-the-outcome-of-the-election/
… I think the Republicans are faced with a tough dilemma as they try to solidify their support base and expand it. Are those two mutually exclusive? I’m not sure, but Boehner certainly seems to be going somewhere…
Brandon makes a good point when he says that change is slow to come for the Senate, given their long terms and the high probability that incumbents are reelected. I feel that if the GOP wants to increase its number of female representative, its going to need to do what the linked column suggests and be more active in its recruitment for women politicians.
I think the under-representation of women as a whole in Congress is something that ought to lessen and ideally disappear. However, I don't really see it as a separate issue from the under-representation of minority representatives, so I'm a little confused as to why the column suggests that compromise and efficiency are bound to come from more Republican women in Congress, as opposed to such compromise being a result of more diversity and moderates overall.
I think that part of the problem is that not enough girls think that they can become politicians. There seems to be an increase in "girl power" books written for children and teenagers. Nevertheless, often these books feature girls who have amazing warrior powers or survival skills (like Katniss). At least among the "girl power" books I have read or heard of, rarely do they feature women becoming political leaders. I am not so sure if we wish to encourage girls to become more aggressive, but encouraging girls to enter politics is a positive thing.
So I think a societal shift is necessary.
Also, I have a question. Which matters more: that there is equal opportunity for minorities/women to be in Congress or that the number of minorities/women in Congress is proportional to their population? Is it the result that matters or the even playing field? I am not sure. Both seem important, but I think we need to focus not just on the results of the election but on the societal norms that lead up to the election.
I think it's interesting how Presidents try to appoint minorities and women to make the cabinet "look more like America," while there are little to no efforts in trying to make Congress more diverse and representative.
But I have to agree with Brianne. I don't think small actions that advocate an increase in the number of women in congress is enough. Most girls don't even have the motivation to become politicians. The whole problem starts with the general basis of society. If we want to see more women represented in congress, I believe efforts to change the culture of America and American politics is necessary.
To answer Brianne's question, I think proportional representation is most important. After all, our government is based around trying to represent everyone. It is unfair to underrepresent particular groups of equal citizens of America.
I really like the question that Brianne posed. Although both are important, I think equal opportunity is more important than proportional representation. There must be equal opportunity for proportional representation to even happen, at least if you want it to happen well. By which I mean, I don't think people should vote to elect minorities just to make Congress representative of the country. People should vote for who they think is going to represent them the best, regardless of whether the candidate is a minority or not.
I think that there aren't very many minority candidates to vote for in the first place. I think there's a disproportionate amount of white men not only in Congress, but running for Congress. Other people mentioned in their comments stuff about society and the playing field and everything, and that's where this comes in. I think the reason Congress is disproportionate is because the playing field is disproportionate. And I think that society doesn't encourage minorities as much as non-minorities to be political leaders.
I really like what Rick and Brianne pointed out - it's not just lack of opportunity for women in politics but also the lack of encouragement and the societal norms that exist regardless of how qualified a female candidate may be. I recently read an article by Lisa Abend about Sweden and its push for gender neutrality. It mentioned that the representation of women in Sweden's parliament is about 45%, but the United States lingers at a mere 17%. Sweden is a country that is going through a lot of social change in terms of gender equality, which leads me to believe that it's more about social change than anything else if we are to fix this 17%.
I do think it will be more difficult for Republican women to get elected - after all, the article did say that conservative white Republican men are more situated to run and win. American society fosters a discouraging environment for women in politics. Even Hillary Clinton has been quoted saying that "Politics is really hard. And it is harder for women. There's a double standard...you just have to accept it, and be smart enough to navigate it."
It's a whole another thing to appoint people just because they are from a minority group, but I think there should be more done to encourage capable and qualified women in politics.
I think it will be interesting to see what the demographics will be in the future. I agree with Brianne that girls may not see politics as a career, but I think there are more and more role models for girls. Hillary Clinton, as I perceive her, is a strong female politician that can provide girls someone to look up to. However, there can always be more role models, and hopefully there will be more in the future.
I am hoping, as our generation comes to a voting age, that we vote for more deserving minorities that can better represent America. If there are no deserving minorities on the ballot, then I think there is an issue. Like Julia said, it seems that only white, older men, are running fro congress more than other demographics. However, I think our society is slowly becoming more integrated, and eventually, our Congress will be more representative of America. I do wish it changes faster.
Post a Comment