Panel Discussion, NCRW Annual Conference, June 2004

Discussion Leaders:

• Sarah Brewer, Associate Director, Women and Politics Institute, American University
• Sue Carroll, Senior Scholar, Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University
• Dianne Pinderhughes, Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Professor of Political Science and Afro-American Studies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• Judith Saidel, Executive Director, Center for Women in Government and Civil Society, State University of New York at Albany

Moderator:

• Hon. Linda Tarr-Whelan, Managing Partner, Tarr-Whelan & Associates, Inc.

Quotes

"There are political cultures around the world where, with the appropriate mix of political will, external pressure, and the right historical moment, political cultures that seem entrenched have, in fact, changed."
                                          -Judith Saidel

"Racialized and gendered invisibility shapes the way that political leadership is conceptualized in political science. Voting rights policy has had a profound impact on women's electoral participation and leadership. The literature has tended to treat women in politics as without race and racial and ethnic groups as without gender."
                                          -Dianne Pinderhughes

Overview

In this session, experts offered multiple perspectives on issues affecting women's political leadership in the United States. Over the last five years, much of the progress for women holding top-ranking gubernatorially-appointed positions in the 50 states has met with some sort of hindrance. In the past two years, women have lost ground across the political arena. Both white women and women of color are drastically under-represented in appointed positions and in legislatures. Speakers documented women's disturbing lack of success securing positions of political leadership, crediting a variety of causes as the source of this under-representation. All agreed that something must be done to change this discouraging trend.

Outline

Judith Saidel began by discussing the status of women in appointed positions. Women have indeed lost ground here during the past several years, Saidel noted. She suggested possible reasons for this decline:

1. The conventional rules of the "appointing game:"
   • Appointed positions are often viewed as rewards for loyal campaign activists and donors.
   • Longtime loyal friends are often granted appointed positions, as well.
   • Many positions are granted as token appointments, with women as significant recipients of such appointment.
   • The symbolic representation of these appointments is too frequently interpreted as substantative.
   When discussing the "rules of the game," Saidel emphasized that we should not accept these rules at face value, but rather question them. Who are the loyal campaign activists and donors? Who are the longtime loyal friends of the elected officials doing the appointing? Is a token appointment really representative of progress? Saidel offered additional reasons for the lack of women in appointed positions:
2. The organization of political life in the executive branch of the government is fundamentally hostile to families, and families are most often considered the major obstacle for women's involvement in politics.
3. Lack of sustained vigilance by watchdog groups.
4. Political structures designed to advocate for women's advancement in government have, in fact, been co-opted. Women's commissions, for instance, are frequently placed inside government locations.
5. In some states, the statutory and regulatory appointment requirements may be barriers to the advancement of women.

Sue Carroll spoke about the recent plateau in the numbers of women serving in state legislative office. Indeed, the numbers are actually declining: in 2004, fewer women are currently serving in state legislatures than were five years ago. Carroll identified multiple contributing factors behind the trend:

1. Changes in the legislatures and the legislators.
   • In the 1990s the leveling-off coincided with a dramatic increase in the numbers of Republican state legislators nationally and an increased influence of the Christian right in Republican politics.
   • Legislatures have become significantly more Republican in the last 15 years.
     
     • However, "while the Republican party has gained strength in state legislatures, Republican women have not shared equally in their party's success."
     • An ideological dimension compounds this partisan dimension: Republican women in office are more conservative today than in years past.
     • Moderates seem to have disappeared; moderate Republican women report that "something" has happened in their party, resulting in fewer opportunities moderate Republican women.
2. The unfulfilled promise of term limits.
   
   • Term limits were supposed to increase opportunities for women in legislatures.
     
     • Women often have to run against incumbents and challenge them in order to get into office; incumbents have a huge advantage.
     • Term limits were supposed to call for the evacuation of seats and consequently would have facilitated the process of first-time election, particularly for women.
   • Term limits have not led to the election of a greater number of women to state legislative seats.
     
     • More women were forced to vacate their seats than were elected in the 1998 and 2000 elections.
     • This points to a failure in improvement in those states where term limits have been implemented.
       
       • Women haven't taken advantage of opportunities: in the 1998 and 2000 elections, in more than 2/5 of all the races for House seats across the country, no woman entered either the Democratic or the Republican primary.
       • In more than 1/3 of the races where women were term-limited out, no woman ran, and 3/4 of the women who were term-limited out were replaced by men.

Carroll noted that women need to be recruited to run for office; the mere existence of open seats has proven insufficient. Women are more likely than men to say that they had not considered running for office until someone had suggested it to them.

Dianne Pinderhughes shared work on a gendered, multicultural research project, which involved a survey of female elected officials at the national, state and local levels of governance. Pinderhughes reported that, on the one hand, American democracy has produced dramatic increases in the numbers of women and people of color who serve as elected officials; on the other hand, however, patterns of under-representation persist at all levels. Given the diversity of the total population in America, the numbers aren't what they might be. Pinderhughes' project focuses on both the promise and the constraints of America's electoral system on minority populations. She has amassed data from all corners of the American demographic landscape, though getting that data has been complicated.

Sarah Brewer, who studies D.C.-based women who work behind the scenes (fundraisers, media consultants and campaign consultants), shared her research as well. According to a survey done by the Center for Congressional Presidential Studies, only 18 percent of people in these positions are women and only eight percent of them are women of color. Brewer posed a series of specific questions in her survey, including the following:

1. Do you see different rules applied to female consultants as opposed to male consultants?
   
   • More women than men responded "yes, there are different rules."
   • Across party lines, 60 percent agreed that the rules were different.
   • 85 percent of Democratic women thought that the rules were different.
   • Those who said "yes" also commented:
     
     • Women have to work twice as hard to get just as far as men.
     • Women's credibility is often questioned.
     • Women struggle with a perceived sexual availability and/or questions about their place in the campaign due to sexual relationships.
     • Women cannot come on too strong without risking being labeled the "b-word," which puts women at a disadvantage in a career where aggression is crucial.
2. Why are there so few women in the industry?
   
   • Participants overwhelmingly responded that family was the main contributing factor; 65 percent of women agreed that familial concerns definitely affected them.
   • The competitive environment turns women off. (More men than women reported this as a cause.)
   • Sexism of clients and bosses.
   • Early career decisions. (Many campaign consultants, for instance, begin early on in their working life: women at this point are frequently funneled into administrative duties, whereas men are often directed to the field.)
3. Do you believe that there is a qualitative difference between the way that male and female consultants approach and execute work?
   
   • Most respondents answered "yes." (Some said men and women had different sets of priorities.)

Brewer noted that the individuals in these consultant positions essentially set the debate for the electorate. Women contribute a valuable perspective regarding issues to be discussed.

The discussion that followed focused on the importance of bringing women to the political arena and recruiting more female leaders. Participants agreed that more women are needed in all aspects of leadership.