Akela Lacy
Twenty-seven years ago, Anita Hill sat before a Senate
committee and explained that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas
sexually harassed her. At the time, only two women served in the upper
chamber, and neither were on the Judiciary Committee.
The optics of Hill’s hearing, along with the events that led up to
and followed it, drove a record number of women to action — and into the
Senate.
In 1992, the year following the hearing, now famously known as the
“Year of the Woman,” Americans voted four women into the Senate. That
constituted a historic,
100 percent increase in the number of sitting women senators:
Barbara
Mikulski’s re-election pushed the total to seven (North Dakota’s first
female senator Jocelyn Burdick, appointed to fill her husband’s seat
after he died, did not run for re-election). That included the first
African-American woman to serve in the chamber, Carol Moseley Braun. And
it wasn’t just the upper chamber: The number of women in the House
almost doubled from 30 to 48.
Amid another era of historic reckoning with sexual harassment and
hostility toward women in the workplace, men are again falling out of
positions of power. The #MeToo movement has taken down some 200 men from the worlds of government, corporations, and media. And women have been replacing them, almost one for one.
In politics, that’s a fact most evident in the massive number of women — 589 — who have run, or said they’ll run, in races this year for the Senate, House, and governor’s mansions.
Yet the wave of women candidates is not always what it seems. Election observers tend to conflate the advancement of women in electoral politics with Democratic gains. While women are certainly, if slowly,
increasing their numbers in the legislative branch and across
statehouses, the correlation between Democratic victories and victories
for women hasn’t always been as strong as many think. This is true even
in recent elections, as this year’s momentum for a clutch of Republican women shows.
Though Democratic women have historically outnumbered their
Republican counterparts, blue waves like the one that came to pass
Tuesday excluded women more often than not.
People forget what happened in 2006.
Americans were beginning to sour on the Iraq War in large numbers,
and swing voters who backed President George W. Bush in 2004 were moving
to support Democrats.
EMILY’s List, the well-known Democratic political action committee
that supports pro-choice women, endorsed 43 candidates for Senate,
House, and gubernatorial races. Nineteen won — four senators, 12
representatives, and three governors. In total that year, 148 women were
elected
to Congress, and six became governors. The push put Nancy Pelosi in the
seat of the speaker of the House — the first woman to hold the
position.
Pundits and analysts memorialized the win
as a teachable moment for Democrats. It was a replicable model. The
party picked up 32 seats and flipped both the House and Senate for the
first time in 12 years, despite criticisms that the candidates who won
were too centrist. Naftali Bendavid’s popular book, “The Thumpin’,” chronicled the then-chair of the moderate Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Rahm Emanuel’s successful strategy.
These pundits, though, miss one point.
While a record
number of women served in the 110th session of Congress — as has been
the case each Congress since — the legislative branch was still overwhelmingly
male. In 2006, Americans elected eight men and two women — Amy
Klobuchar and Claire McCaskill — to begin new terms in the Senate,
bringing the chamber total to 84 men and 16 women. Of 53 newly elected representatives, 10 were women, bringing the House total to 361 men, almost five times the number of women at 74.
In 40 districts rated as competitive
in 2006, men won all but eight of the seats between the parties — two
of those went to Republican women. The majority that came in was also
male-dominated: Women who mounted primary challenges that year were all
but completely wiped out.
This year, women challenged their male counterparts in record
numbers. “The women who are running are very well aware of the fact that
they could lose,” said Julie McClain, EMILY’s List campaign
communications director.
“EMILY’s List exists because we believe you get better policy
outcomes when you have more women at decision-making tables across the
country, at every level of government,” she said. “With more women
running, you will get more women winning.”
Still, there are reasons — especially in 2018 — for people who
want to see women in power, and not just in the Capitol, to be
reasonably optimistic.
While Democratic waves haven’t always included women, what has
endured is the growing number of women in the pipeline. “What we find so
exciting about this cycle is that we’ve had more women than ever
before, by several degrees, 1,000 degrees, reaching out to us for help
running for office,” McClain said. “Both this year, but for cycles to
come. Women who are making running for office part of their life plans.”
This year’s surge is an equal reflection of grassroots momentum
that’s been building for decades, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., told The
Intercept.
“Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the first African-American
woman elected to Congress, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm,” Lee said in a
phone interview on Tuesday. “She was elected 50 years ago on November
5. And we worked with a variety of women around the country to lift her
legacy up and to encourage women, and African-American women, to run for
office, to be involved in campaigns and in get-out-the-vote efforts.”
Lee pointed out that four women are poised to chair important House
committees, and that three of them are women of color. Reps. Maxine
Waters, D-Calif., Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., Eddie Bernice Johnson,
D-Texas, and Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., are in line to chair, respectively, the
House Financial Services, Small Business, Science, Space and
Technology, and Appropriations committees.
After Rep. Robert Brady’s retirement from Pennsylvania’s 1st District
earlier this year, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., is technically next in
line to chair the House Administration Committee. She also serves as
ranking member on the powerful Judiciary Committee, which will almost
certainly be chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. Lofgren’s office did
not respond to requests for comment.
“We have an unheard of number, an unprecedented number of women of
color running for state, local, and federal races this year,” Lee said.
“And so I just think the moment is here where women say, ‘We’re not
going back … and we’re going to run for public office,’” Lee said.
“I think it’s going to be women, really, quite frankly, who are going
to take control of this country,” she continued. “Women are mounting
races that are really unheard of. They’re smart, they have experience,
and they’re bringing their perspective to policy, to their constituents,
that has not been there. And they’re authentic.”
EMILY’s List followed the relative disappointment of 2006 by
fervently backing Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House in 2008. Her
eventual loss to Barack Obama in the Democratic primary sent the group
looking for ways to regain its footing.
This year has changed all of that. The number of women in Congress is expected to reach another record at 117. At the time of publication, women won 96 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, and nine women out of the 16 who ran are headed to governors’ mansions.
More than 250 women,
including 83 incumbents, won primaries this year — 233 in the House and
22 in the Senate. And, according to McClain, hundreds more are waiting
in the wings.
“We believe that with more women in Congress and more women in state
legislatures, the way that we prioritize legislation will be more
advantageous for women and families — which is sorely lacking,” she
said.
At the state level, McClain continued, that means “adding more voices
of women in other communities who have not always been equitably
treated by their state and local governments.”
“By adding more women to the ranks of Congress, and then seeing more
women who have been serving move up in the leadership,” she said, “we
will see better policy outcomes.”
No comments:
Post a Comment