Republicans offered an impressive display, in 2010, when it came to recruiting and nominating women. For years—decades, actually—it had been Democrats who sent females to Congress, or at least nominated them for the chance. Democrats had the first truly viable female presidential contender in former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in 2008, while the GOP (catching up to the Democrats, who nominated Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 for vice president) was still behind, picking a woman, Sarah Palin, for its vice presidential nominee but offering no strong female candidate for president.
Republicans offered an impressive display, in 2010, when it came to recruiting and nominating women. For years—decades, actually—it had been Democrats who sent females to Congress, or at least nominated them for the chance. Democrats had the first truly viable female presidential contender in former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in 2008, while the GOP (catching up to the Democrats, who nominated Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 for vice president) was still behind, picking a woman, Sarah Palin, for its vice presidential nominee but offering no strong female candidate for president.
That changed last year, when the Republican party offered a record number of women for congressional and statewide positions. Many became their party's nominees—not just because people across the political spectrum are more comfortable with female candidates, but because the women were true conservatives who could win primaries. (Previously, moderate GOP women would run, and while they arguably could have been stronger general election candidates, they did not have enough appeal among the base to win their primaries.) And yes, it's true that some of the female candidate were severely lacking (hello, Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell). But so what? Unqualified, corrupt, or just irritating male candidates have been running for years. Why should every female candidate be the best of the best?
[See photos of Sarah Palin and her family.]
But unfortunately, the trend seems to have stalled—in the Senate, at least. As the Huffington Post notes, seven female senators are up for re-election next year, and only one is a Republican. And of the five (so far) females expected to get their respective party's nominations for Senate, only one is a Republican.
This isn't about the promotion of so-called "women's issues." In fact, if last year's slate showed anything it's that not all women think alike or have the same view of abortion or other issues. But women are more than half the population and comprise a strong majority of the electorate. They should be better represented in Congress, and that means having strong contingents from both political parties.
[Find out about the women of the Senate.]
After the 1992 "Year of the Woman" in politics, I asked females in both parties how things had changed (or not) on the Hill. Universally, the women said that the tone of hearings and negotiations had altered. The men, they said, tended to come in with an idea and fight for it. They would often be gracious in losing (and in winning), but they saw the process as one of competition. The women, meanwhile, tended to arrive at a bill-writing session with a more cooperative approach. They had ideas, but they wanted to hear everyone else's, and then put them together in one, big, strong proposal that included the best elements of everyone's plans. That may be learned behavior, and it may be abating as women achieve, very slowly, more parity with men. But in our bitterly divided Congress, it would be a welcome change in tone. Both parties could do better at recruiting and supporting female candidates.
- See a collection of political cartoons on Sarah Palin.
- See photos of Michele Bachmann.
- See photos of Michelle Obama.
Reader Comments Read all comments (5)
Roxane of WA 9:56PM December 27, 2012
junior of DC 9:17PM November 08, 2011
david of ID 6:59PM November 07, 2011