96

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND POLITICS

ANTHONY DEFOREST MOLINA

University of South Dakota

The field of racial and ethnic politics concerns itself with the role that race and ethnicity play in shaping the political behavior of individuals and groups, as well as the role that race and ethnicity play in how social, economic, and political institutions are constructed. This chapter provides an overview of that field by sketching out the major themes that exist in the body of scholarship known as racial and ethnic politics, as well as illustrating the manner in which the insights gained from such inquiry can be useful in understanding the political experience of minority groups in America. It begins with an overview of the basic terms, concepts, and political strategies that have been identified by scholars in the field. Next, a few examples are provided of the way in which these terms, concepts, and strategies may be applied by briefly examining the experience of some of the various minority groups in the American political system. Finally, a brief discussion of the future directions of

the field is provided.

Racial and Ethnic Political Theory: Concepts and Strategies

In providing an overview of any field of inquiry, it is important to define the meaning of the basic terms and concepts that are used. As Michael LeMay (2000) has

pointed out, this is all the more true for the field of racial and ethnic politics because the terms used are often controversial and emotionally charged. In fact, the manner in which scholars in the field use terms such as racism, prej udice, and discrimination can sometimes be at odds with the manner in which these terms are used in the media and in popular discourse. Therefore, the following section of this chapter seeks to carefully define the core terms and concepts that are used in describing the experiences of minority groups in the American political system. It then turns to a brief overview of the various political strategies that ethnic and racial groups have utilized in coping with their status as a minority group.

Basic Terms and Concepts

Majority and Minority Status

The most basic of concepts in understanding the role of race and ethnicity in a political system are the concepts of majority and minority status. These two terms refer to the degree of power that groups have with respect to each other in a political system (LeMay, 2000). In other words, in any given political system, there will be a group that has the power to determine the norms and values of society, with the remaining groups being subject to those determined

831

832 • AMERICAN POLITICS

norms and values. Thus, the term majority refers to the group in a political system that has the power to determine the norms and values by which social, political, and economic life is structured. Importantly, this group does not necessarily need to represent a numerical majority, as in the case, for example, of blacks in South Africa under apartheid rule. Although blacks in South Africa at this time represented an overwhelming numerical majority, they were subject to the official South African policy of apartheid (separateness), which included statutory requirements that excluded blacks from positions of power, denied them access to many public accommodations, and enforced a rigid social hierarchy in which white South Africans enjoyed a position of power and privilege. Under such conditions, white South Africans, though not a numerical majority, enjoyed superordinate status as a group in the political system and were therefore the majority group. In turn, the term minority in this context refers to those groups that are subject to the norms and values of the majority but, for one reason or another, do not enjoy membership in that group.

Ethnicity, Race, and Racism

Peter Rose (1964) has defined an ethnic group as a group whose members share a social and cultural heritage that is passed from generation to generation. According to Rose, this sense of belonging to the ethnic group can be deeply influenced by the manner in which the dominant group in society responds to the ethnic group. If the ethnic group is accepted by the majority group, they may come to identify themselves more closely with the majority group, and so in such cases the “sense of peoplehood” that they share as an ethnic group may weaken (LeMay, 2000). On the other hand, where the majority rejects the ethnic group, the bonds that hold the ethnic group together may actually strengthen as they seek to cope with their status as a minority group in the face of majority group hostility. Edgar Litt (1970) points out that these dynamics between groups are neither new nor unique to the American experience but are as old as the human condition itself. As he puts it,

The shared symbols, interests, affections, and real or imagined traits which draw some men together into the group or commu nity are the walls which separate these men from others . . .

for there to be “brothers” there must be “others.” (p. 4)

In contrast to ethnicity, the term race refers to the genetic makeup of individuals that accounts for the differences that we find in physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features. The term racism applies where individuals hold a belief that these differences in physical characteristics are directly linked to intellectual functioning, and on the basis of those differences, people make distinctions between races that are superior and races that are inferior (LeMay, 2000). Michael Banton (1967)

has argued that, from the standpoint of social science, it is the social dimension of race that is important in understanding the nature of race relations, rather than the biological dimensions. In other words, the focus of analysis for social science researchers should be related to how the concept of race is socially constructed and the implications that those constructions have for how individuals meet the expectations assigned to those roles.

Prejudice and Discrimination

The term prejudice refers to an attitude (usually a negative attitude) that is directed toward individuals who are perceived to belong to a particular group (Rose, 1964). Simply put, prejudice is the practice of prejudging an individual on the basis of his or her membership in a group, rather than on his or her unique individual characteristics. According to Kitano (1997), prejudice may develop for a variety of different reasons. For example, where one group dominates another for their own benefit, prejudice may develop as a means of keeping the other group in a subordinate position in order to justify the existing social order. Similarly, ignorance may serve as another source of prejudice because a lack of information about a racial or ethnic group can lead to the formation of stereotypes, which are oversimplistic and overexaggerated beliefs about a group. Selective perception and the projection of these images through the mass media and popular culture of society subsequently lead to their reinforcement. In contrast to prejudice, which, again, is an attitude, the term discrimination refers to behavior. Put otherwise, a person who acts on prejudicial views in dealing with members of a group is engaged in discrimination, or as LeMay (2000) calls it, “applied prejudice.” An employer, for example, may hold prejudicial views about a minority group without acting on those views. However, if the employer were to deny an individual employment because of prejudicial views about the group to which they are perceived to belong, then the employer would have engaged in discrimination.

Social Stratification and Segregation

The term social stratification refers to the process whereby individuals and groups are assigned to different roles and positions in society, which, in turn, results in an uneven distribution of the rewards and power that accompany those roles and positions (LeMay, 2000). A related concept, segregation, refers to the act of physically separating members of a minority group from the members of the majority group in order to limit contact between the two groups. Segregation may be either de jure (in law) or de facto (in fact). An example of de jure segregation can be found in the legal statutes or so-called Jim Crow laws of the post–Reconstruction Era South (Sitkoff, 1981). Such segregation codified in law the barring of African

Americans from access to various public accommodations such as hotels, restaurants, and public pools. In other cases, segregation statutes created an entirely separate set of social institutions on the basis of race, including public schools and military units. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these types of laws in its landmark ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) by establishing the separate but equal doctrine. Although the Court reversed itself almost 60 years later in its Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling by declaring that “separate is inherently unequal,” the practice of segregation proved difficult to undo. In lieu of de jure segregation, various manifestations of de facto segregation persist to this day (Barker, Jones, & Tate, 1999). In contrast to de jure segregation, de facto segregation occurs as a result of social practices that, although not codified in law, have a similar outcome in terms of maintaining the separation of a minority group from the majority group.

Acculturation and Assimilation

When different ethnic groups come into contact with one another, their members become conscious of the different norms and values that exist between them. As a result of contact between groups over time, acculturation takes place. Litt (1970) defines acculturation as “the process whereby the minority member absorbs the cultural ways, values, and lifestyles of the wider community, or that portion of the wider community which operates within the regional and class confines available to him” (p. 15). According to LeMay (2000), however, this process of acculturation is two directional, meaning that not only do minority groups begin to internalize norms and values from the majority group, but also—vice versa—majority group members begin to internalize some of the norms and values of the minority group. The decoration of Christmas trees, for example, now a common practice among majority group members in America, was absorbed via contact with German immigrants. Similarly, pizzas and quesadillas are now a mainstream staple of American cuisine as a result of contact with Italian and Mexican immigrants. Acculturation, then, simply refers to the process by which these sorts of practices make their way from one group to another.

Assimilation is a concept that is related to acculturation but refers to a much more deeply transformative process wherein an individual or individuals of one group begin to identify psychologically with the other group—that is, the minority group is essentially absorbed into the majority group as new members (LeMay, 2000). This is most often the case where majority group members are willing to accept the minority group (or individuals within that group) as members of their own group. In such cases, distinctions between the groups become less meaningful as the respective members begin to view themselves as all members of one group. In American society, for example, Germans were once considered a distinct minority group

Race, Ethnicity, and Politics • 833

in relation to the Anglo-American majority. However, as German immigrants began to adopt the English language and Anglo-American customs, the process of assimilation made the distinctions between German and AngloAmericans less important, and over time they became assimilated into the majority group.

It is important to note here that not all minority groups can, or want to, assimilate into the majority group (Litt, 1970). For whatever differences existed between them and the majority Anglo group, German Americans were still Caucasian, primarily Christians, and shared a great many of the basic norms and values of the Anglo majority group. Thus, assimilation was relatively easy and desirable for them. Other groups, however, particularly those of African descent, have experienced a significant degree of acculturation but have at the same time been blocked from assimilation as a result of factors such as prejudice and racism (Rose, 1964). Thus, the distinction between acculturation and assimilation is an important one. As Litt (1970) explains, the minority group member “who undergoes acculturation is not necessarily freed from feelings of marginality or minority group status” (p. 15). In any event, minority groups often find that they must use some strategy, or combination of strategies, to cope with their status in the political system, and so this chapter now turns to an examination of the principal political strategies that minority groups use.

Minority Political Strategies

David Easton (1953) once famously defined politics as the authoritative allocation of values. Seen from this perspective, politics is a process whereby it is decided who gets what, when, and under what circumstances. In this process, minority groups are at a disadvantage in relation to the majority group in influencing the allocation of those values in a manner that benefits their group members. As noted previously, through the process of acculturation and assimilation, a minority group may seek acceptance into the majority group for the purpose of enjoying the privileges of majority group status. However, not all minority groups can or want to assimilate into the majority group. How minority groups are perceived by the majority, and whether they can or desire to assimilate into the majority, influences the choice of political strategies that minority groups employ to cope with their minority status. Following Litt’s (1970) taxonomy of minority political strategies, as well as the work of LeMay (2000), this section briefly discusses the three strategies that minority groups typically pursue: accommodationism, separatism, and radicalism.

Accommodationism

The term accommodationism refers to a political strategy in which the minority group (at least for the most part)

834 • AMERICAN POLITICS

accepts the norms and values of the majority group and seeks to become part of that group (LeMay, 2000). Gaining entrance into majority group membership, in turn, allows its members to share in the privileges that accompany majority group status. LeMay has argued that in employing the strategy of accommodationism, minority groups will follow one of two routes: the economic route or the political route. In those instances where a minority group voluntarily migrates, possesses good job skills, and arrives at a time of economic prosperity, the economic route may be the most attractive form of accommodationism. In such cases, minority groups often rely on occupational niches and occupational queuing.

The term occupational niche refers to the presence of a high concentration of minority group members in an occupation in which the majority group does not feel threatened by their presence. In contrast to occupational niches, the term occupational queuing refers to the rank ordering of jobs in terms of their socioeconomic desirability. Minority groups that are willing to take less desirable jobs— low-skill jobs in agriculture or in meat processing facilities, for example—may be filled by minority group members without representing a threat to the majority. Successfully exploiting the use of occupational niches and occupational queuing allows minority groups to climb the socioeconomic ladder by providing improved educational and career opportunities for their children.

As a minority political strategy, however, economic accommodationism is not a viable option for all groups who may desire to pursue it. In some cases, minority groups find that the economic route is not open to them, as a result of poor economic conditions or as a result of discriminatory employment practices. The Irish, for example, on arriving in America were greeted with open hostility and employment discrimination—often unabashedly pronounced in signs that read “Irish Need Not Apply” (Rose, 1964, p. 33). In such instances, a minority group may choose to pursue a political route of accommodationism by exercising influence within the political system through the electoral process. To do so, however, the group must possess the means to organize themselves as a cohesive voting bloc that can influence the electoral process. Through a strategy of political accommodationism, then, a minority group may seek rewards from the ruling party in exchange for their votes. In those instances where a strategy of accommodationism is either unavailable or undesirable, the minority group may instead seek to pursue a strategy of separatism or a strategy of radicalism.

Separatism

Separatism is a political strategy that may be used by a minority group that rejects the norms and values of the majority group and consequently seeks to minimize contact with that group. According to Litt (1970), separatism occurs when a minority group “turns inward, creating its

own institutions to replenish social, psychological, and cultural values that cannot find fulfillment in the larger society” (p. 75). As with accommodationism, LeMay (2000) points out that groups who pursue separatist strategies may choose one of two routes. In the case of separatism, depending on the circumstances in which the group must operate, minority groups may opt for either a physical or psychological separation. The Mormons and the Amish are examples of minority groups that were able to achieve physical separation because of the availability of sparsely populated land in what was then the Western frontier of the United States. Other groups, however, such as the Hasidic Jews, or members of the Nation of Islam, unable to achieve physical separation because of their settlement in densely populated urban centers, were able to maintain psychological separation through the erection of semiautonomous social institutions in the midst of majority society.

It is worth noting here that separatism may be imposed on a minority group involuntarily. In such instances, separation does not represent a political strategy on the part of the minority, but rather, segregation (as discussed pre- viously)—a social condition that is imposed—by the majority group. The term ghetto, for example, is rooted in the Italian word borghetto, which refers to the section of European cities in which Jews were once required to reside (Levin, 1968). Modern-day ghettos, which normally refer to blighted inner-city areas with a high proportion of minority group members, are constructed through the enforcement of discriminatory legal and social practices that restrict access to housing for minority group members to specific areas (Kusmer, 1978). These settlement patterns are distinctly different from those that result from separatism as a minority political strategy because they come about because of concerted efforts on the part of the majority group to disrupt the process of acculturation and assimilation of the minority group.

Radicalism

As opposed to accommodationism and separatism, radicalism represents a political strategy in which the minority group rejects the norms and values of the majority group and seeks to revise or replace those norms and values with their own (LeMay, 2000). As with accommodationism and separatism, radicalism can take shape in two particular ways. Litt (1970) refers to the first of these as old-style or ideological radicalism in which the ideological views of the minority group are significantly different than the majority, but the political behavior remains essentially consistent with accepted norms. Groups that used this approach, such as the Marxists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, primarily relied on the electoral system in their efforts to win over the majority. In contrast, groups using the new-style approach to radicalism— as in the civil rights groups of the mid-20th century, for

example—shared an ideological position that was not necessarily contrary to prevailing majority group values. What distinguishes new-style radicalism from old-style radicalism, however, is the use of political behavior that is very much at odds with accepted norms of political behavior. According to Litt, these radical political behaviors encompass a wide range of tactics from nonviolent directaction protest to full-scale revolution and flow from a sense of urgency and passion. He writes, “The new radicalism is emotional rather than ideological . . . it is based on a preference for action rather than for cognition and polemics” (p. 101).

Applications: The Political Experience of Minority Groups in America

In the space available here, it is not possible to cover the diverse variety of experiences that ethnic and racial minority groups have had in the American political system. The United States is a land of immigrants from every part of the world, and as noted above, different groups have met with varying degrees of acceptance and resistance as they attempted to carve out their niche in American society. Nevertheless, to the extent that such an exercise can highlight the manner in which the foregoing theoretical concepts can be applied, it is helpful to examine certain aspects of the minority group experience. Still, the following overview of selected minority group experiences in the United States is by no means intended to be an exhaustive account of those experiences. Rather, the experiences roughly sketched out below are simply offered as examples of the manner in which some groups have sought to cope with their minority status and to help illustrate the extent to which the theoretical concepts associated with racial and ethnic politics can be usefully applied in an analysis of minority group political behavior.

Irish Americans

Beginning in the 1840s, Irish immigration to America began to increase significantly due in large part to political repression that they experienced under British rule, but also by periodic famines in which many thousands of Irish starved to death (Harrigan & Vogel, 2000). These immigrants, who arrived on American shores with relatively small financial resources and few job skills, were viewed with suspicion predominantly because of their Roman Catholic faith (Rose, 1964). The dramatically increasing number of Irish immigrants alarmed many members of majority American society, and so during this period an anti-Irish, anti-Catholic backlash took place. According to Harrigan and Vogel (2000), a nativist movement arose to protect American society from this threat; churches and convents were burned by angry mobs; publications appeared such as Maria Monk’s anti-Catholic book, Awful Disclosures; and a political party

Race, Ethnicity, and Politics • 835

called the Know-Nothings formed to protect the “integrity of American society” (p. 62). In their efforts to weed out popery, the Know-Nothings’ stated platform included restrictions on Irish immigration and the barring of persons of Irish descent from holding office.

Harrigan and Vogel (2000) argue that the Irish reacted to this hostility by taking the characteristics that were most despised by majority American society and embracing those characteristics as virtues rather than vices. For the Irish, chief among these characteristics was the Roman Catholic religion. Catholicism gave the Irish a sense of uniqueness and bound them together as a group. This, in turn, became an effective tool of political mobilization since it enabled the Irish to build electoral coalitions across class lines. Furthermore, the Catholic Church recognized that if the Catholic faith were to be preserved in this environment, it would be necessary to embark on substantial development of parish schools and churches. Harrigan and Vogel explain that this decision had two important consequences. First, it organized the Irish into relatively discreet geographical units, and second, it created a great deal of construction work that could be channeled to Irish construction companies and laborers. Thus, the parish became the center of Irish social life in America, and the activities of the parish and the work of the construction projects led to the emergence of an institutional framework that could serve the needs of the Irish as a minority group. Furthermore, because the Irish were geographically bound together as parish groups by the church, they were subsequently able to emerge as a very influential voting bloc that eventually gained control of the Democratic Party in major cities where they resided (LeMay, 2000). Over time, this led to Irish control of the political machines in those cities.

The Irish, of course, did not invent machine politics. What they were able to do, however, was to take over preexisting Democratic Party organizations established during the Jacksonian era (Harrigan & Vogel, 2000). Control of these political machines allowed the Irish to secure patronage jobs and to award contracts. Patronage opened up important avenues for the Irish in their advancement up the American socioeconomic ladder since jobs in the bureaucracies of the cities that they controlled went to their group members. Thus, in places like New York City and Boston, the Irish were disproportionately employed in public service positions such as the fire and police departments. Likewise, the ability to award contracts multiplied the success given to them by the church in construction and real estate. As a result, the Irish were able to successfully use accommodationism to secure their position in the American political landscape. Successive groups of immigrants have used this strategy as well, but as LeMay (2000) points out, “they used it less successfully because of changing conditions and because the Irish, who arrived before them, were more reluctant to budge from their newly acquired middle-class ‘rung’ than were the Yankees before them” (p. 115).

836 • AMERICAN POLITICS

Mexican Americans

Mexican Americans, or Chicanos, consists of two distinct subgroups: Spanish Americans and Mexican immigrants. Rose (1964) explains that Spanish Americans became American citizens by default when the lands that they occupied for over 4 centuries in the Southwest were ceded to the United States at the conclusion of the Mexican American War in 1848. Gilberto Lopez y Rivas (1973) has argued, however, that there is a common misconception among Americans that the people in these “conquered territories received Anglo rule with open arms” (p. 9). Rather, he points out that a long history of resistance and struggle characterizes their experience in the American political system. In contrast to the Spanish Americans of the Southwest, Mexican immigrants began to come to the United States from Mexico in large numbers beginning in the 20th century. Although some left because of the turmoil that resulted from the Mexican revolution, many more were attracted by economic opportunities.

According to LeMay (2000), the rate and degree of acculturation and assimilation among Mexican Americans is very low. This is due in large measure to their close proximity to Mexico, which means that their culture is able to survive more easily than is the case with other groups. Additionally, Mexican Americans continue to have a strong sense of pride in the language and cultural heritage of Mexico. As a result of these and other factors, Mexican Americans have had relatively limited involvement in politics for much of their history in the United States. Some early groups did begin to emerge in the 20th century, such as the Order of the Sons of America and the League of United Latin American Citizens, both of which were accommodationist in orientation (LeMay, 2000). Following World War II, however, organizations that were much more politically oriented began to emerge in an effort to increase voter turnout, endorse candidates, and engage in community organizing (Garcia & Garza, 1977).

Beginning in the 1970s, it became much more common for Mexican Americans to employ radicalism as a political strategy. These groups, deeply influenced by a sense of cultural pride, were more militant than their predecessors. They included groups such as the Brown Berets, the Crusade for Justice, and various student organizations. The most widely recognized group of this movement was La Raza Unida (the United Race). According to F. Chris Garcia and Rudolph O. de la Garza (1977), as opposed to accommodationists who sought to “work within the system,” radical Chicano groups such as these were “willing and ready to resort to tactics which violate[d] existing political norms in order to attain their goal of restructuring American society” (p. 43). They caution, however, that distinguishing the two groups in this manner “grievously distorts the relationship” shared by them and that the “differences between them are less important than the similarities that [bound] them” (p. 43).

As the Mexican American population has grown and participation rates have gone up, its political influence in American politics has increased accordingly (Browning, Marshall, & Tabb, 1984). Rodney Hero (1997), for example, argues that in the city of Denver, where Hispanics accounted for only 20% of the population, they were nonetheless able to elect Federico Peña by building an electoral coalition that crossed class and racial lines. In turn, Peña was successful at bringing Mexican Americans into city government to a level that is roughly proportionate to their size in the population.

African Americans

As a minority group in American society, the experience of African Americans is unique because they represent the only group in American society to have arrived as a result of slavery. With some exceptions, most of the African Americans residing in the United States today are the descendents of Africans who survived the experience of slavery, as well as the subsequent decades of hostility and discrimination that they faced at the hands of the majority group. As Cornell West (1999) has pointed out, “Slavery is nearly as old as human civilization itself,” but “the distinctive feature of New World [American] slavery was its ‘racial’ character” (p. 51). As a result, the discrimination directed toward African Americans went well beyond their status as slaves, but was targeted directly at their racial identity. Thus, following their emancipation from slavery, with few exceptions, the struggle of African Americans for social, economic, and political equality continued largely unabated.

Early on in this struggle, two styles emerged around the persons of Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois. Washington argued for an approach based largely on the principles of economic accommodation. Focusing on individual achievement, Washington called for African Americans to integrate into mainstream society by acquiring basic job skills and downplayed the role of political activity in pursuit of civil rights. In contrast to Washington’s approach, Du Bois argued that African Americans would need to emerge as a group if they hoped to break down the barriers that they faced. In 1905, Du Bois helped found the Niagara Movement, which quickly died out but whose cause was soon taken up by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Over time, the NAACP has sought to fight racial discrimination primarily through courtroom litigation, with its most significant victory being the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) school desegregation case.

African Americans and the Strategy of Separatism

Marcus Garvey’s Black Nationalism Movement of the 1920s is an example of an African American separatist movement (LeMay, 2000). Founder of the Universal

Race, Ethnicity, and Politics

Negro Improvement and Conservation Association, Garvey argued that people of African descent needed to establish their own set of social institutions, including banks, schools, and companies, and to ultimately reclaim the African continent for people of African descent. Drawing on Booker T. Washington’s philosophy of economic independence (but rejecting his individualist approach), Garvey sought to connect all of the black peoples of the world for commercial and industrial exchange through the establishment of a shipping company, the Black Star Steamship Line. However, because of a series of financial scandals involving the Black Star Steamship Line, he began to lose credibility among mainstream blacks. A conviction for tax evasion and mail fraud resulted in a prison sentence from 1925 to 1927, and on his release he was deported from the United States. Garvey died in 1940 at the age of 52 in West Kensington, England. Since his death, however, his role as an early advocate for black nationalism became more deeply appreciated, particularly by leaders of the black nationalist movements of the 1960s such as Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam.

African Americans and the Strategy of Radicalism

In December of 1955, Rosa Parks of Montgomery, Alabama, was arrested and jailed for refusing to obey a bus driver’s order that she give up her seat to a white man. With this act of defiance, Parks is credited with sparking the now famous Montgomery bus boycott and the modern civil rights movement. It was through the attention that the boycott received that Martin Luther King Jr. was first thrust into the national spotlight. Having recently arrived in Montgomery as the young new pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, he and other pastors formed the Montgomery Improvement Association and later the Southern Christian Leadership Council, of which he was elected president in 1957.

Drawing on the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, King showed through his efforts that nonviolent direct action could be combined with legal tactics to successfully fight racial discrimination in the United States. In later years, organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Council and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee engaged in a combination of legal battles along with direct action tactics that eventually led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In April 1963, King was in Birmingham, Alabama, where he had been asked to come in support of the campaign of nonviolent resistance that was taking place there. During the course of those events, he was arrested and placed in solitary confinement. On April 12, 1963, a newspaper ad was taken out by eight clergymen calling for an end to the demonstrations and criticizing King for his role. In his “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” King responded to these criticisms and summarized the ideas behind the nonviolent direction action strategy that he advocated. According to King (1998),

• 837

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored. (p. 190)

Shortly after the events of Birmingham, on August 28, King addressed a crowd of 250,000 people who had gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., and delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. The following year saw passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, prohibited discrimination in public accommodations, required desegregation of public schools and colleges, and prohibited private sector employers from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin. Subsequently, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided a strong legal framework to reverse historical patterns of African American voter disenfranchisement.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were significant milestones in the African American struggle for political equality. However, it has been observed that although by the end of the 1960s the legal barriers that had prevented African Americans from fully participating in American social, political, and economic life had been removed, African Americans remained at “the lower ends of just about every segment of American life” (Barker, Jones, & Tate, 1999, p. 26). In fact, the struggle for full political incorporation is likely to continue. To be sure, there are many examples of African Americans who have met with great success. In addition to the many successful African American business men and women, artists, scientists, and elected officials, Colin Powell was appointed the first African American Secretary of State in 2001, and he was followed in that office by Condoleeza Rice, an African American woman. Of even greater consequence, of course, Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois, the son of a Kenyan goat herder, was elected president of the United States in 2008. However, as Barker et al. (1999) have argued, “Individual successes, no matter how spectacular, do not change the reality of group oppression” (p. 350), nor does it erase its persistent legacy. All the same, great progress has been made, and despite the fact that they are likely to remain salient features of American political life, the dynamics of race, ethnicity, and politics is evolving in new directions. It is to a consideration of those future directions that this chapter now turns.

Future Directions

With the election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States, it is common to hear speculation in the popular media that America has entered a new postracial political era. Indeed, beginning as early as the late 1980s, some African American candidates for political

838 • AMERICAN POLITICS

office found electoral success by playing down racial issues and seeking broad support from white voters. This campaign strategy of deracialization has been described by Huey Perry (1996) as a useful analytical tool for understanding African American politics since the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan. According to Perry, Reagan was able to considerably strengthen the conservative mood of national politics at that time, and this mood included, in part, an implicit desire for African Americans to soften their desire for full incorporation into American political and economic life. Thus, in the decades that followed, African American candidates seeking election in majority white electoral districts found some value in deemphasizing issues related to race. Of course, Obama’s election to the presidency could not have been possible without the widespread support of white voters, and so, at least to some extent, deracialization remains an important concept in understanding the future of American politics.

Nevertheless, it is not at all clear that the election of America’s first African American president indicates that the United States has entered a postracial era in which questions of race become entirely moot. Howard Winant (2004) argues that the very social, political, and economic structures within which Americans operate have been polluted by racism on a global scale. It is his assessment that because racial domination has been so successful in shaping social, political, and economic life over the past few centuries, only radical upheavals can result in real change. In that vein, he points to the U.S. Civil War and World War II as seminal moments of upheaval where progress toward racial equality (however small) was able to take place. Although racial and ethnic discrimination may no longer be sanctioned by law, its legacy persists insofar as its effects are still plainly visible in the significant gaps that exist between the socioeconomic well-being of whites on the one hand and racial and other ethnic minorities on the other. Thus, race and ethnicity shall continue to play an important role in American political life and also remain an important area of scholarly inquiry among political scientists.

In that vein, Julie Novkov (2008) has described the emerging body of scholarship within the subfield of racial and ethnic politics. According to Novkov, much of the recent research in racial politics has incorporated the tools of American political development to illuminate the manner in which race has played a critical role in the development of American political institutions. Such scholarship seeks to highlight the degree to which race as a cultural concept influenced how American social institutions were designed and developed. Additionally, research in this body of work has emphasized “how race interacts with the fundamental ideological commitments and shifts in American politics,” as well as how “current institutions continue to reflect and refract this history of racialized struggle” (Novkov, p. 651).

Conclusion

This chapter has provided an overview of scholarship in the discipline of political science that focuses on the role that race and ethnicity play in the American political system. Such scholarship is concerned with not only the role that these social constructs play in shaping the behavior of individuals and groups, but also the role that they play in how social, economic, and political institutions are constructed. The chapter’s purpose was to discuss the major themes that exist in that body of scholarship and to highlight some of the ways in which the insights gained from it can help us to understand the political experience of minority groups in America. The chapter began with an overview of the basic terms, concepts, and political strategies that are associated with racial and ethnic politics as a scholarly endeavor and then turned to a few examples of the way in which these terms, concepts, and strategies may be applied. Finally, a brief discussion of the future directions of the field suggested that, although significant gains have been made by racial and ethnic groups, race and ethnicity are likely to remain salient features of American political life for the foreseeable future.

References and Further Readings

Banton, M. (1967). Race relations. New York: Basic Books. Banton, M. (1987). Racial theories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Barker, L., Jones, M., & Tate, K. (1999).

University Press. African Americans and

the American political system (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Protest is not Browning, R., Marshall, D. R., & Tabb, D. (1984).

enough: The struggle of blacks and Hispanics for equality in urban politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Knopf.

Harrigan, J., & Vogel, R. (2000).

Garcia, C. F., & Garza, R. O. (1977). The Chicano political expe rience: Three perspectives. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. Political change in the metrop

Harris Lacewell, M. (2004).

olis. New York: Longman.Barbershops, bibles, and BET:

Everyday talk and black political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hero, R. (1997). Latinos and politics in Denver and Pueblo, Colorado: Differences, explanations, and the steady state of the struggle for equality. In R. Browning, D. R. Marshal, & D. Tabb, Racial politics in American cities (pp. 247 258). New York: Longman. The politics of urban America: A

Judd, D., & Kantor, P. (2002).

reader. New York: Longman.

King, M. L., Jr. (1967). Where do we go from here: Chaos or community. New York: Bantom.

King, M. L., Jr. (1998). The autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (C. Carson, Ed.). New York: Warner.

Race, Ethnicity, and Politics

Kitano, H. (1997). Race relations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kusmer, K. (1978). A ghetto takes shape: Black Cleveland, 1870 1930. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

LeMay, M. (2000). The perennial struggle: Race, ethnicity, and minority group politics in the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Levin, N. (1968). The Holocaust: The destruction of European Jewry 1933 1945. New York: Thomas Crowell.

Litt, E. (1970). Beyond pluralism: Ethnic politics in America.

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Lopez y Rivas, L. (1973). The Chicanos: Life and struggles of the Mexican minority in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press. Political

Novkov, J (2008). Rethinking race in American politics.

Research Quarterly, 61(4), 649 659.

• 839

Perry, H. (1996). An analysis of major themes in the concept of deracialization. In H. Perry (Ed.), Race, politics, and gover nance in the United States (pp.1 11). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Rose, P. (1964). They and we: Racial and ethnic relations in the United States. New York: Random House.

U.S. Riot Commission. (1968).

Sitkoff, H. (1981). The struggle for black equality, 1954 1980. New York: Hill & Wang. Report of the National Advisory

Commission on civil disorders. New York: Bantom.

West, C. (1999). The Cornell West reader. New York: Basic Civitas Books. The new politics of race: Globalism, dif

Winant, H. (2004).

ference, justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

97

GENDER AND POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES

ANGELA L. BOS

College of Wooster

PAULA L. O’LOUGHLIN

University of Minnesota, Morris

In the last few decades, women in the United States have made great strides in politics. Although women have historically voted in lower numbers than men, a higher percentage of women have registered and voted in presidential elections than men since 1984. Women now also win election at rates comparable to their male counterparts. In Congress, women have made substantive policy changes that positively influence women. Beyond Congress, women have achieved other political successes. Hillary Clinton almost gained the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Sarah Palin was the second woman to be a major party vice-presidential nominee, and Condoleeza Rice recently served as the first black woman secretary

of state.

The successes of women in politics raise a few important questions. First, is the political glass ceiling broken? Do women still face barriers in participating in politics based on their gender? If there are barriers, what are they and how can they best be minimized? And second, when women engage in politics—whether as participants in local city council meetings, as voters, or as members of congress—does their behavior make a difference? Do women have distinct political preferences from men? And if so, what explains this? Finally, what potential value lies in more women engaging in politics? This chapter proceeds by first introducing the most important questions and then reviewing relevant work addressing each question in the areas of women as

840

political actors, women as political candidates, and women in political institutions.

Theory and Literature Review

Women as Political Actors

When considering the role of gender in U.S. politics, it is first important to consider how gender influences citizens’ perception of politics and their role in it.

Political Attitudes

Whether men and women have distinct political preferences and, if so, why these differences exist has been a primary research focus. Women report some policy preferences distinct from men. Women are less supportive of the use of military force in areas of foreign policy and are more liberal in their desire for the government to provide services, jobs, and health care to citizens. The most prevalent and studied attitude difference between men and women is the gender gap: differences between men and women in both party ideology and vote choice, with women being more likely than men to identify with the Democratic party and to support liberal, Democratic candidates. The gender gap has existed at least since 1964 (Kaufmann & Petrocik, 1999), but

disappeared briefly post–September 11, 2001, only to reemerge in 2004.

Scholars’ investigation of the causes for these differences offers several possibilities on the origins of the gender gap. The first attitudes theory adopts the view that underlying issue preferences, particularly on social issues, explain the gap. This is supported by work that suggests feminism has contributed to the gender gap by promoting a so-called women’s perspective that influences policy and promotes an ideology of equality and sympathy for the disadvantaged. This theory also comports with the idea that since women are more likely than men to identify with certain issues, the party that performs better on these issues will be more likely to have larger numbers of female voters (e.g., Kaufmann & Petrocik, 1999).

Although greater numbers of women have voted Democratic than Republican, in terms of issue advocacy, Sanbonmatsu (2002) finds that the Republican and Democratic Parties are largely similar on most gender issues. She argues that despite few compelling policy differences, Democrats are more willing to support and discuss gender issues. Abortion is the only issue that has become strongly partisan, which partly explains why feminists ally much more closely with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Overall, however, neither party has made gender issues a significant part of their party platform.

A second salience hypothesis posits that perhaps men and women weigh issues differently when evaluating parties and candidates. The idea is that the gender gap does not stem solely from different political orientations, but rather men and women might find different issues salient in their political decisions. Kauffman and Petrocik (1999) test the salience model alongside the attitude model and find evidence of the attitudes hypothesis in 1992 and the salience hypothesis in 1996. Both attitudes and salience explain the gender gap to some degree, but the context of the election influences how voters weigh various criteria.

A third explanation for the gender gap suggests it originates from changing male attitudes. Simply, there is an ongoing defection of party members from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. The gap exists, at least partially, because men are becoming Republican far faster than women.

Research indicates contextual variables shape the gender gap’s varying size and causes. Although women tend to be more likely to vote Democratic than men are, the candidates or issues influence the size of the gap. This theme is echoed by other scholars like Kauffman and Petrocik (1999), who state that the gender gap is responsive to political, economic, and social factors. Specifically, the gap increases as the political climate becomes more conservative, when the economy is poor, and as women as a group become more economically vulnerable and government programs are threatened. Only with issues of use of force and compassion does the size of the gender gap stay constant (Norrander, 1997).

Gender and Politics in the United States • 841

Political Participation

Research on gender and political participation has examined the extent to which women participate in a broad range of political acts—from conventional to unconventional—as compared to men and to explain these differences. In many areas—such as voting, participating in local politics, and protesting—women participate largely in equal numbers as men. In a few areas, particularly in campaign contributions, belonging to political organizations, and in contacting public officials, women participate less.

Scholars have tried to explain these small but persistent gender differences in political participation in multiple ways (Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001). Women are generally disadvantaged when it comes to the resources— financial and otherwise—that facilitate political activity. Scholars conclude that if women had more resources, their overall political activity levels would be very close to men’s. Gender differences in educational attainment, although negligible among younger generations, continue to give men relatively more civic skills and networks to promote civic engagement. In combination with differences in educational attainment, workplace segregation means men are more likely to have jobs that cultivate the skills necessary to support political participation. And although women are more involved than men in certain types of organizations—for example, religious organizations—men in these organizations are more likely than women members to take on leadership positions that help them acquire civic skills (Burns et al., 2001).

Beyond political participation, several other gender gaps in political attitudes exist. Women tend to be less politically interested, informed, and efficacious than men, and these factors partially explain the gap between women and men in political activity. Women know less about politics based on standard political knowledge batteries as well, but half of the difference is explained by women being less likely to guess when presented with a question they are unsure how to answer (Mondak & Anderson, 2004).

Women as Political Candidates

Descriptive Representation

When one thinks about women as candidates, one might wonder whether it matters if women are elected to political office. Theories of democracy present multiple ways in which the interests of groups are represented in government. Descriptive representation is achieved by our governmental bodies reflecting the composition of our society. With regard to gender, pure descriptive representation would require that the percentage of women in political bodies reflect their relative percentage in the population. In contrast, substantive representation requires that the interests of women (or other groups) be raised in

842 • AMERICAN POLITICS

government. Although many argue that male representatives could adequately raise the substantive interests of women, research finds numerous benefits to descriptive representation, the most compelling that when group members represent themselves, the overall substantive representation of their group interests improves (Mansbridge, 1999). Several other advantages have emerged as well. For example, the presence of women candidates increases women’s civic engagement (Burns et al., 2001), and in districts where women are elected, female constituents are more likely to participate in politics and to have greater senses of political efficacy and political competence (High Pippert & Comer, 1998).

Explaining Women’s Descriptive Underrepresentation

Since women compose approximately 50.9% of the population but hold just under 17% of seats in the current 111th Congress, they are descriptively underrepresented. The question that scholars have asked is why. Many argue that it could be largely explained by the so-called institutional inertia created by our incumbency-driven system, which creates very few openings for women to seek. Recent research, however, finds that term limits that are meant to address this have not had as large a positive effect as anticipated (see Bernstein & Chadha, 2003). Crossnational research finds that proportional representation systems, over winner-take-all systems like that in the United States, lead to more women in office. In the United States one sees a similar effect since one sees more women in office in states with multimember districts for state legislative seats. A third explanation begins with the idea that there are not enough qualified women in the pipeline to pursue political office. The argument proceeds that if more women pursued careers in the fields that most often precede political office—those in education, law, business, and politics—more women would seek and win positions. Although this is likely to have some effect on the number of women in office, simply having more women in the pipeline will not necessarily increase the number of women pursuing office since women are far less likely to perceive themselves as qualified to run for office, even when they hold similar qualifications to men (Lawless & Fox, 2005).

Because of these gender differences in self-perception among qualified candidates, outside encouragement becomes essential to increasing the number of women pursuing elected office. Women are twice as likely as men to run for office when encouraged by others, such as party leaders, to do so (Lawless & Fox, 2005). However, women are far less likely to receive encouragement from party leaders than men, and a majority of women candidates running for local office report they were actively discouraged by political party leaders (Niven, 1998). Prospective women candidates also perceive it is more difficult to be elected and to raise money for a campaign than their male counterparts (Lawless, 2009). Thus, self-perceptions and

differential political ambition among qualified men and women candidates seems to partially explain women’s underrepresentation, especially when one considers that women are less likely to be encouraged to run but more reliant on such encouragement.

Voters Evaluating Women Candidates

The stereotypes voters have of women and how these are at odds with their expectations of so-called good politicians are also important for understanding women’s descriptive underrepresentation. There is no evidence that gender stereotypes directly impact vote choice or electoral outcomes, but it is clear that stereotypes guide voters’ evaluations of women candidates with regard to their beliefs, traits, and issue strengths. Compared with their male counterparts, women candidates are seen as more liberal (Koch, 2000), as possessing feminine (empathy, compassion) over masculine (assertive, competence) traits, and as capable to handle feminine-related issues (education, poverty) over masculine issues (military crises, foreign policy) (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993). Thus, the stereotypes of women politicians do not match the male traits voters find important for those in all political offices. However, some positive stereotypes—for example, that women candidates are seen as agents of change—may benefit women candidates in certain electoral contexts.

The role of stereotypes is context dependent. For example, voters are more likely to rely on gender cues as information shortcuts in low-information contexts (McDermott, 1997). Stereotypes can be more or less helpful to women candidates based on the level of office they seek. The perceived traits and issue competencies of women seeking statewide offices such as governor—as opposed to U.S. senator—are more similar to the traits and issues voters desire for someone elected (Kahn, 1996). The broader issue context also matters. For example, the issue context in 1992, the so-called year of the woman, focused on gender issues, and thus, genderrelated considerations were more important in the decisions voters made (Dolan, 2001). Lawless (2004) finds that in the post–September 11, 2001, atmosphere, stereotypes work against women candidates because citizens deem men more capable to legislate on issues such as military crises and national security.

Some scholars find evidence that women are more likely than men to want to see women in office and are more likely to vote for women candidates (Plutzer & Zipp, 1996). Research indicates that this support is not based on in-group preference but because they are concerned underrepresentation will leave certain issues overlooked (Paolino, 1995). Further, women with stronger identities as women, feminists, or as liberals are more likely to prefer female representation (Rosenthal, 1995). Recent research, however, refutes the conventional wisdom that women voters are more likely to support women candidates than men (Dolan, 2008).

Gender and Electoral Campaigns

Women win political races at rates comparable to their male counterparts and in similar types of races campaign fund-raising receipts are comparable. However, women candidates of all types are still more likely to face genderbased challenges in media coverage, voter stereotypes, and campaign strategy.

Where women run for office matters. Based on a variety of partisan, ideological, geographic, racial, and socioeconomic factors, a small number of congressional districts (18) are considered woman-candidate-friendly, and many more (153) are not woman-candidate-friendly (Palmer & Simon, 2006). Second, women incumbents are more likely to be challenged in primaries and to have candidates compete to run against them in the opposing party’s primary (Palmer & Simon).

The mass media does not always treat female candidates equitably. Compared to their male counterparts, women are more likely to receive less coverage overall, more unfavorable news coverage including more horse race coverage, and less coverage focused on their issue agendas (Kahn, 1996). The level of disparity depends on the level of office: Press coverage is more favorable to female gubernatorial candidates than to U.S. Senate candidates.

Women and Political Parties

Scholars have also considered whether political parties enable women to gain political office or rather serve as gatekeepers to them. In U.S. political parties, women have almost managed to achieve gender parity but still hold few leadership roles. A large comparative politics literature finds that stronger, more centralized, and institutionalized political parties increase women’s representation (see Caul, 1999). There is a dearth of research on the role of political parties in women’s underrepresentation because U.S. political parties are comparatively weak. Burrell (1993) suggests political parties are no longer negative gatekeepers for women candidates, but neither do they control the nomination process that could facilitate the nomination of more women candidates. Sanbonmatsu (2006) finds that fewer women run for and hold elected office where parties are more likely to engage in gatekeeping activities.

Women in Political Institutions

Women in Legislatures

The first stream of research on women in legislatures examines whether gender affects the policy priorities of legislators. The initial work on this question suggests women’s presence in the legislative arena has a discernible effect. In contrast to male legislators, women legislators see bills that focus on women, children, and families as most important and are more likely to invest their legislative capital in these areas.

Gender and Politics in the United States • 843

If women representatives have distinct policy agendas, does their legislative behavior also differ from their male counterparts? The most recent research suggests gender’s influence occurs from bill sponsorship and agenda setting to floor votes. Male and female members of Congress show statistically significant differences in the types of bills they sponsor and cosponsor, support in committee, and support on the floor (Swers, 2002). Women are more likely to sponsor or cosponsor legislation dealing with education, child rights, civil rights, economic equality legislation, women’s health and welfare, and women’s issues. However, although women members of Congress will also vote across party lines on women’s issues, there are many behavioral differences among women. Gender’s effects are mediated by political contextual factors such as partisanship, the partisan balance of power, the degree of polarization, and representatives’ previous voting records. Increasing partisan polarization has made it more difficult to cross party lines on gender issues. In addition, Swers found that Democratic women’s likelihood of speaking up on gender issues increased when they were the minority party while Republican women representatives’ did not.

A third wave of research considers whether women legislators’ style of work varies from that of their male counterparts. Generally, this has been found to be true. (Kathlene, 1994; Rosenthal, 2000). Kathlene (1994) finds that women legislators act differently than their male colleagues in committee hearings. Specifically, women legislators are less likely to speak on legislation regardless of their seniority, potential bill sponsorship, or party. Even when an issue is a high priority for a woman legislator or she is a committee chair, she is less likely than her male colleagues to speak in committee hearings. A study of women as committee chairs suggests other differences in behavior in this role. For example, women committee chairs are more consensus oriented than their male colleagues. However, institutional norms are more influential than gender.

Overall, the extent to which gender influences legislative outcomes, however, may be dependent on the number of women in the legislature and whether a critical mass of women members is achieved. In terms of legislative priorities, women legislators’ distinctive goals become more pronounced when they have the strength of numbers. Women legislators’ likelihood of success in passing legislation increases as the number of women in the legislature grows (Thomas, 1994). Vega and Firestone (1995) argue that when there are not very many women members, the effectiveness that can be tied to the issues that women—as a cohesive group—think are important decreases. As a result, those issues lose institutional support. In contrast, when women representatives are cohesive and work together to structure the congressional agenda, their capacity to influence it becomes stronger. Saint-Germain (1989) also concludes that the amount of time a female member will spend on issues that are important to her as a woman is at least partly a function of the proportion of women in

844 • AMERICAN POLITICS

the chamber. She argues that the fewer the number of women in the House, the less likely they are to be effective in addressing women’s issues. Other work suggests that a critical mass of women legislators is less important for women to sponsor legislation on women’s issues (Bratton, 2005).

Recent research examining internal institutional norms and gender suggests why, in terms of legislative outcomes, gender remains fairly insignificant. Women representatives’ historically low levels of formal institutional power have resulted in gender’s minimal effects on legislative policy. Although women are capable of earning seniority and are as legislatively effective as their male colleagues, they have not been as effective because there have been fewer of them. Compared to their male colleagues, women members of Congress have historically lacked the seniority to chair prestige committees or hold elected office in the party hierarchy. Thus, they have been less able to influence legislation. Any gender differences in legislative preferences that might exist thus have been neutralized. Swers’s (2002) study of gender and congressional agenda setting also suggests women often lack the institutional influence to push their preferred legislation.

In brief, previous research clearly indicates legislators’ gender is significant. Gender interacts with representative roles, institutional influence, and bill sponsorship directly. However, its influence on women representatives is clearly contingent on other forces.

Women in the Courts

Research on gender and the courts has focused on two primary questions: the factors that affect women’s likelihood of judicial selection and whether gender shapes judicial decision making. Studies of judicial selection are mixed as to what is most likely to lead to gender diversity on the bench. Some work suggests that how judges are picked matters. This research indicates women are more likely to be on courts when selection is done by appointment, not elections (Williams, 2007). However, others find that the larger the number of seats on a court, the more chance a woman will be selected for it.

The verdict on whether and how gender affects judicial decisions is mixed. Early work that looked just at male and female judges showed no significant gender differences in sentencing though male judges were inclined to be more lenient to women defendants (Gruhl, Spohn, & Welch, 1981). Scholars have also considered whether women judges use different models of legal reasoning. Research on this question suggests, however, that judges use the same legal reasoning irrespective of gender (Allen & Wall, 1993).

Other work on the relationship of gender to judicial sentencing suggests gender’s effects on judicial decision making are more complex. When a judge’s gender is considered along with other factors, such as judicial region as

a predictor of judicial choices, it is no more important than other characteristics. At the same time, however, the type of cases under review appears to matter (Davis, Haire, & Songer, 1993). Related work suggests that even if final decisions do not vary, having a woman on a court has nuanced effects (O’Connor & Segal, 1990).

Women in Executive Office

Since there has yet to be a woman president, a central stream of research in this area has focused on why there has not yet been one. Work on this question suggests public discomfort with the idea of a woman in the White House is key. Women presidential candidates also must battle gender stereotypes regarding expertise in foreign affairs (Lawless, 2004). Media coverage also works against women presidential candidates by focusing on their exceptionalism as women.

Other work has focused on the gendering of the institution of the presidency. Although all political institutions are gendered, Duerst-Lahti (1997) argues that the structure of the presidency is more “masculinized” than any other branch of government. This structural focus on hierarchy and command and control functions makes the Oval Office less accessible to women. The language used to represent the prototypical presidency in public discourse plays to masculine gender stereotypes among voters.

Another stream of research trying to explain the lack of women in the Oval Office has focused on the traditional pipelines men use for the presidency and how accessible they are for potential women presidential candidates. The verdict on this question is mixed. Women have been appointed to the cabinet increasingly over the last 40 years. However, the vast majority of women cabinet appointments have been in outer cabinet positions or further from the Oval Office. The result is that if and when they contemplate running for president, service as a member of a presidential cabinet is not as helpful as it would be for a man.

Women presidential candidates also face particularly unique challenges within the party system. The parties’ interest in masculine candidates means that the more feminine the woman candidate, the harder it is for her to get the nomination (Conroy, 2007). Women presidential candidates also appear to face a different fund-raising viability standard.

Much less clear is whether women in the executive branch make a policy difference. When women are appointed to senior cabinet and statewide office positions, they are more likely to hire other women (Carroll, 1987). However, in terms of actual policy outcomes, women’s potential effects on policy have been neutralized. They end up in traditionally feminized departments or as tokens with limited power. Research on leadership styles also suggests that gendered differences in leadership styles show up in executive differences, with women tending toward more

collaborative consensus building across stakeholders and men focusing on hierarchy. However, the limited number of women in statewide executive offices has made this question difficult to research.

Future Directions

Many possible new research directions arise from this review. Scholars should continue to identify whether various gender gaps will persist and whether current explanations will hold over time or whether new theories must be developed. Indeed, with regard to the gender gap and the small differences in political participation, it will be interesting to investigate whether these differences subside as women continue to achieve in both education and the workplace.

There is also a lack of research on candidate strategy relating to gender. For example, how do candidates strategically focus on their gender in their campaign communication through means like microtargeting and to what effect? It would also be useful to address more fully how gender and party stereotypes interact when the public evaluates female candidates. Additionally, does gender relate to strategies related to negative advertising?

Recruitment is another fertile area for future research. Given that qualified women view themselves as less qualified and the process to achieve office as more difficult, it is important to more carefully examine the process whereby qualified candidates in the pipeline become candidates. Scholars need to understand more systematically the role that political parties play in encouraging—or not—women candidates. Prior studies finding little relevance of gender on electoral outcomes or vote choice focus exclusively on general elections whereby female candidates have already been whittled down to a very elite, qualified group. Future research should work to understand the relevance of gender at various stages of recruitment prior to the general election.

There are several promising areas of research on Congress as well. One fruitful area for examination would be to look at whether the growing number of women in leadership positions (most notably, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) results in women’s increasing institutional effectiveness as Swers (2002) would suggest. The effects of the growing partisan polarization within Congress on women members should be examined as well. Intersectionality and the ways gender, race, and other forms of diversity work together within the halls of the U.S. Congress clearly also deserves future study. For example, have white congresswomen and African American congresswomen been influenced by institutional norms differently?

On the question of gender and the courts, there are growing numbers of women judges in both state and federal systems. This growing number offers the opportunity to more

Gender and Politics in the United States • 845

fully evaluate gender and judicial decision making. For example, how do gender and race intersect within judicial decision making? Equally important, how does gender affect judges’ ability to be appointed and then rise in the federal court system, the primary stepping stone to the Supreme Court? It would also be fruitful to examine whether and how gender stereotypes shape Senate judicial confirmation.

The most pressing question regarding gender and the presidency remains why no woman has yet been a major party candidate for president. The 2008 presidential election offers an intriguing story of almost that clearly requires further examination.

References and Further Readings

Allen, D., & Wall, D. (1993). Role orientations and women state
Supreme Court justices. Judicature, 7(3), 156 165.
Bernstein, R. A., & Chadha, A. (2003). The effects of term limits
on representation: Why so few women? In R. Farmer,
J. D. Rausch Jr., & J. C. Green (Eds.), The test of time:
Coping with legislative term limits (pp. 147 158). New York:
Lexington Books.
Bratton, K. (2005). Critical mass theory revisited: The behavior
and success of token women in state legislatures. Politics
and Gender, 1, 97 125.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). Private roots of
public action: Gender, equality and political participation.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Burrell, B. (1994). A woman’s place is in the House. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Burrell, B. C. (1993). Party decline, party transformation and
gender politics: The USA. In J. Lovenduski & P. Norris
(Eds.), Gender and party politics (pp. 291 308). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carroll, S. J. (1987). Women in state cabinets: Status and
prospects. Journal of State Government, 60(5), 204 208.
Caul, M. (1999). Women’s representation in parliament. Party
Politics, 5(1), 79 98.
Conroy, M. (2007). Political parties: Advancing a masculine ideal
in rethinking madam president. In L. C. Han & C. Heldman
(Eds.), Are we ready for a woman in the White House?
(pp. 133 146). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Darcy, R., Welch, S., & Clark, J. (1994). Women, elections, and
representation (2nd ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Davis, S., Haire, S., & Songer, D. (1993). Voting behavior and
gender in the U.S. court of appeals. Judicature, 77(3),
129	133.

Dolan, K. (2001). Electoral context, issues, and voting for women in the 1990s. Women & Politics, 23(1), 21 36.

Dolan, K. (2004). Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Dolan, K. (2008). Women voters, women candidates: Is there a gen der gap in support for women candidates? In L. D. Whitaker (Ed.), Voting the gender gap (pp. 91 107). Urbana: University of Illinois.

Duerst Lahti, G. (1997). Reconceiving theories of power: Consequences of masculinism in the White House. In M. Borelli & J. Martin (Eds.), The other elites: Women, politics,

AMERICAN POLITICS

846 •

and power in the executive branch (pp. 11 32). Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner.
Freeman, J. (1986). The political culture of the Democratic and
Republican parties. Political Science Quarterly, 101(3),
327	356.
Gruhl, J., Spohn, C., & Welch, S. (1981). Women as policymak
ers: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political
Science, 25(2), 308 322.
Han, L. C., & Heldman, C. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking madam
president: Are we ready for a woman in the White House?
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
High Pippert, A., & Comer, J. (1998). Female empowerment: The
influence of women representing women. Women &
Politics, 19(4), 53 67.
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). The consequences of gen
der stereotypes for women candidates at different levels
and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3),
503	525.
Kahn, K. F. (1996). The political consequences of being a
woman. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kathlene, L. (1994). Power and influence in state legislative pol
icymaking: The interaction of gender and position in com
mittee hearing debates. American Political Science Review,
88(3), 560		576.
Kaufmann, K. M., & Petrocik, J. R. (1999). The changing politics
of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender
gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 864 887.
Koch, J. W. (2000). Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer
candidates’ ideological orientations? Journal of Politics,
62(2), 414		429.

Lawless, J. L. (2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly, 53(3), 479 490.

Lawless, J. L. (2009). Sexism and gender bias in election 2008: A more complex path for women in politics. Politics and Gender, 5(1), 70 80. It takes a candidate: Why women

Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. (2005).

don’t run for office. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mansbridge, J. (1986). Why we lost the ERA. Chicago: University

of Chicago.

Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.” Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628 657.

McDermott, M. L. (1997). Voting cues in low information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 270 283.

Mondak, J., & Anderson, M. (2004). The knowledge gap: A reexamination of gender based differences in political knowledge. Journal of Politics, 66(2), 492 512.

Niven, D. (1998). The missing majority: The recruitment of women as state legislative candidates. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Norrander, B. (1997). The independence gap and the gender gap.

Public Opinion Quarterly 61, 464 476.

O’Connor, K., & Segal, J. (1990). Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the Supreme Court’s reaction to its first female member.

Women and Politics, 10(2), 95 104.

Palmer, B., & Simon, D. (2006). Breaking the political glass ceiling: Women and congressional elections. New York: Routledge.

Paolino, P. (1995). Group salient issues and group representa tion: Support for women candidates in the 1992 Senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 294 313.

Plutzer, E., & Zipp, J. F. (1996). Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(1), 30 57.

Rosenthal, C. S. (1995). The role of gender in descriptive repre sentation. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 599 611.

Rosenthal, C. S. (2000). Gender styles in state legislative com mittees: Raising their voices in resolving conflicts. Women and Politics, 21(2), 21 45.

Saint Germain, M. (1989). Does their gender make a difference? The impact of women on public policy in the Arizona legis lature. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 956 968.

Sanbonmatsu, K. (2006).

Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Democrats, Republicans, and the poli tics of women’s place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Where women run: Gender and party in

the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Sapiro, V. (1981). Research frontier essay: When are interests interesting? The problem of political representation of women. American Political Science Review, 75(3), 701 716.

Swers, M. L. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. How women legislate.

Thomas, S. (1994). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Vega, A., & Firestone, J. M. (1995). The effects of gender on con gressional behavior and the substantive representation of women. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(2), 213 222.

Williams, M. (2007). Women’s representation on state trial and appellate courts. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5), 1194 1204.