Richard L. Fox

If Only They’d Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and Political Ambition

Based on data from the second wave of the Citizen Political Ambition Panel Study—our national survey of more than 2,000 “potential candidates” in 2008—we provide the first thorough analysis of the manner in which gender interacts with political recruitment in the candidate eligibility pool. Our findings are striking. Highly qualified and politically well-connected women from both major political parties are less likely than similarly situated men to be recruited to run for public office by all types of political actors. They are less likely than men to be recruited intensely. And they are less likely than men to be recruited by multiple sources. Although we paint a picture of a political recruitment process that seems to suppress women’s inclusion, we also offer the first evidence of the significant headway women’s organizations are making in their efforts to mitigate the recruitment gap, especially among Democrats. These findings are critically important because women’s recruitment disadvantage depresses their political ambition and ultimately hinders their emergence as candidates.

Gender and the Decision to Run for Office

Despite an electoral system that appears to present excellent opportunities for women to win elective office, the number of women candidates remains low. While the initial decision to run for office is critical in understanding womens continued under-representation in elective office, very little research explores this subject. To examine the manner in which gender affects the decision to seek an elective position, we investigated how men and women in the pool of eligible candidates in New York State perceived running for office. Two central findings emerged from our data. First, contrary to findings in previous research, women and men in our sample expressed roughly equal levels of political ambition and viewed the campaign environment similarly. Our second central finding, however, is that important gender differences emerged in the factors that contributed to the decision to run. In other words, women considered many more factors when thinking about running for office, whereas men of all types felt more freedom to launch a candidacy. These findings tend to reinforce the notion that broad patterns of sex-role socialization continue to impede women from full inclusion in the electoral process.

Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition

Based on survey responses from a national random sample of nearly 4,000 high school and college students, we uncover a dramatic gender gap in political ambition. This finding serves as striking evidence that the gap is present well before women and men enter the professions from which most candidates emerge. We then use political socialization—which we gauge through a myriad of socializing agents and early life experiences—as a lens through which to explain the individual-level differences we uncover. Our analysis reveals that parental encouragement, politicized educational and peer experiences, participation in competitive activities, and a sense of self-confidence propel young peoples interest in running for office. But on each of these dimensions, women, particularly once they are in college, are at a disadvantage. By identifying when and why gender differences in interest in running for office materialize, we begin to uncover the origins of the gender gap in political ambition. Taken together, our results suggest that concerns about substantive and symbolic representation will likely persist.

Reconciling Family Roles with Political Ambition: The New Normal for Women in Twenty-First Century U.S. Politics

Based on data from the 2011 Citizen Political Ambition Study - a national survey of nearly 4,000 “potential candidates” for all levels of office - we provide the first thorough analysis of the manner in which traditional family arrangements affect the initial decision to run for office. Despite a substantial gender gap in political ambition, and the persistence of traditional family structures and gender roles among potential candidates, our findings reveal that traditional family dynamics do not account for the gender gap in interest in running for office. Neither marital and parental status, nor the division of labor pertaining to household tasks and childcare, predict political ambition, regardless of how we measure it. This is not to downplay the fact that the gender gap in political ambition remains substantial and static, but it is to suggest that family arrangements are not a primary contributing factor.

Gaining and Losing Interest in Running for Public Office: The Concept of Dynamic Political Ambition

Considering a candidacy for public office involves pondering the courageous step of going before an electorate and facing potential examination, scrutiny, and rejection. Anyone who contemplates running for office, therefore, must answer a series of questions. Is the time right to inject my family into the political arena? Where am I in terms of my professional goals? Do I know enough about the issues and the political system to run for office? Am I in sync with my potential constituents on the issues that matter most? Have electoral gatekeepers indicated support for my foray into politics? Do I really want to take part in a political process that is so often associated with self-interest, corruption, and cynicism? In short, a variety of personal, professional, and political circumstances—circumstances that often change over time—undoubtedly affect the extent to which someone considers entering the electoral arena.

Studying Gender in U.S. Politics: Where Do We Go from Here?

The prominence and acceptance of gender as an important subject of inquiry in U.S. politics has been steadily growing in political science. Indeed, in the 1960s and 1970s, small sample sizes of women in politics and disdain from the disciplinary gatekeepers made the serious study of gender in U.S. politics difficult to pursue (Flammang 1997; Tolleson-Rinehart and Carroll 2006). The world is clearly different today, as gender politics courses are finding their way into undergraduate and graduate curricula throughout the United States. While the ascension of gender analysis of U.S. politics as a critical variable for study is not complete, the future is bright. Several recent volumes have addressed the current state of the subfield, and most notably, Susan J. Carrolls (2003) edited volume Women and American Politics: New Questions, New Directions focused on the very purpose of laying out a research agenda for those studying gender in U.S. politics (see also Krook and Childs 2010; Wolbrecht, Beckwith, and Baldez 2008). In this essay, I continue the discussion of where the gender and U.S. politics subfield is headed by providing a brief overview of the state of the field and by offering suggestions for future avenues of study, primarily in the area of candidate emergence.

Advertising, Websites, and Media Coverage

Twenty years after 1992s “Year of the Woman” campaign, in which record numbers of women ran for and were elected to political office, female political candidates recorded several significant political firsts in 2012. A new record was set in the number of women running for and elected to the U.S. Congress. New Hampshire became the first state to have an all-female delegation in the U.S. Congress as well as a woman governor. And the first openly gay woman was elected to the U.S. Senate. Still, women running for state and federal political office continue to confront age-old challenges in their media coverage and, subsequently, how they frame their communication to voters through television advertising and websites. Three U.S. Senate candidatesxa0– incumbent Claire McCaskill (Democrat-Missouri), open-seat contender Deb Fischer (Republican-Nebraska), and challenger Elizabeth Warren (Democrat-Massachusetts)xa0– demonstrate how successful women candidates used communication strategies to win their elections in 2012. McCaskill, who became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Missouri when she narrowly defeated the male incumbent in 2006, faced a serious reelection challenge in 2012 against U.S. Representative Todd Akin of Missouri’s second congressional district. The Tea Party-backed Akin led McCaskill in polls taken in March through late August, when his comment in a television interview that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant because the female body “has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” derailed his campaign. Republicans – including presidential nominee Mitt Romney – were quick to denounce Akin for his remarks and demand that he leave the U.S. Senate race.