Opinion

We Can Get More Women and People of Color Involved In Politics

We’re just doing it wrong.

Luke Squire is the co-founder and co-Director of LaunchProgress, a group working to recruit, train, and supporting young progressive candidates running for their first state or local office.  
National Journal
Luke Squire
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Luke Squire
April 1, 2014, 6:03 a.m.

It’s been 22 years since voters elec­ted a re­cord five wo­men to the U.S. Sen­ate in a single year. Put­ting five wo­men in the Sen­ate was so mo­ment­ous that 1992 was dubbed “The Year of the Wo­man.” Two dec­ades later, we saw sim­il­ar head­lines as the fe­male head­count in the Sen­ate reached 20. Re­flect­ing on that his­tory, The Wash­ing­ton Post said the 1992 elec­tion “was sup­posed to change everything. But it didn’t — not on the scale once ex­pec­ted.”

One would think young wo­men rep­res­ent the solu­tion to this prob­lem. But in March, a month in which we cel­eb­rated wo­men’s his­tory, Chelsea Clin­ton told an audi­ence at South by South­w­est that she does not have a single fe­male friend with any in­terest in run­ning for of­fice. With a Sen­ate that is 80 per­cent male and 95 per­cent white, this is a ser­i­ous con­cern. From state­houses to your loc­al school board, wo­men are un­der­rep­res­en­ted. Al­though they are 51 per­cent of the U.S. pop­u­la­tion, wo­men are just 24 per­cent of state le­gis­lat­ors. It’s even worse for wo­men of col­or. By 2050, wo­men of col­or will to­geth­er com­prise a ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­an wo­men. But right now, they hold just 5 per­cent of the coun­try’s state law­maker seats.

There’s a sur­pris­ingly simple solu­tion to elect­ing people to of­fice who bet­ter rep­res­ent the Amer­ica we live in: re­cruit, train, and sup­port these can­did­ates when they first enter pub­lic ser­vice — and re­search shows this is es­pe­cially ap­plic­able to elect­ing wo­men.

That’s ex­actly what Launch­Pro­gress PAC, an or­gan­iz­a­tion I cofoun­ded, did this week when we en­dorsed four young, pro­gress­ive can­did­ates — in­clud­ing two wo­men of col­or — run­ning for Michigan’s State­house. By in­vest­ing in the mil­len­ni­al gen­er­a­tion now, we can build the hu­man in­fra­struc­ture likely to cre­ate a bet­ter fu­ture for all Amer­ic­ans. Here’s how.

Stra­tegic Polit­ic­al In­vest­ing. Un­deni­ably, fed­er­al races mat­ter and de­serve at­ten­tion. The is­sues be­fore Con­gress are co­lossal, and the in­di­vidu­als we elect to those seats are crit­ic­al. However, the in­creas­ing role of big money in polit­ics — $5.3 bil­lion was spent on fed­er­al elec­tions in 2008, and $7 bil­lion in 2012 — means pro­gress­ives need a dif­fer­ent strategy. Re­cruit­ing strong ad­voc­ates and strong cam­paign­ers ready and will­ing to seek lower-level of­fices is crit­ic­al if we want to build the num­ber of these can­did­ates who run for high­er of­fice.

Some people think the solu­tion is big money. If you have a lot of it, it’s easi­er to spend a few mil­lion on mes­saging and me­dia than on can­did­ate train­ing and re­cruit­ment. The no­tori­ous and con­ser­vat­ive Koch broth­ers drop money bombs in states and try to in­flu­ence fed­er­al elec­tions every day with their su­per PAC Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity. (Of course, Demo­crats and lib­er­als do this, too.)

But the Koch broth­ers also re­cog­nize how im­port­ant loc­al elec­tions are. Last year, they brought their big-money ap­proach to loc­al races in small cit­ies in Iowa. The res­ults were dis­mal (and hil­ari­ous). No one likes people com­ing in­to their com­munit­ies and telling them what to do.

Like most things in life, throw­ing money at a prob­lem doesn’t solve it. And when look­ing at loc­al elec­tions, it can of­ten make it worse.

Don’t Spend, In­vest. Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand, D-N.Y., is an ex­ample of a pro­gress­ive who has used her fun­drais­ing prowess to do more than just dole out money. She has act­ively worked to identi­fy, re­cruit, and sup­port new fe­male can­did­ates, such as young power­house Rep. Tulsi Gab­bard, D-Hawaii. Not long after Gab­bard’s elec­tion, she, in turn, foun­ded the Fu­ture Caucus, a group fo­cused on de­vel­op­ing long-term solu­tions to is­sues that face Amer­ica’s next gen­er­a­tion.

Just like in any pro­fes­sion, people in polit­ics climb the lad­der. This usu­ally hap­pens when a polit­ic­al party re­cruits a lower-level of­fice­hold­er to run for high­er of­fice. If you fol­low that lad­der down, from Con­gress to statewide elec­ted po­s­i­tions and from there to state­house and city-coun­cil seats, you reach the point of entry for new can­did­ates. By re­cruit­ing, train­ing, and sup­port­ing young pro­gress­ive can­did­ates run­ning for their first state or loc­al of­fice, we can change our coun­try.

That’s what Launch­Pro­gress PAC is try­ing to do in Michigan. Right now, just 20 per­cent of state le­gis­lat­ors are wo­men. To change that, we en­dorsed Stephanie Chang, Kristy Pa­gan, and Re­becca Thompson, three in­cred­ible young wo­men run­ning in the De­troit area. Elect­ing them would not only bring more wo­men in­to state of­fice, it would also nearly double the num­ber of wo­men of col­or in the Le­gis­lature. If elec­ted, Chang would be the first Asi­an-Amer­ic­an wo­man to serve in the Le­gis­lature. And Jon Hoad­ley, an­oth­er can­did­ate we en­dorsed, would be­come the only LGBT law­maker in the state­house.

Back­ing the right people early and bring­ing new voices from un­der­rep­res­en­ted back­grounds in­to elec­tions will cre­ate pro­gress­ive cham­pi­ons and strong pub­lic ser­vants.

The Launch­Pro­gress vis­ion is one where we find great people first, of­fer them the sup­port they need and his­tor­ic­ally have been denied, and then in­vest in their abil­ity to serve the pub­lic by pur­su­ing elec­ted of­fice. It’s a vis­ion where Chelsea Clin­ton’s friends, maybe even Chelsea her­self, and oth­er young wo­men across the coun­try see elec­ted of­fice as a real op­por­tun­ity to change and im­prove lives.

This is a tough mod­el to ex­pand, but if we are ser­i­ous about rep­res­ent­at­ive demo­cracy, it is the mod­el that will best em­power and en­able Amer­ica’s would-be pub­lic ser­vants.

Luke Squire is the cofounder and co­dir­ect­or of Launch­Pro­gress, a group work­ing to re­cruit, train, and sup­port young pro­gress­ive can­did­ates run­ning for their first state or loc­al of­fice.

HAVE AN OPIN­ION ON POLICY AND CHAN­GING DEMO­GRAPH­ICS?

The Next Amer­ica wel­comes op-ed pieces that ex­plore the polit­ic­al, eco­nom­ic, and so­cial ef­fects of the pro­found ra­cial and cul­tur­al changes fa­cing our na­tion, par­tic­u­larly rel­ev­ant to edu­ca­tion, eco­nomy, the work­force, and health. Email Jan­ell Ross at jross@na­tion­al­journ­al.com. Please fol­low us on Twit­ter and Face­book.

What We're Following See More »
UNLIKELY TO GET A VOTE, LIKELY TO ANGER GOP SENATORS
Obama Nominates Ambassador to Cuba
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP REFUSED VOTE ON FCC COMMISIONER
Reid Blocks Tech Bill Over “Broken Promise”
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Source:
FLINT FUNDING STILL AT ISSUE
Spending Bill Fails to Clear 60-Vote Hurdle
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
SURPASSED 80 MILLION VIEWERS
Monday’s Debate Was Most Watched Ever
4 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE
‘WASN’T PREPARED’
Hill Republicans Don’t Like What They See in Debate
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"It was obvious he wasn't prepared." “He only mentioned her email scandal once." "I think he took things a little too personal and missed a lot of opportunities to make very good debate points." That's just a smattering of the reactions of some elected Republicans to Donald Trump's debate performance.

Source:
×