In the Constitution, Congress refers to the legislative branch as a whole. When discussing the membership of Congress, the Constitution uses “Representatives” and “Senators,” but also “Members” in reference to both. “Congressman” is nowhere in that founding document.
One of the foremost scholars of Congress, the late Richard Fenno, wrote, “a House member’s designation, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, is not Congressman, it is Representative.”
As a scholar of Congress and particularly the Senate, I am interested in the differences between the two chambers and how that affects American politics. In my investigation of the origins and evolution of congressman and congresswoman, I combed the records of colonial and state legislatures, as well as records related to the country’s founding and newspapers from the end of the 1700s to the mid-1900s.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Even if the current era were not one of justified sensitivity to gender neutrality and diversity, these two terms for House members are not just dated, they are wrong. Representative is the correct but rarely used term.
How did this terminological oddity come to be?
Congressman was used as early as 1780 in a poem by a British loyalist to refer to members, formally known as delegates, of the single-chamber and Senate-like national legislatures that preceded the Constitution’s establishment of a two-chamber legislature.
From 1788 onward, the gendered term was sometimes applied to members of Congress in general but increasingly to representatives in particular.
The central linguistic logic at work in early 19th century use of the term congressman stemmed from the reporting of election results. Newspapers reported the choices for governor, lieutenant governor, assemblymen, congressmen and senators. The only elections to Congress, however, were for members of the House, in contrast to senators, who were selected by state legislatures.
So, senators referred not to the occupants of the U.S. Senate but to the state senate. U.S. senators would not be directly elected by citizens for more than a century. In this and similar reporting, it was unambiguous to refer to the election of “congressmen.”
The common usage, which was firmly in place by the end of the 19th century, was bolstered by the arrival of congresswomen, starting with Jeannette Rankin in 1917. That political breakthrough ironically reinforced the gendered terminology associated with this office. The few early congresswomen were eventually joined by the first elected female senator, who was referred to as Senator.
Indeed, senators are invariably referred to by their gender-neutral and constitutional title.
The use of titles that are both unnecessarily gendered and inaccurate is almost restricted to the United States Congress. There are surprisingly few parallels and no true equals at the state or international levels.
The gender-neutral term designated in the Constitution already exists. The title Representative is used in certain formal but limited circumstances by journalists and others. For example, the widely used Associated Press style guide for journalists instructs that “Rep. and U.S. Rep. are the preferred first-reference forms when a formal title is used before the name of a U.S. House member.” But the style guide also advises that “congressman and congresswoman are acceptable,” and those terms dominate in most circumstances in print and television journalism.
And the use of congressman and congresswoman dominates even among representatives and senators themselves. Some members even seem to go out of their way to avoid the constitutional term, including Sen. Mitt Romney. Romney recently referred to former President Donald Trump’s communications with “Republican senators and congresspeople.”
And the use of congressman and congresswoman is at odds with other contemporary adjustments to circumvent or replace sexist or binary language, including personal pronouns. The application of gender neutrality through the constitutional title evades neologisms like congressperson, which is as clumsy as it is unnecessary.
Even as the Senate has lost some of its prestige and luster, the House is seen as a lower rung on the ladder of U.S. politics. Perhaps the inferiority complex that attaches to membership in the House versus the Senate also encourages the use of congressman. Being a member of Congress – and therefore a congressman or congresswoman – may seem more prestigious in its focus on the institution as a whole.
But it doesn’t have to be that way; the House could instead embrace its official title.
Richard Fenno, quoted earlier, can finish his point: “Whereas ‘congressman’ or ‘congresswoman’ tends to call our attention to a House member’s Capitol Hill activities and to his or her relationship with colleagues,” Fenno wrote, “‘representative’ points us toward a House member’s activities in his or her home district and to relationships with constituents.”
Members relish their connections to their districts, their constituents and the democratic virtues that role conveys. And part of this is the implicit contrast with the Senate, with its undemocratic origins and enduring elitist pretensions.
As well as being gender-neutral and institutionally accurate, the original title is a powerful reminder of the civic virtue and founding purpose of the House of Representatives. It’s not just politically correct, it’s constitutional.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
This survey is the fourth in the “Swing Six Issue Surveys”seriesbeing conducted in the run-up to the November election in swing states, and nationally, on major policy issues. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance.
“Surveys have consistently shown that, while Americans don’t want the US to be the world policeman, they do want the U.S. to work with other countries to uphold the international order and help protect nations from aggressors,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The survey was fielded July 19-Aug. 2, and involved 4,628 adults, including approximately 600 in each state of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and 1,211 nationally.
Large majorities in every swing state (64 percent to 71 percent), including majorities of Democrats (73 percent to 85 percent), favor the United States continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine — including weapons, ammunition, training and intelligence
A majority of Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (56 percent to 60 percent) are in favor, while in Michigan and Nevada they are evenly divided. However, majorities of Republicans in Michigan (57 percent) and Nevada (60 percent) find it at least “tolerable.” Nationally, 67 percent are in favor, including majorities of Republicans (57 percent) and Democrats (79 percent).
Before coming to their conclusion, respondents were informed that the United States has already provided Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars worth of military aid and that European countries have provided an equivalent amount. Two arguments against providing aid — that European nations are responsible for taking care of this war, and that, by engaging, the United States risks escalation to nuclear war — were found convincing by about six in 10. But the two arguments in favor — that U.S. engagement is necessary to prevent Russia from further aggression, and to uphold the international order based on national sovereignty — were both found convincing by larger majorities of around eight in 10.
The U.S. continuing to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine — including food, shelter and assistance to repair infrastructure — is favored by large bipartisan majorities in every swing state (71 percent to 75 percent), including 60 percent to 69 percent of Republicans and 76 percent to 88 percent of Democrats. Nationally, 74 percent are in favor (Republicans 65 percent, Democrats 84 percent).
Bipartisan majorities say it should be a high priority for the United States to uphold the principle of collective security, which says that when a country comes under attack, other countries should join together to help defend it, through military force and/or economic sanctions.
Support ranges from 75 percent to 81 percent in the swing states, including 70 percent to 77 percent of Republicans and 81 percent to 89 percent Democrats, as well as 80 percent nationally.
Respondents were given a briefing on the Western military alliance NATO and how it includes “a key section, called Article 5, which says that NATO members regard an attack on any member as an attack on all and that all members will defend any member that is attacked.” The United States continuing to be part of NATO is favored by bipartisan majorities of 76 percent to 81 percent in the swing states, including 72 percent to 77 percent of Republicans and 83 percent to 89 percent of Democrats, as well as 78 percent nationally.
Recently, the debate over nuclear weapons testing has been reignited by calls for the U.S. military to restart testing. The United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom have all had moratoriums on testing for three decades, as part of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
Bipartisan majorities of 73 percent to 78 percent in the swing states said the United States should continue its moratorium on nuclear testing. Support includes 68 percent to 75 percent of Republicans and 75 percent to 83 percent of Democrats in the swing states, as well as 75 percent nationally.
