The United States is “backsliding,” says Kevin Casas-Zamora, head of a Sweden-based think tank that assesses the health of democracies around the world. And it’s the first of two key warning signs that, political scientist Barbara F. Walter argues, could lead America unexpectedly into a second civil war. The other sign: the coalescing of a powerful political party around identity rather than ideology. Walter spells out her case for why Americans should be very worried and what they should do about it.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Call them ‘representatives,’ because that’s what they are − not ‘congressmen’ or ‘congresswomen’
Sep 05, 2024
Wirls is a professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
For most of the nation’s history, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” By contrast, a senator is referred to as, well, “Senator.”
These gendered terms for House members dominate in journalism, everyday conversation and among members of Congress.
The name Congress refers to the entire national legislature, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gender identity aside, congressman and congresswoman are fundamentally inaccurate terms.
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.
Historical use
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.
Few parallels elsewhere
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.
Reminder of civic virtue
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Don’t Miss Out
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
A 'just' meritocracy – the keystone to the American dream
Sep 04, 2024
Radwell is the author of "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the 12th entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.
I’m not sure if it is due to the recent triumph of the Paris Olympics or voters’ nascent love affair with Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, but the spirit of sports competition has taken center stage of late. Watching our young athletes reach their Olympic dreams and being introduced to Coach Walz seem connected in some mysterious but heartwarming way.
Behind every Olympic medal lies a story of young budding talent buttressed by a coterie of adults who chart the course. And in Walz, we recognize someone who has unmistakably demonstrated a profound developmental impact with kids both on the field and in the classroom.
But there is a more subtle and vital connection between the thrill of competitive sports and the concept of the American dream. In both, irrespective of background, the ingredients of raw talent, passion, perseverance, dedication and plain hard work can lead to achievement and its consequent rewards. Notably, both in sports and in society, a prerequisite to fair and impartial competition is agreement and acceptance of a set of rules and regulations. Further, the participants consent to abide by these and accept the outcome of the competition. It is this paradigm of applying one’s talents in fair competition that lies at the heart of the concept of the American dream.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Of course, both in sports and society, there are participants who invariably cheat, thus requiring mechanisms to root out uncompetitive behavior. Competitive sports wouldn’t be very interesting if no one followed the rules. However, in the seemingly endless fog of cynicism that clouds our thinking today, it is easy to lose sight of these principles. For this reason, as a metaphor for our civic society in the 21st century at large, Coach Walz’s mentoring and development of young minds in the classroom or young athletes on the field is so refreshing and enthralling.
As I discussed in a recent article, the same idea of rule-based fair competition buttresses the principles of the free market economy envisioned by Adam Smith centuries ago. As a producer vies for her own individual achievement and rewards, she simultaneously benefits all of society by producing products and services that consumers value.
But imagine a market-based economy where everyone cheats. This game is rigged in favor of those market participants who have been permitted to leverage their economic power to wield political power. Accordingly, they get to write the rules of the game and construct barriers to true competition. This is how Martin Wolf describes our current state of affairs in his compelling recent book, “The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism.” He argues that this rentier economy has resulted from decades of government neglect promulgated under the guise of laissez faire deregulation. In recent years, there has been an outpouring of writings that assail the inevitable widening gaps of wealth which result from such an economy.
But there is a related casualty, namely the stifling of upward mobility and the very crumbling of the modern meritocracy that rests as the bedrock of the American dream. While the concept of meritocracy has been harshly criticized recently, I have yet to be shown a better system for recognizing achievement and distributing rewards in society. The meritocratic system encourages the pursuit of individual success, while concurrently allowing society as a whole to reap tremendous benefits. The competition for novel ideas, products and services that consumers value lifts all proverbial boats.
In my book, “American Schism,” I articulate how this concept of meritocracy is rooted in Enlightenment ideals. As Condorcet, the great French philosopher stressed, the study of reason and empirical sciences as well as civic responsibilities were all fundamental to unleashing human capacity within the social contract. Whether Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” or Diderot and d’Alembert’s “Encyclopédie,” the wide promulgation of information became the Enlightenment’s machine de guerre. The resulting broad access to knowledge charted the paths to develop one’s innate abilities, and thereby promised a new world where one could become unshackled from the birth lottery. For centuries, the quality and access to public education in the United States became the engine of the American dream and lifted prosperity to unimaginable levels. But Condorcet also said: “Inequality of education is one of the main sources of tyranny.”
Further, when reviewing the criticisms, it is not the concept of meritocracy that is the problem, but its present-day execution. Quite frankly, we no longer have a fair meritocracy. We have allowed the wealth gap of recent decades to translate into a huge education gap in which real meritocratic competition is but an illusion. Since the 1980s, entrenched mechanisms within the political economy have permitted and legitimized the very wealthy to guarantee that their elite inheritance is transferred to their children, seemingly ossifying our existing social structure. Consider this: A wealthy family provides an annual investment in private education that is six to 10 times that of the inner city kid. And this yearly investment gap compounds throughout K-12. With such unfair starting lines, is it a surprise who wins the race?
To achieve a just meritocracy, the concept of equality of opportunity must create a level playing field by encompassing not only equal access to education, but to infrastructure and public goods, job opportunities and job training. As John Rawls illustrates in his 1971 landmark work, “A Theory of Justice,” a more all-inclusive concept of equality of opportunity must include equal access to acquire qualifications. Tragically, America in the 21st century is a far cry from this Rawlsian concept.
It is not America’s hard power or technological prowess but the concept of the American dream that has allowed us to become the real envy of the world for over 100 years. But it seems we are letting it slip away. Instead of abandoning the concept of meritocracy, as some critics argue, we need to develop better strategies for its effective and measurable 21st century implementation. And after all, watching a race where one runner is given a huge lead at the start is no fun.
Keep ReadingShow less
The populace and the politicians
Sep 02, 2024
Chaleff is a speaker, innovative thinker and the author of “To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader.” This is the third entry in a series on political followership.
Saying that someone is a politician is not typically a compliment these days. Often, it is quite the opposite.
What a shame. Who do we want legislating and governing? Individuals with little skill for communicating? Who cannot compromise when they need to pass a policy solution to a real-world problem? Who doesn't understand the legislative process or the strategies for building a winning coalition?
Compare this to other areas of life. Why do we want certified electricians to do the wiring in our homes? Licensed heart surgeons to replace leaky valves? Those fluent in two languages to translate for world leaders in sensitive negotiations?
It’s because there is real skill required in these roles, and real consequences for the job being done wrong. Believe it or not, political leaders also need real skills. The stakes are also high. In a divided government, where the majority of one or both chambers of Congress represents a different party than the president, nothing can get accomplished without skillful politicians.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Of course, to be a politician in a democratic society, one needs to get elected and stay elected. This takes us back to leaders and their followers, which was the subject of my two previous writings. What kinds of followers are needed to elevate politicians who have the intention and skills to make positive things happen?
Let’s start our examination with what I previously described as the outer ring of political followers — the populace. What can they (we) do to identify and lift up politicians with the skills needed in the current political climate? For those of us who have not put our energy into political activism, the choices of who is on the ballot have already been made. So, what’s our role as responsible citizens in relation to these choices?
First of all, we need to stop being lazy. That’s a harsh thing to say, isn’t it? But here’s why I say it.
Too many of us overly rely on our self-identification — “I’m a Republican,” “I’m a Democrat,” “I’m a (fill in the blank).” That’s a shorthand way of making our political decision without needing to do much work. But if the activists have been successful in giving us highly polarized choices, casting our vote without further scrutiny may well elect an inept politician who will do more to gum up the governing process than to achieve results.
The second way of being “lazy” is to continually listen to the same news source. A big problem with that practice is that these days there are very few actual news sources. Far more often, we are listening to commentary from one end of the political spectrum or the other. Listening to a biased new source can make us feel righteously angry at the “other side” and superior about our “own side,” but falls short of helping us understand the issues as they impact people across the political range.
The solution? It’s what your mother told you about the food you need for your health: a balanced diet. The same applies to staying politically healthy: consume a balanced political information diet. Watch or listen to or stream or read political news from at least two, preferably three or four, sources coming from different points of view. Then (here’s the hard part) work out your own POV.
Sure, you’ll use your political beliefs as an important part of your decision making, but as you read or listen, you’ll also factor in such things as: Who carries a positive vision of the future that inspires engagement? Who is bringing relevant skills to the task of governing? Which candidate is committed to their values and is also a realist who knows the perfect is the enemy of the good? Who is committed to upholding and improving democratic processes to give us all a voice?
The third thing we can do is to use that voice. Use it in all the ways that sustaining our democracy requires. Mom was also a good guide for doing that: “Don’t shout. Use your language.”
Use your language in appropriate and courageous ways. Speak up when you hold a different perspective. Speak up if you see others being shut down. Shut up if the political leader is relying on hateful speech to rouse his followers — don’t cheer or collude with this. Even if everyone around you is shouting approval, hold your principled position. When the noise dies down, invite conversations where anyone who wants to tell their story can do so.
Early readers of “To Stop a Tyrant”reported one common response. They no longer felt powerless when up against forces larger than themselves. No force is larger than the individual who understands that it is always individuals who are the building block of movements for change, or movements of resistance.
Do not underestimate what the Czech playwright and politician Vaclav Havel called “the power of the powerless.” In recent months we have seen British voters throw out the Conservatives who had been the ruling party for 13 years. Students in Bangladesh forced the removal of their increasingly tyrannical prime minister. Arguably, President Joe Biden’s low poll ratings among potential voters (the populace) created the conditions in which party insiders convinced him to end his candidacy for a second term.
You have more power than you think if it is used in the window when action makes a difference — before a prototyrant has amassed the power of the full fledged tyrant.
If you are still not convinced, dive deeper into the book during the remaining days in this election cycle, or join me in the next installation when I discuss the activist circle of followers. Will that be you in that circle?
Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the change leaders: Pedro Silva
Sep 02, 2024
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Pedro Silva, director of engagement at YOUnify, brings a wealth of cross-sector experience to the job. A veteran of the Air Force who served as both a satellite communications technician and a Mandarin Chinese language/intelligence analyst, he has cultivated the capacity to think missionally and practically — strategically and tactically — on a wide variety of concerns.
In his post-military career, Silva worked as a corporate recruiter for eight years, serving dozens of for-profit, not-for-profit, and B corporations in the areas of technology, biotech and more. In 2009, he entered Andover Newton Theological Seminary and for 10 years served as a pastor in the socially active United Church of Christ. In that role, Silva built on his passion for civic engagement.
For three years he served as the state representative for the Boulder caucus of Together Colorado, an organization of the Faith In Action Network, where he worked on a variety of issues at the local to state levels ranging from affordable housing, gun violence and voting to living wage legislation and the Family Leave Act. He also served on several committees with the local NAACP chapter and worked with the Boulder Community Foundation as an advisor in the wake of the tragic shooting in Boulder.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In addition to these efforts, Pedro hosted numerous in-person and online conversations on race in Boulder County, has been an advocate for the homeless community, and has made a mark on the bridging movement through his volunteer work with Living Room Conversations and now as director of engagement with YOUnify.
Most recently, Silva launched The Liberation Comedy Project, an initiative to draw people closer to one another by positively exposing the comedy in the conflicts that distract us from deeper relating across differences.
Kristina Becvar, co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance had the opportunity to interview Silva a few weeks ago for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of his democracy reform work:
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the change leaders: Seth David Radwell
Aug 29, 2024
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Seth David Radwell, author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation,” is an entrepreneur, business executive and recognized thought leader in consumer marketing. A common thread across all his leadership and business endeavors has been his passion for our shared democratic values and his interest in American public policy.
Until 2018, he served as the CEO of The Proactiv Company, the leading skincare brand addressing acne. Prior to that, he served as president and chief revenue officer of Guthy-Renker, the leading worldwide direct-to-consumer beauty company. In that role, Radwell led the growth of such leading brands as Proactiv Acne Solutions, Cindy Crawford’s Meaningful Beauty, IT Cosmetics, Wen Hair Care by Chaz Dean and Crèpe Erase.
Radwell previously served as president of e-Scholastic, the digital arm of the global children’s publishing and education company. In prior roles, Radwell was president of Bookspan/Bertelsmann, the premier direct marketer of general interest and specialty book clubs such as Book of the Month Club, Doubleday Book Club and Literary Guild. He was also senior vice president of content for Prodigy Services Company, where he pioneered new ecommerce revenue streams for the online service business. Prior to his days in ecommerce and the internet, Radwell spent six years with the management consulting firm McKinsey & Company.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Radwell received a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He holds a bachelor of arts degree (summa cum laude) from Columbia College at Columbia University.
I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Radwell a few weeks ago for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of his democracy reform work:
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More