Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:50:49.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Elections 1992 and the Thomas Appointment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Marian Lief Palley*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware

Extract

It is tempting to look at the results of the 1992 election season and to observe women candidates' successes and say, yes, it was the “year of the woman.” It might also be inviting to attribute women's electoral gains to the attention that the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings received and the anger many women felt towards the all-white male Senate Judiciary Committee with its cavalier treatment of Anita Hill and its insensitivity to sexual harassment. Yet, women's electoral gains must be viewed within the wider lens focus of changing patterns of American politics.

The Thomas-Hill interaction was seen by some as a reflection of institutionalized gender inequality and insensitivity (Palley and Palley 1992). It underscored the need to press forward with the liberal cultural agenda, which incorporates feminist concerns with gender equity and electoral opportunity. Though the Thomas confirmation hearings made many people aware and angry, other conditions also helped to make 1992 an opportunity year for women and minorities. In particular, there was redistricting, a large number of retirements from Congress, and anti-incumbency feelings running high among American voters. Furthermore, though women were serving in political office, albeit in state and local positions and thus were in “the pipeline” and ready for the opportunity to contest state-wide and congressional positions, they were often seen as the ultimate outsiders. To be perceived as an outsider in an anti-incumbency era enhanced the candidacies of many women. Also, due to redistricting, many seats which women candidates contested were open seats for which their opponents lacked high degrees of political organization and the ability to “call in favors.”

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bake, Peter. 1992. “Byrne Rides Shirttails of Change,” The Washington Post, 5 November, sec. C.Google Scholar
Cannon, Lou. 1992. “In California, Women Triumphed at Many Levels,” The Washington Post, 5 November, sec. A.Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 1992. It's Time for a Change: Women Officeholders Have a Long Way to Go! New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1992. “What Do Women Have To Celebrate,” Time 140 (November 16): 62.Google Scholar
English, Deirdre. 1992. “Through the Glass Ceiling,” Mother Jones November-December: 50.Google Scholar
Gorenstein, Nathan. 1992. “Specter's Strategy Takes Him Back to U.S. Senate,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5 November, sec. A.Google Scholar
Gugliotta, Guy. 1992. “Opportunities Fueled Wins in Year of Woman,” The Washington Post, 5 November, sec. C.Google Scholar
“How Californians Voted.” 1992. The New York Times, 5 November, sec. B.Google Scholar
Palley, Marian Lief, and Palley, Howard A.. 1992. “The Thomas Nomination: Defeats and Victories for Women,” PS: Political Science & Politics 25: 473.Google Scholar
“Pennsylvania Votes for Senator.” 1992. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5 November, sec. A.Google Scholar
Schneider, William. 1992. “A Loud Vote for Change,” National Journal, 11 November, 2542.Google Scholar
Voters: The Reasons Why.” 1992. The National Journal, 7 November, 2544.Google Scholar