Majority Rules: North Carolina’s War on Women

Following the mid-term elections in 2010, Republicans reclaimed the state legislature for the first time in over 100 years.  In the previous session, the North Carolina General Assembly had a Democratic majority in both houses, which it conceded to Republican lawmakers during the height of the Tea Party movement.  On the eve of the election, current N.C. House Majority Leader Paul Stam told reporters, “[Republicans] are going to govern in a different way.”  And he meant it. 

In 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly was tasked with redistricting, a responsibility bestowed to the state legislature following each decennial census to respond to population changes and ensure equal representation.  While the new maps may include additional districts to reflect North Carolina’s growing population, they certainly do not ensure “equal representation” for women in our state. 

The Republican majority’s maps place many Democratic women representatives in precarious, if not impossible, districts, leading many to question GOP lawmakers’ motives.  For example, of the 22 Democratic women currently serving in the 120-member N.C. House of Representatives, eight were double-bunked with other Democratic members and four were placed in significantly more Republican districts.  Women are already grossly underrepresented in the General Assembly, thus making attacks on Democratic women from the Republican party, both in North Carolina and across the country, harder to ignore. 

Is this an instance where a little gridlock might have served the greater interest (or at least, the interest of women)?  If Republicans did not control both chambers, would we see similar maps?  Had there been split control of the legislature, likely increasing gridlock, I do not think we would see the same legislative maps that so pointedly target Democratic women representatives.  The GOP asserts that the maps have nothing to do with gender warfare, and this is instead “all about politics.” I’m not sure what to garner from this defense.  Of course it’s political—isn’t it political to root out women from the democratic process? 

Intra-party Indecency Turns off Voters

The growing divide between Democrats and Republicans and their lack of cooperation, compromise and civility has contributed heftily to the public's waning trust in government.  This is not surprising; as parties dish out disparaging attacks against each other and their ideals, the public internalizes increasingly negative views of both parties.  However, a similar trend is now happening within the Republican Party. 

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the aggressive and heavily publicized primary season has damaged the party and its candidates.  The poll reveals that four in 10 adults have a less favorable view of the Republican Party due to their behavior in the nominating process, and almost 70 percent of respondents describe the GOP primary season in a negative manner.  Republicans use words such as "unenthusiastic, concerned and depressed" to describe how the primary discourse leaves them feeling about their party’s leaders.  With Super Tuesday quickly approaching, intra-party warfare is doing very little to inspire voters for a brighter future.  

The question becomes, will greater intra-party disagreement lead to further gridlock between the parties or will it engender an opportunity for compromise down the road?  Thus, with less group-think and more individual positions within parties, will party platforms weaken and strange bedfellows emerge?  If the tea partiers in the House tell us anything, the answer is no.  We should expect to see more disagreements rather than unlikely coalitions. 

To be fair, primaries necessitate intra-party competition so using them as a barometer for party unity is misguided.  Nevertheless, the poll does reveal that the public is unimpressed with incivility, whether it is from across the aisle or between members of the same party.  As Republican candidates vie for support leading up to Tuesday’s delegate contest, maybe it is time to reconsider the adage “nice guys finish last.”  In a political climate full of animosity, a little camaraderie might go a long way.