Current History,Vol. 17, No. 5. pp. 831-835
Feb. 1923

Accessed via JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45329481

Women in British and American Politics

The recent national elections in Great Britain and the United States analyzed from the standpoint of the woman's movement—Why British women achieve progress, and how American women can profit by their example

The recent elections held in the United States and Great Britain were sufficiently alike in their object and were held closely enough together to afford a comparison of the part women candidates took in them and to permit a speculation as to the possible reasons for the somewhat different results.

In the United States twenty women were candidates for the House of Representatives, and all were defeated, including the present member of the House. Three women were candidates for the Senate and were also defeated. The net result is the retirement of the present Congresswoman and the return of no new members. The election of a woman from Illinois to fill, in the present Congress, the vacancy caused by the death of her father in no way affects this result, as this was an honor conferred out of respect for him.

In Great Britain thirty-three women were candidates for Parliament and all were defeated except the two present members of the House. Two others came within a few hundred votes of election. The net result is no gain in new members, but women have held their ground. Of these candidates it is interesting to note that they represent all parties, 13 being Independent Liberals, 10 Labor, 3 National Liberals, 3 Unionists and 2 Independents.

These differences, however, are more significant in connection with the fact that the American election was a progressive victory, in which women might have been expected to share; while the British election was a conservative victory, in which women might have been expected to lose even what they had hitherto gained. In the United States, also, women have full suffrage to advance their candidates, while in Great Britain they have but partial suffrage, only women over 30 or householders being permitted to vote. Again, the American campaign extended over a period of over nine weeks, enabling women to select and urge acceptance of their candidates; whereas the British campaign covered less than three weeks, permitting of less time for selection and organization. From the United States come complaints that the vote polled by women was not so heavy as had been expected; in Great Britain the women's vote seems to have been rather better than had been anticipated.

Here the differences apparently end and the likenesses begin. From the returns in both countries it is evident that women will not vote for women just because they are women. The theory of sex solidarity in politics has been shattered, for women voted much after the fashion of men. It is also apparent that human affairs occupy women's attention in both countries, and that questions affecting women and children formed the main argument of their appeal for votes. It is equally clear that in both countries women are occupied with much the same questions—extension of equal rights, divorce laws, prohibition, protection of women and children in industry, unemployment and housing—to the exclusion of a consideration of more abstract economic questions and foreign relations.

American women, however, will be inarticulate in the House of Representatives, while English women will have leadership in the House of Commons. The American woman's movement, and her interest in great social and moral questions, is splintered into a hundred fragments under as many warring leaders, while the British movement can be united behind leaders in Parliament, and thus be given clarity of thought and expression as well as definiteness of purpose. Herein lies the real significance of the two elections, leading us to inquire what it is that British women have done, and what American women have perhaps left undone, that gives to the former group a dignified, responsible leadership in the British Commons; and deprives the latter of that privilege in Congress.

Diverging Views on Office

The truth appears to be that British women know what they want and how to go about obtaining it. From the moment they received the vote they accepted the principle of direct action and full representation. They assumed that the vote carried with it the responsibility to hold public office—a logical extension of their practice, before receiving the vote, of having women as members of councils and of boards of guardianship, as Justices of the Peace and in the Civil Service. It has never occurred to their leaders that they had no qualified women for high office, or that their achievements in other lines of activity did not give women the same training and experience to hold public office as that afforded men. Enfranchisement, therefore, has not been followed by the establishment of an elaborate educational system in theoretical politics, but rather by efforts to place women in responsible positions. This practical way of demonstrating women's faith in themselves is everywhere apparent.

The American attitude has been very different. Women have not had enough faith in themselves to select and support others for office. The Federal Welfare Department that was to have been a national tribute to their political genius, has been abandoned, because Republican women believed they had no one worthy of a Cabinet position and that if they furthered the idea some mediocre woman would receive the appointment. Through this lack of confidence in their capacities, and belief in their unfitness to hold office, their energy has been diverted into numerous welfare organizations or has been obscured in political machinery in acceptance of this theory of their ignorance of political affairs. They were urged by suffrage leaders and others to continue to influence public opinion indirectly, and not to seek office; and so impressed have they been by this advice that neither of the two women members of Congress has received the support of women's organizations, nor have they been able to take a position of leadership on women's affairs. They have not been encouraged when they did well nor rebuked when they did ill. They have been neither representative of the women's movement nor responsible to it. They have been lone figures, elected by political accident rather than by the conscious and definite will of women; and in their record little pride was taken by women electors as a whole. This is no less true of the candidates that stood for Congress this year; for the most part, they were unwanted women who through personal ambition or a desire for service, imposed themselves upon the political machine; but they aroused no thrill in the women of the nation, as did the British women candidates.

[PHOTO]

[figcaption] Mrs. Thomas Wintringham, member of the House of Commons (at left); Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst, leader of the suffragettes (centre); Lady Astor, first woman elected to British Parliament (at right)

The women's movement in the United States has certainly lacked the direction and purpose, with respect to Congress, that the British women's movement has possessed with regard to Parliament. The explanation of these different attitudes toward national public office is probably to be found in the price required to obtain suffrage in the two countries. In Great Britain women paid heavily in physical suffering, imprisonment, and loss of prestige. During the war this experience was consecrated by immeasurably higher sacrifices and greater suffering, through which English women acquired a solidarity of interest and mutuality of thought that peace has not broken. The granting of limited suffrage was a recognition of this devotion and service during the war, and, therefore, is a precious possession toward which every woman has made either a voluntary or involuntary contribution. The fact that many women are without the vote gives to the privileged others a greater sense of responsibility and of obligation than would otherwise exist and an intimacy with public affairs not wholly explained by the tradition of their greater experience and co-operation with men in political matters before the war.

A Different Tradition

This, however, is not the history of suffrage in the United States, where a great body of women—some not wanting it, others wholly unappreciative of its values—received an inheritance for which they paid nothing. A relatively few women and organizations paid the whole cost, largely in a sacrifice of time and money. No particular patriotic passion or sacrificial service comparable in any degree with that in Great Britain characterized the event. The solidarity of women's interests was broken into fragments rather than consolidated by the franchise. There has been no perceptible effect upon indirect influence, since welfare and philanthropic and non-political organizations have flourished quite as much as before the vote was obtained. There has been no deep consciousness of a duty to centralize leadership in Congress. In Great Britain many of the leaders who had suffered much to obtain the vote stood for Parliament. In the United States had such leaders contested for places in Congress and utilized the opportunities so auspiciously conferred by the franchise. there is no doubt that women's political position and leadership would be more comparable to that of Great Britain today.

This difference in attitude toward public office has brought about a difference in the attitude of men voters. Originally, both Lady Astor and Mrs. Wintringham were elected to succeed their husbands, the element of sentiment being largely predominant. This year both had strong competition strictly on the basis of their records and campaign issues, and both fought hard-won battles. One candidate. nominated to succeed her husband, failed. These facts seem to demonstrate that women have established their candidacy upon a basis of merit and impersonality—a notable achievement in so short a time.

In the United States, however, there appears to be retrogression. The first Congresswoman was elected on the basis of merit; the second election was an accident, as the party bestowing the nomination did not anticipate a Republican tidal wave in so strong a Democratic constituency; while the third Congresswoman. elected to fill an unexpired term, establishes for the first time a sentimental basis for women in national elections. How deeply sentiment penetrates American political thought of both sexes may be seen from a recent occurrence. A woman was appointed United States Senator to cover a period when the Senate was not in session, and therefore could not take her seat. But so eager were the women to have a Senator that they urged a special session; failing in this, the Senate was prevailed upon to permit the Senator-appointee to sit for one hour after her title had been invalidated by the recent election. That American women, in establishing a precedent that was wholly impotent, if not illegal, in their first Senatorship, believe that they are building a sound foundation for future representation, is difficult to understand.

Party Politics Contested

This incident, however, brings out into clear relief the different conception of party politics in the two countries. In Great Britain party seems to be less important than issues, and Government service is an honorable career and a grave responsibility. The personnel of the new Parliament is distinguished by men who are at the very top of their calling, or who have long records of achievement. Being in Parliament is not to them holding a job, or being errand boys for their constituencies; it is rather an opportunity to use their equipment and to influence general public affairs. Women voters have taken the same attitude, and the recent women candidates were of the same high order. Some of them came from high walks of life and possessed attainments that women under similar circumstances in the United States would hardly dream of placing at the disposal of Congress. The tradition here is different. Just as Americans are surprised when men of first-rate ability run for national office, so would they be amazed if women of similar ability and standing were to run for Congress. Political office is a game, a scramble for jobs, and a party reward for services; and many women find little in the pull and haul of it to inspire them to take up politics seriously.

In Great Britain, however, women's candidacy is taken more seriously than in the United States. Men believe women have a real contribution to make through Parliament. In the recent election men spoke for women candidates, helped to organize their meetings, raised funds, and were genuinely interested in their success. In one constituency, an ex-Cabinet Minister supported and spoke for a woman candidate. In the United States, however, although Cabinet members were freely distributed to support men candidates, none seems to have spoken for a woman. In some instances women had to raise their own funds, and had but doubtful party support. The New York Times reports that when the Republicans realized that their Senatorial candidate in Minnesota might be beaten, they appealed to the Democrats to desert their woman candidate. This incident is less significant because of the Democratic refusal than as an illustration of the attitude taken toward women candidates.

There seems, also, to be a difference in the way British and American women view the political field. The British women appear to turn more naturally to government as a solution of social problems, while American women appear to have more faith in welfare organizations and philanthropic efforts; British women seem to recognize actual conditions and to proceed step by step to realize a possible remedy, while American women are more likely to exaggerate the evil and to work indefatigably for a sweeping reform; British women proceed more slowly from one political accomplishment to another, putting in women there and there, to make sure that what they have won will not lapse; while American women, when they see their favorite measure enacted into law, take no such precaution, but fly on to the next reform.

The Touchstone of Leadership

Thus there appears to be an appreciable continuity of thought and stability of purpose in British women's political progress from the vote to public office that is less evident in the American situation. For instance, one finds English women like Miss Fraser and Miss Lawrence presenting much the same attitude of mind and interest as candidates that they held as suffrage leaders; and among their supporters appear a similar reinforcement of ideas. They lent a kind of grim earnestness to the election and gave the impression that women were evenly and steadily carrying their end of the load. But where in the American campaign, as candidates for Congress, were the veteran leaders of suffrage, to whom the younger generation have a right to look for political leadership? Although women voted, the impression prevails that their great inheritance has not yet been realized, and that they are still out of touch with the deep currents of American national and international political thought.

[PHOTO, RANKIN]
[figcaption] Miss Jeannette Rankin, first woman elected to the United States Congress (at left); Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, leader of suffrage movement (centre); Miss Alice Paul, noted fighter for women's enfranchisement (at right)

If this be true, however, it is certainly traceable to the hold which parties have been able to obtain over American women voters, in this absence of recognized and authoritative leadership by women. In Great Britain, though party feeling is strong in some quarters, a Coalition Government has prevented its having undue influence over women voters. They have now found their way, and it may be doubted if the restoration of the party system will induce them to subordinate thereto women's interests and the humanitarian measures in which they are interested. The fact that almost every party woman of prominence is also a leader in these movements crystallizes behind the women members of Parliament an enormous enthusiasm and a practical, well-organized interest. These members are expected to champion women's causes, and are regarded as a natural channel of communication for the expression of women's interests.

This again differs from the situation in the United States, where the present Congresswoman has generally accepted the party point of view and has been at times out of sympathy with welfare measures. While admitting the immense and indispensable value of all social welfare movements, British women's political leadership regards them as no alternative for responsible women in public office helping to administer all affairs that concern women as well as men—a sharp distinction from the American practice.

The result of the two elections analyzed and the record of women's activities in British and American politics generally show differences and likenesses that should make the experiences of each group valuable to the other. It may be that before long a way will be found to exchange information, compare experiences and co-ordinate women's political thought in much the same manner as is now done for other subjects of international interest, to the end that a high order of intelligence and a common viewpoint may characterize the activities of women in public office.