Jo Freeman, a founding member of the women’s liberation movement and a political scientist, discusses the distinct organizational dynamics of the Democratic and Republican parties. She reveals why their internal conflicts play out so differently, with Democrats thriving on public disputes. Freeman highlights the transformative impact of the women's movement on the Democratic Party and questions the fading significance of convention caucuses. The conversation also explores the concept of 'trashing' within feminist circles, exposing the irony of how success can lead to negative labeling among women.
The Democratic Party's power structure emphasizes upward advocacy from constituent groups, while the Republican Party prioritizes personal connections with influential leaders.
The women's liberation movement has significantly reshaped the Democratic Party's dynamics, illustrating how the institutionalization of women’s influence evolved from participation to structured engagement.
Deep dives
Differences in Party Power Structures
The Democratic and Republican parties exhibit fundamentally different power structures that influence their internal dynamics. In the Democratic Party, power tends to flow upward from organized constituent groups that advocate for specific interests, such as racial minorities or labor interests. In contrast, the Republican Party sees power flowing downward, emphasizing personal connections to influential leaders, exemplified by the current prominence of figures like Donald Trump. This distinction is critical for understanding how individuals navigate each party, as Democrats need to demonstrate representation of a group, while Republicans often rely on their relationships with top party figures.
The Evolution of Women's Influence in Politics
The women's liberation movement significantly altered the Democratic Party's landscape, particularly after the 1976 Democratic Convention, where women began to assert their influence. Although women had longstanding ties to the party, the convention showcased women's ability to mobilize and demand attention, particularly concerning the Equal Rights Amendment. Over the decades, women's caucuses within the Democratic Party have expanded from being a small faction to a multitude of groups, reflecting various interests, despite a decline in participation and engagement in discussions. This evolution illustrates how women's influence has become institutionalized, albeit with a shift from debate-driven engagement to attendance-driven events.
Trashing and its Impact on Social Movements
Trashing, a phenomenon of backbiting and undermining individuals within a movement, has historically been problematic in various social movements, including feminism. This behavior often targets high-achieving women or those who assert themselves, creating an environment that can stifle participation and leadership opportunities. Although trashing has prevalent consequences today, particularly in the age of the internet, it was similarly damaging in earlier movements by isolating individuals and diminishing their contributions. Establishing clear structures for accountability and leadership within a movement may mitigate such issues, though social movements inherently carry instability and the potential for internal conflict.
Today I'm talking with Jo Freeman: a founding member of the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s, a civil rights campaigner, an attendee to every Democratic party convention since 1964, and a political scientist. She’s not the most typical Statecraft guest. But her work on how the two parties work - not just what they believe, but how they operate organizationally - is incredibly insightful. In this conversation, we dig into:
* Why do the two parties fight so differently?
* What makes someone powerful in each party?
* How did the women's movement transform the Democratic Party?
* What happened to convention caucuses? Did they stop mattering?
* What does it mean when a movement starts "trashing" its own leaders?