HOW SIGNIFICANT A MOMENT IS THIS IN HISTORY?

It is easy, based on media coverage, to treat the moment as defining and historic in ways that it is not. Presidents have limited domestic policy-making authority, unlike Prime Ministers, who determine policy in more areas and at lower levels. Education, law enforcement and important social issues will continue to be decided at the state and local level based on those voters’ preferences. Only eleven governors, for example, were up for election, and only one state (Missouri) changed its chief executive’s party. On issues affecting the United Kingdom and the world, however, the importance is greater. The President largely controls foreign and defence policy, and his majority in both houses of Congress will give him legitimacy as well as power in those areas.

WHAT DOES THE SCALE OF HIS VICTORY SHOW?

Voters undoubtedly wanted change, and they adopted a black chief executive to effect it: the first in a Western democracy. But a mandate can also be exaggerated. For example, the Supreme Court can block progressive policies, no matter what the president’s mandate. However, this is the very area in which the President-elect’s influence may last longest. Five of the nine Supreme Court Justices are at least 70 years old. Two of them were appointed by Bill Clinton, but three are Republican picks. If Obama follows George Bush’s lead and appoints young justices, the complexion of constitutional law in the United States could be affected for a long time. The lifetime appointment of lower-level federal judges, responsible for much civil rights law, is even more important.

WHO WILL BE IN THE CABINET?

Questions like this are best left to the betting shops. If I were betting, though, I would think in terms of experienced people, and possibly one, or even two, Republicans if he can recruit them. People in the Executive Office of the President are more likely to come from the campaign and from his past, but even there the smart money is on experience not cronyism.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS?

The Democrats did well, but Congress is another constraint on presidential power, even with majorities in both houses. As I write, the Senate majority seems to have increased by 5 (from 51 to 56 out of 100); and the House majority by 18 or more (from 233 to at least 252 out of 435). Sixty Senators must vote to end a filibuster: extended debate which can defeat legislation (like talking a bill out in Parliament, if it were in the control of the opposition). The tool must not be overused, as it can be changed by the Senate itself, but Senators have been reluctant to do that. The last time the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority was in 1975-79, following the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon’s impeachment, and before that it was in 1959-69 when the Democrats were divided over civil rights, so that a party faction blocked legislation. With a weak party system, as in the USA, party factions are as important as the sizes of majorities.

WHAT WILL OBAMA’S PRIORITIES BE?

The two most pressing problems, of course, are the United States economy, and the expensive military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Environmental issues may be prominent, as may civil rights policy, although it is difficult to tell. Danger points include the potential for movement toward protectionism, which might appeal to the electorate but could have long-term detrimental affects for the U.S. and the world. Obama is one of only five trial lawyers, and the only Democratic one, to be elected to the presidency in the twentieth century. (Bill Clinton, for example, taught law but never practiced.) That background suggests that he will choose legislation based on what is achievable strategically within the applicable constraints (his own electoral base, the judiciary and pivotal votes in Congress). If trial lawyers are anything, they are cautious and do their best to avoid large-scale disasters (the exception being Richard Nixon).

WHAT NOW FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

The Republicans will undoubtedly retrench. However, the biggest problem that the party had was the unacceptably low approval ratings of the current president, along with some events that no one predicted. Hurricane Katrina and the credit crunch cannot really be attributed to the Republican administration, as the adverse consequences of both are a product of long-term, rather than short-term, government policy. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was a decision that was ill-conceived and poorly executed by the Republicans themselves. It is always possible that the party whose leader makes a decision like that will overreact when it goes wrong and retreat into isolationism. Again, however, unlike the U.K., which has a strong party system, parties in the United States are weak but resilient. Republican congressional representatives, for example, will go back to promoting their constituents’ local interests, which is what they do best and what they must do to remain in office.

The words ‘better late than never’ came to mind as last Sunday saw the launch of Oxford’s first ever Gender Equality Week. Considering it is nearly 50 years since the original women’s colleges were granted full collegiate status, it might not seem unrealistic to hope gender inequality in Oxford was a thing of the past. Unfortunately a brief look through the issues raised by the schedule of events tells otherwise.

Workshops encouraging women to get involved in all forms of student politics highlight a significant problem in Oxford. Though full of capable, intelligent women, there is a massive deficit of representation at the core of most prominent organisations. The Union, OUSU and many of the political societies seem to have performed a feat of time travel and returned to an era where women take on gender-specific roles and not much else.
The Positive Discrimination debate on Wednesday was a reminder that this matter goes further than the University. In parliament, only 20% of MPs are women. Considering the fact that women have now tipped the balance to make up 51% of the UK population, this can hardly be called representative. Yet there seemed a noticeable reserve in the chamber and a lack of willingness to face the matter head on. The same slogans and jargons were bandied around as have been heard so many times. But for all the talk, where is the action?

To really change these inherent imbalances requires more than altered rules and constitutions. It will need a shift of attitudes. The knowledge of the opportunity will not be enough to cause more women to run for an election; of any sort. Whilst women have all but gained equality on paper, they do not experience it. The saying goes that ‘it’s a man’s world’ and in many cases this is still true. Women are caught in the middle. If they act as a man would, they will be treated as overly hostile and aggressive. If they act in a feminine way, they may be brushed aside or even condemned for ‘exploiting their femininity’. A woman in politics must forsake any identity beyond that of the politician itself. Personal lives always face scrutiny, but the criticism meted to women is often far more judgemental, or even spiteful, than that faced by men.

Consider for a moment the US elections – whose family did you know the most about? Quite possibly Palin’s, teen pregnancies and all – but would the same deluge of criticism have befallen a male candidate? Equally, though denigration of her $150,000 expenses bill may not have been unwarranted, this type of expenditure wasn’t entirely inexplicable. Though comments on the dowdiness, datedness or daring of women politicians clothing are common enough, it is doubtful whether anyone even noticed Obama’s most recent choice of suit. At the other extreme, after the French election Nicolas Sarkozy issued briefcases to all his MPs containing complementary grey tie regardless of gender. Perhaps this is symbolic of the identity confusion women still face in the political arena.

Gender Equality Week was a fantastic opportunity to discuss these problems and encourage them to be addressed head-on. Unfortunately though, whilst women can be enabled to act, the responses to those actions are somewhat beyond their control. Gender identity should not need to be sacrificed in order to succeed. Equality does not and should not imply uniformity – as many think it does. Women and men are not the same, so they should not be expected to act the same.

Until the political process and all the speculation and criticism attached to it concede to this, the true aims of the Week will not have been achieved.