Building a Reputation on National Security: The Impact of Stereotypes Related To Gender and Military Experience

• Author: MICHELE SWERS
• Date: 01 November 2007
• Published date: 01 November 2007
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3162/036298007782398512

559Building a Reputation on National Security

LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY, XXXII, 4, November 2007 559

MICHELE SWERS

Georgetown University

Building a Reputation on National Security:

The Impact of Stereotypes Related

To Gender and Military Experience

In a post-9/11 world, all senators must establish their national security

credentials with voters. Yet senators do not compete for leadership on an equal basis.

Through an analysis of bill sponsorship, Sunday talk show appearances, and inter-

views with Senate staff, I demonstrate that defense policy is made in a partisan and

gendered context. Gender stereotypes favoring male defense leadership create an

additional hurdle for women, particularly Democratic women, as they seek to establish

their reputations on security. By contrast, a record of military service facilitates

senators’ efforts to achieve action on their proposals and gain media attention for

their views.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, national security

issues occupy a more-prominent position in our national discourse and

electoral politics. This shift in national priorities has forced the political

parties, members of Congress, and candidates to focus more attention

on developing proposals to address defense issues. As legislative

entrepreneurs, senators compete to establish themselves as experts on

issues and to stake out policy initiatives. Legislators do not compete

for policy leadership on an equal playing field, however. It is well

known that committee and party leaders enjoy structural advantages

in policy development, but I would assert that the social identity and

personal background of legislators—in this case, gender and military

experience—influence the choices that senators make about the nature

and content of their defense policy agendas.

Through a statistical analysis of bill sponsorship regarding a

variety of defense issues in the Senate during the 107th (2001–2002)

and 108th Congresses (2003–2004), I have found evidence of gender-

based differences in the overall amount and policy focus of the defense

legislation sponsored by senators. I have also found some limited

differences in defense policy activity based on military experience.

Interviews with Senate staff and analysis of senators’ appearances on

560 Michele Swers

the Sunday talk shows demonstrate, however, that defense policy is

made in a highly partisan and gendered political context. The ability

to highlight a background of military service enhances a member’s

credibility on defense issues with constituents, colleagues, and the

media in a way that facilitates the senator’s efforts to emerge as a

leader on national security. By contrast, there is a voluminous literature

demonstrating that voters hold gender-based stereotypes according

women candidates less trust on defense and foreign policy issues than

their male counterparts but more trust on social welfare issues, such as

education and health (Dolan 2004; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993). The

need to overcome these stereotypes in a political environment that is

dominated by national security issues makes engagement of defense

issues both more necessary and more of a challenge for women office-

holders.

Understanding the Effect of Identity and Background

on Defense Policy Participation

Both the women and politics and congressional literatures neglect

questions concerning the effect of identity (gender) and personal back-

ground (military experience) on the policy decisions of legislators on

defense issues. Recent scholarship on voter attitudes toward a female

presidential candidate demonstrates that the saliency of national

security as a determinant of voter choice increased dramatically

between 2000 and 2004. Furthermore, research has shown that indi-

viduals who prioritize national security concerns are more likely to

favor a male presidential candidate, even if one accounts for other

partisan and demographic characteristics (Falk and Kenski 2006;

Kenski and Falk 2004; Lawless 2004). Media commentators note

concerns about a woman’s ability to be commander in chief as one of

the obstacles that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) must overcome in

her quest for the Democratic nomination (Todd 2005). These assump-

tions about the competencies of women candidates, and women more

generally, can influence the recruiting strategies of political parties,

the decisions of potential female candidates about whether or not to

run for office, and the decisions of voters on Election Day in a way

that hinders the advancement of more women to office. Yet currently

there is not a single study that examines gender differences in the

behavior of officeholders on defense issues.

Instead, studies of the impact of women in office focus on gender

differences in support for the broad array of policies often referred to

as “women’s issues.” Literature on public opinion notes women’s

561Building a Reputation on National Security

greater support for social welfare spending as one of the major under-

pinnings of the gender gap (Norrander 1999; Shapiro and Mahajan

1986). Candidate studies find that women candidates benefit when

women’s issues dominate the electoral environment, as they did in

1992 (Dolan 2004; Wilcox 1994). Studies of women in state legislatures

and Congress find gender differences in legislator support for social

welfare policies, such as health and education, and feminist policies,

such as abortion and family leave (Bratton and Haynie 1999; Dodson

2006; Dodson and Carroll 1991; Martin and Wolbrecht 2000; Norton

2002; Reingold 2000; Rosenthal 1998; Saint-Germain 1989; Swers

2002; Thomas 1994; Wolbrecht 2002). Public-opinion studies demon-

strate that, over time, women have been less supportive of military

intervention and increased defense spending than men have been

(Norrander 1999; Shapiro and Mahajan 1986), but questions remain.

Do women officeholders approach defense policy differently? Do

gender stereotypes affect the strategic decisions of legislators

concerning the level and issue focus of their defense policy agendas?

If so, how?

Similarly, the decline of members with military experience in

Congress is commonly lamented because of the presumed expertise of

these members on defense policy and their greater connection to the

needs of our troops (Cohen 2000; Feaver and Kohn 2001). Yet there is

no empirical evidence indicating that members with military service

are more active on defense issues. A study of roll-call voting found

that prior military service does not affect defense policy voting (Bianco

2005), but this finding does not tell us if members with military service

play a larger role in shaping the policies that are eventually voted on.

Indeed, the majority of congressional research on defense policy

focuses on the end stages of policy development, either the vote or

budget allocations for defense benefits. This focus prevents us from

understanding the dynamics that allow members to emerge as leaders

in setting the agenda and crafting policy (Baumgartner and Jones 1993;

Hall 1996; Kingdon 1995). As my research demonstrates, the compe-

tition is fierce to build a unique legislative record to present to voters.

Senators seek to capitalize on relevant aspects of their background,

such as gender or military service, to enhance their credibility in their

efforts to own an issue.

Furthermore, the literature devotes little attention to comparisons

of participation across different types of defense issues—such as

procurement versus expanded benefits for military personnel—which

would help us to identify the circumstances in which constituency

interests, ideology, institutional position, or personal background