Political Processes & Rhetoric – Page 53 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Margaret Thatcher and Women in Government

Post author:Lisa A. Mazzie
Post published:April 8, 2013
Post category:Election Law Federal Law & Legal System Feminism International Law & Diplomacy Political Processes & Rhetoric Popular Culture & Law Public

“I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.”

— Margaret Thatcher

One of the world’s most powerful women died today. Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s only woman prime minister, was 87.

Thatcher, leader of the country’s Conservative Party, was British prime minister from 1979 to 1990. According to CNN.com, she shared “a close working relationship” with former President Ronald Reagan, “with whom she shared similar conservative views.” Initially dubbed “Iron Lady” by Soviet journalists, she was well known (for better or for worse) for her personal and professional toughness. (For interesting commentary on Thatcher and her impact, see here, here, and here.)

Thatcher was a trailblazer, one of just a very few women to become heads of their country’s government. While women make up nearly half of the world’s population, worldwide, they represent roughly 16% of the members of national governing bodies. In the United States, women account for only 18.1% of Congress, 33% of the United States Supreme Court, and no woman has ever been elected president.

So, what’s the problem? Some would argue that there’s nothing stopping women from running for office, even for president. True, there are no laws that outright prohibit women’s participation in government. (Saudia Arabia, long the hold out on allowing women to vote and to serve in government, has finally reversed course.) But there are other barriers that may be less obvious.

Big Differences, Civil Words in Debate over Future of County Government

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:April 4, 2013
Post category:Milwaukee Political Processes & Rhetoric Public Speakers at Marquette

A curious thing happened at the end Thursday’s hour-long joint appearance at Eckstein Hall of State Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, who wants to reduce the role of the Milwaukee County Board, and County Board Chairwoman Marina Dimitrijevic, who is fighting Sanfelippo’s proposals:

A lot of people stayed on to talk. Dimitrijevic talked with whoever came up to her. Sanfelippo did the same. County Executive Chris Abele, who was in the audience, had almost a dozen people gathered around him at some points. Other people lingered and mingled through much of the Appellate Courtroom.

Usually, the room clears pretty quickly at the end of events of this kind. But for some reason – an interest in talking about the issue? the availability of the main figures? the chance to catch up with people? – this was a group that didn’t seem to want to leave. There were probably almost 50 people, out of an audience of more than 200, still in the room 15 minutes after the session ended.

Maybe this was a little bit different way of demonstrating how the public policy programs that Marquette University Law School has been hosting for the last half dozen years are meeting their goals of furthering serious, informed conversation on major issues. The notion of being a crossroads for such a discussion starts with the presenters at these sessions, but it often extends to the informal conversations before a program, during breaks, or afterwards.

Some Agreement, Lots of Division in New Law School Poll Results

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:March 19, 2013
Post category:Political Processes & Rhetoric Public

“Our old friend, polarization” – that was the phrase Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll, used at one point in describing the results of a fresh round of polling released Tuesday. It was the first poll since shortly before the November elections.

This was the first time in 15 rounds of the Law School Poll, starting in early 2012, that there were no “horse race” election questions involved. The questions this time were focused on issues such as regulating some aspects of gun control, education funding and school choice, how to pay for road construction, and residency rules for government employees.

There were some issues where opinion was strongly in favor of one position. For example, background checks for all gun purchasers were strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats and people living in every part of the state.

But on many issues, Wisconsin remains sharply, and sometimes close to evenly, divided.