The relationship between sex and political behavior has been discussed only in passing in the political science literature, if it is discussed at all. There has been little evidence from the 1940s to the 1970s that gender plays a role in determining issue positions, candidate evaluations, or candidate preference, as a quick perusal of some well-read political science works would confirm.

Berelson, Lazarsfeld and McPhee in Voting, the seminal work on opinion formation in a presidential campaign, discovered no relationship between vote preference and sex. The researchers did discover a difference in reported interest in the 1948 campaign between men and women early in the campaign, but even that difference faded as the election drew near.

Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes in The American Voter make no mention of either the existence or non-existence of sex difference in policy or candidate preference. They focus instead on differences in turnout, involvement and efficacy. Although they suggest that at one time opinions about Prohibition may have separated men from women, the authors conclude, “In the current era, there is no reason to believe that women as women are differentially attracted to one of the political parties.”

Pomper in Voters' Choice does find a relationship between sex and one issue dimension–the dimension of war and peace. But Pomper, Campbell and Berelson agree that any sex differences cannot, by definition, be long-lasting. Berelson cites the lack of differentiation in the way policies affect the sexes, the lack of differences in intergenerational transmission, and the lack of segregation between the sexes.

Though the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) fell three states short of ratification, the women's movement seems to have learned from its mistakes and made some changes in its tactics, organization and focus. Specifically, feminist organizations—now stronger than ever—are stressing grass roots political activities and issues which are economic as well as social.

Feminist groups seem to have been most successful in influencing public policy when they have focused on role equity issues rather than role change issues. As Joyce Gelb and I explained in a recent book on women and public policy,

Role equity issues are those policies which extend rights now enjoyed by other groups (men, other minorities) to women and which appear to be relatively delineated or narrow in their implications, permitting policy makers to seek advantage with feminist groups and voters with little cost or controversy. In contrast, role change issues appear to produce change in the dependent female role of wife, mother and homemaker, holding out the potential of greater sexual freedom and independence in a variety of contexts. The latter issues are fraught with greater political pitfalls, including perceived threats to existing values, in turn creating visible and often powerful opposition.

Of course, many issues deal both with role equity and role change. When feminist groups have failed, it has often been because their opponents have emphasized the role change aspects of an issue.

Many of the issues which are primarily questions of role equity are economic. Thus, it was probably wise for the National Organization for Women (NOW) to emphasize in its ERA effort that the average female worker earns 59 cents for every dollar earned by her male counterpart.

The meetings of heads of state and foreign ministers of the eight already industrialized and the fourteen developing nations held at Mexico's lush island resort of Cancun raised high hopes and expectations among some, consternation and frustration among others. The real meaning and substance of the meeting were often obscured by the media's forced reliance on the official press briefings and, in the absence of other information, the emphasis on the food eaten, the elaborate security precautions, and the luxury of the surroundings. By now Cancún has faded from the headlines, but the issues and agendas raised are likely to be with us for a long time.

The Cancún meeting may have been a watershed. It is not that the place is so important or even that this particular gathering was so crucial. The issues have been building for years. But what Cancún did was to provide a prestigious forum and sounding board for the Third World ideas, and to bring some of these home to the American public for the first time.

Realignment is one of the few political science concepts that have made their way into the popular culture. Writers like Samuel Lubell, Kevin Phillips, and David Broder, borrowing heavily from the political science literature, have made informed political observers aware of the cyclical nature of party dominance in American political history and of the fact that the demise of the so-called “fifth” or New Deal party system has been overdue since about 1968. It is not unusual for political reporters to ask each other after a presidential election whether it was a “critical election” or not. They are, in other words, hip to our jargon.

What most journalists and politicians understand by realignment, however, is a good deal less complex than what political scientists mean. Realignment, to most people in Washington, means a Republican take-over. It means that the GOP will replace the Democrats as the “normal” governing majority in this country for the next generation, just as the Democrats replaced the Republicans as the “normal” governing party after 1932.

Certain facts suggest that things are changing in that direction. The Republicans have won three out of the last four presidential elections. The Democrats have obtained a majority of the presidential vote only twice in nine elections since 1944. The once-Solid South did not hold for the Democrats in 1964, 1968, 1972, or 1980. On the other hand, Democratic predominance has continued at most levels of office-holding below that of president and in party registration figures.