Despite arriving in smaller numbers than other ethnic groups in the nineteenth century, Chinese immigrants to the United States were the central target of immigration restriction laws. Chinese laborers comprised the first and only demographic group to be denied entry to the United States based on ethnicity. In this chapter, I address the history of the Chinese in America, focusing on key economic issues and laws related to immigration. I then track the widely known literary trope of the “Heathen Chinee” through works of the 1870s and 1880s, highlighting how it directly mediated political and economic issues of the period, while also illustrating its shaping role in English-language writings by early Chinese immigrants Wong Chin Foo and Yan Phou Lee. The tension between these authors’ perspectives, I conclude, anticipates the later emergence of Asian American politics and the contemporary racialization of Asians as America’s “model minority.” Nevertheless, the anomalous circumstances of these two writers meant that they were not representative of most Chinese immigrants of the time.

Among Americans in the nineteenth century, literary interest in the image, idea, and practice of “community” extended beyond any conventional historical understanding of national togetherness. The abiding conception of community that obtained in the United States between the American Revolution and World War I was also informed by an emergent theory and practice of communitarianism. This was especially the case for those contemporaries who regarded the changes to an increasingly modern society and economy from a collectivist, and typically socialist, perspective. Across a range of early national, antebellum, and postbellum phases of the communitarian experiment in the United States, American writers gave expression to communitarianism’s unique reformist program through a variety of genres and political positions. Among the former were works of fiction, nonfiction, and polemic. Among the latter (in both book and short-form formats) were writings by several generations of authors and journalists that reveal a complex array of interpretive positions and ideologies, ranging from advocacy at one end of the political spectrum to skepticism at the other. The differences in their politics notwithstanding, many of the era’s communitarian-minded writers shared a desire to shape the course of events in American life with their work.

This chapter summarizes the primary explanations for women’s numeric underrepresentation and sets the stage for examining the gender dynamics of the candidate emergence process. Although several factors contribute to men’s dominance in US politics, we argue that the gender gap in political ambition continues to limit women’s full political inclusion. We recognize, of course, that women’s numeric representation has increased throughout the last two decades. But electing more women to state legislative and congressional seats – while certainly an important step – should not be conflated with closing the gender gap in political ambition more broadly. Because patterns of traditional gender socialization are so deeply embedded, socialized norms and behaviors still keep millions of women from envisioning themselves as candidates and perceiving the political arena as open to them. The chapter concludes with a description of our multiwave Citizen Political Ambition Study, our central tool for shedding light on gender differences in political ambition.

This chapter employs the two-stage conception of candidate emergence we presented in Chapter 2 as a framework to examine how gender interacts with the decision to run for office. Our survey data and interviews with potential candidates reveal that women and men are quite similar when it comes to their political participation and experience with the political system. But the same can’t be said of their political ambition. Not only are women less likely than men to consider running for office, but they are also less likely to take any of the steps that precede a political campaign. And among those who have thought about running for office, women are less likely than men to enter actual political contests. Ultimately, this chapter establishes the critical finding of this book: the presence of a pronounced and enduring gender gap in political ambition.

Drawing heavily on both survey data and interviews with potential candidates, this chapter argues that men are more likely than women to look in the mirror and see a qualified candidate, someone who has what it takes to run for office. Women are more likely than men to see someone who doesn’t quite embody the credentials, skills, and traits they think a candidate should possess. Differences in potential candidates’ self-appraisals are strong evidence of a gendered psyche, whose imprint leaves women feeling far less efficacious than men to envision themselves as candidates and, consequently, far less likely to consider running for office.

In this chapter, we examine whether traditional family role orientations systematically hinder women’s emergence in the political sphere. We begin by considering how potential candidates’ early political socialization relates to their political ambition as adults. The majority of the chapter then turns to gender dynamics in respondents’ current households. Our findings reveal that even among the youngest generation of potential candidates, women are less likely than men to have grown up in politicized households, more likely to be responsible for the majority of household tasks and childcare, and less likely to be encouraged to run by those closest to them. But, somewhat surprisingly, the traditional division of labor doesn’t affect interest in running for office. Although women continue to struggle balancing family with professional responsibilities, traditional gender roles don’t impede their interest in running for office in the way many might expect.

In this concluding chapter, we turn to the persistence of the gender gap in political ambition. Why hasn’t it begun to close? How can we reconcile its intractable nature with women’s steadily increasing numeric representation? What do women and men in the candidate eligibility pool believe contributes to the static gap? After providing a brief summary of the book’s central findings, these are the questions to which this chapter turns. Ultimately, we conclude that despite women’s significantly greater – and growing – presence in politics, women continue to be less likely than men to see themselves as candidates for elective office. They also continue to be less likely than men to be seen by others as candidates for elective office. There’s no question that “it takes a candidate” to achieve gender parity in US political institutions. But when it comes to breaking down long-standing beliefs about politics and the very nature of the political domain, this book makes it clear that it takes more than a candidate.