Beyond Clinton & Gender: Who's Up for Democracy?
There’s been a lot of discussion these past few days about Senator Clinton in response to my Table for One posts. Of course, in the current political climate, it makes sense to reference her historic bid for the presidency when discussing women’s political leadership. But it’s also important not to conflate her candidacy with broader concepts regarding the political pipeline and the “first and only” phenomenon. What I am most concerned with, when it comes down to it, is the bigger picture: the monumental task of transforming our system of government into the representational democracy it really should be.
The desire for that kind of change is precisely what’s driven record numbers of voters turn out for their Presidential primaries year. The formula is simple, and it's the key to how you get new people invested in democracy: offer people candidates who are not only politically savvy and experienced, but who also actually look like them, and voters will begin to feel there is place for them in our political system. In both Senators Obama and Clinton, many voters see viable candidates who, for the first time, are accessible and familiar - a closer reflection of the voters themselves. That's the beauty of representational democracy -- people feel that their interests are truly being spoken for - and hence become more likely to be involved in the political process.
But one or two people alone can not make change in this nation.
In order to bring about real change we need numbers. We live in a wonderfully diverse country, and although we have a woman and a black man vying for the presidency, we are still a far cry from being a truly representational democracy. For example, though they make up 51% of the population, women constitute only 16% of Congress and 23% of state legislators. Only 5% of the women serving in statewide elective offices are women of color. When I founded The White House Project, I was determined to create a program that would correct this disparity, propelling a critical mass of women into positions of political leadership. In 2005, Vote, Run Lead was born.
This grassroots initiative aims to increase the number of women in the political pipeline by equipping them with the inspiration, information, and tools they’ll need to be successful, effective leaders. Since launching the program, we’ve reached over 5,000 women, and have trained over 1,400 to run for political office. We work with women across the country, from Minnesota’s rural North Country to the urban centers of Atlanta, Detroit, and New York. They come from all ages and stages of life, and include some of the most underrepresented women in our political system: 41% are women of color; 46% earn less than $35,000 a year; 20% live in rural communities; and 50% are under the age of 30. They are crossing-guards and corporate execs, college students and community organizers.
They are the new faces and voices of American leadership.
But Vote, Run, Lead is more than a simple training program: it’s a powerful means of connecting women to democracy. Because what these women seek is a pathway to their own political participation. They are passionate about the issues and their communities. They are drawn to both politics and leadership. But they each ask in earnest, “Can I have a family and lead a political life? Can I be a politician and keep my integrity? Can I affect change and really make a difference?” Politics is a system in which they are eager to participate but in which they cannot locate themselves; what they crave are leaders who look like them, leaders they can relate to, and a demystification of the political arena which has historically been a strictly masculine domain. So we screen "Unbought and Unbossed" and show them the exemplary leadership of Shirley Chisholm. We provide access to high-level women leaders, and speakers who teach them the “ins and outs” of political leadership. We show them that there is a place for them in this system too. Through Vote, Run Lead, we are connecting these women one by one, city by city, state by state, and building a movement to transform our democracy.
It’s also important to stress that our vision of political change is one where women are leading alongside men. Our nation suffers when the degree of women’s political participation is so perilously low – it affects the quality and substance of our governance. When we increase the diversity of our leadership, we allow for a richer transmission of viewpoints that leads to a stronger, more equitable government. Public policy is then crafted with attention to the needs of all, instead of catering to special interests alone.
As I discovered when writing my book, Closing the Leadership Gap, research abounds with evidence that women bring about positive change in the political arena. Prominent research institutions, including Rutgers and American Universities, have spent decades studying the issue, and have concluded that women tend to include diverse viewpoints in decision making, have a broader conception of public policy, and offer new solutions. It's an assertion that we have seen play out time and again on the political stage.
I’m proud of all the work that The White House Project is doing to move women’s leadership forward. But there’s so much more work to do. We need to combat the misogyny that slips its way into the mainstream on a regular basis (i.e., for those who doubt the power of the aforementioned “Bro's Before Ho's” t-shirt, do you not think that young girls everywhere are belittled by it? That it discourages our daughters, nieces, granddaughters from becoming the future leaders that they are entitled to be?). We need to create an environment where it is acceptable for women to ascend to leadership, and make it the norm.
It’s great that women voters have been receiving so much attention this election season. But true civic engagement is about more than the periodic casting of a ballot. It’s about political participation engendered by a social and political climate wherein one’s voice and vision are valued as much as their vote. And it’s about a system of government that provokes participation because all of the populace is adequately represented – and inspires their involvement because all have the opportunity to lead.
With that in mind, I suggest that we move beyond the Clinton question and ask this instead: When the nominating showdown comes to a close, how do we sustain and build upon our nation’s political enthusiasm and participation? How will we mobilize the young and disenfranchised to continue agitating for equal representation? Because change can only come through the power, momentum, and intensity of everyday people who are committed to propelling that change forward.
Marie asks: "for those who doubt the power of the aforementioned “Bro's Before Ho's” t-shirt, do you not think that young girls everywhere are belittled by it? That it discourages our daughters, nieces, granddaughters from becoming the future leaders that they are entitled to be?)"
It's a joke t-shirt sold by a novelty t-shirt company. So, no, I don't think that it saps us of future potential leaders. Lighten up.
February 21, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong answer.
"Bros before Hoes" is offensive, period.
You ought to pick your battles--this is a losing one--and it seems to me YOU'RE the one that needs to "lighten up" here.
February 21, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Workerbee, you know as well as I do that there's nothing that's "offensive period."
There's no such thing as victimless humor. If you let people like Marie have there way, comedy becomes impossible.
February 21, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The desire for that kind of change is precisely what’s driven record numbers of voters turn out for their Presidential primaries year. The formula is simple, and it's the key to how you get new people invested in democracy: offer people candidates who are not only politically savvy and experienced, but who also actually look like them, and voters will begin to feel there is place for them in our political system."
There is so much that is wrong in that sentence! Methinks the diarist lives in a bubble that has prevented her from seeing that the world has moved forward. Gawd! What condescension! The pettiness of it all!
Let's see: HERE is Obama interacting with REGULAR women, not bubble-reared elitist ones.
And THERE is Hillary Clinton busy promoting the role of "WOMAN" in society!
That paragon of womanhood, Molly, knew what she was talking about. She is sorely missed! One cannot but wonder what she would be responding to Marie here.
Marie also writes: "With that in mind, I suggest that we move beyond the Clinton question and ask this instead: When the nominating showdown comes to a close, how do we sustain and build upon our nation’s political enthusiasm and participation? How will we mobilize the young and disenfranchised to continue agitating for equal representation? Because change can only come through the power, momentum, and intensity of everyday people who are committed to propelling that change forward. [my emphasis]
Isn't that exactly what is happening?!!! May I suggest you get out of that bubble, Marie?
February 21, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just cannot believe how shallow an argument this is and how utterly disrespectful it really is (though unintentionally so) to human beings to say that what motivates them is simply to have people to vote for who look like them. So they're that dumb and simple are they? I think not.
The goal of our political system ought not to be having people feel good about the government that does little for them and responds rarely to their needs because people who they look like are the faces of power. Changing the faces at the top is a meaningless, almost cruel gesture if there are no concomitant changes in policy and action.
The goal of our political system ought to be focused on solving people's problems, addressing the real needs of our citizens reagrdless of the appearance of the people elected to represent our interests and operate the machinery of government on our behalf. It makes absolutely no difference what the elected official looks like unless their appearance somehow guarantees a particular result that differs from the one they receive under the current roster of elected officials who have a different appearance. Is there anyone out there dumb enough to think that might be true? I certainly hope not. Symbolic representation without policies and programs that reflect the needs of the citizenry is a cruel hoax, not progress. The continuing narcisisstic focus by some people on identity politics disgusts me.
The first axiom of tyrants and oppressors is to get a surrogate the "rabble" identifies with to be the front... the face if you will, for their ongoing despotism to create and preserve the illusion that someone just like them and who understands them is in a position of power. If people really believe this kind of malarky our nation is in big trouble. But I honestly believe that our common citizens (none of whom participate in sites like this and certainly not in the corporate media) understand this very well. But they are too busy trying to survive to make their voices heard in such forums.
The most under-represented segment of the population in terms of elected and appointed officials in government are the people (all races and genders included) who don't make a lot of money, who don't own much if anything, who suffer the real and most severe consequences of recessions, of defunding education and keeping healthcare exhorbitantly expensive, etc... Who will speak for these people? Can we find someone who "looks" like them and solve the problem? Of course not because the powerless and those with little are the vast majority in the country which means nobody in particular and everybody in general looks like them.
What we need is a leadership that represents the interests of the common people instead of the well-heeled conservatives AND liberals who don't have to directly suffer the consequences of the rotten and unresponsive policies of our government and for whom problems like healthcare an academic problem, not a genuine and ever present crisis.
The common people of the nation don't need to feel better about who is oppressing them and blocking their economic and social progress. They need someone to help advance their cause for once! Do you really think the appearance of whoever might take up that banner is the important characteristic to look for? I sure as hell don't. We know that neither of our centrist identity icons, one of whom will apparently be nominated by the Democrats, will represent them or their interests. They never even bring them up except as props in their speeches. They have no intention of going to the mat to bring real health care to all our citizens of to guarantee jobs for everyone willing to work.
I think it's time we started demanding action instead of demanding a mirage version progress by changing the faces at the top, but not changing the rules of the racket that keeps people down.
February 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . offer people candidates who . . . actually look like them . . . .
A cry for demagoguery?
February 21, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marie, this is a political blog that discusses current political issues. The current political issue amongst progressives is the Hillary/Obama race. For you to come here to complain about the sexist attacks against Hillary, which happens to be among the Hillary talking points, places your essays in that context. I cannot disagree with your analysis of the role of misogyny and sexism in contemporary American life. However, within the of the current political debate you are compromising your arguments as nothing more than narrow support for Hillary. If you are really interested in promoting your major issue, perhaps you should do it in a different context.
February 21, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're discussing the gender and racial problems with representation in not only government but business, the cold hard fact is that it takes time to change. Looking at the ratios of how many women are here, or hispanics are here, is really only a way to identify a potential problem, not a way to say that a problem actually exists, and it doesn't automatically mean that the problem is discrimination. It doesn't mean it isn't. Part of the problem is outright discrimination and part of it the social construction of our society, and part of the problem is woman and minorities themselves.
How many women/minorities run for those positions? I've never looked into it, but I can name the woman that I've had a chance to vote for in my 20 years of voting, and it 2 which is about 2%. I don't think it's all the problem of woman, but do woman have a get out the candidate drives? Why aren't there woman candidates period? Are there not enough qualified candidates. Do woman fear public life?
I guess what I'm saying is the landscape for political office is deficient because to some degree the pool of candidates is deficient, for both woman and minorities. How do you get more woman to run?
What's the general description of someone who runs for office and how many woman are there in this pool compared to men?
How many woman are their like Hillary that give up a bit or all of their career for their husband or families? And the only thing I personally think is wrong with that is that some woman feel forced to accept that role.
I think Hillary failed because she ran the wrong campaign against the wrong candidate, and she couldn't get the majority of people who voted to believe she would be the best leader. Is this some inherit flaw in woman or in Hillary? I think it's a bit of both and she could have overcome one of the two, but not both.
February 22, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you feel about the "limp dick" comments on Hillaryis44?
Are you equally outraged by that? Have you said so?
Most feminists I have read are not about a gender neutral society. They are about promoting women as a cause. There is a difference and would only represent exchanging one set of problems for another without fixing anything.
Are you aware, for example, that there are more women than men enrolled in college today? Should we bias admissions until we are back to a 50-50 ratio?
Your notion that women, as a group, bring new solutions to problems is sexist to the extreme. I come from a state where there are 2 (count'em *2*) female Senators. One of them I'm not so fond of. One of them I am. Yet both are women. What a shock: Women as a group don't perform in lock-step with one another. And political rough-and-tumble won't change with different race or gender demographics.
I have worked at a large institution where 1/2 the managers were men and 1/2 were women. Guess what? Half the women were terrible managers... pretty typical of what you'd find with their male counterpoints.
Your arguments are typical of an academic with an agenda. I prefer to take people as individuals and judge them that way. There are plenty of good reasons to accept -- and reject -- candidates other than race and gender.
February 22, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The desire for that kind of change is precisely what’s driven record numbers of voters turn out for their Presidential primaries year. The formula is simple, and it's the key to how you get new people invested in democracy: offer people candidates who are not only politically savvy and experienced, but who also actually look like them, and voters will begin to feel there is place for them in our political system."
There is so much that is wrong in that sentence! Methinks the diarist lives in a bubble that has prevented her from seeing that the world has moved forward. Gawd! What condescension! The pettiness of it all!
Let's see: HERE is Obama interacting with REGULAR women, not bubble-reared elitist ones.
And THERE is Hillary Clinton busy promoting the role of "WOMAN" in society!
That paragon of womanhood, Molly, knew what she was talking about. She is sorely missed! One cannot but wonder what she would be responding to Marie here.
Marie also writes: "With that in mind, I suggest that we move beyond the Clinton question and ask this instead: When the nominating showdown comes to a close, how do we sustain and build upon our nation’s political enthusiasm and participation? How will we mobilize the young and disenfranchised to continue agitating for equal representation? Because change can only come through the power, momentum, and intensity of everyday people who are committed to propelling that change forward. [my emphasis]
Isn't that exactly what is happening?!!! May I suggest you get out of that bubble, Marie?
February 22, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Visualize this, Marie.
President Obama flanked on one side by House Speaker Pelosi and by Senate Majority Leader Clinton on the other.
2:1
February 22, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politics is a system in which they are eager to participate but in which they cannot locate themselves; what they crave are leaders who look like them, leaders they can relate to, and a demystification of the political arena which has historically been a strictly masculine domain.
there was little craving for lookalikes in iowa or most recently, wisconsin; no dislocation among hundreds of thousands who've caucused or voted for the first time; anything but disconnectedness or irrelevance evidence record turnouts for preferred nominees; and hardly any myth or mystery at all to an arena featuring 2 junior senators who've chosen distinctly different paths.
put another way, there is a senior senator who delivered years of legislative successes, years of sound judgement, years of bipartisan problem-solving; who voted nay tto the war on iraq, ">nay to kyl-lieberman, yea to a ban on cluster bombs, yea to a ban on waterboarding; who, with courage, competence and conviction did the right thing despite then-stratospheric public approval for a president willfully exploiting fear to incite our inner mob?
so yes, why aren't we discussing, nominating, electing her instead of wasting precious time on them from whom, you say, we "must move beyond" though which you insist on passively-aggressively victimizing and mythologizing?
February 22, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes we should all be inspired tonight by "the hits we have taken" speech by Hillary. Every young woman should look to this speech for how they can move ahead.
February 22, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's fascinating that on a Progressive blog in 2008 so many of your readers interpret the phrase "look like them" to be about race and gender. You put the bait out; they snapped it up. But I do think your premise is a little simplistic. In my case, I supported Mrs. Clinton because she resembled my wife.
February 22, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/21/beyond_clinton_gender_whos_up/#post-comment"text
February 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bros before Hos?
No way, it's Chicks before Dicks.
February 25, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink