Archive for January, 2008

Today, the National Council of Women of Kenya decried their exclusion from the current mediation talks being lead by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The Council’s chair, Isabella Karanja, condemned Kenya’s disregard for UN Security Council Resolution 1325 that supports women’s participation in mediation. I’ve been paying close attention to Kenya’s dramatic social and political breakdown, and I can assure you that the exclusion of women from the mediation process is not only unjust – it is a grave sentence for the Kenyan people and their nation’s future.

The country’s rapid descent into violence and relative chaos was sparked by a crack in the veneer of its successful democracy, and attributed to tribal anger and the back-and-forth of ethnic reprisals. But the violence that Kenyans are suffering, and that we witness in disturbing daily imagery, is rooted in the nation’s lack of access to jobs and healthcare, inequalities in land and resources – all glaring disparities which are funneled into ethnic tensions. Kenya’s current malaise will only be cured through the acknowledgement of human security as fundamental to state security. And the issues which make up human security are the issues that women have continually championed worldwide: basic human needs like economic and environmental justice, safe streets, healthcare and education.

Kenya is not unique. With few exceptions, women have found themselves systematically closed out of the security debate – with severe consequences for national and global security. Which is why The White House Project, along with a myriad of other groups across the globe, have come together to permanently shift the way we think about, and enact policy, on security.

In November of 2007, The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands in partnership with The White House Project, the Council of Women World Leaders and the Women Leaders Intercultural Forum, convened the historic International Women Leaders Global Security Summit in New York, bringing together over 75 of the worlds most powerful women leaders in a Call to Action on international security. Under the leadership of co-hosts Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, and Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, they worked together to tackle the world’s most critical security issues. And in the Summit’s aftermath, hundreds of women and men alike have signed on to this critical cause, committing their resources to uphold the bold imperative of crafting policy that holds human security to be intimately intertwined with state security. I encourage you to join this vital effort and sign the Call to Action as well.

We are witnessing moves in the right direction, and I am heartened by the women and men around the world currently working on issues of human security. When I was researching the new afterward to my book, Closing the Leadership Gap, I was buoyed by how far women have come in the field of security since the book’s original publication four years ago. But there is so much further that we need to go in order to normalize women’s leadership in this area, and truly listen to the women working on the ground when we craft national policy. From Kenya’s post-election violence to the devastation in Iraq, we need women’s voices to be an integral part of the conversation. As the scale of violence and human insecurity continues its rapid escalation, the critical paradigm shift on security cannot wait a moment longer.

Change. It’s the buzz word of 2008–the rallying cry heard loud and clear from voters of all political stripes. All along the campaign trail, each of our prospective political leaders has been trying to prove why he or she is the real bearer of change: Sen. Obama offers the hope for it, Sen. Clinton offers the experience to make it, and Sen. McCain offers himself as its walking, talking, physical incarnation. In their own special way, each candidate holds claim to the title prize of change-maker, but the truth is their declarations are ultimately false. Not one of them can or will deliver change on their own.

For all of us who are so eager to see a new America, a vibrant, just and truly representative country, it’s exhilarating to see so many leaders take on the mantra of change. We live in a world which faces unprecedented obstacles - many of which seem insurmountable - and heroic leadership can offer the encouragement and inspiration we so desperately seek to imagine a world anew. But no single hero or heroine, no matter what their eloquence or experience, can make that change happen - not even from the grand bully pulpit offered to our Presidential frontrunners. Leaders can set the stage, as did Roosevelt and Kennedy; they can be the foamy crest of a forceful wave. But the mighty wave of change can only form and swell through the power, momentum, and intensity of everyday people who are committed to propelling that change forward.

From the wintry mountains of New Hampshire to the Carolina coast, record numbers of voters have emphatically turned out for the Presidential primaries. Their participation alludes to an unprecedented opportunity for re-vitalizing our democracy and bringing about the large-scale, systemic change that our nation’s populace is resoundingly demanding. I propose we use this unique opportunity by adding the one underutilized resource for change that our country has never tried: women.

At The White House Project, our official motto is “Add Women, Change Everything” - and it’s not just a sexy tagline. 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.

Democratic and Republican women of the Senate meet monthly for dinner to discuss legislation across party lines. The bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus was instrumental to passing critical legislation including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Child Support Enforcement Act. As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson has said, “It wasn’t that men were against these changes. They just hadn’t considered the issue before because they hadn’t experienced the problem in their won lives. As women have become a part of the system, that’s changing.”

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. Of the 50 states, women lead a mere 8 of them as governors. And as of September 2007, among our nation’s 100 largest cities, only 10 had women mayors. As we envision a different kind of country, invigorated by robust dialogue and diverse viewpoints, perhaps the change we so passionately seek can only be delivered by adding our nation’s most untapped natural resource. If we add women, perhaps we truly can change everything.

As we get swept up in the media excitement and spirited debates of the Presidential election, we need to make a conscious effort to reassess our strategy for change. While a heroic leader can inspire us, he or she does not single-handedly create change. It is up to each of us to join together and become our nation’s change-makers. For those who feel overwhelmed by this monumental task, I propose the following strategy: What if between now and November 4th each of us reached out to a qualified, capable, and passionate woman and encouraged her to run for office? What if you used your desire for change to help her win? What if she’s your mother, your sister, your wife, or your best friend? What if she is you?

It’s undeniably true: we need a President who can provide both the inspiration and experience to lead our nation into a new era. But most importantly, we need a movement of new voices and visions to swell our nationwide sentiment into a mighty wave of change. So far, there’s one intervention that we have yet to try. For real change, an equal number of women leading alongside men might be the formula we need. 2008 has been a year of firsts. I say we give one more a try.

The 2004 election was an exercise in contradictions that left me feeling quite ambivalent about the state of our nation. While youth voting surged by 11 percentage points - with single women leading the way - 78 million eligible voters neglected to take part in the political process. Sure, we had increased voter participation to over 60% - but was this a number to celebrate as a sign of a strong democracy? I made it a point to talk to people who were “in the know” - and Donna Brazile, democratic leader, political strategist and commentator (not to mention the first African-American to manage a presidential campaign) was one of my first stops.

In response to my political quandary, this was Donna’s definition of the problem: her party didn’t really believe their support base could be increased - let alone mobilized - on Election Day. It was a position she strongly disputed, but felt characterized her party’s assessment of the political times. Was it true? Was the Democratic Party giving up on Jane and John Q. voter? I tested her analysis with a couple of male party leaders, and they echoed her assertion to the T. Was this what our democracy had come to?

As an advocate of women’s leadership and representative democracy, I refused to take their cynicism to heart. And I’m glad that four years later, sweet vindication has arrived.

I thought of Donna this past Saturday as I watched the live coverage of workers at Caesar’s Palace, a diverse and divinely-differently attired bunch, who appeared to be making an awkward but spirited foray into democracy. Like Iowa and New Hampshire before them, Saturday’s democratic caucuses were historic. With a record 116,000 voters, according to Nevada’s Democratic Party, 12 times as many people participated than in the 2004 caucuses. As an optimistic believer in the institution of democracy and our nation’s populace, it’s a momentum that I hope will gain speed and fellow adherents, as more and more people bring their voice and their vote to the political stage.

So what’s the reasoning behind this large-scale venture into the world of political engagement? The formula is simple, and it’s the key to how you get new people invested in democracy: show them people who are not only politically savvy and experienced, but candidates who actually look like them. In Senators Obama and Clinton, 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, even passionately so, in the political process.

Mobilizing the disenfranchised in the pursuit of political justice was a main tenet of the civil rights movement that Dr. Martin Luther King built, and it helped to make Sen. Obama’s candidacy possible. But those of us who led the second stage of the women’s movement know that Sen. Clinton’s candidacy is part of that legacy as well. Dr. King would celebrate both of these frontrunners, but he would also understand what the real victory is:

Sen. Clinton won the Nevada Democratic caucuses, Obama won the most delegates, and Donna finally made her point, but the big winner in 2008 will be Democracy. No matter what our political persuasion may be, or which gender, race or class we embody, the triumph of democracy is a victory that we should all celebrate with pride. And as we approach South Carolina’s primary and Super Tuesday, I hope that it’s a theme that grows in strength and numbers. As a country, we have the power to make 2008 a truly historic year - not only because it will have been the year of the “first woman” or “first African-American” nominee - but because it will be a turning point in our collective history for bringing mass numbers of people across the board into the political fold.

In the past few days, the media has jumped on race and gender as fervently as they played up the primacy of the polls the week before. With our democratic forerunners embodying so many political “firsts”, they offer an opportunity to bring to light the important issues of race, gender and class that have been, for so long, pushed to the background. But too often, when these issues do come to the foreground, they are manipulated in such a way that inspires division rather than reconciliation. In this election year, I say we choose to utilize our candidates’ diversity as an occasion for constructive conversation and activism to right our collective history of so many wrongs. And in constructing this dialogue, there is no one better to take our cues from than the real “first” – Shirley Chisholm.

Charismatic, courageous, clear, and inspiring, Chisholm was not only the first African-American woman to join Congress, but the first African-American woman to campaign for the presidency, in 1972. She didn’t run as “a woman or as a black”, she said, but because of what she wanted to see happen in the country. Though she is famously quoted as saying, “Of my two ‘handicaps’ being female put more obstacles in my path than being black,” she utilized her leadership to bridge divides across both gender and race in the pursuit of justice – a formula which is still sorely needed today.

For the last three years, The White House Project has taken “Unbought and Unbossed” – a documentary about Chisholm – to women across the country. We show it at every political leadership training we hold for women running for office, not only because we have so much to learn from Chisholm’s life and leadership, but also to show women a political voice that most of them didn’t even know existed. It is a powerful image for so many of us who aren’t rich, white, or male: a leader who looks like me. As Marion Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund taught me years ago, “you can’t be what you can’t see.”

This is the strongest message underlying all of our talk about race and gender in this year’s election. For the first time, we have a viable African-American and a viable woman running for president, and so for the first time, men and women of all backgrounds are seeing themselves in this race for the presidency. Speaking of her own candidacy more than 35 years ago, Chisholm once noted that her great hope was that this revolutionary act would make more people “feel themselves as capable of running for high political office as any wealthy, good-looking white male.” We’re still fighting that fight—but this year, we’re closer than we’ve ever been before.

So let’s identify the truth behind our anxieties and our hopes in this historic election year, and let’s take up this as our cause: building a truly representational democracy—which requires more than just one female candidate and one African-American candidate for the presidency. We need numbers, critical mass, true representation. Only when our choices, and our leaders, are an accurate representation of the face of our nation will race and gender fade to the background of any election—presidential or otherwise.

So far, over 1,400 women who have attended our political leadership trainings have seen Shirley Chisholm on film, and it never ceases to inspire them. Over 40% of the women we have trained are women of color, and in witnessing Chisholm’s ascent, they see the possibility of their own leadership. People across the nation are hungry for true representation, and we need to work together to expand the pool of possibility. The people of our country are looking for Shirley to lead the way. They are looking for a leader who is truly “Unbought and Unbossed”.

Is the crude and misogynistic language being used to describe Senator Clinton on the Internet Hillary-specific vitriol? Or is this a reaction to having a woman run for the nation’s highest office?