Archive for February, 2008

There is a time when music becomes the best politics. From its lilting cadences and bursts of staccato to its heartrending twins of harmony and melody, music can be a truly transformative medium and a powerful instrument of human connection. Yesterday, The New York Philharmonic gave an unprecedented concert in Pyongyang, leaving many to question whether this moving musical occurrence could foster warmer ties between the nations. Can musical diplomacy usher in a new era between North Korea and the U.S.? Can the jazz of Gershwin and the culturally-poignant “Arirang” move our nations to a heightened level of diplomacy?

The concert, spanning both American and Korean musical traditions, elucidated the common ground between the countries - and its significance for both New York Philharmonic members and Korean listeners was echoed loudly, and tearfully. “This might just have pushed us over the top” in finding a way beyond past discord, said former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry. Indeed, music may be exactly what we need to foster connection amidst the tumultuous times of our global community.

Culture matters: I’ve certainly seen it happen on the domestic scene, at a time when the political challenges were no less daunting. In Wilmington, Delaware, during the early days of the civil rights struggle, I worked in an all-white church located in the center of an African-American community. Instead of retreating to the comfort of their suburbs, these white congregants, amidst the upheaval of the early 1960’s, chose a direction for their church, and I’m proud to say they chose justice - making the church a beacon for civil rights activism. It wasn’t the easiest or most comfortable choice, but it was shepherded by the power and grace of music.

Congregants hired an astute political minister who knew how to change policy, but also how to change people’s hearts as a precursor. He hired my then-husband, a young and talented choral conductor, to use music as a means to get whites and blacks - who had not shared a church, a school, or a common culture - to come together. He taught them to sing Beethoven and the blues, pop songs about change and Bernstein’s West Side Story. Music built the foundation for very different groups of people of all ages to work on housing and jobs, education and equal rights. It was marching time, and these suburban whites and inner-city blacks marched in Wilmington and on Washington. They may not have shared dreams before, but now they stood together listening to the famous “I have a dream speech,” delivered by King and worked diligently at home to create a new vision of community.

The political power of music is still very much alive. This November, at the International Women Leaders Global Security Summit (a project of 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) Gala, celebrated musician Angelique Kidjo not only enthralled listeners with her moving vocal and rhythmic performance, but she called upon the global audience to utilize the medium of music as an accompanying force for political change. Kidjo, who is known as the “galvanizing voice of sub-Saharan Africa”, was echoed by Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, who asserted that Track II efforts require not only dialogue but unique means such as the arts to foster understanding, open communication, and successful diplomacy.

In the aftermath of the Summit, planning for a women’s Track II diplomatic force has already begun, extending the use of current diplomatic missions which women leaders have already begun to undertake. These informal but essential connections between women world leaders, women working on the ground, and national decision-makers are critical in fostering peaceful solutions in areas of conflict, and they consistently use music and dance as part of that connective tissue towards change.

In looking at our failures in Iraq, and the tense tightrope we walk with North Korea, it is evident that our old formula of politics “from the head” is not working. That we have often acted without regard to differences in language or culture or history, and that (particularly in Iraq) this ignorance has fostered nothing short of devastation. In today’s New York Times, Philharmonic musical director Lorin Maazel hoped that Tuesday’s concert, which was broadcast to an audience of 200 million, might be important to “people who want relations to improve” - and yet the Bush administration was clear that as they see it, “a concert is only a concert.” This denial of possible positive diplomatic outcomes is one more example of the shortsightedness that has steered our country in such a poor direction.

But this week, The New York Philharmonic has reminded our city, North Korea, and hopefully the world, that the value of music cannot be discounted, as it speaks the common language of the heart. And if we can learn to incorporate this new “tongue” into our diplomatic dialects, perhaps it will illuminate possibilities previously unknown. Perhaps when we integrate this language of the heart, we can traverse bridges previously burned, and encourage the head to follow.

While we wind down this year’s nominating season, and with it, the possibility of our nation’s first woman president, the New York Times reported today on President Bush’s visit to another first and only, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. She is the much beloved leader of a country whose current situation makes any economic issues in America look like minor tribulations. Surviving over a decade of bloodshed, rape, destruction and terror that impoverished this nation, Johnson Sirleaf, who is also called Mama Ellen, was overwhelmingly elected to rebirth a country that has little running water or power, an 80% unemployment rate, and a life expectancy of 42 years.

Though its civil war may have come to a close, Liberia still faces the dubious challenge of restoring human security: clean water, safe streets, access to jobs and energy, healthcare and education. The concept of human security was first proposed by Dr. Jessica T. Matthews, in an article for Foreign Affairs in 1997. She pointed out that the security of an individual does not necessarily derive from the security of the nation, and that threats to human security often lead to physical instability and conflict. Though these threats are more apparent in weak states than strong states, the conflicts that turn into war are less about state verses state and more about internal crises that pit tribe against tribe, region against region. Kenya’s recent debacle is the latest manifestation of human insecurity.

Matthews’ hypothesis was borne out of research released in 2001 by the Aspen Institute, entitled “A Women’s Lens on Global Issues.” The study identified a number of threats to global stability, including environmental degradation, economic development, human rights, and healthcare issues. What it confirmed was this: these are the issues to which women have been intimately connected and advocating for throughout time, and that they are the ones who are most likely to bring about the change that the global community needs to combat our shared threats.

These challenges are mounting on a daily basis, and they urgently require the global community’s intellectual, social, and financial capital to find and implement creative and lasting solutions. This is why the International Women Leaders Global Security Summit, a project of 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 over 75 high-level women leaders from over 40 countries this past November, in a Call to Action on international security. Co-hosted by Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, and Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, the Summit brought together the world’s most powerful women leaders to create a new global security paradigm, addressing our most critical security issues including terrorism, climate change, the responsibility to protect, and economic insecurity.

Though Johnson Sirleaf was only able join the Summit via video, her Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olubanke King-Akerele, attended in her place. We listened in horror as Minister King-Akerele talked about the extreme challenges her administration has faced: a complete dearth of records, infrequent electricity, and a near-complete lack of infrastructure in which systems shut down completely and frequently with no warning. That’s not even mentioning the recurrent threats of physical violence that these women leaders regularly confront. I marveled at their strength in the face of such daunting tasks – with the size of the problems that are theirs to oversee, the conditions sounded impossible.

Liberians have placed extraordinary confidence in this new administration, whose leader is a not only a woman, but a Harvard-trained economist who endured imprisonment under former Presidential demagogue Charles Taylor. She is slowly revitalizing Liberia – from the infrastructure of its shanty towns to the local economies driven by “market women.” No wonder she is otherwise known as the “Iron Lady” – she is living proof that inspiration and action are both necessary for leaders in times of insecurity.

Johnson Sirleaf understands that to keep a nation in peace requires more than the dropping of weapons and the signing of ceasefires; that the military is one tool amidst a bevy of necessary means towards peace. She knows that the security of Liberians is even more dependent upon job growth, functioning hospitals, and accessible education. She understands that a strong military must be accompanied by the human security that a decade of war has taken away.

There are two ends to the security spectrum, and Johnson Sirleaf is busily mending its entirety. We must learn to do this in our own country, as well as in our foreign policy and diplomatic dealings with other nations. What Johnson Sirleaf knows is what the Bush administration failed to understand in Iraq: that the first and most important issue is to secure the people. Her seemingly real warmth and regard for Bush this week is fortunate. Perhaps from this affable relationship will arise a more nuanced understanding of how our powerful nation should be and act in the world. Because the lesson of human security is the key to our survival as both a nation and a global community.

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.

One of the best things to come out of this election season is how gender has re-entered the public arena and political debate. In previous election years, women have been relegated to the background. But in 2008, issues of gender and power are very much in the forefront. Since readers brought so many comments, I am taking today as an opportunity to respond and expand upon some of my arguments.

I chose to center this week’s Table for One on the topic of the “first and only,” because it is an important (but not often discussed) reality that numbers matter. We like to think of ourselves as a fair country, beyond the prejudices of yesteryear, where individuals who work hard will be judged on their merits alone. But in truth, until there are enough diverse females in authority so that a chosen few are not expected to speak for an entire race or gender , those few will continue to carry the burden for all. When more women are running for the presidency, say three or four just like the men, the conversation about gender will be replaced by conversations about each woman’s agenda. With one woman, stereotypes abound; often, that “only” woman either has to prove she is “man enough” for the job or find a way to be “tough enough” without losing her appeal as a woman. It’s almost impossible. That isn’t to say that the particular policy concerns about Hillary Clinton or about President Clinton that readers have expressed would disappear, but the issues around gender would be far less pronounced if two other women governors or senators were in the race. If those gender issues are ones you aren’t seeing, let’s take a quick look at how the media are treating this particular one and only.

As much as numbers matter, media matters, and with Clinton, the first powerful woman who has ever been the frontrunner for the presidency, fears about women and power come right to the surface—and not in ways that any of us should be proud of. If you doubt me, check out Kathleen Hall Jamieson talking about the misogyny directed at Clinton in the media (donkey rape and “get back to the dishes” rants included). Or the email that found its way to my inbox this morning encouraging me to buy a t-shirt insisting I put “Bros before Hoes.” Again, I can understand voters or the media disagreeing with Clinton on policy positions or her voting record – it’s a legitimate and important aspect of our democracy to be able to question our leaders. As the President of a non-partisan organization, which does not endorse candidates, I see our job as providing information that levels the playing field as much as possible with regards to gender. So it is in that light that I want to suggest that taking issue with a policy platform is one thing, while the troubling, gender-based treatment that Clinton receives is quite another. I know that most men and women alike are deeply disappointed with the treatment that Clinton often receives in the media; more than just a side-effect of her “Clintonianism,” this kind of rhetoric stems from systemic, embedded fears of women in power, and our country’s historical legacy of gendered discrimination. Remember, we rank 67th in the world in terms of the number of women in our national legislature.

Of course, Clinton is not the only “first and only.” As the first viable black male candidate for the presidency, Senator Obama is also blazing a trail. In the beginning there were frequent conversations about whether he was “black enough” or whether he was an insider or a true “outsider” And I am sure that racism will rear its ugly head soon enough, but the truth is, so far their candidacies have received glaringly disparate media attention. The study by Kathleen Hall Jamieson was originally intended as a web search to look for “racist invective” directed against Obama. Jamieson was surprised when her study instead found so much misogyny directed at Clinton.

I think most Americans are extremely proud that either the first woman or first black man will be a nominee for our nation’s highest post in 2008. But we have so much further to go. When there are enough women running for the presidency, there won’t be signs asking them to “go home and make sandwiches” because their leadership will be normalized. Young men on Facebook will no longer demand that these women go “back to the kitchen,”because these women’s leadership will no longer be circumspect. And talking heads on MSNBC won’t describe our women leaders as “castrating” or “cackling” because such terminology will no longer be acceptable.

I know a vast number of Americans do not ascribe to these prejudices, but it’s not about what we tout as individuals as much as it is about the foundation upon which we live: the news we see, hear and read; the images which bombard us; the commentary that creeps into our consciousness. If we truly care about the quality of our democracy, we will work to make it more representative, and collectively rail against the systemic inequalities (and their manifestations) which keep us in the realm of “first and only’s.”

In last week’s New York Times op-ed, “When Women Rule,” Nicholas Kristof referenced a telling case study of Indian women who (by law) form one-third of village council positions. The study found that women ran the villages better than men, but that they were often judged as having done a worst job than their male counterparts – at least when they were the first women on the job. In fact, the study found that by the time the second round of women leaders were elected, they were rated on par with men.

The lesson learned, yet again: first women are inherently judged under a harsher set of standards and face elevated scrutiny than their male peers. But through their service, these trailblazers inevitably shift cultural perceptions of women as leaders.

We’re seeing this now in the race for the presidency, particularly in the male-dominated field of national security.

MSNBC recently asked voters: “With the field of Democratic candidates reduced to two, who would make the best Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces?” Senator Hillary Clinton was the clear favorite, besting her male opponent 50% to 35%–a ratio surprised any number of journalists and, probably, quite a few voters who weren’t among the 50% who chose her.

We assume that women will have a hard time being seen as competent in the area of national security because it is traditionally regarded as a masculine domain. A Roper ASW poll conducted in 2000 showed that 70% of respondents believed that a male president would perform better on foreign policy than a female president would. At the time, a woman president outranked men only on the issues of trustworthiness and honesty.

Yet attitudes have been changing at lightening speed. By 2007, a similar Roper poll showed a dramatic change: more than half of Americans felt that women were either equally suited or better suited to handle the complex issues of foreign policy, homeland security and the economy than their male counterparts.

It’s a huge cultural shift, and one that owes its evolution to the mantra of “seeing is believing.” Americans have become familiar with women leading in the area of national security; they’ve had the benefit of a decade spent watching Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice occupy the highest security positions in our country. Simply put, these women have made it “normal” to have women in those positions by way of their mere presence.

And it’s not just the highest ranking officials who matter. The nightly news from Iraq features women who, whether as enlisted soldiers or as officers, are serving on the front lines of war and in the line of fire. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton herself has served on the Senate Armed Forces Committee and, of course, has suffered for her vote that allowed Bush to go to war in Iraq. But beyond this, she has been able to speak with authority to voters about her plans for withdrawal and ending the war, as well as about the importance of diplomacy.

“No More Waiting: Women in Politics and In a Time of War” is the subject of the new afterward to my book, Closing the Leadership Gap. I chose to explore the issue of security because it is perhaps the most important challenge that we face as a nation and as a global community. Women’s leadership on this issue is paramount, and voters are realizing that women must take the lead to formulate new ways of envisioning and ensuring security. On the international level, we see this not only through the women-elected heads of state from Liberia to Chile, but through the increased attention to using more women in the field (as urged by the UN Security Council’s 2000 resolution). The European Parliament followed suit, advising its members to have women make up 40% of all reconciliation, peace-keeping, peace-enforcement, peace-building and conflict prevention posts.

As a woman candidate trained in security issues by The White House Project put it in her stump speech, “Let diplomacy be our pre-emptive strike.” As much as any other argument, her words capture the essence of what women can bring to our political process—and why the polls are showing increased support for women leaders on security issues worldwide. We are beyond the firsts for women to lead in this arena on the national stage. What we need now is a critical mass of women to permanently shift the conversation and the security paradigm under which we currently operate. And despite the media’s doubting, voters have confirmed that they are ready for a woman to lead us.