“Can You Be in Politics and Keep Your Integrity?”
I’ve traveled from Minnesota to New York, Georgia to Colorado, helping my team at The White House Project inspire, inform, and equip a diverse array of women to take the political lead. Of the nearly 1,500 women we have trained thus far, many invariably ask the above question, and it seems to me a particular injustice that they have to consider it. These women are passionate and intelligent; they have the brains and the brawn to make real change in their communities and our world. But they are cautious - they don’t want to sell their soul in the process.
What a week to consider the premise. Eliot Spitzer’s unfortunate and unfettered fall from grace has certainly brought issues of integrity to the foreground–but his story is, by some measure, the easier one to dismiss when it comes to the challenge of keeping our political house in order. The issue that has me more concerned, frankly, relates to some presidential campaign tactics of late and what they say to the leaders of the future about what a life in politics might mean.
As much as it has in any election to date, integrity matters this time around. At its core, political integrity is about touting policies and practices not because they are politically expedient, but because of the inherent good such policies visit upon the communities they touch. And when it comes to this question of integrity, women candidates have a particular tightrope to walk: as pollster Celinda Lake has shown us, because the traits of integrity and honesty generally have been allied with women candidates, a male opponent can almost always gain ground against a female opponent by showing a crack in her armor of so-called “goodness.”
In the current race for the presidency, for instance, the criticism of Clinton for her votes, particularly on the war in Iraq, is a continual stab at her integrity. And those hits have hurt. But in this race, it’s not just Clinton who is susceptible to chinks in her integrity armor. With Obama cast as the “woman” candidate he, too, runs the risk that fissures in his perceived goodness, his integrity, will impact him in ways other male candidates (those not cast as female in quite the same way) would not face.
That fact is one that will be picked up on in the general election without a doubt. But when, in this week’s Newsweek, Eleanor Clift spoke so openly and eloquently about her admiration for Clinton alongside worries about her recent campaign tactics vis a vis Obama, it stirred up for me some worries of my own. Because while I believe that it is Clinton’s competence and courage that account for her resurrection, I also fear that the campaign’s attacks on Obama’s armor are working to Clinton’s benefit in a way that those of us who care about the integrity of our political system should not be thrilled about.
In the disloyal act of writing that, I hear seasoned political women’s voices laughing at my “good girl,” politically-disabled mentality. What are you thinking? Did you think she could win without doing these things? Have you studied this for a decade and still are this naïve? I also realize that these concerns are not about policy or about rights - they involve strategy and tactics, and as my friends remind me, we can all disagree on the latter. And, just like Eleanor Clift, I, too, am afraid I am being too hard on her, and that “what makes her a viable contender is her ability to play hardball.”
But that’s when I remember the young, disillusioned woman from Chicago, polled in our study “Pipeline to the Future” who lamented, “If you have values or morals, you’re not going very far in politics.” I hear our aspiring women leaders across the country, inquiring again about the abandonment of integrity for political gain. And I hear the diverse, talented and seasoned women politicians who answer them with candor at our trainings about how they do it. It’s obvious that they compromise, but they choose how and when, just as I find is needed in any field, if not as publicly.
To be clear, this is not about holding Clinton to a higher standard than her male competitor - and frankly, given the varied and sometimes viciously misogynistic attacks Clinton has suffered through her campaign (remember those “Iron My Shirt” posters? the Hillary nutcrackers being sold in airports across the country? the inflammatory images all over the internet that depict our first viable female candidate being violated by a donkey?), the tactics being employed by the campaign right now look rather mild. Rather, it is about my wish, on behalf of young women and men alike, that at some point things will be different–that there will be models for them, of whatever gender and whatever party, who will offer resounding encouragement through their example that politics can be a fair and upright foray into changing the world for the better.
Politics - it’s a tough business. There will always be leaders who profess the moral highroad and navigate, if on occasion or with regularity, the pathways which lurk beneath. More often, I hope, there will be those who will learn the art of compromise without losing their authenticity and integrity. I think of the firsts, like Senator Clinton, who will have to be tougher than even I realized to get in. I think of the pipeline of women across the country who are eager to ascend to leadership. And I hope that enough women will run for office, to change the process and well as the product, so that we can sell this business of politics to our daughters.
Seattle March 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
You don’t know how many times I’ve argued with my fellow twenty-something male and female friends as to why Clinton is “playing hardball” in this election. “She HAS to play the game of politics, or everyone will openly and frequently question why she’s using all the tools she has,” I argue, after my friends tsk-tsk her recent attacks on Obama. They shake their heads, frowning on her tough politic tactics. I just don’t think they understand.
So, thank you for putting my arguments so eloquently. It’s what I’ve been trying to verbalize for months.
Seattle March 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
I’m sorry that’s supposed to read “why she’s NOT using all the tools she has.”
Colorado Springs, CO March 18th, 2008 at 9:20 pm |
One of the issues brought up is Senator Clinton’s change in stance on the war in Iraq. Obama is exploiting this to good effect. It really bothers me. Why is changing your mind a lack of integrity? I understand if you constantly change your story to match your audience (hmmmm, something Obama has been discovered doing with regards to NAFTA…but I digress), your integrity should be questioned. But changing your stance on a subject once you have better information is, to me, courageous. Are you supposed to stick with a stance you no longer support because you don’t want to show you have changed your mind?
Playing hardball. Is it right or wrong to disclose information that is harmful about a candidate? Is it right or wrong NOT to disclose certain information? Take Gov. Spitzer. If he was running for office and an opponent found out about his extra curricular activities, should it be made public? What is it we like to say? The public has a right to know. Does it? Prostitution is against the law, so in this instance, I would say yes. How about President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Extra marital affairs are not against the law, so, maybe not. Wrong, yes. Again, Barak Obama telling two differnt groups of people two different stances on NAFTA - telling each what they wanted to hear, essentially. Should that have been disclosed? The public was being misled. It was wrong. Was it “wrong enough” to be disclosed? Probably. Which of these disclosures would be deemed as lessening ones integrity? Some shouldn’t and some should.
Where it is more evident that integrity is being ignored, forgotten, bent, is all the talk about Barak Obama’s minister’s inflammatory remarks or Hillary Clinton’s supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s comments. Supporters’ views don’t necessarily reflect the views of those that they support and are just meant to muddy the waters. In campaigns as large as each of these, it is hard to control all of those folks on your staff, never mind just plain old supporters (although high-profile supporters should know better!). There is no good way to deal with this. You can deny or denounce all you want and there will be many that don’t believe a word you say.
All this means is you have to understand the world you are entering, what can/will happen, and just be the best you can. Could be a pretty simplistic view, but I don’t believe there are any real solutions. Education and understanding/knowing yourself and your values is all you have. Sounds like a new topic for Go Run and other programs to me!
West New York, NJ March 25th, 2008 at 9:34 pm |
Being able to change your mind is not an issue of integrity. It is often necessary to change your mind and change direction if the course of action is proving to be unproductive or destructive. Hillary Clinton made a mistake by voting for the war and I don’t condemn her for changing her mind now. However, lying or “misspeaking” as the media calls it today, about events and experience is an issue of integrity. At the beginning of this electoral race, although I was more inclined to vote for Barack Obama, I was very much a Hillary Clinton supporter but as this race has unfolded, I’ve continually been disappointed by the political tactics of the Clinton campaign. If she is willing to lie to get into office, how many more lies will she tell if she is elected.
So what kind of damage can a lie do? Let’s look at a few of the lies that are contributing to the current destruction of our country. 1. We’ve been in a war for five years, spent billions of hard earned tax-payer dollars, and lost 4,000 American soldiers because of a presidential lie the majority of Americans bought into…weapons of mass destruction. 2. Our country is in a financial mess because of lies told by both lenders and consumers. The moral of the story: small lies can do great damage.
While the ultimate leader of our country needs experience, vision, passion, discipline among many other leadership qualities, more than anything, our leader has to have a conscience. Conscience, according to Webster, is “the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action”. Even our founding fathers recognized the importance of conscience. Thomas Jefferson once said “in matters of fashion, swim with the current, but in matters of conscience, stand like a rock.” Who’s standing like a rock right now? At this moment, certainly not Hillary Clinton. When will someone take a stand against the unethical norm in American politics? Is an honest politician too much to ask for?
Whatever comes of the election in November, whether it’s Obama, Clinton or McCain, I am praying now and will continue to pray for responsible White House leadership. The world needs it and our nation deserves it.
Chicago, IL March 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am |
Feminine Power:
I dislike the idea that because Clinton competes in an arena dominated by men, she should necessarily carry out her campaign the way a man would. When I became a mother I soon discovered that conventional society eliminates at worst, often marginalizes at best, involved mothers—especially young involved mothers— from the playing field in vast arenas of everyday life. We’ve all heard it before–the constant struggle between work and family. How about the struggle between social life and family? I grew up with an attitude that boys and girls were the same in all ways but body parts. Now I feel that although women and men parallel each other in what we can accomplish, as women we should embrace our opportunity, and at times responsibility, to take on a womanly role in our accomplishments. Do we have to be mothers? No. But being a mother is valuable. Being a mother is even political. Should men also be experiencing a similar pull of family? Of course they should. I advocate for Hillary Clinton running as Hillary Clinton, rather that means quilt feminist, eco-feminist, neo-conservative, classic housewife, Murphy Brown, or none of the above. But rather than cringe at the thought of Clinton getting judged by different standards because she is a woman—let us embrace the era of broader standards by which to judge both male and female candidates. If the media attacked Clinton’s integrity more meticulously because she is a woman—then her campaign introduces higher national standards by which to judge her male counterparts. Or perhaps they merely challenged her own deliberate projection of a higher moral ethic deriving from her feminine persuasion. If women get questioned about how we fulfill our roles as wives and mothers while in office—then we pave the way for broadening perspectives on men’s role in the family. Of course the list goes on as to what qualities and obligations the media and the public deem as inherently feminine. We don’t have to shun what women represent to the public. We should NOT try to emulate men when we run for office. The historical patriarchy has set in motion disastrous systems—not due to some inherent flaw in men, but due to the lack of diverse perspectives. Thus women need to run not as female versions of their male counterparts, but as our genuine selves—including the womanliness that goes along with that.
“Can You Have Integrity In Politics?” And “What Does the Public Deserve to Know About Politicians?”
I do not feel offended by the media, or other candidates, challenging Clinton’s integrity—I do feel offended by the means taken to these ends—against any politician—sound bites of empty rhetoric. The public deserves to know where politicians stand on things—and politicians should have the same answers for both their “friends” and “enemies” in the game. We should not get confused into thinking that as a woman, Hillary Clinton represents all women, and thus whatever compromises she makes serve the greater cause of women. The assumption that we all think the same thing and the same way makes our purpose in legislature rather dubious. Some people may think it worthwhile to sacrifice our morals for the greater good—but without morals a greater good does not exist. Basically, I take it as a rule that I trust my friends less if I hear them lying to someone else. We can and must have integrity in politics—and we must hold even “our” candidates accountable—if not MORE accountable than we hold those who we didn’t support to begin with. Whoever keeps you accountable is who you answer to; if we don’t keep our candidates accountable, then they will not answer to us. But how can we define integrity? Integrity means Deciding, Declaring, and Doing: Deciding your values clearly, so that you have a clear ethic to follow; declaring your values explicitly—so that you have something to hold you accountable to those values; and Doing—following through on your values with your actions. What a politician does with their personal life should remain their personal business—but when it calls into question what they claim to stand for—then it also calls into question their competence as a public representative. And let us remember that the personal is political. As a final thought let us do everything that we do in love. If we challenge someone’s integrity we should try to understand them with an open heart, regardless of whether we vote for them.