Archive for the '2007' Category

The old adage goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words,” and for the 2008 presidential election the phrase could not ring truer.  Images spanning the globe have frozen in time the immense joy and pride that many have felt at seeing Barack Obama become our nation’s first African-American President-elect – and regardless of one’s political affinity, no one can deny the tremendous historical nature of this election.

Indeed, from neighborhoods across America to the global community, people are energized by the possibilities which a new administration might offer.  On the heels of an election that was often touted for its historic significance for women – a constituency that voted 56% in his favor on November 4th– the Obama administration would be wise to build on that momentum by addressing the struggling status for women in the U.S.

Despite the rise of women as political contenders and voters in the 2008 election season, the U.S. is woefully behind other nations in terms of parity in representation.  Over the last decade, the United States has fallen from 47th in the world in women’s political representation to 71st – behind such stalwarts of democracy as Iraq (33rd), Sudan (65th) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (57th).  Only weeks ago, Rwanda made global history when it became the first nation electing women to outnumber men in parliament.

Yet for all the advances that women are making on the global front, women’s political participation here in the U.S. is lagging far behind the times.

Even in this election, where more women ran for congress than ever before in a presidential year, the net gain for women candidates was a mere four seats - one in the Senate and three in the House.  We raised the percentage of women in Congress from a meager 16% to an equally paltry 17%, assuring that the U.S. would continue to lag woefully behind other countries in the numbers of women in national political leadership.

Historically, women have been the “government in exile” – leading at the foot of the table as a marginalized constituency.  Yet to address the myriad of issues which confront women - from poverty and domestic violence to healthcare and work-life balance - women must be represented in the upper echelons of government where such issues are tackled and policy is enacted.  Instead of addressing these issues in an inefficient and piecemeal fashion, a Presidential Commission on Women and Democracy would present the new administration with a vehicle to enact permanent and systemic change: by finding ways to have a more women at the tables of power at all levels, and fostering a truly representative democracy.

A diverse and critical mass of women in leadership - not to replace men, but to lead alongside them - would allow both genders to contribute new ways of dealing with the most difficult challenges our country has faced in this century.  Programs such as The White House Project’s Vote, Run, Lead have been critical to getting more women to enter the political pipeline, by equipping them with the inspiration, information, and necessary tools to run for elected office and win.  Yet academic researchers have demonstrated that achieving a critical mass of women in politics requires an equal effort from governments – which is why The White House Project is spearheading the effort to urge the next administration to create this Commission.

The Presidential Commission on Women and Democracy would utilize leading academic and experiential methodologies to reverse our nation’s dismal lag in gender parity.  Members of the commission would be carefully appointed from a variety of sectors to bring a full range of nonpartisan domestic and international approaches, setting achievable goals by way of practical methods.  Possible strategies might include: priority voting and other democracy reforms which result in wins by outsider candidates; guaranteed campaign loan funds; civil society curriculum in schools; increased training for women candidates; increased support from central party leadership for women candidates; and popular culture initiatives.

With the unprecedented popular momentum towards bipartisanship, civic engagement, and deep-seated political change, now is the time to move women from the “government in exile” to the “government in power.”  The prospect of an Obama administration which is open and appreciative of this effort is high; now is the time to capitalize on the opportunity.  In a campaign whose rallying cry was “change”, shifting the status of women in this country by bringing them fully to the tables of power would be a great place to start.

I awoke yesterday to two widely divergent stories about race in America. The first - a deeply disturbing montage of cross-country video clips - illustrated the worst of racial prejudices against Sen. Obama. And as the narrative worsened with each clip, I felt the fear of where our nation might really stand on race grow exponentially in the pit of my stomach. Yet nothing was as convincing in fighting back that fear than the second story I encountered, coming from The New York Times, which reported a profound turning of the tides for African-Americans in politics particularly amongst constituents who are overwhelmingly white.

Across the U.S., African-Americans are making hopeful strides in local and regional politics. According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 30 percent of the nation’s 622 black state legislators represented predominantly white districts in 2007, up from about 16 percent in 2001. And according to the Times, over the last decade, “About 200 black politicians have won positions once held by whites in legislatures and city halls in states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee.”

While Sen. Obama’s run for the presidency has garnered much of the media spotlight, there’s an undercurrent of black political empowerment that is changing the faces and voices of our democracy, from the grassroots on up.

For those of us who are rightly terrified amid the recent video clips slandering Sen. Obama on account of his race, there are many signs of hope that our nation’s prejudices are not as widespread as we may fear. That the civil rights movement has made such profound changes to our culture that electing an African-American to represent a community is a choice that thousands of white Americans have increasingly made. And this is the great thing about local politics: as a more diverse array of leaders are elected at the community level, the public’s comfort level with seeing diversity among their leadership increases, and our democracy becomes evermore representative, from city councils and county commissions to congress and the presidency.

This is the driving force behind my own life’s work to positively transform our democracy by propelling a diverse array of women across the country into the leadership pipeline, simultaneously changing cultural conceptions of what a leader looks like. It’s what will allow candidates and constituents to finally talk about issues and agenda instead of race or gender. That’s the historical nature of what The White House Project is doing, and the feeling that is catching on across the country.

The deeply racist commentary and xenophobic accusations surrounding Sen. Obama are incredibly disheartening and act as a critical reminder that the struggle for civil rights is far from over in our country. Yet it’s important that we counter the fear that such displays evoke by channeling our concerns into a committed and passionate effort to make our democracy more representative.

Tonight, eyes will be glued to TV sets across the nation for the Biden-Palin political showdown. Though historic in its own right, the debate will not be a political first: in 1984, Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman candidate to hold her own in a vice presidential debate against then-VP George Bush. At the time, I was an eager first-term Councilmember-at-Large in Des Moines, and I channeled my enthusiasm for the historic face-off into quite the neighborhood debate watch party.

Everyone made a big deal of presidential politics in Iowa; as the traditional site of the first caucuses that tend to shape the road to the presidency, our interest in national politics was strong. Yet for this debate, the attraction was overwhelming — the first woman to appear on a major party ticket would be “on trial” against a long-term, and very seasoned, opponent: the vice president of the United States. So we took the night on with fanfare, and I rented a sizable hall with a movie screen, inviting my constituents to watch history being made up close, large and personal.

Over two decades have past since that historic night, but Ferraro’s considerations at that time were the same as Palin’s will be when she takes the stage tomorrow evening: the evaluation of both her opponent and herself on the issue of who could best assume the presidency if something happened to their respective running mates; the need to attract those who were going to vote for the ticket based on the vice presidential selection; and the careful negotiation of her dual identities as candidate and woman. The latter was perhaps the most important for Ferraro, and may be for Palin as well: could she stand “toe to toe” with the vice president of the United Sates (or in Palin’s case, an esteemed veteran senator) and hold her own?

The issues to which Ferraro had to speak were eerily similar to the ones confronting us today. What would her party do about the national deficit? How would they protect industrial jobs while protecting the environment? And on the international level, where did she stand in terms of diplomacy in the Middle East and Nicaragua and the popular call for a mutually verifiable nuclear arms freeze with Russia? While “bailout” was not a term in question, the differences between Democrats and Republicans on economic policies loomed large in regard to tax and budget policies that would be fair to the poor, the middle class, and minorities.

The stakes were high indeed — not just for Ferraro the contender or for the Democratic party, but for Ferraro the woman candidate. When she told columnist Ellen Goodman that she felt she could not make a mistake, she said it was because “It’s not just for me, it’s for every one of us. To show that we’re as good as–” “As good as men…” Ellen knowingly interjected.

That evening, the tension in the large Des Moines hall was palpable: we all knew that when it came to scrutiny around gender, Ferraro was right.

The big screen turned out to be an excellent cinematic choice: as the debate progressed, Ferraro did better and better, and seeing Bush’s face up close, we were afforded a revealing view that many television viewers were not as he became visibly shaken. It seemed that the Vice President had underestimated this highly experienced congresswoman and former Queens district attorney, who could handle herself under pressure while maintaining a strong command of the issues. As I watched Ferraro’s performance with increasing optimism, I turned to my best friend Lois Braverman, now the President of the Ackerman Institute here in New York City, who was analyzing it from a very different perspective.

“A woman can’t make a man look this bad and survive,” she whispered.

I looked at her quizzically, not wanting to concede any of my inner optimism, and kept watching and enjoying Ferraro shine on the big screen.

At the close of the Ferraro-Bush debate, I stepped to the platform at the front of the room, and with complete and utter confidence — ignoring Lois’s gendered perspective — announced that we would now see how the press responded to this amazing piece of history.

Imagine my disheartened surprise when the anchors began to weigh in. I am pretty sure that Tom Brokaw was the first to announce that Bush had won — and as the other male anchors followed in chorus, “Bush has won the debate!”, my fellow Iowans watched my jaw drop in shock.

My own sense of reality began to crack. What I had watched with my own eyes and heard with my own ears was denied by every male with authority on every network across America. And so despite encouragement to stay in Iowa and shoot for governor or congresswoman, I instead left the next year to see if I could help my state from New York as head of the Ms. Foundation for Women. It was then that I began to realize that to really see women in power, and collectively admit when they had equaled or bested a man, we would have to work to change the very fabric of American culture. We would have to change the way people thought about women, and our understanding of what a leader really looks like.

The world has changed greatly in the past 24 years. I think that if that debate were held today, Ferraro would have been declared the winner. But I don’t think that our national way of dealing with gender has evolved to the point where it won’t be a lurking presence on stage tomorrow in St. Louis. Just as Ferraro before her, Palin will have to tend to the issues, as all candidates must and should. Yet her gender will be as much a factor as her agenda, as is always the case when women are underrepresented in the halls of power.

I don’t think we are yet at any reverse point where you can’t make a woman look bad and survive. What I do know is that gender issues are alive and well, and that it is up to the press and to us — as voters and media consumers — to give thoughtful and diligent attention to the ways in which gender is influencing our discussions and opinions. When we tune into the debate tomorrow night, let’s pay attention to the agendas at play, not the genders which deliver them.

This month, Rwanda made global history when it became the first nation where women outnumber men in parliament. And according to a newly-released UN study, there has been a marked increase in women’s political participation worldwide.

Yet for all the advances women are making on the global front, women’s political participation is lagging far behind the times here at home. Although the high-profile candidacies of Senator Clinton and Governor Palin have called attention to the viability of women in positions of leadership, the U.S. ranks an abysmal 71st in the world for women’s political representation. And from the executive branch to the legislative wing, women are highly outnumbered as leaders by their male peers.

There’s still hope, however, for our nation to live up to its ideals as a truly representational democracy. In an op-ed in today’s Newsday, I wrote about our country’s best hope for a new cadre of leaders - the diverse array of passionate, articulate, and dedicated women who are eager to serve our communities and country and lead us to a better future. For all the tumult in our social, political, and economic landscapes, these women might just be the best and brightest hope for the leadership our country so desperately needs.

With yesterday’s ouster of Sallie Krawcheck from Citi, the prostration of Wall Street’s triad of powerful women was a mission completed. The announcement, amid a week of devastating shake-ups in the financial sector, hit a particular nerve: Krawcheck had asked that clients be paid back for Citi’s defective investments - an ethical response to the market’s downward spiral that was appreciated less by higher-ups than it was by clients. Though the details of Krawcheck’s departure are up for speculation, her story echoes the growing cultural narrative concerning our trust of women as leaders versus the support we give them - via the voting booth and board rooms - to lead us from the helm.

According to a Pew study released this August, Americans believe that women far surpass their male counterparts in the quality of their character as leaders. When it comes to honesty, intelligence, compassion, and creativity, Americans contend that women have “the right stuff.” Yet the study also reveals a disjuncture between the public’s trust of women as leaders, and their overall feeling of who makes a better leader. A mere six percent said women made better leaders, while one-fifth of respondents cited men as better leaders overall. As the study says, “Women emerge from this survey a bit like a sports team that racks up better statistics but still loses the game.”

A report to be released this fall by The White House Project’s Corporate Council resonates this finding. Across ten sectors - from business and politics to journalism and film - the report illustrates the persistent disparity between Americans’ high level of trust for women as leaders, and the dismal percentage of women who have been supported in those arenas in their leadership.

Yet the characteristics that Americans attribute to women leaders are the very traits that many would say is sorely lacking - from Wall Street to Capitol Hill. With a proposed $700 billion rescue plan that would make already-suffering American taxpayers foot the bill for corporate capriciousness, it’s near impossible to look at what has happened in the financial sector and not ask whether we would be having such devastation if more women were at the economic steering wheel.

Perhaps none had put it better than Sara Vines, in her humorous take for the The Times of London this week: “No sensible woman I know would have encouraged the selling of 120 percent mortgages to people who could barely afford their grocery bills. Such a think would be laughable, a bit like carrying of XXL condoms around in your pocket.”

Krawcheck, and the rest of her female cohort on Wall Street, seem to be paying the price for what Vines says that women innately do - “stop for a tiny moment to consider the human cost of all this.” In a country where nearly half of retirees expect to outlive their savings, where homeless shelters are brimming with families recently put out by foreclosures, and parents can’t afford to send their children to college - let alone insure their health - the human cost is exactly what we need to be considering.

The difference between public trust in women as leaders versus the ample support of women to take on that leadership is faulty policy, any way you dice it. It’s bad for our bottom line: as investors, business owners, customers, and as taxpayers.

In terms of the current economic meltdown, we would have been wise to take a hint from Sally Helgesen’s book The Female Advantage. Though both genders are oriented toward the big picture, women “relate decisions to their larger effect upon the role of the family, the American education system, the environment, even world peace.” In other words, women would have done the big-picture forecasting that might have saved Wall Street, and the rest of us, from this deepening downward spiral.

I am not an essentialist. I do not think that women, by nature, are endowed with traits that make them more compassionate, more honest, or more apt to think outside of the box. What I do know is that these traits have been largely gleaned by women through their life experiences, leading from the foot of the table. And it is exactly these foot-of-the-table characteristics that we need right now, and have for some time.

The same stale, insular, old-boys-club way of thinking is what got the rest of us into this mess. What we need now are fresh ideas and new perspectives, guided by ethical imperatives and a broader view of what prosperity, responsibility, and accountability really mean for our finances and our politics. Trusting in our nation’s women - and supporting them in their leadership - is the one solution we have yet to try.