Women and Politics

Cross-posted from the American Prospect

Few things in the progressive world have changed as dramatically since 1990 as the role and power of women in public life. But the change has not been all in one direction. And 20 years later, it’s fair to ask the question: Do women, on the issues of highest priority to women, have the clout that they ought to in progressive politics?

The early 1990s seemed like a promising new beginning for progressive women, driven in part by the discouraging politics and policies of the previous decade. In 1989, the Supreme Court had ruled in the Webster decision, allowing restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees for services related to abortion. Then, in 1991, women watched in astonishment as Anita Hill faced a panel of 14 white men intent on discrediting her testimony and her motives. That image of a black woman being viciously confronted, says Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, president of the Women’s Campaign Forum, was a “cultural tsunami” for women.

Reflecting now on the heady days of the early 1990s, Gloria Feldt, a past president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says, “For me, what was happening was a shift from feeling like the battles had been won to feeling like we have a long way to go and we have to take hold of this agenda.” Far from being embraced by the Democratic Party, she says, women in politics were “feeling like there was a mission to insert ourselves. ? Women were very, very engaged and activated, more so than for over a decade.” It was that energy—sparked by fear and frustration—that drove a handful of women’s groups to mobilize energy for female candidates and that in 1992—the “Year of the Woman”—increased the number of women in the Senate from two to six.

What followed were two decades of apparently phenomenal progress. We saw the appointment of the first two female secretaries of state, the passage of the Cairo agenda that reframed women’s reproductive health as a human-rights issue, the evolution of strong anti-domestic-violence and anti-sex-discrimination law, and the selection of the first female speaker of the House. It was also a period when the gender gap in electoral politics widened, making the women’s vote ever more central to Democratic victories.

So how is it possible that, almost two decades after the Year of the Woman, Bennett could ask, “Will 2010 go down in history as the ‘Anti-Year of the Woman?’” as she wrote in an angry piece on the Huffington Post in late May. And how is it possible that the Republicans can claim the Year of the Woman as their mandate this year, without apparent irony. It’s time that anyone concerned with the future of women in progressive politics begin wondering hard.

Bennett was writing about the slate of female candidates for 2010 facing a “lack of party support, lack of recruitment, ingrained sexism, and male-dominated leadership of both parties.” (Bennett, who herself has run several times for lower office and ran for Congress in 2008, says she has “never been through a more misogynistic experience in my life.”) But the problem isn’t limited to Bennett, or to this year. Professors Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox have interviewed thousands of successful and politically active women working in areas that are often pipelines to a political career. They have consistently found that these women, from both major political parties, “are less likely than similarly situated men to be recruited to run for public office by all types of political actors”—in fact about half as likely.

What is perhaps most amazing is that this discrepancy is true, as Lawless and Fox have noted, despite the fact that women fare as well as male candidates when they actually do run. In other words, the problem isn’t an electoral bias—it is bias in the boy’s club itself. And what is perhaps most sad is that, according to their studies, Democrats only appear to do better at recruiting women: “Democratic and Republican women are equally unlikely to have received encouragement to run for office from elected officials [or] from party leaders.” Women’s groups on the left encouraging their own women likely make up the difference.

This year the right is citing candidates such as Nikki Haley, who fought tooth and nail to win the Republican nomination for governor in South Carolina, and Meg Whitman, who won that nomination in California. But while some high-profile races include Republican women, the numbers don’t actually pan out. “Although Republicans boast that they have more women running for House seats than ever before,” wrote Erin McPike in the National Journal in May, “few have become prominent contenders. Of the 115 candidates identified by the National Republican Congressional Committee as its ‘Young Guns,’ just nine are women. Only two women are in the top tier of that program.”

But the disheartening news isn’t limited to the fact that women’s election to Congress has plateaued around 17 percent, putting the United States 84th in the world in terms of women’s representation in the national legislature. When you talk to advocates for progressive women’s causes, there are more than a hefty handful—many of whom flocked to Barack Obama’s side during the primary season—who will say that it’s gotten awfully crowded under the bus since the president took office.

Sadly, we are in many ways back where we were two decades ago. The misogynistic culture of Washington was laid bare again in the petty and ruinous attacks on Hillary Clinton and her bid for the presidency. And the reproductive-health policies embraced by President Obama since his election have been, overwhelmingly, disappointing. These are nearly too numerous to count, and every activist has her own pet peeve. There’s that campaign announcement candidate Obama made to Planned Parenthood in 2007, saying that “the first thing I’d do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” The promise turns out to have been nothing but words to make his audience happy. Instead, in the first weeks of the Obama presidency, we got the decision to strip family-planning funds out of the federal stimulus bill. And that’s to say nothing of the humiliating disaster of health-care reform, which Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center and an adviser to Clinton during her presidential campaign, describes as “the greatest rollback of reproductive freedoms in a generation.”

If women’s groups really wanted to get out from under that bus, they’d exploit the widespread anger over these betrayals—regardless of whether Obama, congressional Democrats, Bart Stupak, or the Catholic bishops are mostly responsible—to drive a second Year of the Woman, and indeed there are aggressive campaigns by groups like the Women’s Campaign Forum and the White House Project to motivate women to run and vote as women, for women. “I think Anita Hill did a beautiful job in disturbing complacency,” Bennett notes. “So what do we do now to affect and disturb complacency? We all have to raise the alarm and say that this must be fixed. And I can’t think of a better thing to wake everybody up than the Stupak-Pitts Amendment [to the health-care bill]. What an insult. What a bipartisan insult.” Across the country, there are more programs to support women’s candidacies than ever before, and they are coordinating with one another in ways that they did not the last time around.

But politically speaking, among the powerful women’s advocates in Washington, there’s a key ingredient missing, and that’s courage. Just look at the responses to health-care reform from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, which had supported Obama during the presidential campaign and clearly expected some loyalty in return: Their statements about health care seemed desperate to find a way to make lemonade from the lemons. Or remember the extent to which some feminists were willing to insist, during the presidential campaign, that Obama would be the better candidate for feminists: He has turned out to be neither more progressive nor more daring than the most mainstream of Democrats, while on women’s issues he has represented the seductive liberal call, as one editor of this magazine wrote half a decade ago, for the Democrats “to become the party of the common good.”

The problem with that call, however, is that all too often the “common good” may be commonly good for the Democrats without being good for all Democrats. At least some who have long stood under the Democratic umbrella are finally realizing that fact. In late spring, the Courage Campaign, an upstart California gay-rights group, circulated a petition advocating the overturning of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. “Dear Democrats, we need to talk,” the letter, written in the voice of a spurned lover, began. “This may be a hard letter to read, but I need to figure out if this relationship is still healthy for me.” The petition was light in tone but serious in message. “I’m just not getting what I need out of this relationship. You rarely call me anymore, and when you do it’s to ask for money. And I just can’t get excited anymore by your empty promises and half-gestures.”

It’s a letter women’s groups could write today. But I haven’t seen any new women’s group with “courage” as its first name. The “common good” culture of progressive politics has become so prevalent that women’s groups seem unwilling or unable to see that progressive interests and progressive women’s interests are not always the same thing. “[Obama] will throw pretty much anybody under the bus to get to where he wants to go,” Feldt comments. “What [women] have to do is to make it impossible for him not to stick with us. We have to be in his face every minute, and that’s what I don’t see happening right now.” Instead, women are still being nice, holding up the umbrella so that everyone stays dry. But they’re so busy holding up the umbrella, they don’t notice that they’re the ones getting wet.

Sarah Blustain is the former deputy editor of the American Prospect.

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

It was a long night in Minnesota. The Democratic primary results for Governor remained neck-and-neck between MN State House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Mark Dayton until early this afternoon.

While Kelliher did hold a significant lead throughout early returns, Dayton ultimately pulled ahead and received 41.30% of the vote compared to Kelliher’s 39.79%.

While Kelliher’s loss is disappointing, one thing is absolutely clear: Kelliher has tenaciously run an incredible campaign. Kelliher came into the race with a huge financial disadvantage—both of her opponents self-funded their campaigns with vast independent wealth. Dayton is an heir to the Target chain fortune, and undoubtedly benefitted from his “high-name recognition and financial advantage.”

Yet despite her disadvantage entering the race, Kelliher inspired a large coalition of supporters who functioned as a major driving force behind her campaign. She also won the support of David Wellstone and both of Minnesota’s Democratic senators—Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar.

Despite being down in the polls, Kelliher continued to build momentum through a vibrant grassroots campaign. During the final debate on Sunday, she was the only candidate to have supporters show up en masse as she gave a supreme performance that inevitably outshined her opponents’.

I salute Kelliher and her performance in this race; she has demonstrated unwavering courage and strength and ultimately proved herself to be an exceptional leader.

I hope that Kelliher will run for higher office again and continue to advance women’s political participation in her state. Not only has Minnesota never elected a female governor, but a woman has never even received a major party nomination for governor in the state.

Women are vastly underrepresented at all levels of public office, and they are most dramatically underrepresented at the gubernatorial level. Currently, only 6 out of 50 states have a female governor.

Kelliher reminds me of another strong-willed female candidate we saw recently: Secretary Jennifer Brunner, who proved to be “one of those tenaciously tough women who didn’t give up” in spite of the challenges placed against her. While not all women face funding disadvantages, it does seem that female candidates often rise to the occasion when facing difficult campaign hurdles.

What do you think? Are women intrinsically better at being grassroots candidates? Do they have the tendency to be more tenacious in their campaigns when facing obstacles?

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

As the primary election for Governor of Minnesota quickly approaches, this once “buzzless” race is finally heating up. Margaret Anderson Kelliher’s vivacious campaign is largely responsible for this recent surge of momentum.

During Sunday’s final DFL gubernatorial primary debate, Kelliher’s supporters swarmed the Fitzgerald Theater in St. Paul and remained fully energized as they waited outside for the entirety of the debate. Inside the theater, Kelliher was evidently motivated by her supporter turnout and spoke passionately and adroitly throughout the debate. Although her opponents did well, Kelliher emerged as the obvious victor.

Sunday’s debate was only one example of the enthusiasm that Kelliher’s campaign has been building. While her opponents have been channeling their campaign money into television advertisements, Kelliher has been focusing on a grassroots initiative. This approach has been widely successful and has continued its impetus through these last days leading to the primary:

“The enthusiasm and momentum behind Kelliher’s campaign is peaking at exactly the right time. All week, thousands of volunteers have been on the phones and knocking on doors. It’s part of an unprecedented statewide grassroots Get Out The Vote effort. In just one week, Kelliher supporters are making more than 295,000 phone calls and knocking on over 30,000 doors.”

There should be no question as to why volunteers have devoted so much of their time and effort to Kelliher’s bid for Governor; Kelliher has been a strong, dedicated leader for Minnesota for over a decade. Ever since she was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1998, she has been successfully working to improve the lives of Minnesotans. As Minority Leader in 2006, Kelliher directed the campaign operation that led to the largest legislative gains in decades for the DFL House Caucus.

After that impressive accomplishment, Kelliher was elected Speaker of the House by her colleagues. In her role as Speaker she has continued to build a remarkable record of achievements for Minnesota:

“During her tenure as Speaker, Margaret guided the passage of a nation-leading renewable energy standard…Over the course of the past three legislative sessions – all of which ended on time – Margaret oversaw an agenda that provided health care coverage for 40,000 uninsured children, provided for property tax relief for Minnesota families, and fulfilled a commitment to increase school funding. In the face of historic economic challenges, Margaret created a Jobs Task Force, recognizing the need to invest in job creation and training skilled workers for the new economy.”

Kelliher is a proven leader who shows exceptional strength and poise; even the Minneapolis Star Tribune has characterized her as the “calm inside the storm.” She believes that this is the most important gubernatorial election in a generation, and she is confident that she can win with the help of her supporters. For many years, Kelliher has demonstrated her commitment to serving the people of Minnesota, and now the people of Minnesota are confirming their dedication to Kelliher.

“From the beginning, this has been a people-powered campaign. I am proud to have the support of so many DFLers who, like me, believe our best days are yet to come. Together we will win this election and get Minnesota back to work.”

Along with many Minnesotans, WCF supports Margaret Anderson Kelliher in her endeavor to become Governor of Minnesota. We believe that Kelliher is an eminently qualified candidate and an extraordinary leader, and we encourage Minnesotans to continue to prove their support for her in the primary tomorrow, August 10th.

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

Elena Kagan made history today when she became the fourth woman ever to be confirmed onto the  Supreme Court.

Kagan’s confirmation, however, is not only important from a historical perspective; her presence on the bench is bound to have a significant effect on the court’s current decision-making process:

“No matter what you think about Kagan’s politics, there’s no denying that she’s going to have a big effect on the Supreme Court. Having a third woman on the Court will definitely change the dynamic in the actual chamber. Women just ask different questions than men do–it’s well documented–and things will never be the same in the highest court.”

Earlier this week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that having another woman on the Supreme Court would be “one of the most exhilarating developments.” WCF shares Ginsburg’s enthusiasm for Kagan’s confirmation to our nation’s highest court. Women are proven to have unique leadership abilities that positively influence decision making.

Now that we have three supremely qualified women concurrently serving on the Supreme Court, we can look forward to an improved justice system. Women have already had a tremendous effect on our country’s workforce, and it is about time that women get the opportunity to extend their influence to our most prominent public service positions.

Mary Kate Cary from U.S. News & World Report believes that women’s increased representation on the Supreme Court will bring the diverse perspectives crucial to enhancing the quality of decision making: 

“Having a critical mass of women quizzing defense lawyers differently from their brethren will bring new perspectives to the justices’ decision-making. These sorts of changes have already been felt in workplaces as diverse as newsrooms and boardrooms—and now they will occur within the marble chambers of the Supreme Court.”

WCF is thrilled to have another woman on the Supreme Court. We know that greater gender parity on the bench will ensure that the rights of all citizens are adequately defended. WCF anticipates wonderful things to come from Elena Kagan’s service on the Supreme Court, and we encourage women to continue striving to fill the highest seats in our country’s public offices.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Far too often, female politicians and candidates are criticized for their appearance, whether because they are “cute,” or considered unfeminine. These attacks are particularly detrimental because they distract voters from the real issues and weaken female candidates on a front that is rarely a problem for men.

Unfortunately, First Lady Michelle Obama is not immune to this brand of sexism. Michelle has, since the beginning of her husband’s political career, been an example of an intelligent, empathetic, and active woman in politics—regardless of the fact that she does not currently serve in elected office. However, this has not stopped the conservative media for attacking her based on her wardrobe and lifestyle choices. Several right-wing bloggers have recently started referring Obama as a “modern-day Marie Antoinette,” “socialite.” Glenn Beck ranted on his radio show about how she must have spent “almost a million dollars a year for hair and makeup”—without actually confirming the number.

But the most frustrating element of these criticisms is that the mass media would certainly jump on the First Lady should she appear in public without immaculate makeup, hair, and outfit choices. I’ve never heard Beck discuss the price of President Obama’s—or any other male politician’s—suits; many of which must cost thousands of dollars. This double standard is unfairly—and far too frequently—leveled only at women in the political sphere.

These attacks are particularly absurd when aimed at Michelle Obama. A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, Michelle has made a name for herself as a talented, passionate woman leader. Educated in Chicago’s Public Schools, she dedicated her career to public service, working in planning and development in Chicago’s City Hall, helping to found the Chicago chapter of Public Allies, and working in community affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

While being critiqued by the media for her fashion choices, the First Lady’s work in the White House has been focused on improving the health of the next generation of American children. Her Let’s Move! campaign addresses childhood obesity and provides nutritious meals for students (often for under the $2.65 per student reimbursement rate). These ambitious goals have occupied her time, as well as visiting the Gulf Coast and assisting President Obama in his role as of head of state.

But to Glenn Beck and others, Michelle’s visit to the Gulf wasn’t about her concern for the American people or our environment—it was about her outfit. Beck slammed Michelle for her choice to wear a white shirt with a black pattern, because it reminded him of an oil spill. Commentary such as this is ludicrous because, as usual, it completely ignores the substance behind what a woman is doing—and attempts to refocus the conversation on her physical appearance.

This type of media portrayal is what discourages so many women from running for office, and, here at WCF, we’re committed to pointing it out—and changing the discussion. Next time, let’s talk about what matters, and not refer to a highly educated, committed public servant as a “material girl.”

In the past two decades, I’ve often found myself asking, “Where are all the pro-choice Republican women?”

But today, despite her second place finish in the GOP primary for Congress in KS-04, I’m inspired by Jean Kurtis Schodorf’s dedication to public service and record of defending women’s reproductive health choices. And as always, I want to thank Schodorf for running for higher office, and encourage her to run again - because we only lose when women don’t run.

In her near decade of service as a State Senator and 12 years as a school board member, Schodorf has proven her commitment to both traditional Republican values and women’s rights.

While pushing for fiscal responsibility and responsible governance, she simultaneously defended women in the Kansas Legislature by opposing legislation to limit women’s access to comprehensive sexual healthcare. This past July, Schodorf received the Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice Barry Goldwater Award for her efforts in supporting and protecting women’s health.

Unfortunately, Schodorf has become a rarity in today’s political climate. Since the GOP’s platform turned extremely anti-choice in 1992, the number of Republican women candidates who support the entire spectrum of reproductive health choices (publicly) has dwindled drastically.

Before this, organizations like WCF were able to endorse Republicans and Democrats alike–and neither was more difficult to come by.

But as we know by today’s divisive environment, defense of choice has become an almost absolutely unacceptable quality in a Republican candidate–as we saw last year with Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

Schodorf should serve as a role model for all women public servants–but especially for those Republicans courageous enough to challenge the party’s anti-choice tenets and stand up for women’s rights.

Schodorf is also an inspiration for mothers serving in public office. A mother of three, Schodorf served on the Wichita School Board for 12 years and is now serving her third term in the Kansas State Senate–supporting women’s reproductive health choices all the while. Now that’s my kind of Mama Grizzly.

Women’s health should not be a divisive issue in party politics. We need more candidates like Schodorf who are willing to make a difference by fighting for what is right, no matter what adversity they may face because of it. I commend Schodorf on being such a strong, persistent, and inspiring leader, and look forward to supporting her throughout the entirety of her public life.

I’ll also continue to encourage more women–from both parties–to follow her example.

Crossposted from the Huffington Post.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Today, Kansas State Senator Jean Schodorf faces a tough primary for the Republican nomination for the 4th Congressional District. After months of dirty campaigning between most of the Republican candidates, an extreme anti-choice, anti-woman group has now inserted itself into the debate.

Common Sense Issues, a radical conservative group focused on limiting personal freedom—especially for women—produced radio and TV ads that attacked Schodorf and Hartman. The ads suggest violent threats toward the two politicians because they do not represent Common Sense Issues’ idea of what a Republican should be. Namely, Schodorf was criticized by the group for her commitment to women’s rights—and her refusal to sign a made-up petition that would ban public funding for abortion.

These ads, of course, completely ignore Schodorf’s many qualifications for public office. In her third term as State Senator, she has quickly become a leader in the Ways and Means Committee, fighting for the fiscal conservatism that is central to the Republican platform. In addition, she has earned the endorsement of the United States’ first elected female Senator, Nancy Kassebaum Baker. Kassebaum, a fellow Republican woman from Kansas, indicated that she chose to support Schodorf because:

“The ability to collaborate with members of Congress from both political parties has always been a key to successful and effective legislation… [Schodorf] has demonstrated strong leadership on intricate education and budget issues, particularly the ability to negotiate with all factions on an issue to solve real problems with real solutions.”

Kassebaum, an icon for female politicians, knows firsthand why we need more women in government. Specifically, Kansas needs more women: The state legislature is only 29.7% women, and only one of the state’s six federal offices is filled by a woman.

These statistics make it even more upsetting that special interests would use violence and anti-choice rhetoric to threaten a female candidate. Perhaps Common Sense Issues is concerned that a strong, conservative candidate would also choose to stand up for women’s rights in addition to Republican policy priorities.

Certainly, the voters seemed to have noticed that Schodorf is committed to the interests of the 4th district. In recent polls, Schodorf has been edging up on Pompeo. According to SurveyUSA:

“If Schodorf can motivate her base of more moderate, pro-choice Republicans to vote, Schodorf may ride her wave of momentum to victory when votes are counted.”

Schodorf is a competent leader with proven political experience—who is not afraid to stand up for women. Here at WCF, we’re hoping that voters will make their choice based on the candidate’s credentials, and not an advertisement aimed at taking away the rights of women.