Not a Woman in the Picture
The photographs of the current, future and former living presidents at the White House earlier this week were remarkable for the fact that such a meeting has not occurred since 1981. And because, for the first time, an African-American president-elect is present. And because, once again, there isn't a woman anywhere in sight.
Yes, this is self-evident: we know no woman has ever been elected president in the United States. Or, really, ever come close. For all of Hillary Clinton's groundbreaking campaign, she was not even nominated. For all of the hand-wringing at the prospect of Sarah Palin being within a 72-year-old heartbeat of the presidency, she became the laughing stock of a ticket that went down to stinging defeat.
Under the last two administrations, women have made significant breakthroughs, gaining access to previously unattainable posts, such as Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Transportation. However, even under Barack Obama, at least for now, some positions remain off-limits to women: Senate Majority Leader, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, and CIA Director, for instance. Is it a coincidence that in the world's largest economy, whose military expenditure accounts for half the global total, the most senior posts dealing with money and war are still reserved for men?
It is surely true that Clinton smashed one glass ceiling and Palin, in her own way, too. But those were hardly the last such hurdles on the way to the presidency. If even ostensibly progressive presidents such as Bill Clinton and Obama are skittish about putting women in charge of Defense, the CIA or the Treasury, what does that say about the political system's ability to imagine a woman running all three, as President? True, no African-American had filled any of those posts either, and that did not prevent Obama from rising to the presidency. But do we really want to wait around for the type of confluence of events that happened in 2008 to reoccur? And for a woman with Obama's near-outlandish political skills, and sense of timing to emerge?
That is, in fact, part of the challenge. Before Clinton, no woman had seriously run for the presidency, and no woman appears to be doing so now. The situation is most dire on the Republican side because it is assumed that Obama will run for the Democrats in 2012. Republican women in Congress or statehouses are a dispiritingly dwindling group, which explains the ludicrous Palin selection. Once John McCain (or his advisors) decided he needed a woman on the ticket, the choice really boiled down to a group of eight Republican women Senators or Governors. Of those, only two passed the non-negotiable GOP presidential litmus test of being pro-life, Palin and Sen. Elizabeth Dole, who is older than McCain and so politically unskilled that she ended up losing her North Carolina reelection bid in a landslide. That left Palin, who may be trying to position herself for 2012, a testament to the Republican Party's slim pickings among women. Never say never, but there is a reason Dan Quayle, who actually made it to the vice presidency and is more articulate than Palin, has remained ensconced in a comfortable life of private "work."
Among Democrats, there is both more time and more talent, but besides Clinton, no elected woman has emerged as a high-profile national political leader. Ironically, such public standing is often bestowed on those who have previously run for president, and lost (think Joe Biden or Al Gore, for instance). Senators such as Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota took a visible role in Obama's campaign but, as so often, they were simply very effective surrogates for the male candidate. It is debatable if this positions them for a future run or dooms them to the supporting cast. There are others, of course, such as newly elected Sen. Kay Hagan (who blasted Dole out of the Senate), who could go the Obama route and leapfrog all those who have been patiently plodding their way to the top job.
Even Democratic women face redoubtable challenges: they make up less than a quarter of their party's members of Congress, and even fewer are Governors. Half the states have never elected a woman Senator, and half the states have never elected a woman Governor. The slow progress of women in American politics is best illustrated by the country's dismal 69th place ranking in the percentage of women in national legislatures. This standing has deteriorated in each of the last ten years as women have gained more power in predictable countries such as Sweden or the Netherlands, but also in Latin America, Africa and Asia. These gloomy statistics are a powerful reflection of the United States' plummeting civil rights leadership, Obama's election notwithstanding: the country is falling further behind others when it comes to a whole array of rights for women, gay people and other minorities. Dozens of countries from Vietnam to Angola and Argentina now elect more women than Americans do. Dozens of countries from South Africa to Belgium to Colombia offer more rights for gay people than America does. And of course, the poor, workers, children, religious minorities have all seen their rights eroded, both relatively and absolutely, in the United States in the past decade. That we can always point to a horrifying although dwindling number of countries where women are considered chattel (Saudi Arabia), gay people punished by death (Nigeria), and children enslaved (Cambodia) does not mean the United States is not also failing to progress fast enough in these respects.
Last year's Democratic presidential primary was briefly the stage of a debate over whether sexism or racism were bigger impediments to election. The question is artificial, meaningless and impossible to answer. Artificial because it benefited neither of the leading candidates, but it did help their competitors, as was evidenced when the Republican nominee tried to wedge the issue of sexism between Democratic women and their male nominee. Meaningless because racism and sexism are hardly mutually exclusive. And impossible to answer because the statistical and empirical data can be manipulated to provide whatever answer is required. Leaving that pointless discussion aside, the bottom line remains: women have been shut out of the presidency in the many decades since they became enfranchised.
Among the handful of women who are nonetheless hopeful for a shot at the presidency, even in the long run, Janet Napolitano should be near the top. She is breaking ground in Obama's cabinet by taking over the Department of Homeland Security, a fairly recent creation that has been the preserve of men. Napolitano is a former US Attorney and the current Governor of Arizona, where she has, by all accounts, done a formidable job. She could surely be presidential material at some point. That, however, would require her to break yet more ground, as a single woman. After all, as Laura Bush said of Condolleeza Rice: she isn't interested in being president "because she is single."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
she doesn't need to get married to win. 50% of american are unmarried...this next generation of president's will be firsts or serious ground breakers...she will fit right in
As long as Napolitano is unmarried, she doesn't have a chance. Sure it's stupid that someone needs to be married to be considered electable and there's no question women are held to a double standard, but that's politics. The media will start questioning why Napolitano is single and do what they did with Charlie Crist and impy that she's gay. I personally wish Obama had chosen Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate. At least that way, in 8 years she would be poised to run for the Presidency. But we all know why Obama couldn't pick a female running mate. It would've angered the Hillary supporters to no end.
I'm extremely impressed by Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm; she was born in Canada, however, so she wouldn't pass the "natural born" test. Sigh.
Yes, but imagine if Hillary Clinton had been in that picture: our ex-presidents would be comprised of a husband-and-wife couple and a father-and-son duo (oh, and JImmy Carter). Not having women in the picture is definitely a problem, but having only two families in the picture is also a problem.
That said - I do think that barriers are broken when people can imagine women in roles that were occupied previously by men only. She may not have been nominated, but she did, for the very first time, allow Americans to imagine a woman as President. Nobody can doubt anymore that a woman can be tough enough or smart enough or strong enough to be President.
Klondiker
========
I agree completely with what you wrote in your second paragraph...Hillary Clitnon did indeed break barriers and that fabled "glass ceiling." So long as they have competitive smarts (unlike the Sarah Palins of the world) women will continue to look for seats at the table and the electorate will - hopefully - give them their fair place.
The one thing I don't get is the problem with "familial" politics (Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys, Cuomos, etc). So what? there is a long standing tradition in all families that children take up the jobs of their parents, grandparents, etc. , particularly when it comes to public service.
Would you not go to see a doctor or keep your child out of a classroom because their relatives had similar jobs before them?
ISeriously, just don't get the argument...
You raise a really good point about familial politics - I definitely would not rebuff a certain doctor, just because his/her relatives were also doctors.
I guess, for me, the difference is this: As a doctor, you still have to pass med school and demonstrate a certain level of competence, whereas in politics, if you have access to certain networks or family ties, you could get in without being competent (case in point: George Bush. I really believe that if his last name weren't Bush, he would never have been a serious candidate for president. But, as the son of the last Republican president, he obviously had access to his father's fundraisers, politcal advisors, etc).
Now, I definitely don't think that Hillary Clinton is not competent enough. I really believe that she's fully qualified to be President, but then it's more a judgement call of when nepotism works and when it doesn't.
Which goes to show that women, of ANY race, are still at the bottom of the pile.
And let's just leave homosexuals out of the discussion altogether, much less the picture. We couldn't be more invisible.
Putting more women or minorities into these positions is as much a economic decision as a gender position. I personally could care less who fills these positions from a gender position but politics in a way is like college coaching, you are not going to get african american head coaches without having a bunch of assistant coaches and if you are talking politics you will have fewer higher level politicians if they do not have the personal wealth to take lower level positions and work their way through the ladders. I would guess (anecdotally) that many (not all) of the women in higher political office come from wealthier backgrounds or politically connected families. Money is the issue, again.
It's a shame that women have not historically been appointed or elected to the highest positions of power in our society, but you're way off base in claiming that Obama is "skittish" about appointing women, or that some positions are "off limits."
He didn't appoint a female SecrDef because he felt the best candidate was male. Which, considering men's traditional dominance in the military, isn't surprising. As more women rise to the higest ranks of power within the armed forces, there will be a viable pool of women from which future Presidents can choose.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State is generally considered THE most powerful Cabinet position, and Obama appointed a woman.
I was inspired by the statement in Clinton's concession speech that because of the actions of women before her, it was possible for her to dream of running for President, and now because of her campaign, little girls won't even question whether a woman can compete for that office.
Societal changes don't happen overnight, even in our age of instantaneous information. As a young woman, I fought for the ERA. Now, 30 years later, developments in many arenas of public life have erased old barriers.
Yes, progress is slower than I would enact if I were Queen of the World. But labeling every appoint of a man as proof that a position remains "off limits" to women dishonors the huge, important achievements by women like Clinton, Oprah and Pelosi.
For 2016, I'd like to see a president named Kathleen Sebelius or Maria Cantwell (despite the latter's vote to authorize the Iraq War).
I'd vote for Claire McCasskill.
Maxine Waters for (our next) president!
I'd like to see a president Kathleen Sebelius or a president Maria Cantwell (despite her vote for the Iraq war authorization) in 2016.
Sometimes, in a real crisis, talent trumps seniority.
That's what the recent Presidential election was all about.
It just happened that a black man was superior to all other candidates - Male, Female, White or Purple.
Paul Jenkins brings up what the entire country should be asking.
Stepping back more one can see a continuum of equality running through women-gays-transgender; White Alpha Males have been running the show. Hopefully in the next 4 years we'll witness more top levels of EVERYTHING occupied by the "submissive minority".......please note quotation marks.
In order to forward any discussion of the topic of women serving in elected office, one of the most important underlying issues is the lack of complete support women receive from their own gender. I say this not as a slight, nor to provoke anger, but to examine the underlying reasons that women do not vote their 52% to 48% superiority over male voters in this country. Of course, women as a group are not some sort of homogenized juggernaut voting in lockstep. However, if those serving reflected population in representation, seats on the bench and higher office, there wouldn't be a court in the US where we would hear that, "but your Honor, she was asking for it. Look how she was dressed" BS, ever again.
no to identity politics. I am a woman. I don't care who is on the economic team as long as they are good and can fix this mess of the republicans and Wall Street. This is not the time to check off boxes and be totally pc.
I don't think that's the point of the article. I have no issue with PEBO's selections. Rather, I think women need to organize more effectively and run for more offices. And, I think society still has a ways to go before women are measured by the same standards. It's amazing to me that so many allegedly "3rd world" countries are more comfortable with women in leadership roles than the US.
I agree that women have a ways to go before they're measured by the same standards. But women also have to quit complaining and whining and calling sexism when they're questioned about anything. Both Hillary and Sarah fell back on that tired trope when they weren't successful for many reasons unrelated to sexism.
The problem is that there are plenty of women who are, as you say, "good" but who get passed over regularly because people automatically and traditionally reach for the white males. And as long as people suggest there is a choice between identity politics and quality, we will continue to have the same problem.
I think someday we will have many women Presidents of the United States of America. For a long period of time, our country may elect more women Presidents than male Presidents. Many candidates may want to use written blogging and video blogging a lot more to discuss their positions on the issues. http://jasonseiden.com is an interesting blog that uses both.
My advice to women and men who hope to get elected President of the United States of America is to read the United States Constitution, John Locke, The Federalist Papers, Machiavelli's Discourses, The Art of War by Sun Tzu, the second revised edition of Strategy by B.H. Liddell Hart that deals with strategy and military history, many business strategy books, and many selling books. I recommend reading a lot about economics, geography, and history. I recommend reading the poem IF by Kipling on a regular basis.
http://www.newgeography.com has many interesting columns. I have commented after some of the columns.
I recommend getting the free e-mail newsletters from http://www.gitomer.com and http://www.stratfor.com.
Artful PERSUASION
How to command attention, change minds, and influence people by Harry Mills is a very interesting book.
The Accidental Salesperson: How to Take Control of Your Sales Career and Earn the Respect and Income You Deserve by Chris Lytle and How to Sell Anything to Anybody by Joe Girard are very useful books dealing with selling.
Sincerely,
Ken Stremsky
Bangladesh Did It!
Look at Bangladesh and see how home of the third Muslim population in the world routinely elect women as their leaders. Recent example: one woman, Sheikh Hasina’s party was elected in a landslide December Parliamentary election and she became the prime minister of the country. Interestingly, women voters outnumbered men in that election. This is her second term—she was elected prime minister in 1996 for a four year term. Another woman, her rival Khleda Zia also got elected prime minster twice in Bangladesh. The country has been governed by two women since 1990. Although they do not make headline in Western media, their achievement is outstanding. They are not the decorative figures, like the ones showcased by USA (primarily from Iraq and Afghanistan); they are real leaders with real power.
Not only these two woman, a record 16 women got elected directly competing with their male counterparts. Another 45 women will be nominated to sit in the Parliament, which would put the number of women parliamentarian to 63 in the 300-seat Bangladesh Parliament. The key Cabinet positions including foreign affairs and internal affairs were given to the women politicians. For the first time in the history of Bangladesh a woman is serving as the foreign minister of the country. This is probably unparallel in modern history that women have been running the politics and government in a non-Arab Muslim majority country for more than a decade.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
