Progress in Politics Forum

I'm sitting in the Butler Board Room at AU waiting for the "Progress in Politics Forum" to begin. The forum is sponsored by Women's Initiative and Students for Hillary and will feature 3 AU professor panelists: Sarah Brewer, Allan Lichtman, and Barbara Palmer. According to the AU Student Government Web site, the forum "will examine and discuss the past, present and future of women in American politics from a historical, political and feminist perspective."
These issues are important to expanding the diversity of political debate in America today. The increasing influence of women on the political process has the opportunity to transform political dialogue. This is especially relevant in light of Nancy Pelosi's recent election to Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton's bid for the oval office in 2008.

The panel is beginning without Allen Lichtman, who failed to show up.
Director of Women & Politics Institute Karen O'Connor is moderating the discussion.

While the panel covered a broad range of topics from the first congresswoman (Jeanette Rankin, first elected in 1916) to the term of former supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I'd like to focus mainly on the panel's discussion of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and the challenges facing women running for national office today.

Palmer discussed whether we, as a country, have gotten past referring to Pelosi as "Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the house," and now think of her only as "Speaker Pelosi." Palmer said when a journalist recently asked her this question, she was inclined to say yes, we have gotten past it, but then she recalled an instance this past summer when the media had a ball covering Clinton's cleavage. Often, the media will cover female politicians' clothes and families far more than they will for male politicians.

I find this appalling, and really, really annoying. Focusing on personal matters and fashion choices obscures the real issues at hand. Though Brewer said in the panel that Clinton does not get as much of this because she has been on the national political stage for so long. However, women's professional dress is a lot less standard than men's (I guess a blue suit and red tie wouldn't fly with Hillary. I know it wouldn't with me!), so we have a lot more room to be creative. Of course, this can create a distinctive look that some wayward journalist might actually think is newsworthy

Back on Pelosi, Brewer said that it is her duality of female stereotypes that contributed to her success.
"She's not the iron lady, but she's not just the grandma that everybody likes," Brewer said, citing Pelosi's traditionally masculine approach to leadership.
"Don't get me wrong, the fact that she's a grandmother of five is the reason she can get away with this.... shes a great transitional person in my mind," Brewer added.

After the panel, I asked Brewer and Palmer whether they thought a single, childless woman could succeed in politics without appearing too masculine. To me, it seems to be a lose-lose situation set up by gender scripts. Either you are weak and nurturing, unable to stand up in a political battle, or too hard and career driven, with no family values. In that case, you probably must be a lesbian too.
Brewer and Palmer cited two examples of young, childless women who have put their political careers first and are meeting with early success: Congresswoman Hilda Soliz of California, and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota.
However, whether these women or others like them will be able to overcome these hurdles in campaigning for higher offices remains to be seen.

Finally, one interesting point the specifically applies to the topic of presidential debate is how a female candidate can appear strong and tell the American people what they want to hear. Many people seem to have doubts about how a woman would behave in the role of commander in chief. Palmer discussed a question asked at one of the earlier democratic primary debates. The moderator asked what each candidate would do if terrorists carried out 9/11 style attacks on major U.S. cities during their term. Obama and Edwards both said they would investigate who really committed the attacks before responding and would discuss options with foreign allies. Bush, Palmer added, would probably have said the same thing if he had been asked. However, Palmer said Hillary responded that she would bomb them off the face of the planet.
"I don't know if thats what she'd really do, but that was the answer that people wanted, and she got it right," Palmer said.

Does being a woman mean you have to give up what you may really believe in order to appear stronger, less "womanly?" Do women have to give up more to run a successful campaign than men?

The Song Remains the Same

I blog about music A LOT. But, I am not going to stop blogging about music in relation to politics, because I think it is very important. Music forms a major thread in the fabric of our culture. It allows for the expression of ideas, the use of metaphors and other literary devices to convey a point. It is often short, to the point, and readily accessible- easier than, say, a book of poems or a 500-page novel. As well, music has been used in U.S. political campaigns for at least 150 years, if not more. Campaign songs are nothing new. Neither are songs that attack politicians. This campaign's songs have not been finalized yet, but chances are there will be some wacky choices. Currently, the only official one is Celine Dion's You and I for Hillary's campaign.
Originally, campaign songs were simple affairs, or written with the candidate in mind. Both Teddy Roosevelt, for his 1912 independent campaign, and Dwight D. Eisenhower had songs specifically about them. Here is a nice list of older campaign songs Other presidential hopefuls, such as JFK, used optimistic songs-i.e. "High Hopes." Candidates also have been known to mis-step when choosing a song- most notably Ronald Reagan's attempted use of the anti-war "Born in the U.S.A."
Campaign songs, though they may seem frivolous, are often an integral part of the presidential campaign. They will probably play a huge role in raising the emotional stakes in an already emotional race. Music will also play a huge role in defining the candidates' images, especially following a president that was viciously attacked by musicians. Whichever songs the campaigns choose, they will have to be poignant and powerful.
As a parting thought, below is a song that should be considered the people's campaign song in choosing a candidate and president.

you down with GLB? yea, you know me....

There are those who think we queers are overly ambitious in our pursuit of gay civil rights. Calm down, I’ve heard. Blacks campaigned for civil rights for decades after centuries of enslavement… it’s a long process.

But why?

Sure, the African-American Civil Rights Movement and the enfranchisement of women took decades and decades of struggle (and arguably the effects of racial and sexist subordination are still felt today), but aren’t we a different society than we were in 1865 or 1920, or –hell- even 1973 (when the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM)? Hasn’t the inclusion of women and blacks into Club Citizen taught us anything about marginalizing friends, colleagues and family members into categories of queer “untouchables”?

It’s 2007 and I have less agency than most of the people reading this blog. Fred Thompson suggests ammending the constitution to prevent court judges from legalizing same-sex marriage, but leaves that power open to each state legislature -a pretty moderate viewpoint for his party, and one that will certainly win him fringe votes should he gain the nomination. Hillary Clinton says she doesn't currently support same-sex marriage but wants to understand and work more for the cause.

With supporters like this in political power, with a more informed, mobilized and capable generation of gays than either women or blacks had available to them during their decades- and centuries-long struggle, with more ways of diseminating information and raising awareness than ever before, why should we be content to wait another 60 or 80 years for an ammendment guaranteeing our right to be equal citizens with our heterosexual friends and neighbors?

Why not now?