Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Election 2008: Add Women, Change Everything?

By Marie Wilson, Huffington Post. Posted January 30, 2008.


For real change, an equal number of women leading alongside men might be the formula we need.
Advertisement

Change. It's the buzz word of 2008 -- the rallying cry heard loud and clear from voters of all political stripes. All along the campaign trail, each of our prospective political leaders has been trying to prove why he or she is the real bearer of change: Sen. Obama offers the hope for it, Sen. Clinton offers the experience to make it, and Sen. McCain offers himself as its walking, talking, physical incarnation. In their own special way, each candidate holds claim to the title prize of change-maker, but the truth is their declarations are ultimately false. Not one of them can or will deliver change on their own.

For all of us who are so eager to see a new America, a vibrant, just and truly representative country, it's exhilarating to see so many leaders take on the mantra of change. We live in a world which faces unprecedented obstacles -- many of which seem insurmountable -- and heroic leadership can offer the encouragement and inspiration we so desperately seek to imagine a world anew. But no single hero or heroine, no matter what their eloquence or experience, can make that change happen -- not even from the grand bully pulpit offered to our Presidential frontrunners. Leaders can set the stage, as did Roosevelt and Kennedy; they can be the foamy crest of a forceful wave. But the mighty wave of change can only form and swell through the power, momentum, and intensity of everyday people who are committed to propelling that change forward.

From the wintry mountains of New Hampshire to the Carolina coast, record numbers of voters have emphatically turned out for the Presidential primaries. Their participation alludes to an unprecedented opportunity for re-vitalizing our democracy and bringing about the large-scale, systemic change that our nation's populace is resoundingly demanding. I propose we use this unique opportunity by adding the one underutilized resource for change that our country has never tried: women.

At The White House Project, our official motto is "Add Women, Change Everything" -- and it's not just a sexy tagline. As I discovered when writing my book, Closing the Leadership Gap, research abounds with evidence that women bring about positive change in the political arena. Prominent research institutions, including Rutgers and American Universities, have spent decades studying the issue, and have concluded that women tend to include diverse viewpoints in decision making, have a broader conception of public policy, and offer new solutions. It's an assertion that we have seen play out time and again on the political stage.

Democratic and Republican women of the Senate meet monthly for dinner to discuss legislation across party lines. The bipartisan Congressional Women's Caucus was instrumental to passing critical legislation including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Child Support Enforcement Act. As Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson has said, "It wasn't that men were against these changes. They just hadn't considered the issue before because they hadn't experienced the problem in their won lives. As women have become a part of the system, that's changing."

Though they make up 51% of the population, women constitute only 16% of Congress and 23% of state legislators. Only 5% of the women serving in statewide elective offices are women of color. Of the 50 states, women lead a mere 8 of them as governors. And as of September 2007, among our nation's 100 largest cities, only 10 had women mayors. As we envision a different kind of country, invigorated by robust dialogue and diverse viewpoints, perhaps the change we so passionately seek can only be delivered by adding our nation's most untapped natural resource. If we add women, perhaps we truly can change everything.

As we get swept up in the media excitement and spirited debates of the Presidential election, we need to make a conscious effort to reassess our strategy for change. While a heroic leader can inspire us, he or she does not single-handedly create change. It is up to each of us to join together and become our nation's change-makers. For those who feel overwhelmed by this monumental task, I propose the following strategy: What if between now and November 4th each of us reached out to a qualified, capable, and passionate woman and encouraged her to run for office? What if you used your desire for change to help her win? What if she's your mother, your sister, your wife, or your best friend? What if she is you?

It's undeniably true: we need a President who can provide both the inspiration and experience to lead our nation into a new era. But most importantly, we need a movement of new voices and visions to swell our nationwide sentiment into a mighty wave of change. So far, there's one intervention that we have yet to try. For real change, an equal number of women leading alongside men might be the formula we need. 2008 has been a year of firsts. I say we give one more a try.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election 2008, gender, change

Marie Wilson is founder and President of The White House Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Run now, run often, and run hard.
Posted by: magus65 on Jan 30, 2008 2:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure that encouraging more women to run necessarily does anything for the policy we eventually live with unless they are the right women.

The FACT is that we really do need a new direction though and need as many americans in general to run for office instead of sitting back and continueing to let the same psychotic control freaks who normally gravitate to politics continue to rule over us. It's obvious that lawyers and business people that are used to running naturally anti-democratic organizations (corporations) simply cannot be trusted with our nation.

I propose we need everyone to take a hard look at running for office if only for a school board position. Most importantly what we need is for patriots to stand up and run no matter what they think their odds of winning might be, patriots who run because they see it as their duty in a time of crises and not because they merely crave control over other people's lives.

We need women, men, blacks, latinos, asians, eskimos, mechanics, teachers, janitors, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, photographers - everybody!

We need to look for good leadership anywhere we can find it. Do corporate leaders and lawers fit that bill? After a lifetime of both I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel on it.

As it currently stands a congress full of waitresses and a senate full of beekeepers would have to have more common sense than most of our current misleaders.

Run now, run often, and run hard. Most importantly run because we NEED you, not because you want to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You forgot Native Americans. Posted by: edgar_michel
We need to evolve past capitalism. Women are no more opposed to capitalism than men.
Posted by: daniel347x on Jan 30, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the sense that women are more likely to embrace Democratic party principals, they would help make the world a more just place. But in my opinion, only in that fashion. Despite many examples of populist rhetoric and some populist initiatives, over the years the Democrats have, with a smiling face, supported policies that work strongly to the benefit of the upper 50% of our heavily class-divided society, and thrown a smiling bone at the lower 50%. That bone does help.

But Democrats have never actively supported systemic change that elminates profit as the overriding motive. And neither do women, any more than men, today.

Being the "good cop" in a good cop/bad cop situation, while pummeling down society's throat policies that devastate the lives of millions, such as allowing privatization of education and health care, is no improvement at all.

I perceive that history in the last 20 years shows that as many, if not more, women elected to positions of power are either no better than centrists or stark conservatives, as leftists. Margaret Thatcher, Madeline Albright (a shining example of a smiling, "peace-loving" war-supporting villain), Condoleeza Rice, etc.

I think that women who obtain positions of power in a corrupt system behave in corrupt ways, unless they oppose the foundations of that system. Women don't do that any more than men.

I feel the author needs to provide more examples than the family medical leave act - a perfect example of a bill that overwhelmingly benefits upper-echelon career women than poor women working in the service industries - to make the case that women in the political system are transformative.

Dan Nissenbaum

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex vs Sex?
Posted by: herbal on Jan 30, 2008 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't we just address issues. After all Phyllis Schlafly, last time we saw her, is woman; Tammy Faye to balance out the weird men.

So the Issues:

Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. Hillary's playing of the race card is such a ploy. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.

See Hillary Clinton speak for herself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvuzMWcz0kU

Then see the company she keeps with Rev, Hagee of Christian Zionist cult here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdsB5D1r7Y

She advocates nuclear war against Iran and has never repudiated war in any form. She is not fit for office any more than Dick Cheney and for the same reason; they are corporatism functionaries.

Then there is Sen. Obama. He advocates nuclear power. For generating more U-238? For the benefit of General Electric? Lets hope for an open convention; at least long enough to get the O to repudiate his ridiculous lapses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sex vs Sex? Posted by: Basenjis
So we have a choice
Posted by: colinmeister on Jan 30, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between a warmongering geriatric psychopath (McCain), and slightly saner warmongering liars (Teh Clintons)? It's times like this that I'm glad I didn't bother to apply for US citizenship to allow me to vote! My preferred candidates, Gravel and Paul, are not even getting a mention in any media. Sex of candidates doesn't matter - it's honesty and policy which are important.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women can bring balance
Posted by: VickyinSD on Jan 30, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and compassion to a government that has very little of it. They can help balance out the testosterone laden, war-minded male egos with a softer, "mother-like" attitude, and the ability to talk instead of fight... the ability to heal instead of hurt... the ability to listen istead of shutting out the truth.

My personal opinion is that we need to get the testosterone out of governments wherever possible, if we are going to have a planet left to fight for in the next 50 years... if it even last that long.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women can bring balance Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Women can bring balance Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Women can bring balance Posted by: Smartcookie
How women vote
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jan 30, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They vote for the taller candidate. That's all.

It's been the case in every presidential election since the 19th Amendment was passed, with the exception of the last two - which we know were rigged and stolen. In fact, the shorter candidate winning is the best evidence that this was the case. It's why the D's should choose Obama and the R's should choose Romney. And then tell them to just keep smiling and not say anything substantive which could possibly give anyone any reason to want to vote against them (or for them, for that matter).

Anyway, don't strain a shoulder muscle patting yourselves on the backs, gals. It's difficult to argue that things have gotten better for humanity and the planet in general in the 90 years since women got the vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone but straight males
Posted by: arieden on Jan 30, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In response to the misogynist Hillary haters mantra: "Anyone but Hillary" I have my own mantra: "Anyone but straight males"
It really is time for (true) change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Anyone with a vagina? Posted by: arieden
» Get a clue... Posted by: piggy
I Don't Know Who To Blame
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 30, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With a John Edwards withdrawal from the race, the Democrat most capable of beating any Republican is out of the race. To all the people who have voted based upon the race and sex of the candidate I say 'thanks, you just condemned America to 4 more years of a Republican President' . Obama and Billary are Republican-Lites.

If this is what more female voter participation brings, I'm not impressed. If someone is stupid enough to let Oprah sway their vote, they need to lose their right to vote. If someone is so shallow as to vote based upon sex or race, they do not deserve to vote either.

Thanks guys, somewhere Karl Rove is smiling...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich Should Both Jump Ships
Posted by: opmoc on Jan 30, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And form the US Constitution Party

They have Two Great Assets

1. The US Constitution
2. Elizabeth Kucinich

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WOMEN DO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 30, 2008 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen women replace men in management positions and it does make a difference. Most of it is perception but there is a difference. The good news is that it has no profound effect on much of anything. One thing I've noticed is that some men just don't like having a woman boss. It's something they have to get over. Women have always had to get over it. It's called adjusting. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitlery is unviable.
Posted by: magus65 on Jan 30, 2008 7:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cannot win.

If you want a wanted a winner you should have drafted a woman of character like Cynthia McKinney rather than a nazi hosebag like Hitlery who:

Wants to MAKE you buy your own health insurance before you are allowed to get a job. What a freakin moron corporate whore.

Belittles peoples intelligence by adopting a horribly fake regional accent during speeches.

Defecates on the poor and working-class (the productive class) as a Wal-Mart exec.

She thinks you are a moron, if you vote for her she will be right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hitlery is unviable. Posted by: arieden
» How pathetic are you? Posted by: piggy
Yes, we definitely need more tribalism.
Posted by: piggy on Jan 30, 2008 11:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Splitting communities on sex lines will do wonders or all our problems.

Does it get any sillier than this?

Christ on a bike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]