A Woman for the Right Reason

I spent my first week back on campus doing something I didn't want to do. Senior year is hard enough without adding extras, and I was not too psyched about the commitment I had made for Sept. 8-13. When I was accepted to the Women's Leadership Conference (WLC) last spring, my happiness at being chosen was quickly qualified by skepticism about the program and fear that it would be a waste of time. I was wrong on all counts.

The conference was a great success, six days of purposeful activities and inspirational speakers, a gifted group of participants and a skillfully organized executive committee overseeing the whole thing. But lest you think this column is just an ad for the WLC (that's what my T-shirt is for), I wanted to write about the issues of feminism and politics raised in one of the speeches we heard, the keynote address by Marie C. Wilson President of the Ms. Foundation and of the White House Project. (She also helped create "Take Our Daughters To Work Day.")

•

The Project, according to the foundation's literature, is "dedicated to creating a climate in American politics that will allow a qualified woman to successfully run for the presidency within the next decade." You may have seen their high-profile ad campaign in numerous national magazines, a mock ballot printed with the photos of 20 women who were chosen as strong potential candidates. The photos include those of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, Marian Wright Edelman and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). Though the ballot is only hypothetical, its collection of portraits and profiles makes more tangible in the minds of the American public the possibility that a woman might someday be president. After all, with so many strong candidates on the short list, couldn't you find one to support?

Wilson's speech, which detailed the founding of the project and some of the initial opposition to the idea, was genuinely thought-provoking. Her main theme was that leadership often involves taking on a project when everyone else believes that you're wrong, and she used the White House Project as an example of such an endeavor. Fundraising efforts for the project were somewhat hindered by the nature of the program--one which rises above both political parties and the money which flows from those parties. The candidates on the ballot are split fairly evenly among liberals and conservatives, and the clear focus of the project's effort is to get a woman, conservative or liberal, into the White House. Wilson was justifiably proud that the project got off the ground despite the protests of those who disliked the non-partisan approach, but as I listened, I had to agree with the opponents of the project.

The idea that activists can work across party lines to promote the position of women in politics is at the same time both noble and flawed. Cooperation in the pursuit of a common goal is wonderful and rare, but when that common goal involves political office, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to separate activism from principled party politics. I asked Wilson during the question period how she could reconcile a non-partisan effort to elect a woman to the most partisan of offices. Seeing a woman elected president in the next 10 years is deeply important to me, but not as important as electing a candidate who shares my political positions. If Elizabeth Dole somehow won the Republican nomination, I told Wilson, I would never be able to vote for her because I disagree with her on almost every issue of policy.

Should the ultimate goal be a woman, any woman, in the White House, or should it be a woman who, for example, is pro-choice, pro-universal health care, pro-gun control and pro-education? That is, should a woman be elected solely for her gender, regardless of her policies, or should she be elected because as a woman, she might (or should) appreciate the struggles of those who are discriminated against and those whose rights are being ignored? Why should we be eager for a woman president unless we want a representative in the White House who believes in gender equality across all facets of life?

The Ms. Foundation is itself traditionally liberal in its views (Gloria Steinem is one of the founding organizers), and I wonder how the members of that group would feel if their White House Project helped contribute to the election of a conservative woman president. Wilson bristled a little at my question and reiterated her stance that the goal was to flood the national stage with strong women candidates and then start considering the issue of politics. Real leadership, she repeated, was moving forward in the face of criticism of the sort I had just raised.

But I wasn't trying to be critical; I am genuinely concerned about how liberal activists on the White House Project (and conservative activists, for that matter) can be indifferent that that their work might bring a woman of any political stripe to the Oval Office. Wilson didn't answer that part of my question, so I'm still wondering. I don't think I can support the White House Project for its non-partisan approach, though I admire its cooperative spirit, but I will support such organizations as Emily's List, which works to elect liberal women to public office at all levels. With any luck, before too long we'll have a woman president who's also a liberal, maybe even one of the talented and principled women I saw in the audience at Wilson's speech.

Susannah B. Tobin '00 is a classics concentrator in Lowell House. Her column will appear biweekly.