Glass Ceilings and Hypocrisy

Carol Moseley Braun is making headlines and history in her attempt to become the first female president of the United States. I wish I could support her.

She is the only woman in the race—and she reminds us of this constantly. Both the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) defied their tradition of abstaining from political endorsements and put their official support behind her candidacy in September. And former President of NOW Patricia Ireland just became her new campaign manager.

She might be trying to advance women in politics, but her sexist campaign tactics leave little to admire about her candidacy.

When asked at an October Democratic presidential debate how she could help to improve the United States as president, Moseley Braun did not mention her plan for a universal, single-payer health care system in her response. Nor did she cite her opposition to the war in Iraq, her support for canceling the Bush tax cuts, how she voted for more federal aid for education or how ardently she wants to protect the social security system. No, Moseley Braun had a more persuasive argument in mind: “If you really want to change the political system and the political culture, my approach is that I am the clearest alternative to George Bush…men have ruined it—our country is in a mess. It’s time to give a woman a chance.”

Focusing attention on her gender has practically become the foundation of Moseley Braun’s campaign. In early August, when addressing the need for a new investment in schools and the environment, she went so far as to imply that only a woman could solve these problems. “Women tend to be oriented to practical solutions,” she said. “If you want practical solutions that solve multiple problems, turn the job over to a woman.”

But since when is problem solving an exclusively female trait?

Moseley Braun’s approach results in the contradiction of simultaneously espousing gender equality and gender discrimination. Being female has become the focal point of her campaign, and her legitimacy as a candidate is overshadowed by her relentless gender politicking. She claims to be a role model for young women who want to become involved in politics, but by relying on antiquated gender stereotypes to promote her own candidacy, she only perpetuates the gender distinction. Her campaign rhetoric implicitly suggests that when it comes to politics, voters ought to consider the sex of the candidate. This is a stance that will only cause backlash against the very group she is attempting to advance.

Moseley Braun once argued she was a qualified candidate by saying, “A woman can fix the mess they have created, because we are practical, we are not afraid of partnerships and we are committed to making the world better for our children. The men have done it, and what do we have?” If a male candidate argued he would be more effective than a woman in Iraq because of his natural inclination for aggression, he would be eaten alive by feminist groups. By using her gender as a political tool, Moseley Braun is being equally insulting.

And the women’s groups who are supporting her are often just as guilty of this double standard. “We look forward to President Carol Moseley Braun taking the ‘men only’ sign off the doors to the White House,” said NWPC President Roselyn O’Connell when the group endorsed her candidacy. “I love Joe Lieberman, but he’s not a woman,” explained C. DeLores Tucker, chair of the National Congress of Black Women, who is also behind Moseley Braun. These comments embody the same narrow-minded sexism the groups claim to contest.

Moseley Braun is certainly a qualified candidate—possessing more political experience than many of the other Democratic contenders. She’s spent the past 30 years in politics as an assistant U.S. attorney, a state representative, a county official, a United States senator and U.S. ambassador to New Zealand.

But if Moseley Braun wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, she should spend more time discussing the real issues and less time using her campaign as a crusade for the political advancement of women. While female political equality is certainly a worthy cause—one I care about deeply myself—this should not be the central focus of her presidential platform. By ceaselessly distinguishing herself by her gender rather than her positions, she damages her own candidacy and undermines the legitimacy of other women who choose to run for president in the future.

I’ll be the first to admit that putting a woman in the White House is an appealing idea. Having more female senators, House representatives and governors wouldn’t be so bad either. But marketing femininity does not fly in politics. If women are really going to “break through the glass ceiling” (as we like to say) it will not be by playing the gender card. Women should be elected on their political merit—not their chromosomes. I have no doubt that our first female president will be elected in due time, and when she is, she will not have to rely on her sex as a justification for her candidacy.

Lia C. Larson ’05 is an economics concentrator in Adams House. Her column appears on alternate Fridays.