Political Thought Leader's Blog
By Marie Wilson, founder and president, The White House Project

MUSIC: THE NEW DIPLOMATIC TONGUE

Posted on March 4, 2008

There is a time when music becomes the best politics. From its lilting cadences and bursts of staccato to its heart-rending twins of harmony and melody, music can be a truly transformative medium and a powerful instrument of human connection. At the end of February, the New York Philharmonic gave an unprecedented concert in Pyongyang, North Korea, leaving many to question whether this moving musical occurrence could foster warmer ties between nations. Can musical diplomacy usher in a new era between North Korea and the U.S.? Can the jazz of Gershwin and the culturally poignant "Arirang" move our nations to a heightened level of diplomacy?

The concert, spanning both American and Korean musical traditions, elucidated the common ground between the countries, and its significance for both New York Philharmonic members and Korean listeners was echoed loudly and tearfully. "This might just have pushed us over the top" in finding a way beyond discord, said former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry. Indeed, music may be exactly what we need to foster connection amidst the tumultuous times of our global community.

Culture matters. I've certainly seen it happen on the domestic scene, at a time when the political challenges were no less daunting. In Wilmington, Del., during the early days of the civil rights struggle, I worked in an all-white church located in the center of an African-American community. Instead of retreating to the comfort of their suburbs, these white congregants, amidst the upheaval of the early 1960s, chose a direction for their church. I'm proud to say they chose justice – making the church a beacon for civil rights activism. It wasn't the easiest or most comfortable choice, but it was shepherded by the power and grace of music.

Congregants hired an astute political minister who knew not only how to change policy, but also how to change people's hearts as a precursor. He hired my then-husband, a young and talented choral conductor, to use music as a means to get whites and blacks – who had not shared a church, a school or a common culture – to come together. He taught them to sing Beethoven and the blues, pop songs about change and Bernstein's West Side Story. Music built the foundation for very different groups of people of all ages to work on housing and jobs, education and equal rights. It was marching time, and these suburban whites and inner-city blacks marched in Wilmington and on Washington. They may not have shared dreams before, but now they stood together listening to Dr. King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech, and they worked diligently at home to create a new vision of community.

The political power of music is still very much alive. Last November, at the International Women Leaders Global Security Summit (a project of The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, in partnership with The White House Project, the Council of Women World Leaders and the Women Leaders Intercultural Forum), celebrated musician Angelique Kidjo not only enthralled listeners with her moving vocal and rhythmic performance, but also called upon the global audience to utilize the medium of music as an accompanying force for political change. Kidjo, who is known as the "galvanizing voice of sub-Saharan Africa," was echoed by Kim Campbell, former prime minister of Canada, who asserted that Track II efforts require not only dialogue but unique means such as the arts to foster understanding, open communication and successful diplomacy.

In the aftermath of the Summit, planning for a women's Track II, diplomatic force has already begun, extending the use of current diplomatic missions that women leaders have already begun to undertake. These informal but essential connections between women world leaders, women working on the ground and national decision-makers are critical in fostering peaceful solutions in areas of conflict, and they consistently use music and dance as part of that connective tissue toward change.

In looking at our failures in Iraq and the tense tightrope we walk with North Korea, it is evident that our old formula of politics "from the head" is not working. We have often acted without regard to differences in language or culture or history, and (particularly in Iraq) this ignorance has fostered nothing short of devastation. In a recent New York Times article, the Philharmonic's musical director, Lorin Maazel, said he hoped that the concert, which was broadcast to an audience of 200 million, might be important to "people who want relations to improve." And yet the Bush administration was clear about how they see it: "A concert is only a concert." This denial of possible positive diplomatic outcomes is one more example of the shortsightedness that has steered our country in such a poor direction.

But the New York Philharmonic has reminded our city, North Korea and hopefully the world that the value of music cannot be discounted, as it speaks the common language of the heart. And if we can learn to incorporate this new "tongue" into our diplomatic dialects, perhaps it will illuminate possibilities previously unknown. Perhaps when we integrate this language of the heart, we can traverse bridges previously burned and encourage the head to follow.

An advocate of women's issues for more than 30 years, Marie C. Wilson is founder and president of The White House Project, co-creator of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work ® Day and author of Closing the Leadership Gap: Why Women Can and Must Help Run the World (Viking 2004).

To comment on this blog, e-mail blog@pinkmagazine.com and enter "Marie Wilson" in the subject line.

. . . . . . . . . .

THE MIGHTY WAVE OF CHANGE
Posted on February 1, 2008

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 that their declarations are ultimately false. Not one of them can or will deliver change on his or her 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 that 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, regardless of eloquence or experience, can make that change happen – not even from the grand bully pulpit offered to our presidential front-runners. 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 turned out for the presidential primaries. Their participation alludes to an unprecedented opportunity for revitalizing our democracy and bringing about the large-scale, systemic change that our nation's populace is resoundingly demanding. I propose that 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 in 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 own lives. As women have become a part of the system, that's changing."

Though they make up 51 percent of the population, women constitute only 16 percent of Congress and 23 percent of state legislators. Only 5 percent of the women serving in statewide elective offices are women of color. Of the 50 states, women lead a mere eight 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 4 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. This year, 2008, has already been a year of firsts. I say we give one more a try.

To comment on this blog, e-mail blog@pinkmagazine.com and enter "Marie Wilson" in the subject line.

. . . . . . . . . .

COUNTDOWN TO THE CAUCUSES II: GENDER AND RACE MATTER WHEN YOU'RE THE ONE AND ONLY
Posted on December 14, 2007

In 1984 I won a hotly contested Des Moines City Council election against many men. But sometimes I think the race was really all about my hair.

Yes, after every speech, people would come up to me – a few with questions or comments about what I had said, but far too many to tell me I had "great hair." What I actually have is hair so coarse that it stays put. But I learned something: There is such a thing as "political hair." Ann Richards had it too. It just doesn't move.

People deny that gender matters, or that they even see gender at all.

They do this about race as well. They want to be fair, acting as if our society is a meritocracy, like these differences don't matter, that they have become invisible.

It ain't so.

But what will make the differences seem normal is when there are numbers of women leaders vying for the presidency on the Iowa plains. The same goes for corporate boardrooms and executive suites, for that matter.

Until then, gender does matter.

One of The White House Project's earliest pieces of research was a study of how the press treats women when there is one woman. We looked at the press coverage of Elizabeth Dole in the 2000 presidential primaries, as well as a Senate race and the races of a record number of women who ran for governor that year.

We call these studies, affectionately, our "hair, hemlines and husband" studies.

The results: Whether with male or female reporters, women candidates are consistently treated less substantively and more personally.

Why? Not because the press is monolithic or even misogynist.The job of the press is to cover what's different, and when there is one woman, that's a no-brainer: What's different is her gender as marked by appearance. The problem is that this kind of coverage, subtle as it may be, slowly erodes women's authority.

When I asked a top-notch reporter covering Dole why she led her story with Dole's appearance, she was quick to reply: "If you think I'm going to ignore Elizabeth Dole's green suit, you're crazy." Poor Dole switched her position on gun control just before she came to New York, and as an opener the press still chided her for not wearing black in New York.

One woman is always "gender." And she has to prove "she's man enough for the job." (Think Margaret Thatcher, the tough former leader of Great Britain.) Two women equals a catfight in the eyes of the press. When you get to three or more women in a race, then finally gender does recede and agenda can prevail.

It's why there's been so much coverage about whether Obama is "black enough" and Clinton is "tough enough."

When you are the one and only, you have to live inside stereotypes and outside of them, be an insider and an outsider.

When it comes to gender, things have changed. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president, they actually wrote about how she had nicer legs than her opponent, or how much better she would look in a wet T-shirt contest. Now the gender coverage is not as blatantly gendered, but it still erodes a woman's authority, and women already struggle with authority, even Sen. Clinton.

So monitor the press coverage, and call or write a reporter who slips.

To comment on this blog, e-mail blog@pinkmagazine.com and enter "Marie Wilson" in the subject line.

. . . . . . . . . .

FIRST WIVES CLUB
Posted on October 26, 2007

As the race for the White House heats up, there is plenty of coverage devoted to political wives and potential "first couples." A recent issue of New York magazine projected what a Clinton II White House might look like and how it might work. But before we can talk about the redefined roles of first lady and first couple, we must first properly define these roles. And in order to do so, we must recognize that "dual-career" marriages are a myth.

Every dual-career family is actually a "four-career" family, with each career position structured on two people: a front-line person and a support person. While Sen. Clinton vastly expanded the role of first lady during her time in the White House, she also extended the spousal-support role of the presidency. And this role has never been just about tea and cookies.

Behind the scenes in all marriages, from the White House to your home, women have for decades been instrumental in their spouses' executive decisions – from serving as a confidant to being the source of ideas. Until recently, this role has been drastically undervalued and makes the concept of Life/Work balance impossible.

As the American public begins to place a premium on "presidential couples," businesses and institutions have also recognized the critical role the support person plays in any career. This is seen in recent divorce settlements of high-profile executives, where women have claimed a significant portion of the earnings based on their work in building the wealth, as well as in the practice of many universities that offer a "salary" to the president's partner, knowing that he or she will enhance the president's success.

Today's political wives deserve more coverage than their latest hairdos or the height of their hemlines. After all, they are largely responsible for positioning their spouses as potential presidential candidates and themselves as future first ladies.

To comment on this blog, e-mail blog@pinkmagazine.com and enter "Marie Wilson" in the subject line.

RETURN TO PINK BLOGS HOME>>