Madam President?: Gender and Politics on the Road to the White House 9781685850982

Citation preview

Madam

President?

Madam

President? Gender and Politics on the Road to the White House edited by

Lori Cox Han Caroline Heldman

b o u l d e r l o n d o n

Published in the United States of America in 2020 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 www.rienner.com

and in the United Kingdom by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Gray’s Inn House, 127 Clerkenwell Road, London EC1 5DB

© 2020 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Han, Lori Cox, editor. | Heldman, Caroline, 1972– editor. Title: Madam President? : gender and politics on the road to the White House / edited by Lori Cox Han, Caroline Heldman. Description: Boulder, Colorado : Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., [2020] | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Critically analyzes the barriers facing women on the road to the White House”— Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019042402 | ISBN 9781626378865 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781626378872 (paperback) Subjects: LCSH: Women presidential candidates—United States. | Women presidential candidates—United States—Attitudes. | Presidents—United States—Election. | Women—Political activity—United States. | Sex role—Political aspects—United States. | United States—Politics and government—1981–1989. | United States—Politics and government—1989– Classification: LCC HQ1236.5.U6 M327 2020 | DDC 320.082/0973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019042402

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

Printed and bound in the United States of America

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1992. 5 4 3 2 1

To the first woman president; may she be elected sooner rather than later

Contents

List of Tables and Figures Preface

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ix xi

Electing Madam President Lori Cox Han

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018 Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley Money and Candidate Viability Victoria A. Farrar-Myers

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail Meredith Conroy Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era Caroline Heldman Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren

The Public’s Perception of Candidates’ Spouses Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch Karen M. Hult

vii

1 19 45 59 75 97 123 141

viii Contents

9 10

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security Meena Bose Confronting Barriers on the Road to Madam President Caroline Heldman and Lori Cox Han

Bibliography The Contributors Index About the Book

167 193 201 213 217 227

Tables and Figures

Tables 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3

8.1 8.2 8.3

Breakdown of Women in Congress by Party Operationalization of Variables Average Expenditures for Winning House Candidates Average Source of Funds Female House Candidate Campaign Finance Statistics, 2018 Possible Stops on a Presidential Career Path Women Cabinet Secretaries, 1933–2019 Number and Percentage of Female Staffers, by Title and Year

28 29 47 50

52 142 150

154

Figures 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Female Representatives’ Level of Education, 103rd and 116th Congress Female Representatives’ Level of Education by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress Female Representatives’ First Jobs, 103rd and 116th Congress Female Representatives’ First Jobs by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress

ix

32

33 34

35

x

Tables and Figures

2.5

Female Representatives’ First Political Experience, 103rd and 116th Congress Female Representatives’ First Political Experience by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress Female Representatives’ Age During Session Year 1, 103rd and 116th Congress Female Representatives’ Age During Session Year 1 by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress Gender and Presidential Character in Media Coverage in 2000–2012 Women Who Have Accused Trump of Sexual Assault Partial Transcript of the Access Hollywood Tape Average Percentage of Americans Expressing No Opinion Toward Nonincumbent Presidential Candidate Spouses, 1988–2016

2.6

2.7

2.8

4.1

5.1 5.2 7.1

36 37

38

39

68 82 84 130

Preface

IN 2007, WE PUBLISHED THE EDITED VOLUME RETHINKING Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House? Our answer was a resounding “no”—voters and the press were not ready to give female presidential candidates a fair run. Now, more than a decade later, we revisit this question, having watched Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary and the 2016 general election. Our principal question is still the same—is the United States ready to elect a woman president? The presidential election landscape has changed quite a bit in the past decade. The rise of social media has exacerbated sexism in public political discourse at the same time that portrayals of female political leaders in popular culture have become commonplace. Clinton lost the 2016 election for a variety of reasons, but the number of women running in the 2020 Democratic primaries normalized the presence of female presidential candidates. The question of whether the United States is ready to elect a woman president is less clear-cut than it was a decade ago. Having witnessed an extreme degree of overt sexism in the 2016 election, enabled by a new media environment and a bombastically masculine candidate in Donald Trump, we are pessimistic about the hostile public-discourse environment female candidates must navigate. But having seen historic female-led protests and numbers of women running for and winning seats in Congress, we are optimistic that a new political will has emerged that will eventually elevate a woman to the White House. The question is no longer if, but when. xi

xii

Preface

* * *

We are, first and foremost, thankful to all the incredible scholars who contributed their time, effort, and expertise to this volume. We also thank Lynne Rienner for her continued enthusiasm for this topic and allowing us to publish the next “madam president” volume. The help and support from Nicole Moore and the entire editorial and production team at Lynne Rienner Publishers were invaluable. Lori Cox Han would like to thank Caroline Heldman for being such a fantastic friend, colleague, and coauthor for so many years. She also thanks those who have provided support for her research at Chapman University, most notably President Daniele Struppa, Provost Glenn Pfeiffer, and Dean of Wilkinson College Patrick Fuery. She is also grateful for the personal and professional support that so many others have provided, including Tom Han, Davis Han, Taylor NyBlom, Nancy Cox, Cathy Spooner, Cindy Fleischer, Drew Moshier, Lisa Sparks, Gordon Babst, Greg Daddis, Jerry Price, Diane Heith, and Victoria FarrarMyers. Lastly, Dr. Han thanks her students from the past two decades who have listened to her many lectures, contemplations, and musings on the topic of electing a woman president. Caroline Heldman would like to thank Lori Cox Han for being such a gracious, diligent, and brilliant coauthor. She also thanks her sisters, Clare, Sarah, Kathleen, and Joy, who inspired her research passion for gender and politics. She is grateful for ongoing inspiration from students who went on to earn PhDs with a specialization in gender and politics: Meredith Conroy, Sarah Oliver, Laura Lazarus Frankel, and Mackenzie Israel-Trummel. Lastly, Dr. Heldman thanks Joel Tyler for his support in completing this project.

1 Electing Madam President Lori Cox Han

FOR YEARS, POLITICAL PUNDITS HAVE SPECULATED ABOUT when the United States would elect its first woman president. Even though twelve women have made serious bids for the presidency in the past 130 years, most predictions and analysis have focused on just one woman—Hillary Clinton. She has now run for president twice, losing the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008 and the presidency to Donald Trump in 2016. While there is no simple explanation for why Clinton lost in 2016, gender most likely played a role, which provides many lessons for future women candidates now that a major political party has nominated a woman for president. In addition, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has influenced the current political environment in significant ways regarding issues relevant to women (the #MeToo Movement, the Women’s March, etc.), as well as promoted many women candidates in both parties and at all levels of government. Proof of that trend can be found in the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections, which saw record-breaking numbers of women running for and winning political office at both the national and state level. At the start of 2019, there were more women than ever before serving in Congress, with 25 in the Senate and 102 in the House of Representatives (and Nancy Pelosi returning to the position of Speaker of the House with Democratic control of the chamber).1 Looking ahead to future presidential campaigns, will one or both of the next two presidential campaigns move the idea of electing a woman as president beyond a talking point and into reality?

1

2

Lori Cox Han

Both the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections promise to be groundbreaking, with more women candidates than ever before seeking the White House. For 2020, the prospective Democratic field of challengers ready to take on Trump, assuming he is the Republican nominee, included several women. US senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts became the first to announce an exploratory committee on December 31, 2017, nearly two years before Election Day (she would officially announce her campaign less than two months later). Within days, US representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii announced that she would run for president, followed by US senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, US senator Kamala Harris of California, and US senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. In addition, author, lecturer, and activist Marianne Williamson announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination in November 2018. Other potential candidates included 2018 Georgia gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams, along with a few celebrity candidates like Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie. And let’s not forget 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who said in an October 2018 interview when asked if she wants to run again, “No. . . . Well, I’d like to be president,” continuing to fuel speculation that she has not ruled out the possibility of running for president a third time.2 On the Republican side, with Trump as the presumed nominee for a second term, more speculation is being given to potential Republican women candidates in 2024. Former United Nations ambassador and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is at the top of the list. When Haley announced she was stepping down from her post at the UN in October 2018, speculation in the news media began immediately that Haley was planning a presidential run in 2020. While not specifying her future plans, Haley responded that she would be campaigning for Trump in 2020. A Washington Post columnist pointed out that Haley, at 46, was the same age as George H. W. Bush when he left the position of UN ambassador, and he was the only person to ever hold the post and then be elected president.3 Haley is also considered a potential candidate for US Senate in South Carolina, or a possible running mate to Trump in 2020 should he decide to replace Vice President Mike Pence on the Republican ticket.4 Other Republican women who are potential candidates for future presidential and/or vice presidential runs include US Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee (elected in 2018 after serving sixteen years in the House), US Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, and Governor Kim Reynolds of Iowa.

Electing Madam President

3

For those ready to see a woman elected president, the good news is that the United States is seeing the largest ever field of declared and potential women candidates for president in the next two campaign cycles. That so many women are running, considering running, or have the news media speculating that they might run, suggests that women presidential candidates are not the anomaly they used to be. The 2020 Democratic primary alone has made the idea of female presidential candidates the new normal; the six women running also bring diversity in terms of ideology by ranging from moderate to progressive within the Democratic Party, representing different regions of the country, and bringing varied professional and life experiences to their campaigns. It was not that long ago when any woman even thinking about running for president would automatically be labeled a political oddity, as when US representative Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) publicly considered a run in 1988 until announcing otherwise. More than a decade would pass until any other women presidential candidates would emerge. However, the campaigns of both Elizabeth Dole (former cabinet member in the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations) in 2000 and Carol Moseley Braun (former US senator from Illinois) in 2004 would not make it past the prenomination period, with both ending their campaigns before any voting took place. In 2008, Clinton would continue the trend of just one woman entering the race for the White House, despite intense media speculation in 2005–2006 that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would seek the Republican Party nomination.5 Clinton would become the first woman candidate to win a presidential primary contest (after winning the 2008 New Hampshire primary, she would go on to win 21 other state contests), though she would lose the Democratic nomination in a closely contested battle to Obama. US representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was the only woman to run in 2012 but dropped out of the race after finishing sixth in the Iowa caucuses. The 2016 presidential campaign made history when Democrats selected Clinton as the first woman nominated for president from a major party. In addition, that year, for the first time, a woman ran for president for both the Democratic and Republican parties. Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive officer (CEO) Carly Fiorina was the only woman in the crowded Republican field, focusing on her corporate experience and the need to put a non-career politician in the White House. However, Fiorina would end her campaign in February 2016, after failing to earn significant voter support in the early contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

4

Lori Cox Han

Despite the progress made by these women and many others in seeking political office, the United States still lags behind several other countries, some with much more conservative political cultures, in electing women to executive leadership positions. Although no other national system of government matches the constitutional uniqueness found within the US system of government, several other countries have nevertheless had female prime ministers and presidents. In addition, as of 2018, the United States ranked 103rd globally in the number of women who hold seats in a national legislature or parliament.6 Much progress is still needed in electing women at all levels of government in the United States, as well as in expanding the field of presidential contenders to include numerous women in both parties and from all ideological perspectives. While the office of the presidency is unique in both constitutional design and institutional structure, understanding the role that gender has played within the broader context of women running for and winning political office at all levels of government is instructive when looking ahead to the 2020 and 2024 election cycles. Those issues worth exploring to determine the viability of finally electing “madam president” include Clinton’s legacy as a presidential candidate; whether the current political environment changes the conventional wisdom about barriers that may exist for women presidential candidates; and why the lack of women vice-presidential candidates, as well as the number of women governors, matters. Hillary Clinton: Lessons and Legacies Heading into Election Day 2016, nearly every poll, pundit, and political expert predicted an easy victory for Clinton against Trump. Had those predictions been accurate, her presidency would have been historic. Following Obama’s election in 2008, it would have marked two presidencies in a row that shattered the long-held tradition of only white men occupying the White House. The symbolism of Clinton as the first woman president would have resonated worldwide as a national mark of progress for American women in all walks of life. However, that narrative was destroyed when, despite losing the popular vote to Clinton by 3 million, Trump won the electoral college by a margin of 304 to 227.7 Despite the name recognition and fundraising advantages that Clinton enjoyed, many experts overlooked flaws in the Clinton campaign strategy and did not fully comprehend the antiestablishment mood

Electing Madam President

5

among the electorate in 2016 that allowed an outsider like Trump to win both the Republican nomination and eventually the presidency. Additionally, she faced substantial sexism from news media, Trump, Trump surrogates, and voters across the political spectrum as the first woman in the general election contest. Furthermore, the long-running narrative in news media coverage that Clinton would become the first woman president, dating back to Bill Clinton’s presidency, may have hindered both of her presidential campaigns more than it helped. Her election to the US Senate in 2000, the last year of her husband’s administration, was framed as a stepping-stone to the White House. When Clinton passed up the opportunity to run in 2004 and challenge incumbent president George W. Bush, she became the immediate Democratic front-runner for 2008. The inevitability of Clinton becoming the first woman president only began to seriously erode once Obama won an upset victory in the Iowa caucuses in January 2008. After Super Tuesday in February 2008, Obama’s momentum continued to build as he consistently won more state contests, and ultimately delegates, than Clinton did. She finally conceded the race in June 2008, declared that fall while campaigning for Obama that she would not run for president again, and served as secretary of state during Obama’s first term. Clinton declared her second campaign for the White House in April 2015, starting as the clear front-runner and presumptive Democratic nominee. That stood in stark contrast to the Republican nomination battle, with an initial field of seventeen candidates that some predicted would last until the party’s convention. Instead, the strong antiestablishment mood in the country helped Trump, a real estate mogul and reality television star with no political experience, to wrap up the Republican nomination in early May, while Clinton struggled to fend off the surprisingly strong challenge from US senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Clinton finally secured the Democratic nomination following a win in the California primary in June, but Sanders won a total of 22 primary and caucus contests, won 1,879 delegates (of the 4,765 available), and raised a total of $222 million. The 2016 campaign had moments of déjà vu for Clinton as challenges—both real and potential—threatened to alter her inevitability narrative. Clinton faced scrutiny, as well as an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), over her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of state (2009–2013), and other news stories focused on potential conflicts of interest involving contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative and speaking fees that both she and Bill Clinton received. Despite her long résumé of public

6

Lori Cox Han

service, Clinton struggled in the categories of honesty and trustworthiness in public opinion polls.8 Even the narrative of becoming the first woman president didn’t seem to work for her campaign; in May 2016, campaign research conducted by EMILY’s List found that the Clinton campaign should “de-emphasize the ‘first’ talk” with voters and donors since “they already know she’d be the first woman president, but we don’t get anything by reminding them.” The potential to make history did not resonate with younger women, who throughout the Democratic primaries overwhelmingly supported Sanders and his more progressive agenda over Clinton.9 During the general election, and particularly the three presidential debates, personal and political attacks dominated the contest between Clinton and Trump. For months, Trump had referred to Clinton as “Crooked Hillary,” and his supporters would chant “lock her up” and “Trump That Bitch” at each of his public rallies.10 Clinton had a headlinegrabbing moment that also contributed to the divisiveness when she stated the following at a fundraising event: “You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.”11 The strong antiestablishment mood among the electorate, along with miscalculations by the Clinton campaign in messaging and tactics (including her lack of attention to so-called rust belt states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that her campaign took for granted would remain in the Democratic column), contributed to the Trump victory. There has long been an assumption that “a viable woman presidential candidate (that is, a candidate who could legitimately compete in primaries and caucuses and have a real chance at her party’s nomination) would help to further break down barriers for woman candidates at all levels of government.”12 While Clinton was certainly the most viable woman presidential candidate to date, she and her campaign also had many inherent flaws, among them strategic missteps as well as the personal and political baggage she brought to her campaign. Recent research suggests that while women are no longer considered token candidates, they still benefit from their outsider status among voters, who tend to view candidates who are newer to the political process as more trustworthy and capable of bringing change to the political system. In a strong antiestablishment political environment like 2016, Clinton’s long government résumé worked against her; her claims that she was the real antiestablishment candidate because of her gender rang hollow with many

Electing Madam President

7

voters. Women candidates can be judged more harshly as “politicians” as opposed to “women,” and while to be judged as a “leader” and not as a “lady” may not always be positive, it shows that in this category, women and men are judged by similar standards.13 In the inevitable postmortem of the 2016 campaign, numerous flaws in Clinton’s strategy became obvious to those analyzing how she could have lost to Trump. Perhaps one of the most revelatory assessments came from journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, whose 2017 book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign relied on insider access throughout 2015–2016 to show how the public narrative of the inevitability of a Clinton victory stood in stark contrast to the actual day-to-day workings of the campaign. Referring to the campaign as “spirit-crushing” to staffers who struggled with the numerous strategic missteps, several key points emerged to explain why Clinton lost, including infighting among campaign staff, misallocation of campaign resources, overly optimistic reliance on voting data, and a lack of a coherent vision for why she was running. This failure to address some of the same missteps that had occurred in 2008 would haunt her second run for the White House, in part because of her own inherent flaws as a presidential candidate: “And yet what Hillary couldn’t quite see is that no matter how she recast the supporting roles in this production, or emphasized different parts of the script, the main character hadn’t changed.”14 In her own book, What Happened, Clinton argued that sexism and several other factors played a role, such as “the audacious information warfare waged from the Kremlin, the unprecedented intervention in our election by the director of the FBI, a political press that told voters that my emails were the most important story, and deep currents of anger and resentment flowing through our culture.”15 Regardless of why she lost, and despite the bitter disappointment of many of her supporters, Clinton’s nomination marked an important milestone in moving closer to electing a woman president and in helping to shape the political environment in upcoming presidential campaigns. The Political Environment: Conventional Wisdom vs. Reality As the discussion has evolved during the past three decades, conventional wisdom often suggests that women presidential candidates still face an uphill battle. The presumed barriers include the inherent masculinity of

8

Lori Cox Han

the office of the presidency, prevalent negative stereotypes of women leaders, gender bias in news coverage of woman politicians, and a lack of potential women candidates due to so few women holding political positions.16 Yet, as I have argued elsewhere, the conventional wisdom on this topic often comes from media talking points and opinion writers as opposed to a substantive understanding of the constitutional and institutional factors that shape presidential campaigns. Gender may be an important factor in assessing the viability of a woman presidential candidate, but it is not the only one. While being a woman running for president may require a unique strategy in fundraising, messaging, and creating a narrative that presents a strong leader capable of handling the job of president, these strategic areas “are not permanent structural barriers that stop a woman from winning the White House.”17 Several factors, both permanent and fluid, shape the political environment of each presidential campaign. Let’s consider the factors that might be significant in the next two campaign cycles. First, it is always important to begin with the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency—being at least 35 years old, a 14year US resident, and a natural-born citizen. No other formal criteria exist to run for president, but several informal qualifications have always limited the pool of potential nominees. Until Obama’s success in 2008, all presidential candidates from the two major parties had been white, male, and almost exclusively Protestant.18 The health and age of the candidate, as well as family ties and personal relationships (particularly marital status and fidelity) have generally been important characteristics for candidates.19 The notion of “leadership,” which is often defined on male terms, is also considered. Through the traditional interpretation of our national history, a male-dominated view of leadership has been indoctrinated into the consciousness of most Americans, which in turn, affects how voters might view aspiring women leaders; this can leave women with a “double standard and a double bind” as men are still more readily accepted as leaders than women.20 Gender stereotypes also matter and can influence how women candidates and their campaigns are covered in the news media. Potential women presidential and vice-presidential candidates have not always been portrayed as authoritative or as strong leaders in the press, and early research on this topic found that women candidates were indeed hurt by negative stereotypes and/or being portrayed as merely an anomaly. For example, Elizabeth Dole’s coverage in 1999 “was covered more as a novelty than a serious candidate,” what the White House Project

Electing Madam President

9

referred to as the “hair, hemlines, and husbands” approach to coverage.21 Other studies showed this trend of gender bias, making gender a significant, and not always positive, label in news media coverage for women candidates.22 More recent studies have shown that presidential elections are “gendered” spaces that focus on masculinity, toughness, and “presidential timber.” While the candidacies of Clinton in 2008, Bachmann in 2012, and both Clinton and Fiorina in 2016 helped shift the definition of masculinity, more progress is needed to “regender” presidential campaigns to gain acceptance for a variety of leadership styles that do not evoke hypermasculinity.23 Since 2008, news media emphasis on a candidate’s sex, appearance, marital status, and masculine issues “still haunts female candidates,” and new media (online and social media sites) has included some of the most offensive and sexist coverage, as the “online universe of political commentary operates outside of traditional media editorial boundaries and is sometimes incisive but often offensive and unsubstantiated.”24 Although Clinton’s presidential campaigns are the best case studies to determine the effect of gender stereotypes on news coverage, they are also problematic given her front-runner status in the prenomination and early primary stages in 2008 and throughout 2016, as front-runners tend to get more coverage, including more negative coverage, than less viable candidates. In 2008, Clinton’s campaign was “not a simple story of media bias or sexism” as it presented three interlocking factors: the role of gender in presidential politics, contemporary media norms and routines, and the individual candidate and her particular political context. Clinton had “unique assets and liabilities”; she was the most viable woman presidential candidate in US history, but she was also “a particular female candidate with a particular political history who faced a particular political context. . . . Clinton’s challenges were not just those faced by women politicians in general, but very specific to Clinton’s own personal and political history.”25 These factors were certainly at play throughout the 2016 campaign as well. While it is still too early to have reliable empirical data to show how media coverage or gender stereotypes may have influenced the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections, we do know that the number of women running and winning in that campaign cycle shifted the narrative for women candidates in a more positive way than perhaps ever before. Relatedly, public opinion in recent years suggests support for electing a woman president, at least in theory.26 However, in the two years following 9/11, support for electing a woman president in polling had

10

Lori Cox Han

declined, suggesting that women face tougher public scrutiny during times of war.27 In addition, while public opinion polls consistently show support for a qualified female presidential candidate, there is evidence to suggest that responses to this polling question may suffer from “social desirability effects”—that is, respondents may be purposely giving false answers to avoid violating societal norms.28 Research has also shown that the gender, education, and political ideology of the respondents in polls about electing a woman president seem to be the most prominent factors that shape public opinion, followed by age, race, and party identification.29 It is important to bear in mind that polling results in the last few years have not been consistently reliable, especially regarding Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency in 2016. Nearly every pollster and political pundit predicted a Clinton victory, with the odds ranging from 70 to 99 percent on Election Day. Several factors contributed to this, including nonresponse bias (pollsters find certain voters, like those who have more negative views of government and the political establishment, harder to reach); the number of respondents who were “shy-Trumpers” (voters who were not comfortable admitting their support for Trump); and methodological flaws in modeling to determine likely voters (many models were based on the 2012 electorate, which did not accurately represent 2016).30 Then again, Clinton never consistently fared well with favorability ratings in public opinion polls in her time as First Lady, US senator, secretary of state, and presidential candidate. An analysis of polls show that Clinton is perceived most favorably in a nonpolitical context; her highest rating of 66 percent favorability came during Bill Clinton’s scandals in 1998 and in 2013 when she ended her tenure as secretary of state and had yet to reenter the political arena.31 Given that no future woman presidential candidate will model Clinton’s political and personal experiences (both good and bad) on the global stage, this does not suggest that a gender-specific barrier exists for women candidates regarding polling and public approval. The “woman as president” theme has also continued to appear with regularity within pop culture, which supports the changing narrative of women seeking higher elective office. For example, in the buildup to Clinton’s first campaign in 2008, the ABC show Commander in Chief introduced the American television audience to President Mackenzie Allen, an Independent vice president to a Republican president who dies in office. Portrayed by Oscar-winner Geena Davis,

Electing Madam President

11

President Allen faces many domestic and international crises during her accidental presidency, all the while juggling the demands of a husband, three children, and a widowed mother who all live together in the White House. However, despite the media hype, early high ratings, and Davis’s Emmy nomination and Golden Globe win for Best Actress in a Drama Series in 2006, the show was canceled after just one season due to low ratings. Since then, American movie and television viewers have seen many diverse portrayals of women as president, vice president, secretary of state, and numerous other executive branch positions. This trend is important in that “Hollywood decided to elect minorities and women to the presidency some time before reality moved in that direction.”32 The significance is that even though these characters are fictional, they can function “as a propositional argument that women can serve as chief executives equal to men and that, to the extent that sexism endures in US society, it is recognized as anachronistic, ridiculous, or corrupt.”33 The portrayal of women in all types of political leadership positions, even if fictional, helps one to imagine that it is possible.34 At present, there are several popular and award-winning shows that prominently feature women in high-ranking executive political positions. While some of the plot lines are more realistic than others, the diversity of the characters themselves along with the specific genre of entertainment bodes well for broadening the diversity of views among Americans when it comes to women leaders. For example, in its sixth and final season in the fall of 2019, the CBS drama Madam Secretary shows Secretary of State Elizabeth McCord, portrayed by Téa Leoni, making the decision to run for president. On Showtime’s spy thriller Homeland, in its sixth season in the spring of 2017, US Senator Elizabeth Keane of New York is elected president. And on HBO’s political satire Veep, Julia Louis-Dreyfus portrays Selina Meyer, a former US senator from Maryland who becomes vice president and ultimately succeeds to the presidency when the current president resigns. The show, which debuted in 2012 and ended a seven-season run in 2019, was critically acclaimed from the start. Veep has won numerous awards, including an Emmy for outstanding comedy series for its fourth, fifth, and sixth seasons, and through 2017, Louis-Dreyfus had won six consecutive Emmys for best actress. Two other successful and recent television dramas that have featured women as president include ABC’s Scandal and Netflix’s House of Cards. The characters of Mellie Grant on Scandal and Claire Underwood on House of Cards both become president immediately following their

12

Lori Cox Han

husband’s tenure in the White House, and while each character certainly had flaws that might impede their political success in a real-life setting, they, along with the other recent portrayals of women in political power, nonetheless continue to move the public’s perception of a woman president away from a mere oddity or anomaly. The Running Mate Drought Electing the first woman vice president would also break a significant political barrier. To date, 14 vice presidents have gone on to become president, either through succession (following the death or resignation of the president) or election in their own right. Since Geraldine Ferraro’s historic bid for the vice presidency as Democrat Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984, only one other woman has been nominated for vice president—Alaska governor Sarah Palin in 2008. Following Ferraro’s candidacy, public anticipation for the second female running mate remained high. Why did it take another 24 years before another major party nominated a woman for vice president, and why have the Democrats not done so a second time? Perhaps most importantly, despite all the progress made in women gaining elective office during the past three decades, few women have achieved the types of positions that would place them in the pool of potential presidential or even vice-presidential candidates. Thus, the most tangible problem when considering the prospects of electing a woman president is simply that so few women are in the “on-deck circle”—a short list of presidential candidates, put together in part by the news media through speculation as well as the behavior and travel patterns of notable politicians (for example, who is traveling to Iowa and New Hampshire, or speaking at high-profile party events, in the months leading up to the first nomination contests). This on-deck circle exists of roughly thirty to forty individuals in any given presidential election year, and can include governors, prominent US senators, a few members of the House of Representatives, and a handful of recent governors or vice presidents who have remained prominent in the news media.35 These “lists” are now generated prior to the completion of the presidential election at hand as political pundits want to start handicapping future presidential races. This presents an interesting quandary for women seeking the White House; few women have served as state governors or in the other posi-

Electing Madam President

13

tions that would make them viable as potential candidates. In addition, four of the last seven presidents served as a state governor (Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Ronald Reagan of California, Bill Clinton of Arkansas, and George W. Bush of Texas), and two were considered outsiders (Barack Obama, who had only been US senator from Illinois for two years prior to launching his presidential campaign, and Donald Trump, who had no prior political, or even military, experience). Only one recent president (George H. W. Bush) was a political insider, having served as Reagan’s vice president for eight years. Also, while women are often traditionally considered outsiders, the masculinity inherent in the office of the presidency works against them when compared to an excellent campaigner like Obama or a bombastic CEO and reality television star like Trump. That is not to say, however, that a woman candidate with as little political experience as Obama or no political experience as Trump could not similarly benefit from the uniqueness of the political environment and succeed as Obama and Trump did in 2008 and 2016, respectively. Much can be determined by the uniqueness of the political environment, as witnessed in 2016 regarding a strong antiestablishment mood among the electorate as well as a high level of fear and/or resentment over the shifting political order, likely inspired by eight years of a black president who threatened the traditional social order. The fact remains, however, that women candidates do not often find their way into the quadrennial group of potential presidential candidates. No woman has ever served as vice president, and in Congress, no woman had ever held a top leadership position until Nancy Pelosi became the House Democratic Minority Leader in 2003; the final leadership barrier was broken in the House of Representatives when Pelosi became Speaker of the House in January 2007 and returned to the position in January 2019. However, as of 2019, she remains the only woman to hold a top congressional leadership position. Given the recent preference among American voters for executive leadership experience at the state level, women have been especially disadvantaged. As of 2019, only 44 women have ever served as governor (and three succeeded their husbands in the job), and while being governor of a large state is one of the most likely stepping stones to being considered a viable candidate for the White House, only one of the six largest electoral states (California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) has ever elected a woman as governor (Democrat Ann Richards served one term as Texas governor, elected in 1990; Miriam Amanda “Ma” Ferguson, a

14

Lori Cox Han

Democrat, served as governor from 1925–1927 and 1933–1935, replacing her husband, who was impeached).36 While serving as a state governor is certainly not the only path to the White House, the dearth of women who have executive experience— either in politics or business—leaves fewer women on the presidential short list. In addition, while the women currently serving in the US Senate enjoy high profiles in American politics, the Senate is traditionally not the place to look for a presidential candidate. Obama became the first president elected directly from the Senate since John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960, and only the third in US history (the other being Warren Harding, elected in 1920). The lack of women leaders in Congress also tends to keep women off the presidential short list. In addition, recent research has shown that the candidate emergence phase of a campaign— moving from a potential to an actual candidate—represents one of the biggest hurdles for women to overcome, particularly in seeking the presidency. A gender gap seems to exist in political ambition, which is attributed to the fact that women are significantly less likely than men to receive encouragement (either from a current or former politician or from a financial supporter) to run for office or to deem themselves qualified to run for office.37 Plan of the Book As it has been for some time, electing a woman president remains both a timely and important topic. In this volume, we bring a scholarly perspective, based on our training as political scientists, to this much talked about and critical question. Even though more scholarship has emerged in recent years on this topic, much of the popular commentary about electing a woman president still lacks substantive analysis beyond public opinion polls or cable news talking points. However, the “post– Hillary Clinton era” offers the perfect opportunity to reassess what we know about women as presidential candidates and to analyze the potential success for women running for the White House in the next two presidential election cycles. This is particularly relevant for the Democratic Party in 2020 with several women seeking the nomination, which is creating a watershed moment for women in politics. An important question that has already emerged is whether women candidates can build on the momentum of Clinton’s historic campaign in 2016, or does her loss suggest that major barriers for women candidates have yet to be

Electing Madam President

15

broken? In other words, did Clinton lose because of her gender, because she was Hillary Clinton running against Donald Trump, or both?38 In addition, how does the uniqueness of the presidential election process, as well as the office of the presidency itself, contribute to the challenges that women candidates may face? To address these issues, the chapters that follow provide a scholarly assessment of the political environment in 2020 and beyond and how those factors will either benefit or inhibit women presidential candidates. The first section of the book considers the context of gender on the campaign trail by looking at key institutional factors, including political parties, campaign finance, and the news media. Presidential selection is a “complex and chaotic process” that has a “dramatic effect not only on the election outcome but also on setting the stage for the president’s future governing prospects.”39 As such, how gender may or may not contribute to that process is essential in assessing a woman candidate’s viability. In Chapter 2, Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley analyze the demographic characteristics of the women in the 103rd and 116th congresses, comparing levels of education, prior work and political experience, and age. These characteristics help explain the role of political parties in building a pipeline for women in politics. In Chapter 3, Victoria Farrar-Myers assesses the state of fundraising for women candidates seeking the presidency based on recent fundraising data from women congressional candidates. Both chapters show the importance of congressional elections in creating a pathway for women presidential candidates by assessing the similarities and differences of the electoral process at each level. In Chapter 4, Meredith Conroy reviews gender conflict framing in both rhetoric and media coverage during presidential campaigns, which pits candidates’ gender differences against one another. This means that while feminine traits like willingness to compromise and compassion are positive qualities, when media coverage disparages femininity in politics, women candidates can be at a disadvantage. The next two chapters move beyond institutional aspects of the electoral process to explore the social aspects of gender and how that impacts women politicians seeking the presidency. Various factors, including media trends (both legacy and social media), public policy discussions, and popular culture, to name a few, join together to create the political environment that politicians at all levels of government must navigate. Media and popular culture in particular set the stage for the formation of social perceptions and priorities, which reveals much about how Americans value and assess gender within our culture.40

16

Lori Cox Han

In Chapter 5, Caroline Heldman considers how the issues of sexism and sexual violence shaped the 2016 presidential election and analyzes how that might influence the 2020 election, given the prominence of the #MeToo movement and other social justice campaigns based on issues of gender equity. In Chapter 6, Linda Beail and Lilly Goren provide an analysis of the changing portrayals of women political leaders in popular culture and explain how voters often access and integrate storytelling narratives within popular entertainment when making choices at the ballot box. The political environment is constructed, in part, through a media-driven reality, and understanding fictionalized portrayals of women as powerful political leaders can help explain the power of political socialization in how voters view women presidential candidates. In the latter chapters, institutional aspects of governing are considered. Once elected, a president faces unique challenges from both the constitutional and institutional features of the office and must contend with various domestic and foreign policy matters, as well as managing the many executive branch agencies and the federal bureaucracy. No other job, either within politics, the business world, or the military, can prepare a president for the day-to-day responsibilities of serving as the chief executive and commander in chief. Chapter 7 provides a unique bridge from the previous chapters on social expectations about gender to help explain the importance of the first spouse as a political actor, albeit unofficial, within the White House. Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell analyze the evolving view of presidential candidate spouses and consider the public’s expectations and possible reactions to the spouses of future women candidates as well as the possibility of having a first gentleman or first partner as opposed to a first lady. In Chapter 8, Karen Hult addresses the status of women as executive branch leaders at all levels of government, and how that shapes the potential pool of presidential candidates in both positive and negative ways. Despite the perceived importance of executive leadership experience, however, the six women competing in the Democratic primaries in the early months of 2019 had little to no executive political experience (five are members of Congress and one is an author). In Chapter 9, Meena Bose examines the challenges and opportunities for women presidential candidates in the twenty-first century, focusing in particular on the demands created in the post-9/11 era for protecting US national security and combating terrorism. She offers case studies of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Carly Fiorina regarding this issue and how it affected their national campaigns.

Electing Madam President

17

Finally, Chapter 10 provides a brief assessment of the current political environment as it is unfolding during these early months of the 2020 presidential campaign, and what that means for the possibility of electing a woman president in this, or the next, presidential campaign cycle. Notes 1. “Women in Elective Office 2019,” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-elective-office-2019. 2. William Cummings, “Hillary Clinton Says She Doesn’t Want to Run Again, But Would Still ‘Like to Be President,’” USA Today, October 29, 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/29/hillary -clinton-recode-interview/1807270002. 3. James Hohmann, “The Daily 202: Following in Bush 41’s Footsteps? Five Takeaways from Nikki Haley’s Departure as U.S. Ambassador,” Washington Post, October 10, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost /paloma/daily-202/2018/10/10/daily-202-following-in-bush-41-s-footsteps-five -takeaways-from-nikki-haley-s-departure-as-u-n-ambassador/5bbcedbe1b326b7 c8a8d18e0/?utm_term=.bf126642083f. 4. Greg Price, “Nikki Haley to Replace Mike Pence? Donald Trump Never Forgave Vice President for Criticizing ‘Access Hollywood’ Tape, Report Says,” Newsweek, November 16, 2018, https://www.newsweek.com/nikki-haley-replace -mike-pence-donald-trump-never-forgave-vice-president-1219909. 5. Han, “Is the United States Really Ready for a Woman President?” in Rethinking Madam President, 9–11. 6. “Women in National Parliaments,” Inter-Parliamentary Union, November 1, 2018, http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm. 7. Seven faithless electors voted for other candidates—two in Texas who did not vote for Trump, and four in Washington and one in Hawaii that did not vote for Clinton. 8. Han and Heldman, Women, Power, and Politics, 160–161. 9. Charlotte Hays, “Advice Given to Hillary: De-Emphasize the ‘First’ Talk,” Independent Women’s Forum, May 24, 2016, available at http://iwf.org /blog/2800304/Advice-Given-to-Hillary:-De-emphasize-the-%22First%22-Talk. 10. Han, “Donald J. Trump,” in Hatred of America’s Presidents, 374. 11. Amy Chozick, “Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers ‘Deplorables,’ and G.O.P. Pounces,” September 10, 2016, New York Times, https://www.nytimes .com/2016/09/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables.html. 12. Han, In It to Win, 185. 13. Brooks, He Runs, She Runs, 130–131, 169. 14. Allen and Parnes, Shattered, 3. 15. Clinton, What Happened, xii. 16. For a discussion of these issues, see Han and Heldman, eds., Rethinking Madam President.

18

Lori Cox Han

17. Han, In It to Win, 183. 18. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, remains the only non-Protestant to hold the office of the presidency, and Joseph Lieberman remains the only Jewish candidate nominated for president or vice president after his nomination as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. 19. Wayne, The Road to the White House 2012, 200–201. 20. See Kellerman and Rhode, eds., Women & Leadership, 7. See also Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind. 21. Wilson, Closing the Leadership Gap, 36. 22. See Heith, “The Lipstick Watch,” 123–130, and Woodall and Fridkin, “Shaping Women’s Chances,” 69–86. 23. Duerst-Lahti, “Presidential Elections: Gendered Space and the Case of 2012,” 16–48. 24. Bystrom, “Advertising, Websites, and Media Coverage,” 262. 25. Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House, 3–6. 26. Han, “Is the United States Really Ready for a Woman President?” 5. 27. Lawless, “Women, War, and Winning Elections,” 479–490. 28. Streb et al., “Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President,” 76–89. This study found that roughly 26 percent of polling respondents are “angry or upset” about the prospect of electing a woman president, with this level of dissatisfaction constant across various demographic groups. 29. See Kenski and Falk, “Of What Is This Glass Ceiling Made?” 57–80. 30. Andrew Mercer, Claudie Deane, and Kyley McGeeney, “Why 2016 Election Polls Missed Their Mark,” Pew Research Center, November 9, 2016, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls -missed-their-mark. 31. “Hillary Clinton Favorability Timeline,” Pew Research Center, May 19, 2015, http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline. 32. Goren, “Fact or Fiction,” 103. 33. Sheeler and Anderson, Woman President, 86. 34. See Wilson, Closing the Leadership Gap. 35. Cronin and Genovese, The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, 31. 36. “History of Women Governors,” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, 2019, http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/history-women-governors. 37. See Fox and Lawless, “Entering the Arena?” 264–280. 38. Lisa Lerer and Susan Chira, “‘There’s a Real Tension.’ Democrats Puzzle Over Whether a Woman Will Beat Trump,” New York Times, January 5, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/us/politics/women-candidates-president -2020.html. 39. Han and Heith, Presidents and the American Presidency, 67. 40. Han and Heldman, Women, Power, and Politics, 63.

2 Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018 Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

THOUGH HILLARY CLINTON LOST HER 2016 BID TO BECOME the first female president of the United States, the 2018 midterm elections further propelled women toward breaking glass ceilings in politics. An unprecedented number of women ran for office, and a record number of them won. Their successes represent a constellation of political firsts for women in the United States. For instance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who catapulted into the political spotlight after defeating veteran Democrat Joe Crowley in the primaries, is the youngest woman ever to serve in the House of Representatives. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) are the first Muslim-American women to serve in the House. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) are the first female senators from Tennessee and Arizona, respectively. In total, 102 women now serve in the House of Representatives and another 25 serve in the Senate—the most in the history of the country. Women also made gains in state and local legislatures, such as in Nevada where women will occupy just more than half of the state legislative chamber. While these results do not guarantee the election of a woman president, the overall trends currently emerging do suggest continued progress in how women are navigating electoral politics. Despite these historic electoral gains, women continue to lag behind men in representation at all levels of government in the United States and in many democracies around the world. Given evidence that women in office advance legislative goals preferred by women in the electorate,1 women’s underrepresentation in the legislature results in a

19

20

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

body that is descriptively and substantively inferior to one with more representational parity. Political parties play a key role in recruiting, supporting, and electing candidates. Furthermore, evidence suggests that while female legislators may be more likely to focus on women’s issues, they do so in the context of their partisan identity.2 Thus, one way to examine the lack of female representation is through the lens of parties themselves. We look closely at the demographic characteristics of the women in the 103rd and 116th congresses, analyzing levels of education, prior work and political experience, and age. These characteristics tell us something about the role of party in building a pipeline for women in politics. This chapter proceeds by looking in a comparative perspective at attempts to narrow the gender gap. We then discuss barriers to female representation in the United States and ways in which political parties could increase the supply of female candidates in US elections. Next, we compare how political parties recruited and supported female candidates in 1992, often called the “Year of the Woman,” and in the 2018 midterm elections, aptly dubbed the “Women’s Wave,” when a record number of female candidates won political office at all levels. Then, we offer a descriptive analysis of the women in the 103rd and 116th congresses, with an eye toward party differences. We conclude with a discussion of our results and potential directions for future research. Representational Parity Around the World The lack of female representation is not a uniquely American problem. Indeed, only 38 percent of countries have had a female executive. However, the United States lags behind many countries in terms of female representation in the national legislature. As of 2018, the United States ranked 104th out of 190 countries in the percentage of the legislature held by women. Since the 1990s, some countries have implemented gender quotas to ensure female representation. About half the countries in the world use legal or voluntary gender quotas in an effort to reach 30 percent female representation—the crucial minority threshold required for women to assert meaningful influence on legislative proceedings. 3 The Nordic countries, widely known for their commitment to gender and sex equality, have reached almost 50 percent female representation. However, all other regions in the world remain below the crucial minority threshold.

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

21

Quotas do more than simply increase the number of women elected to office. An organic increase in female representation might lead to a disproportionate number of women in progressive parties. Instead, quotas demand female members from all parties across the ideology spectrum.4 Moreover, research shows that quotas can make politics more accepting toward women in parliaments5 and in the general public.6 Women elected through quota systems can also feel mandated to promote women’s issues in the legislature.7 Therefore, quotas have the effect of not only increasing the number of women in office, but also advancing how women are represented and how this representation is perceived. Barriers to Female Representation in the United States The comparatively weak party structure, a candidate-centered electoral process, and societal norms make a quota system untenable in the United States. Consequently, the recruitment of female candidates remains a largely decentralized effort. Despite this decentralization, women have made incremental progress in representation, though they still make up a minority of elected officials in the United States. Women of color face additional obstacles, and their underrepresentation at the local, state, and federal level is greater, though they are also making representational gains, especially in the past 30 years. As many scholars have shown, women are able to fundraise and win as often as male candidates.8 However, women often perceive their ability to fundraise and win as inferior to men’s.9 Consequently, the success of female candidates is often, at least in part, traced back to a lack of political ambition or willingness to run for office in the first place10 and importantly, for our purposes, the ability of the party apparatus to encourage and support women’s candidacies. Within the framework of political ambition, scholars have examined candidate emergence through nascent ambition—the decision to ever run for office11—as well as expressive ambition—the decision to enter a specific race. Reasons that make women less likely to run include a lack of confidence, men’s inflated confidence, fewer attempts by parties to recruit women, and family obligations, among others.12 Female candidates also receive less encouragement to run for office, which research shows is essential to convincing women to run.13 It has been noted that the ambition framework works differently for female candidates than it does for their male counterparts. This line of

22

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

research finds that women emerge from different professions than male candidates, are less likely to be “self-promoting,” and are more likely to get encouragement to run from friends and family members.14 Recruitment by a political party to run remains especially important for female candidates.15 However, in the face of a decentralized party system and the absence of gender quotas, organizations including political action committees (PACs) and nonprofits like Emily’s List and Susan B. Anthony’s List have assumed key roles in recruiting women to run for office.16 In addition, institutional factors also play a role in discouraging women from running for office and curtail their expressive ambition. Collectively, women face a more limited political opportunity structure. In particular, incumbency advantage coupled with few open seats, increasing careerism, and redistricting make it more difficult for women candidates to break into the political arena and make winnable races harder to find. Increasing the Supply of and Demand for Women Candidates Women’s reluctance to run for office is both a supply and a demand problem. Given this multidimensionality, there are two possible solutions: more women come forward to run or gender quotas are adopted to force parties to recruit more women.17 In the absence of the latter, the onus for increasing women’s participation falls to political parties and women themselves. Historically, parties have failed to woo women as effectively or as intensively as similarly situated men.18 Beginning in 2008, scholars find evidence of women’s groups working to fill this recruitment gap, especially for the Democratic Party.19 An important and often overlooked aspect in recruiting female candidates is convincing women that running is worthwhile.20 A majority of women decide to run because they are encouraged by someone else to do so and seem to need this encouragement to counterbalance discouragement they receive.21 Another consideration in getting women to run for office is to think about how women perceive the job of being a politician. Research shows that women view politics as a career choice that seeks conflict and ambition, which women tend to view more negatively than men. Monica Schneider, Miyra Holman, Amanda Diekman, and Thomas McAndrew find that by framing politics as fulfilling communal goals, the ambition of female candidates increases.22

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

23

The research on the effect of greater party control over the recruitment process shows mixed results. Some gender scholars show that stronger parties lead to more recruitment of women candidates, while others find that inherent biases of party leaders can lead to fewer women representatives.23 The traditional lack of women in leadership roles also has a depressing effect on female candidates.24 However, especially in the Democratic Party, women are increasingly being given leadership opportunities in both the party and in the fundraising apparatus. Political parties have an important role in selecting candidates and, by extension, an important role in enabling more women candidates in the United States. Parties can choose who they support and provide resources as well. This kind of support can be more important for female candidates who tend to have fewer resources than their male counterparts.25 Moreover, political parties help recruit candidates and help these candidates navigate the electoral process.26 Though the process of becoming a candidate is often viewed as a self-starting process, parties provide important cues. Parties use recruitment networks to identify and encourage potential candidates to run. These networks often disadvantage women since existing networks tend to be male-dominated. Another line of research suggests that sexism is more salient as women move up the political ladder. The existence of a “Hillary effect” was studied after the 2008 primary, in which voters acknowledged less willingness to vote for a female president.27 Another study confirmed this finding with women having a harder time securing executive positions in government due to an assumed lack of masculine traits.28 Patterns of Women’s Representation in the House of Representatives Women’s representation in the House of Representatives increased significantly during the second half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. As Paul Herrnson, Celeste Lay, and Atiya Stokes noted, women held 10 seats in the House in 1951, but by the turn of the century that number climbed to 59.29 Now, 102 women entered the 116th session of Congress at the start of 2019. Two recent time points stand out for the collective representational gains made by women. First, the 1992 election that filled the rosters of the 103rd Congress increased women’s representation in the House by more than 50 percent as women went from holding 30 seats in the 102nd congressional session to occupying 46 seats at the

24

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

start of the 103rd session. On top of these overall gains, 24 new women entered Congress that year. The second point of interest is the upcoming 116th session, where 102 women will serve. This session marks a nineseat gain for women overall, the highest total gain since 1992. Furthermore, 35 women will enter as part of the freshman class. In the rest of the chapter, we analyze and compare these years of record representational gains. Specifically, we explore the demographic changes in the women serving in the House during these two sessions. In so doing, we aim to understand the role of parties in nominating and promoting female candidates in both 1992 and 2018. 1992: The Year of the Woman Hopes for a breakthrough in female candidates date back to the 1970s, but real gains were not realized until 1992. Circumstances conspired to provide both supply- and demand-side pressures for women candidates during the “year of the woman.” First, the economic recession encouraged disenchantment with Washington and spurred hope for change, creating a political opportunity for many women. In particular, voters’ frustration with Republicans—who held the White House at the time— over the economy, benefited female candidates, many of whom were Democrats. Second, the end of the Cold War allowed domestic concerns to take center stage and led to a record number of female candidates in 1992. Female candidates focused on policy issues including health care, infrastructure, and education, owning “feminine issues” in pathbreaking campaigns.30 These advantages, coupled with an unprecedented number of retirements and primary losses, decreased the number of incumbents and, with it, men’s incumbency advantage. In total, 11 women ran for seats in the Senate and 106 ran for seats in the House. Representation of women of color also increased substantially in 1992. In the backdrop to the 1992 races, Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation hearings provided a compelling spectacle on national television. Women across the country watched an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee grill Professor Anita Hill as she testified how Thomas sexually harassed her at work. A historical number of women (five) were elected to the Senate the following year, and many of these women, including Patty Murray (D-WA), credited watching Hill’s testimony as an impetus to run.31 Women’s organizations with the sole purposes of recruiting, supporting, and electing women were also active in 1992, supplementing

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

25

some of the traditional roles of political parties. These groups, including Emily’s List and Susan B. Anthony’s List, have grown and become even more influential over the past 20 years, providing resources beyond the party apparatus. 2018: The Women’s Wave More women candidates ran and won in the 2018 midterm elections than in any election in the history of the country. Women ran for (and often won) seats in Congress, in state legislatures, and as governors. What motivated these candidates? Women’s activism spiked early in 2017, the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, with “The Women’s March.” However, an analysis of data from Run for Something—a progressive organization supporting young down-ballot candidates—showed the Trump administration and its policies were not significant motivators for encouraging women to run for office. Instead, potential female candidates discussed representation as an important reason for running.32 It remains plausible that Trump’s election and the stated policies of his administration made the idea of being represented more salient for many women in the United States. Moreover, other recent research showed “high profile women exert substantively large positive effects on female candidates.”33 This finding suggests that Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential candidacy would have encouraged more women to run for office in 2018. In the 2018 primary and general elections, 53 women ran for the US Senate and there were 476 female candidates for the House of Representatives. Additionally, 3,389 women ran for seats in state legislatures, 61 women ran for governorships, 66 ran for lieutenant governorships, and another 122 ran for other statewide offices. The 116th Congress, which began in January 2019, includes 25 female Senators (17 Democrats, 8 Republicans) and 102 women in the House (89 Democrats, 13 Republicans). Moreover, many important advances in representation were made by women of color (at least 40 of whom were elected to the 116th Congress), and ethnic and religious minorities. In addition, 9 women serve as governors. Women make up 27 percent of state legislatures.34 This increase in down-ballot representation is particularly important given that state legislatures have served as training grounds for candidates eyeing federal office. Both parties have also invested more heavily in recruitment efforts, though these efforts have been much more successful for Democratics

26

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

than for Republicans. With more women sitting in Congress than ever before, the next election cycle will bring more female incumbents, more women eligible for leadership positions, and more mentors for women looking to enter politics. Research suggests that this should make it more likely that women will continue to want to run for office and also more likely that the Democratic Party will seek out female candidates. Additionally, political organizations geared toward supporting women have taken their place in the electoral process. Emily’s List spent $14 million in the primaries and $23 million in general elections to support pro-choice female candidates.35 Other groups like She Should Run and Ready to Run provided training and support to women interested in running for office. Because women feel less confident in their abilities, organizations like these provide an important service in helping female candidates feel prepared for office. And the success of women at the ballot box in 2018 likely means these organizational frameworks are here to stay. Finally, the political environment, including the prominence of the #MeToo movement and the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018—though they took place too late to spur an increase in female candidates in the midterms—may have increased turnout among women and support for female candidates in the electorate. However, the direct effects of events like these are hard to measure. More Democratic Women, Fewer Republican Women Beyond the overall lack of women representatives, the lack of representational parity has become more acute in the Republican Party. Alarmingly, this issue was exacerbated in 2018: while Democratic women made historic gains, the number of Republican women in Congress decreased to the lowest level since 1994 (in 2019, there were 106 Democrats and 21 Republicans).36 This partisan gap between female candidates has not always existed. Throughout the 1980s, women made up roughly 10 percent of candidates in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Female Democratic candidates only first significantly outnumbered their Republican counterparts in 1992. The disparity has only grown since then. Research shows that from 1992 to 2018, 68 percent of all female candidates were Democrats. The 2018 election cycle had the largest

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

27

numerical difference between female Democratic and Republican candidates in US history. The differences in representational parity are driven by several factors. First, Republican geographic strength is located in the South where ideas about traditional gender roles tend to be the strongest.37 The public’s perception of conservative women candidates as more moderate hurts their chances in conservative, southern districts and makes winning primary elections more challenging for them.38 Additionally, though gender stereotypes are pervasive across party lines, Republican women are perceived less favorably inside their own party than Democratic women.39 Republican women also appear the most sex-typical to viewers, which may lead voters to ascribe more traditional feminine traits to them and see them as less capable in issue areas typically important to Republican voters, including security and immigration.40 These factors combine to make it more difficult for women to win elections in the most conservative part of the country, the South, where the Republican Party is the strongest. Second, Republican leadership includes fewer women, making it harder to recruit and support female candidates through the party apparatus. As mentioned earlier, support from the party is critical in convincing women to declare their candidacy in the first place. Republican women are also less likely to respond to recruitment efforts than men. Interestingly, this same disparity does not exist between Democratic men and women. In addition, Republican leaders are less willing to support and endorse women candidates, therefore lowering their chances of being elected and slowing growth in women’s representation in the Republican Party.41 Third, the increase in political polarization over the past thirty years has also potentially made it more difficult for Republicans and easier for Democrats to recruit female candidates. Research has suggested that as the Republican Party grows more conservative, they become less inclusive of working-class women. The debate over this gender role has stagnated women’s representation in the most conservative state legislatures, limiting the pool of competitive future candidates.42 Moreover, as education and income further structure party sorting, there are fewer well-educated and wealthy women—those most likely to become candidates—in the Republican Party. Fourth and finally, the Democrats have an additional advantage because of the role of women’s representation policy demanders (WRPDs) or organizations whose main goal is to increase the number of

28

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

female candidates for elected office. These groups are “substantially more integrated into the Democratic Party than the Republican Party coalition.” This integration has led to the development of distinct party cultures, which now affect the “willingness of all members of each party’s coalition to support demands for greater representation in political office.” This party culture encourages more support from donors, party recruiters, and other elites for female candidates in the Democratic Party.43 Data and Methods In order to understand the role of political parties in recruiting and electing female candidates, we compare women serving in the House of Representatives during the 103rd and 116th congresses. We chose these years because they represent milestones in women’s representational gains in the United States. Furthermore, we limit our analysis to the House of Representatives because the relationship between Senate experience and many of our demographic considerations (e.g., age) renders a unified analysis inappropriate, and space in this forum prohibits distinct analyses. In our exploration of women in the House of Representatives, we compare the experiences of four groups: freshmen in the 103rd Congress, all women in the 103rd Congress, freshmen in the 116th Congress, and all women in the 116th Congress. Table 2.1 offers a glimpse of the total number of women in each group. Our approach to this study draws on growing bodies of literature in descriptive representation and legislative behavior that examine the Table 2.1 Breakdown of Women in Congress by Party 103rd Congress —Freshman Women 103rd Congress —All Women 116th Congress —Freshman Women 116th Congress —All Women

Democrats 21 (87.5%) 35 (74.5%) 34 (97.2%) 89 (87.25%)

Republicans 3 (12.5%) 12 (25.4%) 1 (2.8%) 13 (12.75%)

Total 24

47

35

102

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

29

effects of legislators’ personal characteristics and experiences. We used the Congressional Biographical Directory to gather information about women serving in the 103rd and 116th congresses. The clear advantage of the directory is that it is “published by the US Congress and provides reliable, objective information” about representatives’ past experiences.44 One disadvantage of this resource is the absence of the nonincumbent women elected in 2018. FiveThirtyEight.com provided the list of women elected to the 116th Congress. For these representatives-elect, we collected biographical information using campaign websites and newspaper sources. From these sources, we gathered information on the birth year, home state, political party, first year in Congress, highest degree earned, first career, first political experience, and history of state legislative service for women in both the 103rd and 116th sessions of Congress. Table 2.2 provides a description of the operationalization of each of the demographic and experience variables we employ. While the operationalization of our dichotomous political experience variables and age is straightforward, there are a few points worth noting about the other variables. First, our categorical variable for education assesses whether women have no postsecondary education (0), an associate’s degree (AA) (1), a bachelor’s degree (BA/BS) (2), a master’s degree (MA/MS), including specialized master’s degrees like master of business administration (MBA), master of urban planning (MUP), or educational specialist Table 2.2 Operationalization of Variables Variable

Education Work experience

Political experience

Age

Operationalization

The highest degree earned by the representative The first job a representative had upon completion of their education The first political experience the representative had A dichotomous variable indicating whether a representative’s first experience was elected A dichotomous variable indicating previous service in a state legislature The age a representative turns in the first year of the congressional session (1993 or 2019)

30

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

(EdS) degrees (3), a professional degree beyond the master’s level, such as a juris doctorate (JD) or physician’s assistant (PA) degree (4), or a doctor of philosophy (PhD) or doctor of medicine (MD) (5). Our work experience variable is a nominal description of each member’s first job after completing their education. When collecting information from the Congressional Biographical Directory, we collected the first experience listed. When collecting from alternate sources, we relied on chronology to choose women’s first experiences. For the purposes of our analysis, we then condensed a number of similarly situated positions into broad categories. For instance, jobs in print journalism, television reporting, and radio were grouped in a “media” category. Similarly, the range of campaign and legislative staff positions held by female members of Congress were categorized as “legislative staff.” Additionally, we combined many nongovernmental jobs including flight attendant, nurse, pediatrician, bartender, counselor, and stockbroker into one category. Finally, we also combined some government jobs including prosecutors, a state vote director, a county elections commission chair, and a deputy attorney. Our identification and categorization of first political experiences relied on similar approaches as those described above. Scholars note the increased success of female candidates tracks their expanding roles in society.45 Indeed, the rise in women entering fields traditionally feeding the candidate pipeline (e.g., law or state and local government) helps explain growths in representation, as the trail from law school to state legislatures to Capitol Hill has been well traveled by men. Yet, research also notes women often take different career and life paths than men, holding different jobs and taking time to focus on raising families. As such, increasing the number of women in Congress may well require expanding the number of roads to get there.

Results As Table 2.1 shows, 1992 was a particularly significant year for female representatives in the House. Almost half (24) of the women serving in the 103rd Congress were elected in 1992. Though the 116th Congress contains over 100 women, only a third (35) were freshman members in 2019. In all four cases, Democratic women outnumber Republican women. This disparity is starkest among the freshman women of the 116th Congress.

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

Education

31

In examining the level of education among all the women in both congresses, we find two expected trends. First, women in both congresses are, on average, highly educated. Most women serving in the 103rd Congress had at least a bachelor’s degree. Second, in keeping with wider societal education patterns, the women serving in the 116th Congress have higher levels of education than those who served in the 103rd Congress. The average woman entering Congress in 2019 holds at least a master’s degree (see Figure 2.1). These findings mirror patterns of education found in the entirety of the 115th Congress, where 60 percent of House members (men and women) and 75 percent of Senators held a degree beyond a bachelor’s.46 As Figure 2.1 makes clear, we also isolated the freshman women entering the 103rd and 116th sessions of Congress. A look at these women shows 2019 freshmen have significantly higher levels of education than female representatives who first served in 1993. This number included the 14 women (41 percent of the 2019 female freshmen) with JDs elected in 2018, as opposed to the 4 (about 17 percent of the 1993 freshman women) who won in 1992. Moreover, while a plurality of freshman women in 1993 had a bachelor’s degree, by 2019 the JD was the most commonly held degree. In a final analysis of female representatives’ education, we examined the party differences in the four aforementioned groups of women (103rd—Freshmen, 103rd—All, 116th—Freshmen, 116th—All). As seen in Figure 2.2, education patterns for both parties largely track the overall education patterns identified in Figure 2.1. In particular, Democratic and Republican women serving in Congress in 2019 are more educated than their 1993 peers. Arguably, the most drastic difference in the parties’ educational patterns comes in the form of asymmetrical educational diversity favoring Democratic women. Among the Democratic women serving in the 116th Congress, four (~5 percent) do not have at least a bachelor’s degree. By comparison, all of the Republican women serving have at least a bachelor’s degree. It is worth noting that some of this diversity is driven by the sheer difference in the numbers of Democratic (89) and Republican (13) women serving. The only woman elected to Congress in 2019 without a bachelor’s degree was Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), the first African-American to represent Massachusetts in the House.47 Though Pressley attended Boston

32

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

Figure 2.1 Female Representatives' Level of Education, 103rd and 116th Congress 100

75

Number of Women

No Degree AA

BA/BS

50

MA/MS JD/PA

MD/PhD

25

0

10

re −F 3rd

n me sh

10

3rd

ll −A

11

re −F 6th

n me sh

11

6th

ll −A

University, she left school to work following her mother’s job loss and never returned.48 What Pressley lacks in education, however, she makes up for in experience. She worked for both Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-MA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) before being elected to the Boston City Council. Pressley defeated incumbent Mike Capuano in the Democratic primary and ran unopposed for her House seat during the general election. Work Experience

Perhaps as expected given the number of women with JDs, a significant number of female representatives worked as attorneys before entering

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

33

Figure 2.2 Female Representatives' Level of Education by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress D

R

75

Number of Women

No Degree

50

AA

BA/BS

MA/MS JD/PA

MD/PhD

25

0

10

re −F 3rd

n me sh

10

3rd

ll −A

11

re −F 6th

n me sh

11

6th

ll −A

10

re −F 3rd

n me sh

10

3rd

ll −A

11

re −F 6th

n me sh

11

6th

ll −A

Congress in both 1993 and 2019. Although there were no female military veterans elected in 1992, there were three successful veteran candidates in 2018.49 Interestingly, these veterans were all Democrats. The timing of military service of these candidates varied. Rebecca M. Sherrill (D-NJ) served in the Navy from 1994 to 2003 as a helicopter pilot. Subsequently, Sherrill went to law school, worked at a private law firm, and then served as an assistant district attorney. Christine Houlihan (D-PA) served in the Air Force active duty for three years after college. Houlihan then worked in private industry before entering politics.50 The third female veteran in the freshman class was Elaine Luria (D-VA). Luria attended the Naval Academy and spent twenty years as a naval engineer before retiring as a commander in 2017.51

34

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

The balloon chart in Figure 2.3 catalogs the first work experience of women serving in Congress in 1993 and 2019. The size of the balloons corresponds to the number of women serving in each position. Over the past twenty-five years, women in Congress have come from increasingly diverse professional backgrounds. In addition to the careers listed, women entering Congress in 2019 also held jobs as community activists, farmers, financial analysts, accountants, bartenders, and counselors. Women’s careers before entering politics continue to diversify. However, this career diversity is much more pronounced among Democratic women than it is among Republican women in the House (see Figure 2.4). Of course, part of this difference can be attributed to the far greater number of female Democrats. Figure 2.3 Female Representatives' First Jobs, 103rd and 116th Congress

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

35

Political Experience

Figure 2.5 shows female members’ first political experiences, while Figure 2.6 breaks this information down by party. Legislative staff experience was an important factor for Democratic women in both 1992 and 2018, but much less so for Republican women. Similarly, many Democratic women served as executive staff, either for governors or in the White House before entering Congress. The state legislature and city council remain important training grounds for future members of Congress, though there were far fewer women with this experience among the 2019 Democratic freshman class. Among the freshman class of 1993, 12 (57.1 percent) Democratic

Figure 2.4 Female Representatives' First Jobs by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress

36

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

Figure 2.5 Female Representatives' First Political Experience, 103rd and 116th Congress

women served in the state legislature. In contrast, in the freshman class of 2019, only 6 (17.6 percent) Democratic women previously served in the state legislature. Many of these women ran for the House of Representatives without prior political experience. As a whole, 48.6 percent (17) of women serving in the 103rd Congress were part of a state legislature before entering. In the 116th Congress, 40.4 percent (36) of the Democratic women had experience in state legislatures. None of the three freshman Republican women in 1992 had been in state legislatures, and the lone freshman woman in 2019 was a former state legislator. Four of the Republican women in Congress in 1992 had state legislative experience, and seven of the

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

37

Figure 2.6 Female Representatives' First Political Experience by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress

Republican women in the 116th Congress have previously served in the state legislature. Age

The median age of Democratic women entering Congress as freshmen in 1993 and 2019 is lower than that of Republican women. Most starkly, the median age for the Republican freshmen women in 2019 was 69, while for Democratic women it was 46.5, including two of the youngest women (29 years old) to ever serve in Congress. The average age of all members of Congress for the last four incoming classes was 50.8 (115th), 52.3

38

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

(114th), 49.2 (113th), and 48.2 (112th).52 However, in the 116th Congress the average age of the Republican women is actually younger than that of the Democratic women. It should be noted that there are far fewer Republican women than Democratic women in the 116th Congress. Moreover, the age of members of Congress has been increasing overall since the 1980s.53 See Figures 2.7 and 2.8. The two youngest members of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Abby Finkenauer (D-IA), represent a new generation of Democratic women in Congress. Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist, won the Democratic primary in June 2018. When OcasioCortez took the oath of office in January 2019, she was 29 years old. After graduating from college in 2007, Ocasio-Cortez worked as a bartender, a Figure 2.7 Female Representatives' Age During Session Year 1, 103rd and 116th Congress

80

70

60

Age

59

50

53

48

47

40

30

10

−F 3rd

hm

res

en

ll −A

3rd 10

11

−F 6th

en hm res

11

6 th

ll −A

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

39

waitress, and an educator and volunteered on Bernie Sanders’s campaign.54 Finkenauer was a congressional page while in high school. After graduating from college, she volunteered for Joe Biden’s 2008 presidential campaign and was a legislative aide and communications coordinator.55 She is one of two freshman women from Iowa. On the other end of the age spectrum is Donna Shalala (D-FL). Born in 1941, Shalala has a wealth of political experience. Early in her career, Shalala worked as an academic and chancellor of the University of Wisconsin before becoming secretary of health and human services under President Bill Clinton. The lone Republican freshman woman, Carol Devine Miller, was born in 1950 and served in the West Virginia state legislature prior to being elected to the House. Figure 2.8 Female Representatives' Age During Session Year 1 by Party, 103rd and 116th Congress D

R

80

●

70

69

60

Age

59

50

58

53

48

57

51

46.5

40

30

10

−F 3rd

hm

res

en

ll −A

3rd 10

11

−F 6th

res

hm

en

ll −A

6th 11

−F 3rd 10

res

hm

en

10

3rd

ll −A

11

6

s Fre th −

en hm

11

6 th

ll −A

40

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

Conclusion In thinking about women’s representation, scholars present a supply- or demand-side problem. Our comparison of female representatives elected in both 1992 and 2018 presents implications for both sides. In 1992, circumstances conspired to provide women with more incentives to run and better chances to be elected. Since then, there have been asymmetrical increases in both supply and demand culminating in a record number of Democratic female representatives, but a decrease in Republican women in Congress. However, we argue that supply-side factors outweighed demand even among Democrats. As much as the Democratic Party has worked to increase women in the pipeline, 2018 represented a significant increase in female candidates coming on the heels Clinton’s failed presidential bid and perceived assaults on policies important to women by the Trump administration. Our analysis shows that the professionalization of political parties has expanded the opportunities for women candidates and created space for women from diverse backgrounds, relative to 1992. At the same time, our analysis shows women’s path to Congress in 2018 looks more like men’s in some ways, including the election of female military veterans and a greater number of women who served as White House advisers. These trends point to a growing pipeline of Democratic women. As has been the trend over the past 20 years, the average age of Congress continued to increase despite Democrats electing the two youngest women ever to serve in Congress. However, the average age of the freshman women entering Congress was younger than the average age of all freshman representatives in the last four congresses.56 The gender gap both electorally and in terms of representation reached historic heights in the 2018 midterm. This preliminary analysis suggests that this trend has the potential to be self-reinforcing. While a historic number of female Democratic candidates ran for and won office at all levels, the Republicans actually sent fewer women to Congress and only have one woman in the freshman class. This finding suggests that while the Democratic Party has successfully built and maintained a pipeline of female candidates, the Republicans have lost ground. In addition, there is reason to believe that this problem will persist given the importance of institutional factors such as having women in leadership positions within the party and the inherent advantages of incumbency. We plan to further investigate a number of our findings and to provide broader context by looking at women in all congresses between the

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

41

103rd and the 116th, including comparing incoming classes. We also plan to compare women representatives and senators to their male counterparts in each of these congresses. Moreover, we plan to investigate whether 1992 and 2018 represent important institutional breakpoints or are culminations of institutional efforts to increase female representation by the party apparatus, at least on the Democratic side of the aisle, that will continue.

Notes 1. See Thomas, How Women Legislate; and Osborn, “Women State Legislators and Representation.” 2. Ibid. 3. McCann, “Electoral Quotas for Women.” 4. Weeks, “Quotas and Party Priorities.” 5. See Burnet, “Women Have Found Respect”; Galligan, Clavero, and Calloni, Gender Politics and Democracy in Post-Socialist Europe; and Xydias, “Women’s Rights in Germany.” 6. Beaman et al., “Powerful Women.” 7. Franceschet and Piscopo, “Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation.” 8. Smith and Fox, “A Research Note.” 9. Sanbonmatsu, “Women’s Pathways to State Legislatures.” 10. Fox and Lawless, “Entering the Arena?” 11. Fox and Lawless, “To Run or Not to Run for Office.” 12. Ibid. 13. Fox and Lawless, “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap.” 14. See Carroll and Sanbonmatsu, More Women Can Run. 15. See Lawless and Fox, It Still Takes a Candidate. 16. Sanbonmatsu, “Women’s Pathways to State Legislatures.” 17. Krook, “Why Are Fewer Women than Men Elected?” 18. See Lawless and Fox, It Still Takes a Candidate. 19. Ibid. 20. Dittmar, “Encouragement Is Not Enough.” 21. Sanbonmatsu, “Women’s Pathways to State Legislatures.” 22. Schneider et al., “Power, Conflict, and Community.” 23. See Sanbonmatsu, Where Women Run. 24. Fox and Lawless, “To Run or Not to Run for Office.” 25. Sanbonmatsu, Where Women Run. 26. See Lawless and Fox, It Still Takes a Candidate. 27. Streb et al., “Social Desirability Effects.” 28. Huddy and Terkildsen, “Gender Stereotypes.” 29. Herrnson, Lay, and Stokes, “Women Running ‘As Women.’” 30. Ibid.

42

Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley

31. Michael S. Rosenwald, “No Women Served on the Judiciary Committee in 1991,” Washington Post, September 18, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com /history/2018/09/18/no-women-served-senate-judiciary-committee-ugly-anita -hill-hearings-changed-that/?utm_term=.f0d080949b4f. 32. Conroy and Green, “Something To Run For.” 33. Ladam, Harden, and Windett, “Prominent Role Models.” 34. “Women in Elective Office 2019,” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-elective-office-2019. 35. Vivian Kane, “Thank You To Every Woman Who Broke a Barrier in 2018,” The Mary Sue, January 1, 2019, https://www.themarysue.com/women-in-2018. 36. Ibid. 37. Burrell, Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. 38. Koch, “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens’ Impressions.” 39. Dolan and Sanbonmatsu, “Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes.” 40. Carpinella and Johnson, “Appearance-Based Politics.” 41. Karpowitz, Monson, and Preece, “How to Elect More Women.” 42. Elder, “The Partisan Gap Among Women State Legislators.” However, other research found the opposite of that conclusion. A study on the “social eligibility pool”—factors affecting the pool of candidates in a specific state— showed that these factors affect Republican women and Democratic women differently, with Democratic women actually being harmed more than Republican women if their party is a majority in the state legislature. In fact, women were less actively recruited in the Democratic Party in more competitive areas. 43. Crowder-Meyer and Cooperman, “Can’t Buy Them Love.” 44. Keena and Knight-Finley, “Governed by Experience.” 45. Herrnson, Lay, and Stokes, “Women Running ‘As Women.’” 46. Manning, “Membership in the 115th Congress.” 47. Abigail Hess, “Meet Ayanna Pressley, Who is on Track to Become Massachusetts’ First Black Congresswoman,” CNBC, November 6, 2018, https:// www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/meet-ayanna-pressley-massachusetts-first-black -congresswoman.html. 48. Michael Levenson and Stephanie Ebbert, “The Life and Rise of Ayanna Pressley,” Boston Globe, September 8, 2018, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro /2018/09/08/the-life-and-rise-ayanna-pressley/pqdppGFPoZPSEwo3Ko23BJ /story.html. 49. Despite the increase in female veterans, the number of veterans in Congress as a whole has been on the decline over the last few decades. See Manning, “Membership in the 115th Congress.” 50. Jeffrey Mervis, “How Pennsylvania Industrial Engineer Became Odds on Favorite to Win Congress Seat,” Science Magazine, May 8, 2018, https://www .sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/how-pennsylvania-industrial-engineer-became -odds-favorite-win-seat-congress. 51. Hilary Brueck and Peter Kotecki, “The U.S. Just Elected 10 New Scientists to the House,” Business Insider, November 7, 2018, https://www.businessinsider .com/2018-midterms-8-new-scientists-elected-to-house-senate-2018-11#elaine -luria-a-nuclear-engineer-won-her-house-seat-in-virginia-becoming-the-first -democrat-since-2008-to-represent-the-2nd-district-5.

Comparing the Years of the Woman, 1992 and 2018

43

52. Manning, “Membership in the 115th Congress.” 53. Ibid. 54. Shane Goldmacher and Jonathan Martin, “Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Defeats Joseph Crowley in Democratic Primary.” New York Times, June 27, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/nyregion/joseph-crowley-ocasio-cortez -democratic-primary.html. 55. Thomas J. Barton, “Iowa House District 99: Age Belies Finkenauer’s Real Political Experience,” Telegraph Herald, October 14, 2014, http://www.telegraphherald .com/news/dubuque/article_e3830134-52bf-5ef0-af7b-0575904c36db.html. 56. Manning, “Membership in the 115th Congress.”

3 Money and Candidate Viability Victoria A. Farrar-Myers

SHE WAS A WOMAN AHEAD OF HER TIME WHO COULD claim to be the “first woman” to achieve several important milestones. Yet her campaign for president faced many obstacles, and her senior adviser harped on the paramount nature of fundraising. As she had so often, she remained flexible and developed an innovative path to finance her campaign. Despite and perhaps because of the groundbreaking nature of her campaign, she was viewed as “the most notorious and polarizing woman of her day.”1 Her critics denounced her and even called for her to be locked up in prison for mail-related atrocities. As a result, she spent election day in jail. As the last sentence above would lead one to conclude, this story is not about Hillary Clinton, but rather about Victoria Woodhull, who in 1872 was the first woman to run for the US presidency. Woodhull led a life full of drama, which is well beyond the scope of this chapter. Not to be lost within Woodhull’s brief but historic presidential run, though, is that when faced with the barrier of financing her campaign, Woodhull drew upon her background as the first woman stockbroker on Wall Street (along with her sister) to try to find her own pathway to financial viability by issuing bonds to raise funds.2 In the context of the issues that are examined in this chapter, Woodhull’s approach to campaign finance, while not successful, highlights the ability of female political candidates to be flexible and to forge their own pathways to elected office. Just as in 1872, fundraising for a presidential campaign in the present is paramount—a critical element to a hopeful’s viability as a candidate.

45

46

Victoria A. Farrar-Myers

Yet, as we stand nearly 150 years after Woodhull’s candidacy and almost 100 years since the first presidential election in which women were allowed to vote, one fact has not changed: the United States has not elected a woman president. While others may explore different aspects of this fact, this chapter focuses on money, starting with the question of whether campaign finance considerations present a barrier to electing a madam president. Between 2003 and 2013, I published a series of studies looking at this very question. 3 Examining successful women candidates in congressional elections in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and successful female gubernatorial candidates from 1997 to 2008, these studies regularly showed that “women in these lower offices—offices that are often in the path that men take to the White House—have become as adept as, if not better than, men at raising and spending funds while running for elected office,”4 and that “women can find more than one pathway to financial viability.”5 Since these studies were written, three important changes have occurred in the world of campaign finance generally and in the campaign finance issues that a woman presidential candidate may face. First, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) opened the door for unlimited expenditures in elections by outside groups as long as such expenditures are done independently and not coordinated with any campaign. Second, Hillary Clinton has run two presidential campaigns—a campaign in the 2008 Democratic primaries and as the Democratic candidate in 2016—each of which can be characterized as very successful from a campaign finance perspective even if she came up short in each election. And third, the perception of the value of small donor contributions has morphed over the years, such that pursuing small donor contributions can be a critical component of a successful fundraising and electoral strategy. Given these changes in the world of campaign finance, this chapter utilizes the prior studies as a baseline to evaluate the profile of successful women congressional candidates in 2016 and 2018. Has the profile of successful candidates changed following the events above and, if so, has the profile become more similar to or varied from the profile of successful male candidates? Or are women still required to forge alternative pathways to success? Finally, what lessons can this comparison of more recent elections against the baseline provide for the prospects of achieving a madam president?

Money and Candidate Viability

47

The Campaign Finance Experience of Female Congressional Candidates Table 3.1 compares the actual dollar average expenditures for winning House candidates over various years. The data for 2000, 2004, and 2008 were compiled from the previous studies. For the sake of consistency of comparing expenditure data of congressional elections during presidential election years, data from the 2016 House elections were collected. Over the years, and both prior to and after the changes to the world of campaign finance discussed previously, two conclusions have been consistently found in looking at average expenditures between successful female and male House candidates. First, women candidates typically spend more than their male counterparts in a successful House campaign.

Table 3.1 Average Expenditures for Winning House Candidates 2000

Actual Dollarsa All winners $816,000 All men $806,000 All women $882,000 Democratic women $780,000 Republican women $1,100,000 Adjusted for Inflationb All winners $816,000 All men $806,000 All women $882,000 Democratic women $780,000 Republican women $1,100,000

2004

2008

2016

$1,030,345 $1,019,673 $1,091,093 $1,002,745 $1,252,424

$1,370,345 $1,374,152 $1,352,071 $1,294,804 $1,547,452

$1,522,357 $1,515,172 $1,552,384 $1,209,934 $2,517,471

$939,178 $929,450 $994,551 $914,020 $1,141,607

$1,123,112 $1,126,232 $1,108,135 $1,061,200 $1,268,266

$1,098,152 $1,092,969 $1,119,812 $872,786 $1,815,978

Source: Farrar-Myers, “A War Chest Full of Susan B. Anthony Dollars”; FarrarMyers, “Money and the Art and Science of Candidate Viability”; Farrar-Myers and Boyea, “Campaign Finance: A Barrier to Reaching the White House?”; and compiled by author from data available at www.fec.gov and www.opensecrets.org. Notes: a. 2000 actual dollars totals have been rounded to the nearest thousands. b. Values for 2004, 2008, and 2016 have been standardized based on their value as of November 2000 using the CPI inflation calculator available at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin /cpicalc.pl.

48

Victoria A. Farrar-Myers

The one exception can be found in 2008, where the average male winning candidate spent $22,000 more than the average female winning candidate. The second consistent conclusion throughout the years is that successful Republican women spend on average well above all other winning House candidates, and correspondingly successful Democratic women spend well below others. Nowhere is this relationship more prevalent than in the 2016 election, where the average winning Republican woman spent over $2.5 million, the average winning man expended slightly more than $1.5 million, and the successful Democratic woman had just over $1.2 million in expenditures. Particularly notable were Republicans Martha McSally (AZ, $8.0 million), Mia Love (UT, $5.6 million), and Barbara Comstock (VA, $5.3 million), all of whom spent more than the top two Democratic women, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ($4.2 million) and Nancy Pelosi ($3.6 million). Each, however, lost their respective elections in 2018; McSally in a Senate race, and Love and Comstock in seeking reelection for the House. In fact, 7 of the top 10 women ranked by 2016 expenditures were Republicans, but only 1 (Cathy McMorris Rodgers–WA) remained in the House of Representatives following the 2018 election; in addition to the above women, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) retired, Kristi Noem (SD) successfully ran for governor, and Diana Black (TN) lost a Republican primary bid for governor. Table 3.1 also standardizes the average expenditure data for inflation, in this case adjusting each year’s data to 2000 dollars. The cost of winning a House election has increased over time in terms of actual dollars. When adjusted for inflation this trend holds true when comparing more recent elections against the costs of winning a race in 2000, although on average the differences between 2008 and 2016 when adjusting for inflation are not that significant. Once again, however, distentangling the data for female candidates by their partisanship unmasks a set of extremes. The inflation-adjustment amount the average winning Democratic woman spent in 2016 is less than both 2008 and 2004. By comparison, the inflation-adjusted amount the average Republican winning female candidate spent represents a 43 percent increase over the comparable number in 2008. Going back to the original study using 2000 data, the average successful female candidate has consistently expended funds on levels comparable to men. This relationship is found once again in 2016 to demonstrate that women can achieve comparable levels of success in the campaign finance game. The significant difference between success-

Money and Candidate Viability

49

ful Republican women and successful Democratic women, however, has turned up in each of the four election years examined in Table 3.1. Some implications of this disparity will be considered later. Like Table 3.1, Table 3.2 compares data from the 2016 election year against the data from presidential election years in the previous studies to examine the source of funds of winning candidates. The top half of Table 3.2 reflects the percentage of donations received by winning House candidates from individuals and political action committees (PACs), while the bottom half of Table 3.2 delineates PAC contributions based on the nature of the PAC (e.g., business interests, labor, and singleissue/ideological).6 The previous study that used the 2000 data also distinguished between contributions received from small donors ($200 or less) and large donors (more than $200), a distinction utilized for the 2016 data; the previous studies using the 2004 and 2008 data, however, simply aggregated all contributions from individuals regardless of size. When examining the top half of Table 3.2, the overall relationship of individual contributions vis-à-vis PAC contributions in 2016, one sees that the percentage of PAC contributions was highest in 2016 across each subcategory (i.e., by gender and by party) when compared to prior elections. The most notable increase came in the subcategory of Republican men, up to 51 percent compared to values in the high-30s and low-40s in the prior elections. The breakdown between small donors and large donors in 2016 as compared to similar data in 2000 reflects two notable points. First, whereas the average female winning candidate and average male winning candidate in 2000 each drew 15 percent of their donations from small donors, in 2016 the average woman received a slightly greater percentage (8 percent) from small donors than the average man (5 percent). Second, the percentage of contributions in 2016 received from small donors overall dropped noticeably in favor of large donors across all subcategories by gender and by partisanship when compared in 2000. Although the previous studies and the analysis for 2016 herein may have some other variations from year to year, the comparable source-offunds profiles of successful female and male House candidates have not differed significantly. Where there has been a major difference between women and men is the type of PAC funds contributed to each candidate. In the previous studies, men received a greater percentage of their PAC funds from business PACs than women; an average diference of 13.3 percent with a range of 9 percent to 16 percent during 2000, 2004, and 2008. This gap in 2016 (10 percent) was on the lower end of this range. Most

House Women Democratic Republican House Men Democratic Republican

House Women Democratic Republican House Men Democratic Republican

2000

Small Donors

Large Donors PACs

Business PACs

Labor Issue PACs PACs

15 14 15 15 12 17

56 44 85 71 54 86

34 34 33 36 33 40

47 49 46 44 50 39

34 45 6 19 38 3

10 11 9 10 8 10

2004

Individuals 55 56 53 55 53 56

2008 PACs 42 41 44 42 43 42

Business Labor Issue PACs PACs PACs 56 44 76 65 51 78

32 44 11 22 40 6

13 13 13 13 10 17

PACs

Small Donors

Business Labor Issue PACs PACs PACs

Business PACs

Individuals 53 52 58 49 46 51

57 50 81 73 62 83

28 35 5 15 26 5

44 45 38 46 51 43

15 15 14 12 13 12

8 7 8 5 5 5

68 61 84 78 69 84

50

Table 3.2 Average Source of Funds (Percentages)

2016

Large Donors PACs 41 41 41 40 39 41

Labor PACs 21 29 2 11 25 3

50 51 47 52 55 51

Issue PACs 11 10 14 11 6 13

Sources: Farrar-Myers, “A War Chest Full of Susan B. Anthony Dollars”; Farrar-Myers, “Money and the Art and Science of Candidate Viability”; Farrar-Myers and Boyea, “Campaign Finance: A Barrier to Reaching the White House?”; and compiled by author from data available at www.fec.gov and www.opensecrets.org. Note: PACs are political action committees.

Money and Candidate Viability

51

noticeable in the bottom half of Table 3.2 is the greater amount of funds from business PACs as compared to labor PACs for all Democratic candidates—women and men. The percentage of PAC funds raised from business PACs in 2016 for successful Democratic female and male candidates was respectively 17 percent and 15 percent greater than the corresponding percentage in 2000. One of the primary conclusions in the previous studies from the data presented in Table 3.2, as well as similar analyses in the prior studies with respect to Senate elections, is that female candidates do not draw as much funds from institutional moneyed interests. Specifically, when compared to their male colleagues, women tend to rely more on individual contributions than PAC donations and less on business PACs than other types of PACs. Although these differences continued in 2016, whatever gaps may have existed in the profiles between the average male and female candidates appear to have narrowed. The 2018 elections were commonly referred to as the “Year of the Woman,” and congressional elections followed suit. A record number of 102 women were elected to the House of Representatives in the 2018 congressional elections, including 36 first-year female members. Given this, a brief examination of how winning female candidates fared as fundraisers in 2018 seems warranted. Do the data from 2018 follow the trends found in the four previous elections studied, or might a different picture emerge in a year that supposedly was different for female candidates? An examination of the average expenditures of winning female candidates in 2018 by partisanship reflects a now-familiar trend (see Table 3.3): Republican women outspent their Democratic counterparts. We see, however, a disparity between the percentage of contributions received from individual donors overall and small donors specifically. Republican women drew funds at or near the same percentage level as in 2016 for both individual contributions overall (48 percent) and from small donors (8 percent). Democratic women, however, drew from small donors at more than double the percentage that they did in 2016 and at 2000 levels (15 percent), and drew from individual contributors at the highest level (59 percent) of any other year in this study. With this discrepancy in partisan splits arising in 2018, an examination of the data from a different perspective merits consideration. Given the success of female candidates winning a House election for the first time in 2018, Table 3.3 examines the average expenditure and individual contributions and small donor percentages by whether the candidate was an incumbent or first-time electee. Further, given that 35 of the 36

52

Victoria A. Farrar-Myers

Table 3.3 Female House Candidate Campaign Finance Statistics, 2018

By party Democrats Republicans

Average by freshman/incumbent Freshman Incumbent

All women Disbursements

Small Donor All Individual Contributions Contributions Disbursements (%) (%) $2,298,917.73 $2,556,455.92

14.43 8.36

59.27 47.54

$3,896,956.51 $1,474,085.34

20.42 9.93

75.48 48.29

$2,329,216.34

13.63

57.89

Source: Compiled by author from data available at www.fec.gov.

women elected to the House for the first time in 2018 were Democratic, the partisan differences noted previously may reflect differences in the candidate’s experience rather than partisan affiliation. After separating out first-time winners, the source-of-funds data for incumbent women, regardless of partisanship, closely mirror the 2016 election data with 48 percent of contributions from individuals (49 percent in 2016). Similarly, 9 percent of incumbent women’s funds came from small donors (8 percent in 2016), although Nancy Pelosi led all women in small donor donations with over $2.3 million raised. The average expenditures for incumbent women, though, fell below the 2016 level on an actual dollar basis and below both 2008 and 2016 levels for all women on an inflation-adjusted basis. By comparison, at nearly $3.9 million, the average expenditures of female first-time electees in 2018 signficantly exceeded even the average expenditures of Republican women in 2016. Perhaps more astonishingly, the average female first-time electee raised most of her funds via contributions from individuals (over 75 percent), including over 20 percent of all funds being raised from small donors. The leaders among these fundraisers, however, were not prominent names like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who did manage to rank tenth among women in small donor donations) or former Clinton administration official Donna Shalala, but rather people like Kim Schrier (WA), Katie

Money and Candidate Viability

53

Hill (CA), and Mikie Sherrill (NJ), who Politico dubbed as the “most important new woman in Congress.”7 Since none of the previous studies distinguished between incumbent and first-time electee women, it is impossible to tell whether the data from 2018 is unique to the “Year of the Woman” or consistently experienced. Nevertheless, what the 2018 data, particularly the fundraising success of first-time electee women, reaffirm is that more than one pathway exists to fundraising success, and women candidates have proven themselves adept at forging successful pathways. Reflections and Implications for Electing a Madam President In the foreword to the edited volume in which my first study in this series appeared, former representative Pat Schroeder commented that “[t]his book should make all of us ponder the remaining barriers” to the first female president.8 Similiarly, the initial study sought to explore the question of whether some systematic or other campaign finance barrier stood in the way of having a Madam President. The choice to analyze the fundraising experiences of women in the House and Senate in that initial study was borne out of several consideratons. First, at that time, no female candidate had yet to attain a sustained level of viability—financial or otherwise—as a presidential candidate of one of the major parties. Thus, another measure or method of analysis was needed to assess the question of potential campaign finance barriers. Second, and to some extent as a result of the first point, because the pathway to the presidency for men sometimes runs through Congress, an examination of the fundraising experiences of female congressional members would expose potential barriers on their path to higher office. The subsequent studies in this series would go on to explore other related campaign finance aspects, such as the art and science of viability and the campaign finance experiences of female governors, and each study would continue to explore the central question of the initial study: Do structural campaign finance barriers block women along the pathway to the presidency? From the original study and throughout each iteration in this series, including this one, the answer has continued to be a sound “no.” No systemic or other structural campaign finance barriers seem to prevent women from achieving fundraising success as they run for Congress. As the data from 2016 and 2018 show, successful female

54

Victoria A. Farrar-Myers

candidates continue to be equally or better skilled than their male counterparts in raising and expending funds during congressional campaigns. If anything, the most recent elections reflect a narrowing of gaps in the campaign finance profiles of men and women, with women (or at least incumbent women) having more comparable access to traditional moneyed funding sources such as business PACs and larger individual donors. What was noted in one of the earlier studies remains true today: “Thus, one could reasonably anticipate that since women have learned to be successful at the campaign finance game at the congressional level, women could succeed in the game at the presidential level as well.”9 Certainly one woman, Hillary Clinton, has proven to be a successful fundraiser at the presidential level. In 2016, Clinton raised $261.2 million during the presidential primary season through June 30, 2016, which is more than any person in history—male or female—other than Barack Obama. Even the $218.5 million she raised in 2008 is more than any Republican presidential candidate has ever raised during the primary season. (Bernie Sanders raised $235.4 million while pursuing the 2016 Democratic nomination.) The pathway that Clinton took to achieve her national status, from First Lady to US senator to secretary of state, is likely not generalizable for other women to follow.10 However, as noted at the outset of this chapter, women at the congressional level have proven able to find different ways to achieve campaign finance success. Thus, the questions to consider are not whether campaign barriers to a female president exist, but rather what is the likely pathway to financial viability for a woman to follow on the way to the presidency, and based on the analysis herein and the previous studies, how likely is it that a woman can achieve success on that pathway? Before delving into these questions, I should note that a funding source that plays a significant role on the campaign finance pathway for congressional candidates, direct contributions to candidates from PACs, has little effect at the presidential level. In the wake of the changes from Citizens United, outside groups are able to spend unlimited amounts in support or in opposition to a candidate as long as such expenditures are not coordinated with any campaign. As a result, outside groups have and are expected to continue to spend increasing amounts in such independent expenditures, thus leaving candidates to not only have to fundraise to compete with their campaign opponents but also to have to compete against outside groups to control the message in their own election.11

Money and Candidate Viability

55

Turning now to the previous questions, financial viability for presidential candidates during the preprimary period (i.e., the “money primary” in the words of Randall Adkins and Andrew Dowdle12) and the primary period can be achieved through three key elements: comparative big money, early money, and small-donor contributions. 13 This study does not address the middle element. The experience of female congressional candidates throughout this series of studies, however, demonstrates the ability to achieve success in the other two areas of financial viability. With respect to the first element, “big money” should be considered as whether “a candidate has raised enough money to be competitive with other candidates.”14 This series of studies indicates that, to the extent the experience of Republican women in Congress translates to fundraising at the presidential level, a Republican woman should be able to raise big money as a presidential candidate. Throughout the nearly two decades studied, Republican women on average have consistently exceeded any other subgroup in terms of expenditures, thus reflecting their success in raising the funds necessary to incur such expenditures. Moreover, Republican women have consistently relied on PAC contributions as an overall percentage of the campaign finance profile less than any other group. Thus, Republican women on average seem well positioned to build on fundraising success at the congressional level in a run for the White House. The experience of Democratic women, though, reflects that the pathway to “comparatively big money” at the presidential level may not be as straightforward of an analysis. With the exception of first-time electees in 2018, which again comprised 35 Democratic women and 1 Republican woman, Democratic women in Congress on average have consistently been below Republican women and the average male counterpart in expenditures throughout the studies. That statement reflects the experience of the average female Democratic candidate. As noted, though, some individual female candidates have been able to fundraise well above their average colleagues. The success of women like some of those mentioned before—Pelosi, Schultz, Schrier, Hill, and Sherrill— demonstrates that top fundraising Democratic women are able to achieve comparatively big money. The art and science of viability for a candidate does not require achieving a certain level of success with each element, but instead requires flexibility, adaptability, and candidates using “the ingredients they have to create the proper recipe for success.”15 The one ingredient

56

Victoria A. Farrar-Myers

in which Democratic women have been as competitive if not better than other subgroups is in the area of small donor donations, highlighted most noticeably in the 2018 elections. Once overlooked as an element of building a presidential campaign finance war chest, small donor contributions are now viewed as “the most coveted source of funding for any candidate.”16 Not only have small donors proved to be a vital means to raise large sums by presidential candidates like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, but “small donors represent the breadth of support of voters come primary or caucus election time . . . [for example, as a candidate] will have an easier time garnering 20 votes from . . . small donors” contributing $100 a piece than one donor contributing $2,000.17 Going back to the first of the two key questions, the pathway to financial viability for a woman to follow on the way to the presidency should run through small donors. It is a pathway that works for male and female candidates in the modern era of presidential campaign fianance, and it is an area in which women have a history of succeeding at the congressional level. Given this, the answer to the second key question—how likely is it that a woman can achieve success on that pathway—is exceedingly clear: yes, women have, can, and will achieve success on this pathway. Returning one last time to the premise that started this series of studies, we have seen that no structural campaign finance barrier is blocking a woman on the pathway to the White House. What these studies have shown, though, is that perhaps the most important barrier—whether donors and voters believe in and are willing to support female candidates—may be withering. For example, traditional moneyed interests like PACs and big donors have started supporting women congressional candidates at levels more comparable to men than in the past. Often, funds like these are given to candidates who are perceived likely, or at least with a chance, to win their election. If women are successful fundraisers at the congressional and other lower levels and voters and donors believe women can and will win as evidenced by this fundraising success, then once again no reason exists for why the same phenomena cannot exist at the presidential level. There is a saying in politics—follow the money—and that money is moving down a pathway from the possible to the probable to the inevitable, and soon a woman candidate will take that pathway all the way to the White House.

Money and Candidate Viability

57

Notes 1. Gabriel, Notorious Victoria, 3. 2. Little information is readily available about these bonds. The website victoriawoodhull.com, owned by “a great-great-grand-stepdaughter of Colonel James H. Blood who was married to Victoria Woodhull,” states Woodhull “attempted to raise money by selling bonds that would be redeemable during her administration.” In a historical novel based on Woodhull’s life, Katz had Woodhull respond to a comment from Elizabeth Cady Stanton about the paramount nature of fundraising: “We sold only $5,400 of the bonds Colonel Blood and I designed and printed.” 3. See Farrar-Myers, “A War Chest Full of Susan B. Anthony Dollars”; FarrarMyers, “Money and the Art and Science of Candidate Viability”; and Farrar-Myers and Boyea, “Campaign Finance: A Barrier to Reaching the White House?” 4. Farrar-Myers, “A War Chest Full of Susan B. Anthony Dollars,” 92. 5. Farrar-Myers and Boyea, “Campaign Finance: A Barrier to Reaching the White House?” 226. 6. Based on limitations on available data for 2000, 2004, and 2008: (a) a pool of randomly drawn male candidates equal to the number of winning female candidates in each year was compiled for analysis in the prior studies, and (b) the distribution of PAC contributions by type of PAC was limited to incumbent candidates only. Limitation (b) continued for the 2016 election data. However, the data for 2016 in the top half of Table 3.2 reflects all male and female winning candidates. 7. Michael Kruse, “The Most Important New Woman in Congress Is Not Who You Think,” Politico, February 15, 2019, https://www.politico.com/magazine /story/2019/02/15/congress-house-democrats-freshmen-mikie-sherrill-aoc-225054. 8. Schroeder, “Forward,” xii. 9. Farrar-Myers, “Money and the Art and Science of Candidate Viability,” 114. 10. See Farrar-Myers and Boyea, “Campaign Finance: A Barrier to Reaching the White House?” 11. See Farrar-Myers and Vaughn, Controlling the Message. 12. Adkins and Dowdle, “The Money Primary.” 13. See Farrar-Myers, “Donors, Dollars, and Momentum,” and Farrar-Myers and Boyea, “Campaign Finance: A Barrier to Reaching the White House?” 14. Farrar-Myers, “Donors, Dollars, and Momentum,” 42. 15. Farrar-Myers, “Money and the Art and Science of Candidate Viability,” 128. 16. “Most Expensive Midterm Ever: Cost of 2018 Election Surpasses $5.7 Billion,” February 18, 2019, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/cost-of -2018-election-5pnt7bil. 17. Farrar-Myers, “Donors, Dollars, and Momentum,” 52.

4 Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail Meredith Conroy

ON TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016, DELEGATES TO THE DEMOcratic National Convention officially made Hillary Clinton the first woman nominated by a major party to run for the US presidency. With Clinton solidifying her spot in the 2016 presidential race, there was little question in the minds of pundits, journalists, and political observers that gender would be relevant to the presidential campaign. And yet, with or without a female candidate, the race for the presidency is gendered— often in ways that are explicitly unfriendly to women.1 This is because the language candidates and media use to talk about who is fit for the presidency is language that can damage the perception that women are qualified for office,2 whether or not a woman is running. For better or worse, language that can damage the perception that women are qualified to run for office reinforces gender stereotypes. For example, stereotypes that women are soft-spoken and cautious, while men are tough and aggressive,3 provide men with an inherent advantage in politics, given the association of politics and leadership with masculine qualities and traits.4 Although many factors contribute to the reinforcement of gender stereotypes, media coverage is one such factor. In this chapter, I review the theory of gender conflict framing (GCF), which is a theory of media reporting of presidential candidates in which coverage of the candidate’s personal character is gendered in nature, to the extent that one candidate is framed as more masculine and the other is framed as more feminine. Furthermore, this gendered distinction is consistent enough to project that one candidate is the more masculine

59

60

Meredith Conroy

choice, whereas the other candidate is the more feminine choice. In addition, there is a pitting of the candidates’ gender differences against one another—the masculine gender is superior whereas the feminine is considered subordinate, as evidenced by the associated tone or conveyed appropriateness of the gendered traits for the situation. Although feminine traits like willingness to compromise and compassion are qualities that can make our political leaders more effective, so long as candidates and media coverage disparage femininity in politics, candidates associated with femininity will be at a disadvantage. By analyzing how femininity and masculinity are invoked in media portrayals of presidential candidates, we can understand how media coverage contributes to women’s exclusion at the highest level of political representation in the United States and how the media maintain the largely negative notions of femininity, simultaneously affirming the relevance and supremacy of masculinity. Masculinity and the American Presidency The relevance of gender in political competitions, regardless of the presence of women, was apparent in 2016 during the GOP (Grand Old Party) presidential primary, when numerous men running for the Republican nomination attacked their opponents by challenging their opponents’ masculinity. For example, early on in the race, then-candidate Donald Trump took to calling Florida senator Marco Rubio “Little Marco.” Rubio responded with a sexual innuendo when he said of Trump, “you know what they say about guys with small hands.” These remarks by Rubio took place at a rally in Salem, Virginia, in February 2016.5 Rubio eventually apologized.6 But the attack in reference to Trump’s small hands was to goad Trump after it was revealed that Trump had been sensitive about his hand size since about thirty years ago when Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair magazine, described Trump as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in Spy Magazine.7 Indeed, the 2016 GOP primary demonstrated the prominent role gender plays in presidential elections, and how gendered expectations influence both men and women running for office. In another example of blatant masculine posturing, GOP presidential candidate and former Texas governor Rick Perry challenged Donald Trump to a pull-up contest at an event at the Yale Club in New York City. Perry’s senior strategist continued the insulting on Twitter, tweet-

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail

61

ing, “This is what a Manhattan ‘tough guy’ wears to tour the southern border. White golf shoes and a linen jacket.”8 This response came after Trump had been publicly ridiculing Perry’s low poll numbers, his glasses, and his intelligence.9 Sartorial insults were also lobbed at Rubio after Rubio was photographed wearing black boots with a slight heel. In response, senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz joked about the boots, and GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina tweeted a photo of her own stiletto black boots, asking Rubio “but can you rock these?”10 Another example of feminizing one’s opponent came from Trump again, who repeated an audience member’s comment that Senator Ted Cruz was a “pussy”11 at one of his campaign rallies. Why would candidates and their backers try to knock each other down by declaring them unmanly? Studies show that voters prefer a more masculine candidate and consider masculinity to be a sign of leadership.12 Therefore, candidates and operatives insinuate that their opponent shows feminine behaviors and attributes that are inappropriate for men, making them unsuitable for the presidency. The underlying theme of these criticisms is feminization, and the implication is that feminized men are less fit to lead, which unwittingly elevates masculinity in the presidential contest at the expense of femininity, and therefore, women. Psychologist Stephan Ducat describes this sort of discourse as “femiphobic” masculinity. He explains that American folk speech regarding masculinity and femininity captures cultural taboos surrounding gender nonconformity. For example, sissy, pussy, and mama’s boy are examples of gendered speech that when applied to men are insulting. Ducat explains that it is these words’ association with the feminine that is the source of the insult. However, phrases such as tomboy or daddy’s little girl, when applied to girls, are positive in nature; these phrases are also associated with maleness.13 Thus, these terms are largely positive inasmuch as they are associated with maleness and negative inasmuch as they are associated with femaleness, and the attacks described previously fit this criterion. However, these examples from 2016 are of candidates targeting each other by feminizing their opponents. How does the media fare on this metric of gender bias in media coverage? Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency To be sure, media play an outsized role in US presidential elections by priming potential voters to think about presidential leadership and

62

Meredith Conroy

character.14 Extensive scholarship from political science and communications studies has assessed the ways that media cover female candidates and if the coverage is distinct from male candidates’ coverage. In studies that analyze the few women who have run for president in the United States or as vice presidential nominees,15 authors generally find that women receive less issue coverage and more coverage focused on their physical appearance. These studies also show that the tone of women’s coverage is more negative than the tone of men’s coverage.16 For example, Caroline Heldman, Susan J. Carroll, and Stephanie Olson analyze the coverage of the 2000 GOP primary field, which included John McCain, Steve Forbes, Elizabeth Dole, and George W. Bush; Bush eventually won the nomination. As the authors show, Dole saw far less coverage overall, despite her position in the polls. Moreover, the coverage Dole did receive was disproportionately focused on her family life and physical appearance. About 17 percent of the in-depth stories about Dole mentioned her appearance, compared to 3 percent of the in-depth stories about Bush and Forbes, and less than 1 percent about McCain. Dole’s coverage was also less likely to mention issues and was more negative.17 According to the study, 42 percent of Dole’s coverage referenced the difficulties she faced in raising money, and more than 30 percent suggested there were problems with her campaign, even though there was no obvious reason to believe that was true. As the authors noted, many seasoned veterans of politics ran her campaign, and there were not obvious examples of mismanagement. Unlike the analysis of Dole’s coverage, analysis of the 2008 Democratic primary showed that Hillary Clinton received a comparable amount of coverage to her male counterpart, Barack Obama, during the 2008 Democratic primary race.18 However, Clinton’s coverage was tonally more negative than Obama’s.19 Given shifts in technology, Regina G. Lawrence and Melody Rose chose to analyze Clinton’s online media coverage during the 2008 primary and identified four gendered narratives: (1) the ambitious woman as man-killer, (2) kill the ambitious woman, (3) she’s just a woman, and (4) the narrative questioning her womanhood. They argue that salacious narratives are more likely to be reported in an online news environment, which is largely dominated by simplistic and sensationalistic coverage, and where editorial filters are lower. For Clinton, her gendered frames were negative; the authors did not identify a single gendered narrative that framed Clinton in a positive light in her online coverage in 2008.20 Analysis of frame constructions by media have been studied as they drive the meaning of female candidates’ presumed gender in political

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail

63

elections. For instance, Karrin Vasby Anderson and Kristina Horn Sheeler identify four general metaphoric clusters, or frames, in media coverage of women in politics.21 These include (1) the Pioneer, (2) the Puppet, (3) the Hostess/Beauty Queen, and (4) the Unruly Woman. The Pioneer frame describes someone who is a trailblazer. This frame can be perceived positively, in that pioneers embody new beginnings and a movement toward a new reality. But the Pioneer frame is also synonymous with “first” or “novel” and can be perceived to suggest a candidate labeled with this frame is inexperienced. The Puppet frame describes a woman’s political career as an extension of her spouse’s political career. The Puppet frame is typically applied to women who served as a mouthpiece for their political spouses in their past. The Puppet frame is difficult to avoid for women who move into the political arena in their own right. For example, consider Hillary Clinton’s struggle to define herself politically as independent from Bill Clinton—even during the 2016 race, Clinton’s husband at times overshadowed her presidential run. The third frame is the Hostess/Beauty Queen frame, which is applied to women who embody socially appropriate feminine behavior in public. Anderson and Sheeler describe this frame as defining women as “sometimes giddy, attractive social creatures who win popularity contests and enjoy playing hostess and caretaker as a wife, mother and/or grandmother.”22 Finally, the Unruly Woman is a frame applied to women who are disruptive to the social hierarchy and do not follow the prescribed expectations of appropriate feminine behavior. The gendered frames applied to women in politics and the overall favorability afforded to masculinity in political reporting is likely a function of reporting norms and men’s numerical superiority in the news industry. Positions in upper levels of major media organizations are mostly held by men, as are the boards of directors of these media outlets. Moreover, men are often the source for and the interpreters of news, which maintains the male norm perspective.23 Although progress is being made, as of 2017, women still make up only about one-third of news media director roles, and men receive 62 percent of byline credits in print, television, online, and wire news.24 Journalism practices, like invoking gendered metaphors, elevate masculinity and lower femininity because they describe elections in terms that are masculine. “Gendered mediation” is the use of narratives and metaphors in political reporting that invoke the relevance of masculinity and femininity. For instance, when media refer to an election contest as “a boxing match” or to the candidates as “prizefighters” or

64

Meredith Conroy

“warriors,” they are using gendered mediation.25 Headlines from the 2008 presidential race, such as “Candidates Take Off Gloves for Final Debate; McCain, Obama Take Shots on Economy, Campaign Tone,”26 “Economy Again Is Front and Center; Candidates Spar Over Rescue Plans, Ad Tactics,”27 “McCain Seen as ‘Bare Knuckled Fighter’ Who Won’t Take No for an Answer,”28 “Round 2: No Big Flubs, No Knockouts; McCain Aims for Comeback; Casual Setting Can’t Dull Jabs,”29 and “Why Obama Needs to Fight Like Ali, and Not Louis”30 fit into the category of gendered mediation. Sports and military metaphors assume masculinity is the norm in politics, in that they focus on external dynamics that are more appropriate for men and less appropriate for women. Furthermore, sports and military metaphors assume a gendered narrative wherein physical strength is necessary, reinforcing the notion that politics is a masculine pursuit. In Leading Men: Presidential Campaigns and the Politics of Manhood, Jackson Katz suggests that the use of sports metaphors is “one measure of how presidential campaigns can be less about policy differences and complex political agendas than they can be about the selling of a certain kind of executive masculinity.”31 Thus, sports metaphors in our presidential campaign coverage boils down presidential contests to a battle between symbols of masculinity and ideal notions of manhood. The game frame is a second norm of political reporting that typically benefits men in politics. According to this theory, campaign events are linked to a game, typified by conflict.32 Thus, these events are relevant to the extent that they can be characterized as a conflict, where winners and losers emerge.33 For instance, if a candidate misspeaks at a campaign event, the coverage is more than likely going to be less about what the candidate said and more about how what the candidate said will influence his or her electoral standing. According to Lawrence and Rose, journalists’ tendency to cover election events as they fit into the framework of winners versus losers is to organize “the potentially numbing tide of campaign events and developments.”34 The game frame is a common construction of election news relied upon by journalists because it helps them to organize campaign events around a larger story, which is a conflict between two candidates, where only one will win the election. Thus, the framing of an election in terms of winners and losers is amenable to journalists’ own process for organizing campaign information. However, if election coverage neglects the issues, women may miss out on the opportunity to assuage fears about their perceived incongruence with positions of political leadership.35 Moreover, cover-

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail

65

age of this nature is more likely to bring focus to a candidate’s personality or physical appearance. As already reviewed, an overemphasis on personality and appearance is detrimental to women, as it further delegitimizes their place in the political realm, more so than for men, whose negative traits are still often masculine and thus still relevant to politics.36 These are just two examples of reporting norms that either elevate masculinity or benefit men who run for political office. The theory of gender conflict framing is a marriage of these two theories. Gender Conflict Framing GCF is a marriage of gendered mediation and the game frame. Gendered mediation is the use of narratives and metaphors in political reporting that invoke the relevance of masculinity and femininity. The game frame norm of election reporting is to report on election and campaign details as they typify conflict between a winner and a loser. Therefore, GCF brings these two theories together to present a theory of media reporting when the focus is on candidates’ personal character with attention to the invocation of gender (gendered mediation), and instead of a focus on winners versus losers in the context of a particular campaign event, the focus is on masculinity versus femininity (game frame). GCF is present when media perpetuate the notion that masculinity and femininity are in conflict with each other and convey that the candidates are dissimilar with respect to gender association. Through gender conflict framing, media may influence evaluations of the candidates’ capacity to govern or lead. GCF combines gendered mediation and the game frame to describe coverage of male candidates in terms of twosided conflict, where one is labeled as masculine and the other is labeled as feminine. The purpose of analyzing gender conflict framing of presidential candidates is that it allows an examination of three important factors contributing to gender underrepresentation in US politics: (1) the notion that femininity is an inferior quality in our leaders, (2) the rooted assumption that masculinity is superior, and (3) whether media perpetuate these ideas. A major premise of gender conflict framing is that political discourse is gendered, especially in instances of evaluations of candidates’ and politicians’ leadership and personal character. Furthermore, gender conflict framing recognizes the use of gendered language to communicate candidate quality, irrespective of candidate sex. Reports where politicians and political candidates are discussed in opposition to one

66

Meredith Conroy

another are a staple of political news coverage. In these instances, differences in political actors’ policy positions or experiences are drawn out. But GCF addresses the gendered undertones that accompany this reporting orthodoxy, identifying a clash between masculinity and femininity, and whether masculinity is superior and femininity is inferior. For example, in a New York Times style section article headlined “Live from Miami, a Style Showdown,” the journalist uses an extended boxingmatch metaphor, describing the contest between John Kerry and George W. Bush as “a classic case of a dancer vs. a puncher. Mr. Kerry flicks around the periphery of issues; Mr. Bush pounds right through them.”37 Not only did this contrast a more feminine quality and a more masculine quality, but the masculine quality is clearly more positive, while the more feminine description, “dancer,” is explicitly described in a way that depicts Kerry as neither direct nor powerful, and therefore negative. Such descriptions are common during presidential elections. The candidates and their surrogates draw these types of contrasts, as do journalists. The reverence afforded to masculinity and its opposition to femininity in media coverage of the presidency has been practiced for decades. For example, George H. W. Bush was feminized during the 1988 campaign. Before he formally announced he was running for president, Newsweek ran a cover story entitled, “Bush Battles the ‘Wimp Factor.’”38 Although Bush stood tall at 6 feet 2 inches, played on the baseball team at Yale, was a decorated fighter pilot during World War II, and had been director of the Central Intelligence Agency, he had been labeled on the cover of Newsweek as a wimp. The wimp label emerged years earlier, when Bush was vice president to Ronald Reagan. Gary Trudeau, author of the cartoon strip Doonesbury, depicted Bush putting his “manhood” in a “blind trust,” mostly in response to Bush agreeing to be Reagan’s running mate, thereby taking on more conservative positions than he had previously held. For example, before being added to the Reagan ticket, Bush was asked by the Reagan campaign to oppose abortion, a position he had not previously held. This is one example that contributed to the notion that Bush was a follower, and not a leader, and thus incapable of being president. By labeling Bush a “wimp,” Newsweek directly brought into question his strength as a leader and indirectly his masculine credentials. This same wimp label reemerged during the 2012 presidential election, again on the cover of Newsweek, only this time applied to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. In the article, the author wrote that Romney is “risk averse,” “annoying,” and “whiny.” Furthermore,

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail

67

the article went on to say that “a Republican president sure of his manhood [like Reagan] has nothing to prove. . . . But a weenie Republican [Romney]—look out.”39 The “wimp” Newsweek headline reprise is a clear sign of the relevance of gender in our politics and especially to the office of the presidency. Gendered Conflict in Presidential Campaigns from 2000 to 2012 Does media coverage of presidential elections perpetuate a preference for masculine qualities and characteristics in elected officials? How do perceptions, discussions, and judgments about masculinity and femininity emerge in political reporting? To understand gender’s role in presidential elections, Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency presents an examination of a random sample of 300 print-edition news articles from the New York Times and USA Today that focused on the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees for the 2000 through 2012 elections.40 The sampling frame for each election year was from September 1st until Election Day. For each newspaper article in the sample, I noted the traits used to describe the presidential candidates, and whether those traits were masculine, feminine, or neutral. Examples of masculine traits that were used to describe the candidates were “risktaker,” “commanding,” and “fighter.” Examples of feminine traits that were used to describe the candidates were “compassionate,” “cautious,” and “caring.” Characteristics such as “intelligent,” “old,” and “liar” were coded as gender-neutral. I relied on existing measurements of gender from both psychology and political science to code the gender of the characteristics media used to describe the candidates. For all election years under analysis, 1,545 instances of character traits were recorded. Of these traits, 56 percent were neutral, 30 percent were masculine traits, and 14 percent were feminine traits. The most common masculine traits used to describe the candidates were “aggressive” and “confident,” generally seen as positive in political campaigns. The most often used feminine traits were “weak” and “inconsistent,” which are negative. In looking at the tone of these traits, only 31 percent of the feminine traits used to describe the candidates had a positive tone, while 67 percent of masculine traits invoked had a positive tone. Positive feminine traits included “warm” and “kind.” Negative masculine traits used included “arrogant” and “dangerous,” but masculinity

68

Meredith Conroy

was far more likely to be relied upon to build up candidates’ qualifications for the office than to tear them down. With this data, I developed an aggregate gender score for each of the eight candidates in the analysis, which were major party nominees for president from 2000 to 2012. To do this, I assigned a value of “1” to each masculine trait used to describe the candidate, “0” to neutral traits, and “–1” to feminine traits. Thus, individual candidates’ gender scores could vary from –1 (entirely feminine descriptions) to +1 (entirely masculine descriptions). Note that fewer than half the traits used to describe the candidates were gendered. Figure 4.1 shows candidates’ gender scores for each of the elections under analysis. John McCain in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004 were most often described in masculine terms. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in 2012 and Senator John Kerry in 2004 were described in the least masculine terms. But none of the candidates’ scores dropped below zero, because the male presidential nominees were typically described in Figure 4.1 Gender and Presidential Character in Media Coverage in 2000–2012

Note: In order of gender score from high to low: John McCain (.29), George W. Bush 2004 (.27), Barack Obama 2008 (.16), Bush 2000 (.15), Obama 2012 (.15), Al Gore (.11), Mitt Romney (.07), John Kerry (.01).

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail

69

gender-neutral or masculine terms. When gendered language was used, the writer or speaker was often trying to draw a contrast between a more masculine (and therefore better) candidate with a more feminine candidate. This gendered conflict was most stark in the 2004 election between Bush and Kerry. The 2004 election also had the highest percentage of gendered traits when describing the candidates, and the highest amount of masculine traits used to praise the candidates. Consider such headlines as “Election Is Turning into a Duel of the Manly Men,”41 “Kerry at His Best When He Leaves Mr. Nice Guy at Home,”42 and “How Kerry Became a Girlie-Man.”43 Was gender conflict framing present in 2016? Since the election, analysis has shown that both Clinton and Trump received negative coverage. However, according to Thomas E. Patterson and the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University, “Like Trump, Clinton’s coverage was negative in tone. Unlike Trump, it was a continuation of a pattern that had been set at the start of her presidential run. In the 19 months leading up to the general election, there were only 2 months where Clinton’s coverage was positive on balance, and then by less than 5 percentage points in each case.”44 Similarly, analysis by The DataFace, relying on computational text and sentiment analysis, shows that both Clinton and Trump saw negative coverage. However, they note that this varied by publication, with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Slate having more positive coverage of Clinton, and Fox News more positive toward Trump.45 However, these reports do not share specific trait analyses. In their new article, Sudeep Bhatia, Geoffrey P. Goodwin, and Lukasz Walasek use latent sematic analysis (LSA) to analyze the presence of nine trait dimensions in the media coverage of Clinton and Trump.46 These nine trait dimensions are the following: ability, agency, character, communion, goodness, grit, morality, strength, and warmth. These trait dimensions can be viewed through a gendered lens. For example, agency, grit, and strength are masculine traits, while communion and warmth are feminine. In their article, the authors identify relative strength of associations between these trait dimensions and Clinton and Trump in 322,000 articles from 250 media outlets. However, the authors were interested in how news outlets associated with Clinton supporters compared to news outlets associated with Trump supporters described the candidate they favored. Therefore, they do not present an analysis of absolute character of the candidates in media coverage. However, new advances in text analysis open the door for greater attention to gender in media coverage and is a ripe opportunity for collaboration.

70

Meredith Conroy

Implications for Women What are the implications of media coverage that favors masculinity in discussions of candidate character? The implications for women who run for office, and specifically the presidency, are summed up by Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, who wrote in 1995 that “when women enter and act within the realm of leadership and governance, they do so within the ideological terms of masculine norms. Therein lies the transformation of gender relations into gender power relations.”47 In other words, if the rules of the game are masculine, the best way to compete is to replicate masculinity. During the 2016 presidential race, this discussion was present surrounding Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In a postelection interview, Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s director of communications, said I didn’t appreciate at the beginning of the campaign how important models are for the person running and the public. So, the fact that we had never seen a woman do this before—this was a much bigger hindrance than I thought. And what I realized we had done to her is that we had made her a female facsimile of the qualities that we’d look for in a male president because there was no other way to think about the president. And I think that’s why people thought she was inauthentic. And that’s why you would hear people say things like “there is something about her I just don’t like.”48

Here, Palmieri grapples with both the conceptual limitations for thinking about “the presidency” as confined to male norms and masculinity, and essentially the Clinton campaign’s unconscious effort to force Clinton into this mold. Although merely one anecdote from a long drawn out campaign, this is a powerful example of how masculine norms surrounding the presidency influence women running for that office. Media coverage that reflects GCF is likely to influence how Americans think about candidates, leadership, and the presidency. When gender is relied upon to contrast two candidates vying for the presidency, it tends to reinforce a political culture of masculinity. In a conflict between a more masculine and a more feminine candidate, masculinity is used to identify who is better equipped to lead. This reinforces the notion that femininity and feminine qualities are not leadership qualities. This may indirectly contribute to the idea that women, who are more likely to be thought of as feminine, are not naturally suited to politics. When media rely on masculine terms to elevate male candidates, and feminine quali-

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail

71

ties to debase male candidates, they are essentially elevating men and debasing women, and this will have implications for women running for the presidency for years to come. Notes 1. See Conroy, Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency; and Smith, Gender, Heteronormativity, and the American Presidency. 2. See Anderson and Sheeler, Governing Codes. 3. Eagly and Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders.” 4. Koenig et al., “Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine?”; Claassen and Ryan, “Social Desirability, Hidden Biases, and Support for Hillary Clinton”; Holman, Merolla, and Zechmeister, “Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes, and Candidate Evaluations”; and Bauer, “Who Stereotypes Female Candidates.” 5. Alexandra Jaffe, “Donald Trump Has ‘Small Hands,’ Marco Rubio Says,” NBC News, February 29, 2016, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election /donald-trump-has-small-hands-marco-rubio-says-n527791. 6. Theodore Schleifer, “Rubio Says He Apologized to Trump for ‘Small Hands’ Jest,” CNN, May 30, 2016, https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/politics /marco-rubio-jake-tapper-interview/index.html. 7. Emily Shapiro, “The History Behind the Donald Trump ‘Small Hands’ Insult,” ABC News, March 4, 2016, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/history-donald-trump -small-hands-insult/story?id=37395515. 8. Theodore Schleifer, “Rick Perry’s Tough Guy Challenge for Donald Trump,” CNN, July 30, 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/politics/rick-perry -donald-trump-pull-up-contest. 9. Justin Worland, “Rick Perry Challenged Donald Trump to a Pull-Up Contest,” Time, July 29, 2015, http://time.com/3977576/perry-trump-pull-up-cpntest. 10. Emily Crocket, “Why Are People Talking About Marco Rubio’s Boots? Here’s the Real Reason,” Vox, January 8, 2016, https://www.vox.com/2016/1/8 /10735692/marco-rubio-boots-sexism. 11. Jenna Johnson, “Donald Trump Repeats Crowd Member’s Ted Cruz Insult: ‘He’s a Pussy,’” Washington Post, February 8, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost .com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/08/donald-trump-repeats-crowd-members-ted -cruz-insult-hes-a-pussy/?utm_term=.e130cfd90aeb. 12. Lawless, “Women, War, and Winning Elections.” 13. See Ducat, The Wimp Factor. 14. Mendelsohn, “The Media and Interpersonal Communication,” and Krosnick and Kinder, “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming.” 15. Conroy et al., “From Ferraro to Palin.” 16. Ibid; see also Anderson, “From Spouses to Candidates”; Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House; Heldman, Carroll, and Olson, “She Brought Only a Skirt.”

72

Meredith Conroy

17. Heldman, Carroll, and Olson, “She Brought Only a Skirt.” 18. See Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House. 19. Miller, Peake, and Boulton, “Testing the Saturday Night Live Hypothesis.” 20. See Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House. 21. See Anderson and Sheeler, Governing Codes. 22. Ibid., 20. 23. Burke and Mazzarella, “A Slightly New Shade of Lipstick,” and Croteau and Hoynes, “Men and the News Media.” 24. Women’s Media Center, “The Status of Women in US Media 2017,” http://www.womensmediacenter.com/assets/site/reports/10c550d19ef9f3688f _mlbres2jd.pdf. 25. Gidengil and Everitt, “Metaphors and Misrepresentation.” 26. David Jackson and Martha T. Moore, “Candidates Take Off Gloves for Final Debate; McCain, Obama Take Shots on Economy, Campaign Tone,” USA Today, October 16, 2008. 27. Susan Page, “Economy Again Is Front and Center; Candidates Spar Over Rescue Plans, Ad Tactics,” USA Today, October 16, 2008. 28. Jill Lawrence, “McCain Seen as ‘Bare Knuckled Fighter’ Who Won’t Take No for an Answer,” USA Today. October 9, 2008. 29. Susan Page, “Round 2: No Big Flubs, No Knockouts; McCain Aims for Comeback; Casual Setting Can’t Dull Jabs,” USA Today, October 8, 2008. 30. DeWayne Wickham. “Why Obama Needs to Fight Like Ali, and Not Louis,” USA Today, September 30, 2008. 31. See Katz, Leading Men. 32. Han and Calfano, “Conflict and Candidate Selection.” 33. See Patterson, Out of Order, and Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House. 34. Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House, 55. 35. Eagly and Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice.” 36. See Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House. 37. Alex Williams, “LIVE FROM MIAMI!” New York Times, September 26, 2004. 38. Margaret G. Warner, “Bush Battles the ‘Wimp Factor,’” Newsweek, October 19, 1987. 39. Michael Tomasky, “Mitt Romney: A Candidate with a Serious Wimp Problem,” Newsweek, July 29, 2012. 40. See Conroy, Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency. 41. Jill Lawrence and Judy Keen, “Election Is Turning into a Duel of the Manly Men,” USA Today, September 21, 2004. 42. Walter Shapiro, “Kerry Is at His Best When He Leaves Mr. Nice Guy at Home,” USA Today, September 14, 2004. 43. Frank Rich, “How Kerry Became a Girlie-Man,” New York Times, September 5, 2004. 44. Patterson, “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election.” 45. Jack Beckwith and Nick Sorscher, “Trump and the Media: A Text Analysis,” The DataFace, August 15, 2016, http://thedataface.com/2016/08/politics/trump -media-analysis.

Masculinity and Media Coverage on the Campaign Trail

73

46. Bhatia, Goodwin, and Walasek, “Trait Associations for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in News Media.” 47. Duerst-Lahti and Mae Kelly, “Gender, Power, and Leadership,” 20. 48. Jennifer Palmieri, Interview with The West Wing Weekly Podcast, Transcript, June 26, 2018, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56e27eb82fe131d8eec3a4e3 /t/5bf1b65d352f533b08c91a80/1542567518531/5.05+-+Constituency+of+One.pdf.

5 Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era Caroline Heldman

THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER IS TO EXAMINE HOW issues of sexism and sexual violence shaped the 2016 presidential election, and to explore how those issues might influence the elections in 2020 and beyond. This analysis is important because these factors have a direct impact on the likelihood of electing a female president, given how pervasive the discussion has been in light of the #MeToo movement and the Women’s Marches, both of which began in 2017. Issues related to sexism and sexual assault within American culture shaped the political environment during the 2018 midterm elections, which saw historic gains for women candidates, and the prominence of these issues is expected to continue into the 2020 campaign cycle. This is particularly relevant to the 2020 presidential election, which includes a historic number (six) of women seeking the office in the prenomination phase of the campaign. Even though women constitute 51 percent of the US population,1 no woman to date has held the presidency. Hundreds of women have made bids for the office, with twelve contenders:2 Victoria Woodhull (1872); Belva Lockwood (1884 and 1888); Margaret Chase Smith (1964); Shirley Chisholm (1972); Patricia Schroeder (1988); Lenora Fulani (1988); Elizabeth Dole (2000); Carol Moseley Braun (2004); Michele Bachmann (2012); Carly Fiorina (2016); Jill Stein (2016); and Hillary Clinton (2008, 2016).3 Regardless of era or political party, each of these twelve women encountered similar barriers—disproportionately negative press coverage, stereotypically gendered coverage, being held to different standards than male competitors regarding experience and

75

76

Caroline Heldman

scandals, and sexism in public discourse.4 The 2016 election was the first opportunity for researchers to measure the extent to which previous findings applied to female candidates in the general election. The 2016 election answered scholars’ questions of what would happen if a woman advanced to the final round. We now know that female candidates should expect to face overt sexism from their competitor, the opposing party, surrogates, the press, and segments of the public. They should also expect to be held to a different standard than male competitors when it comes to experience and scandals. The 2016 contest confirmed that the barriers to a female presidency remain high. The treatment of sexual violence in the 2016 campaign also answered the question of the extent to which we can expect voters to hold female candidates to different standards than male candidates. In the United States, 81 percent of women and 43 percent of men have experienced sexual harassment or sexual assault in their lifetime, meaning it affects the vast majority of Americans.5 The electoral insignificance of the 22 allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald J. Trump, and his ability to fold it into his performance of hypermasculinity, demonstrates the extent to which the presidential contest is a competition of manhood that makes it virtually impossible for half the population (women) to enter this sacred grove. I begin this chapter with a contextual overview of presidential manhood and how notions of prototypical citizenship limit perceptions of who can “legitimately” hold this office. I then analyze how sexism and sexual violence shaped the 2016 race. Next, I examine the response to the 2016 election and find that it inspired a historic gender gap, historic protests, the rise of the #MeToo movement, and the Year of the Woman in the 2018 midterms. Finally, I summarize how Trump has handled high-profile cases of sexual violence in his first two years in office, followed by an analysis of how the continued salience of this issue may affect the 2020 election. Presidential Manhood and Prototypical Citizenship According to Cheryl King, US political institutions are deeply inculcated in compulsory masculinist ideology, but the presidency is the “most manly of all.” 6 Girls and women encounter many barriers to political leadership (e.g., discouragement of ambition, party recruitment bias, being held to double standards, gender bias in media coverage,

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

77

hatred of power-seeking women, etc.),7 but the office of the presidency poses additional, unique challenges. The president holds singular symbolic importance as the “father” of the country and the leader of the “free world,” and as such, many Americans conceive of the office as the living embodiment of the prototypical or “ideal” citizen.8 Most Americans unconsciously think of the prototypical citizen as white and male,9 an antidemocratic bias baked into our founding documents when black people were enslaved and a plea to “remember the ladies” was seen as absurd. The widely held and deep-seated expectation that the president be a prototypical citizen poses a major challenge for women and people of color who run for the presidency. Prototypical citizenship affected Barack Obama’s candidacy and presidency. Researchers found that Obama’s blackness suppressed his vote in 2008 and 2012,10 and his candidacy stoked racial fears and racialized public opinion and voting more than any other point in US history.11 “Although Obama ultimately won, we cannot reject that race—and racism in particular—played a significant role in the outcome.”12 Once in office, President Obama was branded an “outsider” and a dire threat to American values,13 and by the end of his presidency, one-in-five Americans believed he was born in another country.14 Similar biases exist for women because they are not prototypical citizens. As Jackson Katz points out, every presidential contest is ultimately about who is “man enough,” and male contenders purposefully project symbols of (white) masculinity as a way to tap into voters’ unconscious gender bias about the presidency.15 Male candidates routinely feminize male opponents as an electoral strategy,16 and Meredith Conroy found that the most “manly” presidential candidate won every election except one in the past two decades.17 For female presidential contenders, it is virtually impossible to prove masculinity without being criticized for violating norms of femininity.18 The powerful bias against presidential candidates who are not prototypical citizens was on full display in the 2016 election, marked by overt sexism against Hillary Clinton, the extent to which we have only seen with vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in 2008.19 Masculinity in the 2016 Election Effective presidential candidates must convince voters that they are the “most manly” in the race, even when all the candidates are male, in order to establish their status as the prototypical citizen in the pack.20

78

Caroline Heldman

Trump’s performance of hypermasculinity on the campaign trail was more extreme than any previous presidential candidate. His manly bravado at his rallies went beyond Theodore Roosevelt’s fiery rhetoric and carefully curated hunting tableaus from a century earlier. Presidential candidates are especially hypermasculine during times when conventions and traditions are under threat due to a rapidly shifting social order. We are experiencing a key moment in the United States when women, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, and others have gained substantially more power in recent decades. Given this shift, it is no surprise that the GOP advanced a candidate who pitched himself as manly enough to maintain the social order. Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan ascended to the presidency under similar circumstances as Trump—when it felt like the role of white men at the top of the social pecking order was in question. And, like Trump, they won by assuaging fears of the shifting social order through doubling down on masculinity, reminding voters that they were the best (read “most manly”) man for the job. Eight years of Obama’s nonprototypical presidency had piqued considerable fear from some Americans, and Clinton represented an extension of this “violation” to these voters. Like Obama, some Americans saw Clinton’s very identity as a threat to the traditional social hierarchy. The Republican Party initially dismissed Trump’s candidacy, but it soon became evident that he was the only candidate who could effectively tap into the fears about the shifting social order. Trump’s targeting of immigrants and other marginalized groups was part of this appeal, but the mode of delivery—hypermasculine bravado—was also important in convincing the Republican base of his prototypical citizenship. The 2016 Republican primary began with a packed field of seventeen candidates, which narrowed to Trump. He was the only candidate openly using racist and sexist rhetoric, delivered with masculine bluster.21 Gary Legum observes that this contest was the most masculine presidential primary in history:22 “This level of chest-thumping, as if the candidates were competing to see which one of them can be the troop’s dominant silverback, would be laughable if it didn’t work so well on the GOP base.” Trump feminized and infantilized Texas senator Ted Cruz by labeling him a “pussy”23 and a “soft, weak little baby.”24 Trump also feminized Florida senator Marco Rubio with the nickname “Little Marco,” and Rubio returned fire by joking about the size of Trump’s hands.25 The 2016 primary marked the first time in debate history that candidate penis size was featured. Rubio had referred to the size of

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

79

Trump’s “manhood” by suggesting that his small hands equated to the size of his penis. Trump asked the debate audience, “Look at those hands, are they small hands? And he referred to my hands, ‘if they’re small something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem, I guarantee it.” By the end of the primary, Trump had established his prototypical citizenship through an exaggerated performance of manhood, one that is capable of and willing to use force to restore the shifting social order (i.e., “Make America Great Again.”) Sexism in the 2016 Election Trump also employed sexist framing and language against Clinton to establish his prototypical citizenship. Trump used the Woman Card frame to keep Clinton’s gender front and center, which automatically taps into a deep pool of implicit gender bias because of most Americans’ default position of disdain for power-seeking women.26 Trump announced to his supporters, “I think the only card she has is the woman’s card. She’s got nothing else going . . . if Hillary Clinton were a man I don’t think she’d get 5% of the vote.” Trump used this frame many times during the election. It was particularly effective at undermining the first female contender in a general election because it both reminded voters of her gender while at the same time dismissing her ability to lead because she is a woman. Trump spelled this out for a reporter: “Without the woman’s [sic] card, Hillary would not even be a viable person to run for city council positions.”27 It is important to note that Clinton had 34 years of previous public service experience—significantly higher than the average of 22 years for presidential contenders28—while Trump was the first presidential nominee to have zero years of public service or military experience. Trump and his surrogates also tapped into gender bias with the Frail frame, casting Clinton as physically weak by frequently commenting on her “stamina.” During the first presidential debate, Trump gestured at Clinton and said, “to be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina.” In the second presidential debate, he stated that Clinton “doesn’t have the stamina” to be president.29 The campaign ran ads in battleground states asserting that Clinton lacked the “fortitude, strength, or stamina to lead in our world.”30 The Frail frame was effective against Clinton because it tapped into implicit gender bias that women are weak. A poll in September of 2016 found that, of the two candidates, 53

80

Caroline Heldman

percent of Americans thought Trump had more stamina compared to 39 percent who thought Clinton had more stamina.31 Trump also used the Nasty Woman frame to establish his manly superiority and remind voters that Clinton violates gender norms. During the third debate, Trump told viewers “nobody respects women more than me,”32 then moments later referred to Clinton as “a nasty woman.” Direct insults are exceedingly rare in presidential debates,33 but Trump’s gender slur tapped right into gender role expectations that “proper” women are not supposed to challenge or critique men. Women leaders face a double bind that was apparent when Trump criticized Clinton for not being “man enough” (with the Frail frame) and for being too manly (the Nasty Woman frame). Trump was overt about linking Clinton’s gender to her unworthiness for the presidency, telling a reporter, “I just don’t think she [Clinton] has a presidential look,” and asking men in a crowd of supporters, “and she looks presidential, fellows?”34 He openly degraded her in a gendered way by announcing that she “got schlonged” by Obama in 2008.35 Trump also used sexist comments about Clinton’s physical appearance to bolster his manliness: “When she walked in front of me [at the debate], believe me I was not impressed.”36 Men have long validated women’s worth through evaluations of their appearance, so this was a gendered power play that both reminded voters of Clinton’s gender while at the same time demeaning it. Trump also mocked Clinton’s voice in sexist ways, telling a news host, “I haven’t quite recovered— it’s early in the morning—from her shouting that message. And I know a lot of people would say you can’t say that about a woman because, of course, a woman doesn’t shout, but the way she shouted that message was not. Eww.”37 Trump also labeled Clinton “shrill,” a word that has long been used to silence women.38 Trump’s sexism was on display in the debates. In the first debate, he referred to Clinton by her first name instead of her professional titles, a tactic that diminishes public perceptions of competency for female candidates.39 In the second debate, Trump diminutively referred to Clinton as “secretary,” playing upon the double meaning of the term as a position of power and a clerical worker. Trump also frequently interrupted Clinton during the debates: 51 to 17 in the first,40 18 to 1 in the second debate,41 37 to 9 in the third debate.42 He physically dominated Clinton with his body size and position during the second debate: towering over her, lurking behind her, and clutching the back of a chair while looking menacingly at her.43

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

81

Trump’s sexism had wide appeal to Republican voters who sported open displays of misogyny against Clinton at campaign rallies and on social media. At rallies, they chanted “tramp,” “whore,” “kill her,” “lock her up,” and “Trump That Bitch.”44 Some Trump supporters made and sold sexist merchandise and signs: “Donald Trump, Finally Someone With Balls,” “Don’t Be a Pussy, Vote for Trump,” “Hillary Couldn’t Satisfy Her Husband, Can’t Satisfy U.S.,” “Life’s a Bitch, Don’t Vote for One,” “I Wish Hillary Had Married OJ,” “She’s a Cunt, Vote for Trump,” “Trump That Bitch,” “Hillary sucks but not like Monica,” “2 fat thighs, 2 small breasts, 1 left wing,” and “Better to Grab a Pussy Than to be One.”45 Trump used sexism to tap into voter bias against a female president, and when multiple allegations of sexual violence and a taped admission of sexual predation surfaced, he used this to further remind voters of his manhood and the fact that he was the only prototypical citizen in the race. Sexual Violence in the 2016 Election The 2016 presidential election was the first to involve sexual violence allegations against a party nominee. Trump was the target of mounting sexual harassment/violence allegations, some of which surfaced many years earlier but received scant attention until the election. By the end of the campaign, 22 women had gone public with allegations,46 including 12 women who say Trump groped or kissed them without their consent (Figure 5.1). Three rape allegations also resurfaced during the campaign. Ivana, Trump’s first wife, detailed the first rape allegation in a sworn divorce deposition. Author Harry Hurt writes that in the deposition Ivana describes an angry Trump confronting her after a botched plastic surgery on his scalp.47 Trump allegedly tore her clothes and raped her in order to mirror the pain of his botched operation because Trump had gone to Ivana’s plastic surgeon. Ivana described the incident as “rape” to close friends, and later said she felt “violated” by the experience. She received a substantial divorce settlement and signed a nondisclosure agreement preventing her from speaking about their marriage. The other two rape allegations involved minors. “Katie Johnson” claims Trump raped her at a 1994 party thrown by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when Katie was thirteen. In 2008, a court convicted Epstein of soliciting sex from a minor, and he had paid numerous

82

Caroline Heldman

Figure 5.1 Women Who Have Accused Trump of Sexual Assault 1. Jessica Leeds, on a plane (1981)

2. Kristin Anderson, at a Manhattan nightclub (1990) 3. Cathy Heller, at Mar-a-Lago (1996)

4. Temple Taggart McDowell (Miss Utah USA), at a beauty

pageant (1997)

5. Jill Harth, at Mar-A-Lago (1997)

6. Karena Virginia, at the US Open Tennis Championship (1998) 7. Mindy McGillivray, at Mar-a-Lago (2004) 8. Rachel Crooks, at Trump Tower (2005)

9. Natasha Stoynoff, at Mar-A-Lago (2005)

10. Ninni Laaksonen (Miss Finland), before an appearance on

Letterman (2006)

11. Summer Zervos, on the set of The Apprentice (2009)

12. Cassandra Searles (Miss Washington USA), at a beauty

pageant (2013)

settlements to underage victims over the years.48 Johnson alleges that Trump had sex with her on three occasions, but violently raped her on the fourth time. (Note that all of these alleged acts of “sex” constitute statutory rape.) Two women corroborated Johnson’s allegations: “Tiffany Doe,” who alleges that Trump also had sex with her at Epstein parties when she was 12, and a woman who was 29 at the time who was employed by Epstein to procure underage girls. Doe’s sworn declaration states: “It was at these series of parties that I personally witnessed the Plaintiff forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old. I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.” Johnson withdrew her lawsuit against Trump just days before the election, citing her fear of retaliation and the receipt of death threats.

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

83

Trump denied all of the old allegations of sexual misconduct and used sexism to neutralize a new allegation that surfaced one month before the election. People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff alleged that Trump walked into a room behind her at Mar-a-Lago and, within seconds, pushed her up against a wall and forced his tongue down her throat. Stoynoff says she fought off Trump’s unwanted advances. At a campaign rally, Trump laughed, “Take a look. You look at her. You tell me what you think. I don’t think so. I don’t think so.” Many in the crowd roared with delight at Trump’s sexist suggestion that Stoynoff was not attractive enough to sexually assault. Trump was also scandalized in early October of 2016 when a tape surfaced of him bragging about sexual assault to Access Hollywood host Billy Bush prior to a 2005 taping of the show (see Figure 5.2). Trump responded to the Access Hollywood tape by hosting a press conference with three women who reported sexual violence from Bill Clinton (Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey). Trump again used Bill Clinton’s predatory behavior to dismiss the Access Hollywood tape during the second debate: “If you look at Bill Clinton, mine are words and his were actions. There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women.”49 Trump’s strategy of holding Clinton responsible for her husband’s alleged sexual violence was effective. In an NBC/WSJ poll taken shortly after the tape’s release, only 32 percent of voters thought it disqualified Trump to be president.50 In the same poll, 48 percent of voters thought Clinton’s handling of her husband’s sex scandals in the 1990s were a legitimate concern for her presidency. Voters were more concerned about Clinton’s handling of her husband’s allegations than Trump’s own allegations. Holding women accountable for the misdeeds of their husbands is a sexist American pastime that implies that wives are an extension of their husbands.51 Trump effectively tapped into this gender bias, and shortly after the tape’s release, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that 84 percent of Republicans said the Access Hollywood tape would not make a difference in their presidential vote.52 Survivors of sexual violence reported elevated anxiety during the 2016 election, but Trump’s allegations and taped admission of sexual violence did not affect his electoral support.53 Trump’s strategy of scoffing at allegations of sexual assault were effective for his base. Trump understood his audience—Americans with high levels of racism, resentment, and sexism, to whom Trump’s status as the head of the birther movement and his open misogyny were seen

84

Caroline Heldman

Figure 5.2 Partial Transcript of the Access Hollywood Tape Trump: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down

on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.

Unknown: Whoa.

Trump: I did try and fuck her. She was married. Unknown: That’s huge news.

Trump: No, no, Nancy. No, this was [unintelligible]—and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look. Billy Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple. Trump: Whoa! Whoa!

Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!

[Crosstalk]

Trump: Look at you, you are a pussy.

[Crosstalk]

Trump: All right, you and I will walk out.

[Silence]

Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s—

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic

Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

85

as positives rather than negatives. He made repeated and direct appeals to the segment of the population whose top priority was neutralizing the threat of a shifting social order. The common media narrative, that economic anxiety was the primary driver of vote choice in the 2016 election, is simply inaccurate. Many studies find that racism and sexism were more potent predictors of vote choice for Trump.54 Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta find that economic dissatisfaction played a small part, but racism and sexism mattered far more.55 In fact, the 2016 election was unique in terms of the influence of racism and sexism and was not part of a larger trend.56 When it comes to race, a Reuters poll taken during the election found that Trump supporters were more likely to describe black Americans as “lazy and violent,” “criminal,” and “unintelligent” than other Republican voters and other voters.57 Philip Klinkner finds that the biggest predictor of support for Trump was the answer “yes” to the question, “Is Barack Obama a Muslim?”58 Nicholas Valentino, Fabian Neuner, and Matthew Vandenbroek find evidence that Trump tapped into the idea that “whites now view themselves as an embattled racial group, and this has led to both strong ingroup identity and a greater tolerance for expressions of hostility toward outgroups.”59 Sexism also played an outsized role in the 2016 election. Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields find that modern sexism—resentment or hostility toward working women—was a highly significant predictor of vote choice for Trump, even when party identification, race, and education were taken into account.60 Nearly two-thirds of Trump voters held sexist attitudes compared to one-in-five Clinton voters.61 Carly Wayne, Nicholas Valentino, and Marzia Oceno find that Trump voters had high levels of anger at women’s recent societal advances.62 When it comes to attitudes toward sexual violence, Trump supporters were less likely than other Republicans and Americans to believe women who report this crime. Data from the Presidential Election Panel Survey indicates that voters who strongly agree that “women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve” were 30 percent more likely to vote for Trump in the Republican primary than voters who strongly disagreed with this sentiment.63 Trump used racism and sexism as electoral strategies to win the White House, and in doing so, he both emboldened overt racism and sexism and inspired a national outpouring of activism against it. In the next section, I explore responses to the sexism and sexual violence that marked the 2016 election.

86

Caroline Heldman

The Response to the 2016 Election Trump’s win amid allegations of sexual violence and strategic use of sexism produced an expected gender-justice–based response. The 2016 election produced the largest gender gap in US history, and Trump’s win inspired the largest single-day protest in US history, contributed to the emergence of the #MeToo movement, and produced the largest number of female candidates in US history in the next election. Historic Gender Gap

More women than men have voted Democratic since the gender gap first emerged in 1980, but the gender gap in 2016 was the largest in history. At 24 points, it beat the previous 20-point record from 2012 when Obama lost men by 8 points and won women by 12 points.64 The gender gap story of 2016 is mainly the story of more men voting Republican. Women voted slightly more Democratic compared to recent presidential elections, but men increased their Republican support by five points. Male voters favored Trump by 12 percent, compared to 7 percent for Mitt Romney just four years earlier.65 Partisanship remains the most potent variable for predicting vote choice, but the presence of the first female general election contender likely accounts for some of the drop with male voters on the Democratic ticket, primed by Trump’s steady drip of sexism and performance of hypermasculinity. Historic Protests

Trump’s election inspired the largest single-day protest in US history, when over 1 million people gathered at the national mall the day after the inauguration, wearing pink “pussy” hats, for the Women’s March.66 Throughout the nation, Women’s Marches took place in 653 cities and towns, including gatherings of 100,000 or more in Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and Boston.67 A surprising number of protests took place in rural areas, for example, 25 marches in Alaska involving over 9,000 people.68 All told, an estimated 4 million people marched under a gender banner to protest Trump’s ascendency to the White House.69 The overt sexism of the 2016 election motivated passions of millions of women (and some men) to march.

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

87

The #MeToo Movement

Trump’s win, despite multiple allegations of sexual violence, likely played a role in the emergence of the #MeToo movement in 2017. To date, 1.7 million people in 85 countries have used the #MeToo hashtag on social media. 70 #MeToo became a movement in October of 2017 when reporters Jodi Kantor and Rachel Abrams published a story in the New York Times with thirteen celebrity women accusing media mogul Harvey Weinstein of rape. Days later, journalist Ronan Farrow published another piece detailing Weinstein’s alleged sexual predation. To date, actors Angelina Jolie, Rose McGowan, Lupita Nyong’o, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Judd, and nearly one hundred others have publicly named Weinstein as their sexual predator. When this news broke, actor Alyssa Milano took to Twitter with the #MeToo hashtag, using the same name as a campaign against sexual violence started by activist Tarana Burke in 1997. People used the #MeToo hashtag 609,000 times the first day it went viral71 and have used it more than 14 million times since.72 In its first year, the #MeToo movement inspired women and men to come forward to report sexual harassment and violence against 429 prominent people in different industries, including entertainment, media, politics, finance, sports, and technology.73 Senator Al Franken and Representatives Blake Farenthold, Trent Franks, and John Conyers resigned after public allegations of sexual harassment. At the state level, 59 public officials have faced allegations.74 This movement has been an unmitigated success in terms of raising awareness of our society’s default position of not holding powerful sexual predators accountable. (Second) Year of the Woman

Nearly 600 women decided to run for the House, Senate, or a governorship—the highest number of female candidates in US history, many citing the sexism of the 2016 election as a catalyst.75 Nearly three-in-four new female candidates identified as Democrats, which reflects a particular frustration with the existing political structure among women on the left.76 Sexual violence also affected the 2018 midterms by ending the bids of 12 Republicans and 13 Democrats with pending claims of sexual misconduct.77 The pushback against the overt sexism that Trump emboldened in 2016 advantaged female candidates in the midterms.

88

Caroline Heldman

During the 2018 Democratic primaries, female candidates had an average 10-point electoral advantage over male contenders.78 Americans voted in a record 117 women to Congress in the 2018 midterms, 42 of whom are women of color.79 This new “Year of the Woman” was reminiscent of, but much larger than, the first Year of the Woman in 1992 after Clarence Thomas was nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court despite sexual harassment allegations.80 Sexual Violence and the Trump Presidency Once in office, Trump supported prominent men accused of sexual misconduct as a strategy to energize his base. He defended Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly when multiple claims of sexual harassment came public in April of 2017. Trump told the New York Times, “I think he’s a person I know well—he is a good person. I think he shouldn’t have settled; personally I think he shouldn’t have settled. Because you should have taken it all the way. I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”81 A few weeks later, Fox News fired O’Reilly for multiple counts of sexual harassment.82 In the fall of 2017, Trump defended Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore. During the election, multiple allegations surfaced that Moore had been sexually inappropriate with teenage girls when he was a district attorney.83 One woman, Leigh Corfman, alleged that Moore had sexual relations with her when she was 14 and he was 32. Even though the #MeToo movement was in full swing, Trump tweeted his support of this alleged child sexual predator. Moore lost in an upset to Democrat Doug Jones. In 2018, Trump nominated federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Research professor Christine Blasey Ford reported that in high school, Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing. Two more women came forward with allegations during Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, but Blasey Ford was the only woman to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a poll taken after her testimony, 45 percent believed Ford was telling the truth about the incident, while 33 percent believed Kavanaugh was telling the truth, and the remainder were undecided. 84 In a poll taken days before he was confirmed, half of Americans (48 percent) opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and a majority of women (55 percent) opposed it.85

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

89

Trump initially deemed Ford’s account “credible,” but quickly changed his tone and openly mocked her at a campaign rally: “Thirty-six years ago, this happened,” Trump said. “‘I had one beer.’ Right? ‘I had one beer.’ How did you get home? ‘I don’t remember.’ How’d you get there? ‘I don’t remember.’ Where is the place? ‘I don’t remember.’ How many years ago was it? ‘I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.’ What neighborhood was it in? ‘I don’t know.’ Where’s the house? ‘I don’t know.’ Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? ‘I don’t know. But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember.’”86

The crowd roared with laughter at Trump’s scorn of Blasey Ford, and pollsters found a small “Kavanaugh bump” for Republicans after the confirmation that disappeared before the midterm elections.87 The 2020 Election I anticipate that the heightened concern about gender justice issues, brought about by Trump’s fostering of sexism and dismissal of sexual violence in the 2016 race, will affect the 2020 race when it comes to turnout and vote choice, which candidates are elevated by the parties, and media coverage. Sexual violence has become one of the most salient gender justice issues in national politics, and I expect that the persistence of the #MeToo movement means millions of voters—mostly Democratic women—will prioritize sexual violence in their vote choice come 2020. Nearly threequarters (73 percent) of millennial women say they would never vote for a candidate accused of sexual harassment, and 65 percent say candidates should make this topic a policy priority.88 Half of millennial women say that #MeToo concerns make them more likely to vote for female candidates, and 27 percent say it makes them much more likely to do so. In short, issues of sexual harassment/violence are a priority for women who tend to vote Democratic, and the salience of this issue means that whoever runs against Trump will make these issues a campaign priority. Trump’s sexism in the 2016 election and the #MeToo movement may influence which candidate the Democratic Party puts on the top of their ticket in 2020. It is unclear how the Democratic Party will respond. One option is to play it “safe” and select a white, male candidate who will not be hampered by the bias against candidates who are

90

Caroline Heldman

not prototypical citizens. Another option for the party is to capitalize on the new energy in the party that ignited turnout in 2018, mostly driven by women, and nominate a woman for the top or bottom of the ticket. When it comes to candidate choice on the Republican side, Trump is the incumbent, but he may face opposition during the primary from female candidates who capitalize on his dropping support among Republican women. In the months preceding the 2018 midterms, 75 percent of white working-class women said Trump does not respect women as much as men.89 If the erosion for Trump among his (mostly white) female supporters continues, the sexist campaign appeals he used in 2016 may not work as well with his female base in 2020. The salience of sexual violence issues may also influence media coverage of Trump’s allegations in 2020. His allegations received some press coverage in 2016, but will likely receive far more coverage in 2020 given the rise of #MeToo. Lindsey Blumell conducted a content analysis of how media covered Trump’s allegations of sexual assault and found that most conservative news sources defended Trump and dismissed the seriousness of his words, while mainstream sources paid little attention to the allegations.90 With #MeToo, news outlets dedicated more space to sexual violence issues in 2017 than any previous year on record,91 and reporters were more likely to frame incidents as part of a larger rape culture instead of episodic.92 I expect that the 22 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct will see their day in the court of public opinion, and reporters will do a better job of contextualizing them within the larger rape culture, defined as a society that normalizes or trivializes sexual violence. Lastly, I expect that sexual violence will remain a partisan lightning rod in the 2020 race. The emergence of the #MeToo movement has made this shifting social order more pronounced, not less, so Trump will again use sexism and attempt to downplay the significance of sexual violence to appeal to his base. In a recent poll, 69 percent of Americans say that #MeToo has created a culture where sexual predators will now be held accountable, but more than 40 percent—mostly Republicans—believe the movement has “gone too far.”93 This divergence of opinion splits more along political party lines than gender lines, with Republicans far more likely to think the alleged perpetrator should be given the benefit of the doubt over the alleged victim, and far more likely to think that false allegations are common.94 Trump will likely continue to use sexual violence as a wedge issue to generate support from his base.

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

91

Conclusion The 2016 election was another wake-up call for many who underestimated the barriers to a female presidency. We had a similar wake-up call after the 2000 Republican primary when Elizabeth Dole faced overt and subtle sexism in the press that tanked her candidacy,95 and another after the 2008 Democratic primary when Clinton received sexist media coverage that eroded perceptions of her viability.96 In 2016, scholars learned that the closer a female candidate gets to the presidency, the uglier the sexism. That Trump won by using sexism as a strategy, and so easily weathered 22 allegations of sexual misconduct, does not bode well for future female presidential candidates. Trump was able to frame allegations of sexual violence as false and insignificant for millions of Americans who were more fearful of electing another nonprototypical citizen than a possible violent criminal. Moreover, Trump established the use of overt sexism as the norm against female contenders. His strategy of constantly reminding voters of Clinton’s gender, then degrading her in gendered ways, was one of many factors that determined the election outcome.97 Given that the advent of social media has created a more hostile environment for female candidates,98 and male candidates are electorally incentivized to use sexism when facing a female opponent, the barriers to a female presidency remain quite high.

Notes 1. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Population Distribution by Gender.” 2. I classify candidates who secure sizable funding and recognition from a political party as serious contenders. 3. See Havel, U.S. Presidential Candidates and the Election. 4. See Heldman, Conroy, and Ackerman, Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election. 5. Holly Kearl, “The Facts Behind the #MeToo Movement: A National Study on Sexual Harassment and Assault,” Stop Street Harassment, February, 2018, http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-National -Sexual-Harassment-and-Assault-Report.pdf. 6. As quoted in Duerst-Lahti, “Reconceiving Theories of Power.” 7. See Heldman, Conroy, and Ackerman, Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election; Okimoto and Brescoll, “The Price of Power.” 8. See Smith, Civic Ideals. 9. Devos and Banaji, “American = White?”

92

Caroline Heldman

10. Tesler and Sears, Obama’s Race; Pasek, Krosnick, and Tompson, “The Impact of Anti-Black Racism on Approval of Barack Obama’s Job Performance.” 11. Tesler and Sears, Obama’s Race. 12. Parker, Sawyer, and Towler, “A Black Man in the White House?” 13. Garland and Chakraborti, “‘Race,’ Space and Place.” 14. David Jackson, “Poll: 20% Believe Barack Obama Was Born Outside the U.S.,” USA Today, September 14, 2015. 15. Katz, Man Enough? 16. Conroy, Media, Masculinity, and the American Presidency. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid, 191. 19. Conroy et. al, “From Ferraro to Palin.” 20. Conroy, Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency. 21. Philip Bump, “Trump Got the Most GOP Votes Ever—Both For and Against Him—and Other Fun Facts,” Washington Post, June 8, 2016, http:// uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2012. 22. Gary Legum, “The Raging Idiocy of the GOP’s Masculinity Brigade,” Salon, January 20, 2016, https://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/the_raging_idiocy _of_the_gops_masculinity_brigade/. 23. Jess Byrnes, “Trump Calls Cruz a ‘Pussy,’” The Hill, February 8, 2016, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/268714-trump-calls-cruz-a -pussy. 24. Jeremy Diamond, “Trump: Cruz Is ‘Like a Little Baby,’” CNN, February 23, 2016, https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-nevada -baby/index.html. 25. Daniel White, “Watch Trump Talk About His Private Parts as the Debate,” CNN, March 3, 2016, http://time.com/4247366/republican-debate-donald-trump -small-hands-penis/. 26. Okimoto and Brescoll, “The Price of Power.” 27. Nick Gass, “Trump Escalates ‘Woman Card’ Attack on Clinton,” Politico, April 28, 2016, https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates -and-results/2016/04/trump-hillary-clinton-women-card-222564. 28. Nelson M. Rosario, “Presidents Ranked by Public Service Experience,” Medium, November 19, 2016, https://medium.com/@nelsonmrosario/presidents -ranked-by-public-service-experience-d4c95d1ae55d. 29. Sophie Tatum, “Trump: Clinton ‘Doesn’t Have the Stamina’ to Be President,” CNN, September 27, 2016, https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/donald -trump-hillary-clinton-stamina/index.html. 30. “Trump Ad Depicts Clinton as Physically Frail,” MSNBC, October 12, 2016, https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/trump-ad-depicts-clinton-as -physically-frail-784090691645. 31. Sean Cockerham and Leslie Clark, “Clinton Has Lead, But Is Vulnerable on Trust, Connection with Voters,” McClatchy DC Bureau, September 23, 2017, http:// www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article103597247.html. 32. Nicky Woolf, “‘Nasty Woman’: Trump Attacks Clinton During Final Debate,” Guardian, October 20, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/20 /nasty-woman-donald-trump-hillary-clinton.

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

93

33. German Lopez, “Trump Calls Clinton ‘Such a Nasty Woman’ on the Debate Stage,” Vox, October 19, 2016, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10 /19/13342054/debate-trump-clinton-nasty-woman. 34. Ashley Parker, “Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Have ‘a Presidential Look,’” New York Times, September 6, 2016, https://www.nytimes .com/2016/09/07/us/politics/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a -presidential-look.html. 35. Jeremy Diamond, “Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton ‘Got Schlonged’ in 2008,” CNN, December 22, 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics /donald-trump-hillary-clinton-disgusting/index.html. 36. Nolan D. McCaskill, “Trump: Clinton Walked in Front of Me and ‘I Wasn’t Impressed,’” Politico, October 14, 2016, https://www.politico.com/story/2016 /10/trump-clinton-debate-walk-not-impressed-229810. 37. Amy Chozick and Ashley Parker, “Donald Trump’s Gender-Based Attacks on Hillary Clinton Have Calculated Risks,” New York Times, April 28, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump -women.html.; Anne Gearan and Katie Zezima, “Trump’s ‘Woman’s Card’ Comment Escalates the Campaign’s Gender Wars,” New York Times, April 27, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-womans-card-comment -escalates-gender-wars-of-2016-campaign/2016/04/27/fbe4c67a-0c2b-11e6-8ab8 -9ad050f76d7d_story.html. 38. Jenna Johnson, “Donald Trump Calls Hillary Clinton ‘Shrill,’” Washington Post, September 23, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump -calls-hillary-clinton-shrill/2015/09/23/63c6d5be-6216-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679 _story.html?utm_term=.dad7cec3f311; William Cheng, “The Long, Sexist History of ‘Shrill’ Women,” Time, March 23, 2016, https://time.com/4268325/history-calling -women-shrill. 39. Uscinski and Goren, “What’s in a Name?” 40. Emily Crockett and Sarah Frostenson, “Trump Interrupted Clinton 51 Times at the Debate,” Vox, September 27, 2016, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics /2016/9/27/13017666/presidential-debate-trump-clinton-sexism-interruptions. 41. Sarah Frostenson, “Trump Interrupted Clinton 18 Times,” Vox, October 9, 2016, https://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13223000/trump-interrupted-clinton-18-times -she-interrupted-him-once. 42. Sarah Frostenson, “Trump Interrupted Clinton 37 Times,” Vox, October 20. 2016. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13341754/trump-clinton -interrupted-third-debate. 43. “Donald Trump Lurking Over Hillary Clinton Disturbs Some Viewers During US Presidential Debate,” The Telegraph, October 10, 2016, https://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/2016/10/10/donald-trump-lurking-over-hillary-clinton-disturbs -viewers-durin. 44. Tierney Mcafee, “Inside a Trump Rally: The Nasty, Sexist, Racist Chants by His Supporters,” People Magazine, August 4, 2016, http://people.com/celebrity /trump-supporters-hurl-racist-and-sexist-slurs-at-rallies-nyt-video-shows/. 45. Claire Landsbaum, “The Most Misogynistic Gear Spotted at Trump Rallies,” The Cut, October 12, 2016, https://www.thecut.com/2016/10/the-most-misogynistic -things-people-wore-to-trump-rallies.html.

94

Caroline Heldman

46. Eliza Relman, “The 22 Women Who Have Accused Trump of Sexual Misconduct,” Business Insider, September 26, 2018, https://www.businessinsider .com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12. 47. Brandy Zadrozny and Tim Mak, “Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex,” Daily Beast, July 27, 2015, https://www.thedailybeast .com/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-me-feel-violated-during-sex. 48. Brandy Zadrozny, “The Billionaire Pedophile Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,” Daily Beast, June 30, 2016, https://www .thedailybeast.com/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump -and-hillary-clinton. 49. David A. Graham, “Donald Trump’s Disastrous Debate,” Atlantic, October 9, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/10/second-presidential-debate -clinton-trump/503495. 50. Chas Dannar, “Clinton Maintains Lead in Two New Polls, But Trump Tape Impact is Mixed,” New York Magazine, October 16, 2016, http://nymag.com /intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-holds-lead-in-new-polls-but-trump-tape-impact -mixed.html. 51. Lyz Lenz, “America’s Sexist History of Holding Women Accountable for Their Husbands,” Splinter, October 9, 2016, https://splinternews.com/america-s -sexist-history-of-holding-women-accountable-f-1793862628. 52. Michael Tesler, “A Striking Poll Shows That Many Trump Supporters Already Doubted Women’s Claims of Sexual Harassment—Even Before the Infamous Tape,” Washington Post, October 17, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost .com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/17/a-striking-poll-shows-that-many-trump -supporters-already-doubted-womens-claims-of-sexual-harassment-even-before -the-infamous-tape/?utm_term=.d6758145badd. 53. Ashley Welch, “Sexual Assault Survivors Struggle to Cope with Trump Election,” CBS News, November 17, 2016, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexual -assault-survivors-cope-with-donald-trump-election. 54. Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel, “Fear of Diversity Made People More Likely to Vote Trump,” Nation, March 14, 2017, https://www.thenation.com/article /fear-of-diversity-made-people-more-likely-to-vote-trump; Philip Klinkner, “The Easiest Way to Guess If Someone Supports Trump? Ask If Obama Is a Muslim,” Vox, June 2, 2016, https://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11833548/donald-trump-support -race-religion-economy. 55. Schaffner, MacWilliams, and Nteta, “Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President.” 56. Ibid. 57. Emily Flitter and Chris Kahn, “Exclusive: Trump Voters More Likely to View Blacks Negatively—Reuters/Ipsos Poll,” Reuters, June 28, 2016, https:// www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW. 58. Ibid. 59. Valentino, Neuner, and Vandenbroek, “The Changing Norms of Racial Political Rhetoric,” 28. 60. Ibid. 61. Maxwell and Shields, “The Impact of ‘Modern Sexism’ on the 2016 Presidential Election.”

Electing a Woman President in the #MeToo Era

95

62. Ibid. They measured sexism with a standard social science index that asks respondents about their level of agreement with a series of statements, such as “Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist” and “Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for equality.” 63. Ibid. 64. Danielle Paquette, “The Unexpected Voters Behind the Widest Gender Gap in History,” Washington Post, November 9, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com /news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/men-handed-trump-the-election/?utm_term= .f6c6340e1655. 65. Ibid. 66. Erica Chenoweth and Jeremy Pressman, “This Is What We Learned by Counting the Women’s Marches,” Washington Post, February 7, 2017, https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/07/this-is-what-we -learned-by-counting-the-womens-marches/?utm_term=.739a1e851b35. 67. Ibid. 68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 70. Andrea Park, “#MeToo Reaches 85 Countries with 1.7M Tweets,” CBS News, October 24, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/metoo-reaches-85 -countries-with-1-7-million-tweets. 71. Riley Griffin, Hannah Recht, and Jeff Green, “#MeToo: One Year Later,” Bloomberg, October 5, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-me-too -anniversary. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 75. Heather Caygle, “Record-Breaking Number of Women Run for Public Office,” Politico, March 8, 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/08/women -rule-midterms-443267. 76. Ibid. 77. Elaine Godfrey, Lena Felton, and Taylor Hosking, “The 25 Candidates for 2018 Sunk by #MeToo Allegations,” Atlantic, July 26, 2018, https://www .theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/the-25-candidates-for-2018-sunk-by -metoo-allegations/565457. 78. Meredith Conroy, Mai Nguyen, and Nathaniel Rakich, “We Researched Hundreds of Races. Here’s Who Democrats Are Nominating,” FiveThirtyEight, August 10, 2018, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-primaries-candidates -demographics. 79. Maya Salam, “A Record 117 Women Won Office, Reshaping America’s Leadership,” Oklahoman, November 7, 2018, https://oklahoman.com/article/feed /7011525/a-record-117-women-won-office-reshaping-americas-leadership. 80. Green, “A Lot Has Changed in Congress Since 1992, the ‘Year of the Woman.’” 81. Michael M. Grynbaum and Jim Rutenberg, “Trump, Asked About Accusations Against Bill O’Reilly, Calls Him a ‘Good Person,’” New York Times, April 5, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/media/trump-oreilly-fox -murdochs.html.

96

Caroline Heldman

82. The author was one of the women who publicly reported that O’Reilly engaged in sexual harassment and gender discrimination. 83. Billy Perrigo, “‘We Need Roy Moore.’ President Trump Endorses Moore Despite Sexual Misconduct Allegations,” Time, December 4, 2017, https://time .com/5047360/donald-trump-we-need-roy-moore-sexual-misconduct-allegations. 84. Domenico Montanaro, “Poll: More Believe Ford than Kavanaugh, a Culture Shift from 1991,” NPR, October 3, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03 /654054108/poll-more-believe-ford-than-kavanaugh-a-cultural-shift-from-1991. 85. Paul LeBlanc and Jennifer Agiesta, “Poll: Nearly Half of Voters Say Kavanaugh Shouldn’t Be Confirmed,” CNN, October 1, 2018, https://www.cnn .com/2018/10/01/politics/kavanaugh-poll-quinnipiac-confirmation/index.html. 86. Jonathan Allen, “Trump Mocks Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Campaign Rally,” NBC News, October 2, 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com /politics/politics-news/trump-mocks-christine-blasey-ford-mississippi-campaign -rally-n916061. 87. Christina Wilkie, “A‘Kavanaugh Bump’ Is Boosting GOP Senate Candidates— But Its Impact on Trump’s Ratings Is Unclear,” CNBC, October 13, 2018, https:// www.cnbc.com/2018/10/13/kavanaugh-bump-is-boosting-gop-senate-candidates -but-trump-is-a-different-story.html. 88. Barbara Lee Family Foundation, “Voters, Candidates, and #MeToo.” 89. Ronald Brownstein, “The Women Who Gave Trump the White House Could Tip the Midterms to Democrats,” Atlantic, August 16, 2018, https://www .theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/trump-democrats-midterms/567658. 90. Blumell, “She Persisted . . . and So Did He.” 91. Mary Shedden, “Media Coverage of Sexual Assaults Changing, Could Be Better,” WUSF News, February 2, 2018, https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/post /media-coverage-sexual-assaults-changing-could-be-better. 92. Frank R. Baumgartner and Sarah McAdon, “There’s Been a Big Change in How the News Covers Sexual Assault,” Washington Post, May 11, 2017, 93. Tovia Smith, “On #MeToo, Americans More Divided by Party Than Gender,” PBS, October 31, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662178315/on-metoo -americans-more-divided-by-party-than-gender. 94. Ibid. 95. Heldman, Carroll, and Olson, “‘She Brought Only a Skirt.’” 96. Lawrence and Rose, Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House. 97. Heldman, Conroy, and Ackerman, Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election. 98. Conroy et al., “From Ferraro to Palin.”

6 Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren

THE 1964 FILM KISSES FROM MY PRESIDENT, STARRING Polly Bergen as President Leslie McCloud, is one of the first popular culture representations of a woman in the Oval Office. The feminist potential of the film, offering women and men the imaginative space to consider what it might be like to break that “highest, hardest glass ceiling” of masculine power, quickly dissipates into slapstick comedy. The film was really a star vehicle for Fred MacMurray, the First Gentleman, who plays the situation for laughs, demonstrating total confusion when expected to plan menus for state dinners and sleep in the frilly bedroom designated for the First Lady. The notion of a woman president is apparently so ridiculous, viewers could only be expected to guffaw at MacMurray’s misadventures in playing the feminine helpmate. Little attention is paid to how President McCloud inhabits her new role; clearly the more novel and important dilemma is how a First Gentleman could ever not be emasculated by his situation. MacMurray’s aggrieved bemusement, and the running amok of the First Family’s children, is finally solved when President McCloud discovers she is unexpectedly pregnant and immediately resigns from the Oval Office, prioritizing her motherhood over politics and setting traditional gender roles aright. While Kisses From My President opened up, for one of the first times, the space that allows citizens and movie-going audiences to imagine a woman as president, we have seen that notion explored more frequently in film and television in the past few decades: from Glenn Close’s fraught position as quasi commander in chief in the 1997 action

97

98

Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren

movie Air Force One to Geena Davis’s earnest portrayal in the quickly canceled 2005 television drama Commander in Chief; Cherry Jones’s bold, idealistic, and exhausted leader in the thriller 24 (2010); Bellamy Young’s melodramatic leap from ex–First Lady to president in her own right in Scandal (2017); and Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s contemporary satirical turn in Veep, among others. More frequent and diverse representations of female characters in the Oval Office play a significant role in shifting cultural expectations of who can legitimately occupy such spaces. Just as we observe a “role model effect” when the demographics of actual candidates and officeholders broaden, engaging more and different citizens in electoral politics, so too do we know that pop culture narratives give citizens opportunities to see new faces in positions of power. Not only might they imagine themselves or people like them in those roles, but they may also reshape their definitions of the office—or even of power itself. What can we learn from the recent proliferation of female characters set in political spaces and roles on television, and why do they matter? As the public and political elites reckon with the success of the first woman achieving a major party presidential nomination, as well as her failure to win the White House, feminist and political theory grapples with what Hillary Clinton’s defeat says about women’s power and equality in the 21st century. The imaginative distance that film and television creates, unbounded by partisan and geopolitical constraints, might allow us space to reflect on gendered dynamics of power in a wider context. Cultural representations of feminine power may help us understand what makes us anxious or elated about women in politics. Seeing women in powerful roles on the big and small screen may also broaden the public’s conception of what women are capable of, normalizing women with power and lessening anxiety. Conversely, if screen roles are limited or women with power are punished for wielding it, it may reflect and incite backlash against real political opportunities. Our cultural representations today, like folk and fairytale archetypes of yore, should be taken seriously as insights into what disturbs, frightens, excites, and inspires us— in this case, about gendered power, especially executive power. Recent television shows such as Scandal, The Good Wife, Madam Secretary, Veep, Parks and Recreation, Homeland, Game of Thrones, The Crown, and Quantico have offered numerous timely representations of women in overtly political roles. These representations matter because they are happening outside actual campaigns, elections, and policymaking, in a space where writers, actors and viewers are free to create and reimagine female political identities and rework in art the choices made

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

99

in life. New options, different answers, and transformation of what it means to wield power in differently gendered bodies can be theorized and grappled with in a variety of genres and tones, from the dramatic to the comedic. As a record number of women enter the 116th Congress, and multiple women declare their candidacies for the Democratic nomination for president, these fictional portrayals may also offer a feedback loop of options to real women leading off-screen lives. These representations also matter because of the broad reach of this theorizing. Because it is happening in popular culture, many ordinary citizens get to engage with (and in the age of live-tweeting favorite shows, respond and react to) these theoretical moves. As these characters move into the political sphere, they give mass audiences an opportunity to engage in debate over thorny gender dilemmas and shape new definitions of power, gender, and identity. From the Clinton campaign and Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, to the ongoing #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, women’s marches, and 2020 race for the White House, we continue to be confronted by the realities of anxieties about women and power while considering the imagined wielding of that power almost every night on television. Presidential politics and campaigns are particularly based in narrative storytelling and voters often access and integrate these narratives into their considerations when they make choices at the ballot box. As we have previously written, “Analyzing the ways that women’s lives are depicted on television, in film . . . is legitimate political activism, because those representations are used by women (and men) to make meaning and create realities.”1 Caroline Heldman has also noted that popular culture both reflects cultural values and shapes them through images and content. Visual entertainment media are particularly important when it comes to shaping national consciousness, given the power of images. . . . Novelty may pull in viewers, but bending the accepted cultural norms too far will alienate mainstream audiences and work against the commercial end goal of the entertainment industry.2

The relationship between commercially developed artifacts, like films and television, and our interpretation of political culture must be understood in tandem. Cultural artifacts and narratives are generally created in a conservative context, in that the investors and producers generally hew to culturally accepted contexts, characters, and narratives. Thus, when there are shifts in what is being seen and consumed, attention should be paid to these shifts and how they are threading through our political culture and cultural consciousness.

100 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren How we imagine the person in the White House is influenced by all kinds of visual data, along with the information we take in from media, from history, and from the day-to-day images of the president and the presidency. Justin Vaughn and Lilly Goren note in their book, Women and the White House, that the 2008 election saw significant interaction between gender-driven popular culture and politics, from . . . Hillary nutcrackers in airport gift shops to Sarah Palin’s self-identification as a “hockey mom” and T-shirts with pictures of pit bulls wearing lipstick. Add to that Saturday Night Live sketches (including those declaring “Bitch is the new black”), fashion breakthroughs, and the cementing of female-driven programming as an important political battleground, and the battle to become the forty-fourth president took on gender implications of significant proportions. Although popular culture has long influenced the dynamics of presidential elections, the 2008 election was unique in the overwhelming role that gender-driven popular culture and commodification played, providing a stunning reminder of how much gendered popular culture influences the ways American voters think about politics, especially presidential politics.3

And if 2008 refocused attention on issues and dynamics of gender in popular culture and presidential politics, the 2016 election and the political climate since have continued that popular engagement in the issues and icons of gender politics, from memes of Brett Kavanaugh crying to YouTube videos of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing, pussy hats to white pantsuits, red “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) hats to images of the “Notorious RBG” (Ruth Bader Ginsberg). What we have been noticing—and what is of great interest to our analysis of popular culture, presidential politics, and the role of gender— is that across multiple genres, complicated female characters are doing and being many things simultaneously: they are mothers; they are wives or ex-wives; they are sisters; they are fully engaged with their careers. Some are rich and some are poor; they fall in love; they experience loss and grief; they solve mysteries or get elected to office; they have friends or they don’t find friendship fulfilling; they succeed and they fail. An action thriller transpires within a melodramatic narrative; political drama is threaded with romance and the demands of family. What is novel in these multilayered approaches is that one aspect of a character’s life is not privileged over the others—women are seen as smart and steely, emotional and wise, reasoning and confused, just as many of us are in our daily lives as we try to make decisions, raise our children, provide for our families, choose career paths, find life-partners, build

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

101

homes, take care of our parents and relatives, go to baseball games, knit, shop for groceries, paint the house, get promotions, switch jobs, fall in love, fight and make up with friends and lovers, or otherwise engage in the realities of daily life. The multidimensional characters within televisual narratives also reflect the complexities of real-life politicians and political individuals, who are mothers, grandmothers, teachers, fighter pilots, cancer-survivors, bartenders, prosecutors, and home healthcare providers. There is a toggling between the representation of complex women on screen and the reality of complex women who are engaging in public political life. Many of these fictional characters rarely “have it all” all at once, contentedly, because the reality is that “having it all” is not a viable or realistic gauge—in our own realities or in fictional presentations. We, the audience, especially the female audience, find these kinds of characters and the shows they inhabit to be pleasurable while also making us anxious—we like to see complex women inhabiting spaces where they were often only two-dimensional. We can root for them to “win” or achieve, but we can distance ourselves from them when we disagree with choices they make. The very real choices that these characters face make us anxious because these are often the same decisions many of us have made or face at times. Thus, many of these contemporary protagonists in a variety of recent series provide pleasure, prompt anxiety, and show what it might be like for a woman to inhabit a role with power and position. The Medium Is Part of the Message Thinking about the influential role television depictions of female politicians may play in shaping notions of female possibilities and limits is especially interesting given that television itself has been considered a more “feminine” medium. In contrast to film, which has been characterized by the “male gaze” and distance/objectification, television is a warmer and more immediate medium for screen audiences. In cinema, there is physical distance from the enormous screen and isolation from other viewers created by the dark, isolating space. As television sets became ubiquitous in American homes in the 1950s, they often became the center of domestic and communal space, the “electronic hearth” around which families gathered to watch together; familes even ate dinner around favorite shows or threw parties with friends to watch sporting

102 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren events or election returns. Today, as more and more people watch television without an actual TV set but on their laptops, tablets, or smartphones, the immediacy of the small screen is even more pronounced. It’s not just something we watch at home with those we love; it’s something almost bionically a part of ourselves, on demand whenever and wherever we take it with us, a part of our intimate everyday experience. And less conscious thought goes into actually watching television because it is more accessible and ubiquitous. Television has been seen as feminine because of its integration into domestic (and now personal) space. In addition, many television shows were situated in that feminine/ domestic space, from soap operas to early sitcoms centered on family life, such as I Love Lucy and The Dick Van Dyke Show. Soap operas, which migrated from radio shows to television, are particularly associated with female viewers; they were created to sell soap and other products to housewives, with an episodic structure to fit the ongoing, intermittent nature of daily domestic chores. Melodrama, the genre most associated with soap operas and serial television viewing, is emotionally intense and centered on relationships, thus also associated with feminine viewers in particular. The evolving format of television lent itself to relational practices: so-called “water cooler shows” required viewers to schedule their TV viewing simultaneously and to not miss new episodes of shows when they aired, or they would miss out on the cultural conversation at work or school the next day. Before entire seasons of a show were available to binge on Netflix or Hulu at one’s leisure, television demanded a shared communal experience of watching at the same time and allowed audience members to relate to one another in real life over their reactions to the latest plot developments on favorite shows. Questions of who shot J. R. Ewing on Dallas, whether Ross and Rachel would end up together on Friends, or who should get voted off Survivor or American Idol allowed viewers to converse and bond with each other far beyond the small screen. Unlike films, which screen multiple times at the cineplex, TV required synchronicity and thus the opportunity for community (which still occurs in some genres, such as reality competitions like The Bachelor or when stars live-tweet with fans during dramas like Scandal). The seriality of most television shows, with their extended narrative arcs over multiple seasons and no definite end point, also contrasts to film. This seriality allows for multiple possible perspectives and exploration of numerous plot points. Viewers can identify with different characters and their choices over time, offering space to

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

103

imaginatively play with new and different roles, experiences, and possibilities. Television allows for nontotalizing judgments as characters grow and change, providing room for ambivalent portrayals and reactions. Thus, finding engagement with gendered notions of political power on television is apt, not just in terms of representation but in terms of the medium in which it occurs. Narratives and Reality As women have become more fully integrated into the workplace and the public sphere, the emphases within televisual and cinematic narratives have changed. The melodramatic soap operas have given way to more narrative diversity where we have come to see more and more images and ideas tested for popular consumption and success. Part of what we find fascinating and intriguing in considering “Madam President” is to assess “the way our contemporary political culture frames the role of gender in politics, particularly in how citizens are encouraged (if not instructed) to observe and engage with female political leaders; how concepts of presidential leadership and presidentiality are gendered in consistent and disparate ways across different forms of media; and how popular culture influences the way gender is performed by the women in the public square.”4 But this is also in context of the last few years having been characterized in two ways: as the new “golden age” of television and as “peak TV” These assessments are more complimentery than in opposition to each other. With the creation of shows like The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Fargo, House of Cards, True Detective, and others, there has been critical and commercial success of the antihero dramas, which focus quite squarely on, in a variety of ways, issues of masculinity and are anchored by an often dynamic and Emmywinning male actor.5 This golden age of television, which has been assessed extensively (by, for example, Alan Sepinwall in The Revolution Was Televised and Brett Martin in Difficult Men), provided audiences with operatic narratives, driven by complicated and fascinating characters, centered around the lives of male antiheroes, created and written primarily (though not exclusively) by men. The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men typify this trend. Their place within our cultural lives (references are regularly made to these

104 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren particular shows and their protagonists) only reflects back the dominance that such narratives, characters, writers, and directors have had on our political culture. These antiheroes are very much in keeping with the American literary tradition, where we have often come across deceptive antiheroes who struggle to define themselves, their masculinity, and their place within society.6 These 21st century male protagonists were complicated by their creators, in contrast to characters often seen as “heroes” because their strength or courage or virtue or intelligence contributed to a successful outcome of some quandary. Instead, they were written as projecting a self-confidence and often physical strength that was compromised by an internal weakness, as well as secrets that would further undermine the veneer of power and confidence. Without access to the trope of straightforward heroism to start with, female television protagonists fit neither the typical hero nor antihero mold. Beyond Must See: Must Consider Into this fascination with duplicitous manliness and televisual narratives that draw the audience through questions of justice, the law, and nostalgia, we have recently noticed another trend, this one featuring women. And while the female characters may, on occasion, inhabit some characteristics of the antihero space, they are unique in their complicated presentations and in the strength and engagement within the narrative arc. Shows such as The Good Wife, Scandal, Madam Secretary, Grey’s Anatomy, How to Get Away with Murder, Nashville, Game of Thrones, Empire, Orphan Black, UnREAL, Being Mary Jane, This Is Us, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Suits, Parenthood, Gilmore Girls, Desperate Housewives, Veronica Mars, Weeds, Doctor Who, Killing Eve, Big Little Lies, and The Crown have all focused on female leads, though they are varied in their narratives and personalities. Some of these characters have conventional positions of power (Game of Thrones, Madam Secretary, Scandal). Other characters have power based on position, privilege, and capacity (The Good Wife, Scandal, Grey’s Anatomy, How to Get Away with Murder, Being Mary Jane, Doctor Who, UnREAL). Still others are constantly trying to hold on to or prevent others from absconding with their power and position (UnREAL, Empire, Nashville), and others are complicated by exogenous situations over which they either have little control or may lose it altogether (Orphan Black, Killing Eve, Big Little

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

105

Lies). Even the most traditional settings, of family and home life, or the perennial medical drama, both of which might be considered more of an evening soap opera, have been stretched beyond the expected spaces and characters. In Grey’s Anatomy, Parenthood, and Halt and Catch Fire, protagonists and storylines have been redirected, centering these dramas around the women’s stories as opposed to the men. These shifts, if they had only occurred in one or two places, might not have been much to notice. But given the accumulation of refocused storylines, and the commensurate external component of women as the creators (or cocreators), writers, and show runners, we found ourselves intrigued to consider what we are seeing now and to think about that in the context of other television eras, presentations, and considerations for framing and influencing conceptions of women in power. Shonda Rhimes (Grey’s Anatomy, How to Get Away with Murder, Scandal), Amy Sherman-Palladino (Gilmore Girls, Bunheads, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel), Michelle King (The Good Wife, The Good Fight), Jenji Kohan (Weeds, Orange Is the New Black), Melissa Rosenberg (Jessica Jones), Jessica Queller (Supergirl), Issa Rae (Insecure), Rachel Bloom and Aline Brosh McKenna (Crazy Ex-Girlfriend), Mara Brock Akil (Being Mary Jane), Jill Soloway (Transparent), Ava DuVernay (Queen Sugar), Nahnatchka Khan (Fresh Off the Boat), Barbara Hall (Madam Secretary), Callie Khouri (Nashville), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Killing Eve), Sarah Gertrude Shapiro and Marti Noxon (UnREAL, Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce, Code Black), Jennie Snyder Urman (Jane the Virgin), and Erica Messer (Criminal Minds/Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders) are all showrunners and either individual or collaborative producers and writers on these shows. Although women still compose a much smaller percentage of producers and showrunners compared to men, this is a substantial shift in executive authority within the Hollywood business model from men to women. And these women, along with many of their male colleagues, have had substantial and sustained success with the shows they conceived, created, and helmed. In what many consider this new golden age of television, the female characters anchoring narratives are given more dimensions and contours than their comparable characters 30 years ago. The contemporary period, in a very competitive and fluid marketplace, is eager to attract viewers and to keep them engaged with the storyline, returning weekly, commenting on Twitter, drawing attention to the shows themselves, and making a habit out of watching the episodes when they air or when they “drop” on streaming services.

106 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren Women in Politics on the Little Screen In shows focused on women in overtly political situations—Madam Secretary, House of Cards, Scandal, The Good Wife—audiences see the paradox of both role models and role reversals. On the one hand, these narratives give us the chance to see women in powerful positions that they have only recently or rarely held in actual US politics. As we see fictional as well as factual women in these situations, there is the opportunity for a “role model effect” and a reshaping of what images come to mind when one says “Secretary of State” or “presidential candidate”—no longer always male (or white). The imaginative universe of the American public expands. On the other hand, these portrayals stir up both the pleasure of seeing new, increased possibilities as well as the anxieties and resistance that come with changing social norms. Fears can be enacted about how power ruins femininity or runs amok. Space for debate opens up; within the portrayals themselves, it is important for viewers to notice whether or not the women now in power are legitimized or punished in some way for having that authority. As we have seen in the past, the price for a powerful career has often been the lack of a romantic partner, children, friendships, mental health, or even basic “likability” (which calls to mind then-senator Barack Obama’s begrudging, “You’re likable enough, Hillary” comment in the 2008 Democratic presidential debates). Some of these portrayals allow women to become just as conventionally powerful (and feared, in the Machiavellian sense) as men, albeit with a twist. Sometimes the women are even more successful at wielding their power and outmaneuvering their enemies due to being underestimated because of their gender, or by using an issue that cuts differently for a woman and gives her a tactical advantage. For example, in House of Cards, Jackie Sharp struggles as the new Whip in the House of Representatives. A trusted male politico first tries to soothe her frustration at not being taken seriously because she’s a woman with the platitude that she’s doing a fine job, just with “a different style.” When she insists she needs to be more effective, he advises her to offer the two recalcitrant members something to get them on board with the votes she needs—a typical quid pro quo of pork for their districts. Jackie begins her conversation with these congressmen by dangling money for a museum and a waste treatment plant, which seems to work; their eyes gleam and they begin to negotiate their cooperation in exchange for these pork barrel projects. Then Jackie shifts the terms

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

107

of debate: “We have a possible terror attack, and you’re holding out your plates for more pork. You should be ashamed of yourselves. In my caucus, people are rewarded for good behavior, not trading their votes for ransom. When we walk in there, I expect the both of you to vote ‘yes’ without a moment’s hesitation. Thank you for your change of heart.” All of this is said without warmth or a feminine smile; then she turns on her heel and walks away before either of the dumbfounded men can respond. Only then does a small satisfied smile creep onto her face. (She also tells her male adviser that he is being as condescending as the men are, underestimating her ability to outsmart them.) This scene is so interesting because it shows a woman in a role not typically held by a female politician, and she is at first seemingly less successful due to sexist assumptions that she is weak or in over her head—assumptions the television audience may share or at least anticipate. Then, the female politician seems to “learn” how to play the typical power game and offer the quid pro quo. Finally, the twist is that Jackie trumps the quid pro quo strategy with her moral outrage and calls out the men on their “selfish” behavior when a larger national security goal is at stake, a perhaps more “feminine” strategy of moral purity and outrage at political corruption (dating all the way back to the 19th century suffrage movement and its rhetoric of cleaning up politics and maternal virtue). Of course, Jackie Sharp does not transform the culture of power politics in one moment or as one individual. In fact, she proves that she can be just as Machiavellian as the men on House of Cards. She bluffs her way to the additional four votes she needs for this same bill with a stunt involving reams of blank copy paper (supposedly names of constituents who will be harmed and angry if they don’t vote “yes”), and even got the Whip job by betraying a former mentor. But in this instance, just one of many in this show, traditional notions of power are tweaked both by allowing women to exercise them (unexpectedly unfeminine) and by having women use power in ways that are more unique or associated with feminine gender. The entire final season of House of Cards focusing on Claire Underwood as a pregnant, widowed (thus single) president was yet another twist in imagining what it might be like for someone less traditional to occupy the Oval Office. Robin Wright’s character is a fitting counterpart to the unscrupulous Frank Underwood, both clear-eyed in their pursuit of power and willing to do just about anything (including murder) to get it. She is adamantly portrayed as not stereotypically feminine. She isn’t a mother until the very end of the series and, in fact, had an

108 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren abortion in the midst of one of Frank’s campaigns because focusing on the electoral victory was their all-consuming goal. She dresses in often silver-toned, sharp, structured clothing (another character remarks that one of her formal dresses is “like steel”), has a short-angled hairstyle, and has a sleekly muscled body (she’s often portrayed working out, running, and admonishing Frank about his paunch). There is nothing soft or warm about her physical representation. She is willing to use everything in her power to achieve her political goals, including her own mother’s terminal illness, Frank’s death, and her pregnancy. Claire is also savvy about using power in ways that are available to her as a woman that might not be as readily available to a man. Aiming to increase her power via a legislative accomplishment, she tells her own personal daterape story in a national television interview as a platform for introducing a bill on military sexual assault. Interestingly, much of the debate over women’s social roles and power in these shows plays out in the media (much like it would in real life), and the female characters show a real knack for dealing with celebrity. In real-life political seasons that seem more dominated than ever by the demands of star power and entertainment, might part of the reshaping of the definition of power be around the norms of celebrity and knowing how to manage one’s image? And isn’t celebrity culture more typically associated with femininity (from the movie fan magazines of the 1930s to the audiences for the Kardashians and Real Housewives today)? While the celebrity of Donald Trump and Barack Obama has been part of their respective appeal and critiques from their opposition, in neither case has celebrity generally been a net-negative for these male politicians. Claire Underwood uses the confessional demands of the TV audience to her advantage in the examples from House of Cards. On The Good Wife, the opening scenario of the series dramatizes the untenable situation of a political wife whose husband has been caught in a sex scandal. Does she stand by him in front of the lights and cameras of the media—looking humiliated, betrayed, and powerless to the world? Or does she leave, still pitiable, and blow up their family, his career (which she is undoubtedly deeply invested in), and their future? Something about this situation speaks not only to the trustworthiness or moral character of the man, but also to the double bind the woman finds herself in. As “wife” she is always already dependent on him—either to validate her devotion and commitment, or as object of scorn and humiliation, a woman who couldn’t keep her man happy and faithful.

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

109

This exact narrative swirled through Donald Trump’s attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign for Bill Clinton’s extramarital pursuits. As viewers of The Good Wife, we are curious about how a woman like Alicia Florrick acts and feels when those cameras are off. How does she regain her self-respect, authority over her own life, and right the power imbalance in the relationship? While The Good Wife mostly focused on the private and professional life of Alicia Florrick beyond the highly public media moments, that tension between how political women and wives are “supposed” to act—the archetypes and narratives available to them— and how an actual complex human being might navigate her life is evident throughout each episode. As Alicia herself becomes a political candidate in later seasons, as well as a presidential candidate’s wife, the show uses these situations to call out the sexism inherent in these limited tropes for political women. When her husband’s campaign manager, Eli Gold, edits her memoir, which she’s writing to rehabilitate her image after a disastrous state’s attorney election, she sees his notes in the margins: “Too much ball busting. Softer words needed. Why emphasis on work versus home? Rethink.”7 Alicia confronts him, with echoes of the real-life brouhaha surrounding Hillary Clinton in 1992 when she spoke about pursuing her profession as a lawyer instead of “staying home and baking cookies,” challenging the image of First Ladies up to that point. “So, you want me to play the wife . . . with the cookie recipes?” Alicia demands. “Don’t patronize me, Eli!” When Eli responds, “It’s a good story,” Alicia retorts, “But it’s not true.” She throws the manuscript back in his face, telling him “no to everything”: the story he wants to tell about her, writing the memoir, becoming First Lady. We then see her at a bar with her old friend Kalinda Sharma, declaring that when she lost the state’s attorney race, she “gave up” anger, jealousy, worrying about her image and what people thought of her: “It’s nice not to care.” Alicia seems liberated, but also without a narrative with which to make sense of her, and certainly not one that meets feminine expectations. In one of the same episode’s subplots, a man asks Kalinda, “What is it with all these tough-talking women? You know a word you don’t hear anymore? Demure. How about bringing that one back?” The Good Wife made a point of exposing and shattering the limited, traditional narratives and norms for women. Yet there is no boundless optimism or triumph for its female characters (Alicia, Kalinda, Diane Lockhart). They betray, misunderstand, and manipulate

110 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren one another across the seven seasons of the show. “Saint Alicia” of the early episodes, who wants to always be honest and do the right thing, is drawn deeper into the complexity of her own mixed motives and moral ambiguities. The show’s creators, Robert and Michelle King, have described the series as “the political education of Alicia Florrick,” and we see Alicia become savvier about her own interests and less trusting as the seasons unfold. In an episode about her campaign for state’s attorney, Alicia debates telling the truth about the unsavory source of some of her campaign funding.8 Political operatives tell her not to think about the truth narrowly, strictly in terms of honesty, but in service to the greater good—her winning. Conversing with her opponent, she argues, “We’re not voting for a saint. We’re voting for a prosecutor,” and asks him if he would ever lie if elected to the job. “No, I wouldn’t.” Alicia smiles, making up her mind. “Then I don’t think you should win.” She stands up to enter the room where she is about to be interviewed for an important endorsement, and one of the editorial board members comments that her voice (which she had lost due to laryngitis) sounds better. “I’m finding it,” she says, a meta-allusion to all of our culture’s debate over women’s confidence, assertiveness, and even the tone and timbre of female voices. But notice that finding her voice and speaking up is for her own self-interest and political gain—she is becoming powerful in the ways that Machiavelli might recognize, the ends justifying the means, as well as feeling more powerful and confident in her own subjectivity. Postfeminist Deployment of Femininity? Another show that both replicates and tweaks our commonly held assumptions about politically powerful women is CBS’s Madam Secretary. The series begins by having Elizabeth McCord come to her cabinet position as a fluke, playing to the anxieties about women’s power and ambition. There has been a plane crash, the secretary of state has been killed, and the president (McCord’s former boss at the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]) asks her to step in. He tells her that he trusts her, because she has no political ambitions and quit the CIA for ethical reasons to become a university professor. Calling her “the least political person I know,” he asks her to help him effect “real change in the world” (a motive she will cite throughout the series as her altruistic rea-

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

111

son for taking the job). Having established that she is a moral crusader unburdened by partisan and political ambition, the show then allows her to become secretary of state (and at one point, the acting president). This goodness (and pragmatism, solving problems over and over again without calculating how they will benefit or harm her politically) sets Elizabeth up to be a sympathetic character, if also less realistic than we might suspect one has to be to ascend to such a powerful position in Washington. Alfre Woodard occupies a similar position as President Constance Payton in the short-lived 2014 series, State of Affairs. President Payton integrates many of the traditional experiences that candidates have often brought to the White House, since she is a Gulf War veteran and comes from a military family. Given that Payton is both female and African American, situating her among the tradition of military men who have been elected president presents her as belonging among the historical lineage of the office, but not belonging because of her dual outsider status.9 But while Madam Secretary is unwilling to commit to a self-interested, politically savvy, rather “unfeminine” protagonist (she wears a lot of pantsuits, but occasionally shows up in a skirt), it does make interesting arguments about how women change and use power. Again, we see two examples of powerful women who “flip the script” on traditional limits or expectations, using them to cut across the grain to get what they want. In Madam Secretary’s pilot episode, the president’s chief of staff urges McCord to use the stylist he’s sent over to her office. Elizabeth keeps resisting, taking the position that her appearance is not an important priority and she should be taken seriously for the work she’s doing. This seems like a pretty conventional feminist argument (one that reallife female candidates have been arguing for every time their shoes, hair, and clothing gets scrutinized by the media in ways that male candidates’ appearance rarely does). Similarly, Elizabeth protests having to preside over a diplomatic dinner with the King of Swaziland and his 10 wives and to accept the polygamy as “cultural diversity” rather than being free to critique a practice she views as patriarchal and sexist. After displaying these conundrums—ones that it seems likely a woman who herself strives for gender equality and being taken seriously might actually face—the show depicts Elizabeth as powerful at solving them, but in unpredictable and feminine ways. Elizabeth uses the stylist, garnering outsized media attention for her red coat-dress, high heels, and perfect makeup; but while this might seem like reinforcing the sexist attention that undermines powerful women, she does it to

112 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren divert attention from a news story that might deeply harm a diplomatic crisis she’s trying to solve. She deploys the (predictable) media obsession with a woman’s looks to her own purposes, manipulating the news media into not following the other story. At the dinner with the King of Swaziland, she turns his pride in his many wives (which he, and her own staff, are expecting her to bristle at and attack) into a compliment on his love of family and thus the need to do something for all the families suffering from the exponential rise of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in his country. While he does not want to address it, Elizabeth shames and cajoles him into promising to prioritize it by calling on his wives to help him, then perfectly reciting all 10 of their names. Amid the murmurs of amazement and appreciation around the table, Elizabeth smiles sweetly and says, “A woman’s perspective is such an important thing. And you have no shortage of that.” As camera bulbs flash, capturing the moment, the king raises his glass in a salute and acknowledgment of being bested. Again, a powerful political woman is using the ways in which she is underestimated or limited by perceptions to turn those expectations inside out, turning her femininity from disadvantage into increased success. She’s playing the political game—the game Machiavelli’s advice is intended to help the Prince win—but she is playing it with a slightly different set of tools, that may change the entry of other women into the game as well as the rules of the game itself. Feminist Power, Feminist Questions Shonda Rhimes’s recently concluded hit ABC show Scandal gives viewers many different powerful female characters to analyze and identify with: political fixer Olivia Pope, her allies Quinn Perkins and White House Press Secretary Abby Whelan, First Lady turned senator turned presidential candidate turned president Mellie Grant, former vice president Sally Langston, former vice president Susan Ross, and political operative Elizabeth North. All of these characters get considerable screen time and surprising narrative arcs that allow for complexity and growth. This show is quite different in tone from Madam Secretary (which is closer to The West Wing in its earnestness) or even The Good Wife in its serious drama combined with real-life legal issues. Scandal is much faster paced, with fantastical plot twists that often force viewers to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the mystery/thriller aspects of the

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

113

show, which are always in the foreground. There is also a lot of melodrama, with a large cast of characters that are constantly deceiving, manipulating, and having sex with one another. But within those particular generic conventions, Rhimes presents situations in which the sexism of the political system and wider culture can be called out by her female characters. In a season 4 episode, Leo Bergen is about to have his political career torpedoed by a tell-all book that exposes him as using prostitutes.10 His girlfriend, White House press secretary Abby Whelan, is angrily drafting her own letter of resignation and trying to explain to him that this scandal will destroy her too. He disagrees, noting that she’s done nothing wrong. Exasperated, she vehemently details for him the double standard by which powerful smart women are never free to be judged simply on their own merit: NO, what happens to you happens to ME. I’m good at my job, Leo. I am a lion up there. I own that room. I work for it. I give a strong briefing. And they write about that, they cover the news, and there are articles about how well I do at my job, but they also write about me. If I wear lipstick, I’m dolled up. If I don’t, I’ve let myself go. They wonder if I’m trying to bring dresses back, and they don’t like it that I repeat outfits even though I’m on a government salary. They discuss my hair color. There are anonymous blogs that say I’m too skinny. They have a running joke that I’m on a hunger strike until I can be liberated by the Democrats. They also write about you. Every article that comes out about me has your name somewhere in it because apparently, there’s this rule—in order to mention my name, they also have to report to the world that there’s a man who wants me. My work, my accomplishments, my awards—(she shrugs and shakes head). I stand at the most powerful podium in the world, but a story about me ain’t a story unless they can report on the fact that I am “the girlfriend of the powerful DC fixer Leo Bergen.” Like it validates me, gives me an identity, a definition. They can’t fathom the concept that my life doesn’t revolve around you. My life doesn’t revolve anywhere near you. It’s horrifying. “Property of Leo Bergen.” Tell me, when they write articles about you, Leo, how often do they mention me? Do they talk about your clothes, write about your thighs? There is a difference. There is. So, what happens to you happens to me, which is why I am writing a letter of resignation. Are we done?

Abby’s soliloquy had ripple effects in the media and general political culture because her character’s assessment, her understanding of her relationary positioning to her boyfriend, even if his scandal had nothing to do with her, hit a nerve among many women in positions of power, political or otherwise, in the United States and elsewhere.

114 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren Similarly, when Mellie Grant is criticized (importantly, by another woman, the conservative former vice president Sally Langston) for running for the Senate, a male character comes to her defense by critiquing the notion used to undermine women who venture out of the private sphere that motherhood is a woman’s only or most important job: “Being a mother isn’t a job. It’s who someone is. It’s not a job. You can quit a job. You can resign—as you did, when you decided to quit being Vice President. You are a mother forever. Being a mother is incredibly difficult. Let’s not diminish it by calling it a job.” He then exposes the sexist double standard of thinking a First Lady should devote herself to supporting her husband without any ambitions of her own, while most people would not feel the same expectations of a First Gentleman not having his own career. Scandal is also attentive to how Olivia Pope is positioned in terms of both race and gender. Olivia makes visible the ways in which some of our gendered assumptions about politics and power are encoded within whiteness, and how a black woman with power is perceived (and celebrated/resisted/undermined) differently than a white woman. In one memorable scene, in a television talk show interview (as in House of Cards discussed previously), Olivia’s colleague Quinn calls out the media for how they have used “dog-whistle politics” and coded language to dehumanize and discredit her: “Olivia Pope has been described as lucky, sassy, ambitious, well-spoken, well-mannered, articulate; shrill, calculating, overconfident, secretive; urban, hot-blooded, known to use thug politics; arrogant, a siren. Words like these mean nothing to the general public, which is why the media can get away with using them. But when women of color, like Ms. Pope, hear that kind of coded language, they know exactly what you’re getting at.” The anchor, speechless and without a defense, is left to cut to commercial, while Rhimes’s audience has just been given a lesson in intersectionality and insidious racism and sexism. The Satirical Lens: Gender and Power Played For Laughs There have been a number of comedic explorations of some of these same questions, centering around women and power, particularly political power, that have crossed our television screens over the past 20 years. Murphy Brown first aired in 1988, focusing on a politically connected and sharp investigative news journalist played by Candice Bergen. This

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

115

popular television show had a fairly distinct liberal political perspective but played many of its critiques for laughs, in keeping with many of CBS’s situational comedies over the years.11 Murphy Brown also became the focus of a national political conversation when Vice President Dan Quayle commented on the character’s decision to become a single mother. Within the recent craze for remakes of old shows (and films), Murphy Brown has once again arrived on our television screens, poking fun at the Trump administration and revisiting some of its narrative discussions about feminism, the relationship between the media and elected officials, and contemporary political issues like immigration and #MeToo. HBO’s Veep is another scripted comedy, but it is filmed in an improvisational style. Julia Louis-Dreyfus has won multiple Emmy awards for her portrayal of Vice President Selina Meyer, a satirical character in a show that toggles between broad physical comedy and deeply cynical satire about American politics, power, and relationships. Meyer is an interesting gender portrayal because she’s a woman, but she essentially embodies all of the horrible qualities we fear/suspect ordinary [male] politicians possess: she is venal, self-interested, vain, grasping for power, dishonest, not very competent, and her staff is equally incompetent, also embodying these same qualities. Meyer does become president briefly (in the fourth season) as the result of a fluke, but when she runs for the office, she ultimately loses to another woman, who “outdoes” Selina and is Latina. Throughout most of the series, though, Meyer is stuck in the vice presidency, which historically has limited power, and where she is constantly hopeful that she will be called to better, more important work by the president. Every time she enters her suite of offices, she inevitably asks her hypercompetent executive assistant, Sue, “if HE has called.” Sue’s response is always that the president has not, in fact, made contact. (Sue is the only member of the entire staff who is competent, and her competency is itself played for laughs given that she is the only person who knows what is going on and what needs to be done. And everyone in the office is a bit scared of Sue.) Veep—in keeping with the groundbreaking comedy Sex and the City that imagined what it might be like if women acted like men, but in the case of the latter, in terms of sex and relationships—gives us the opportunity to see how it feels to watch a woman do all the things a “typical” male politician may do, like worry about how much power she has and wonder who is jockeying for her position or power, and to let

116 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren viewers grapple with the jarring disruption of expectations that women (particularly women in politics) are more honest, caring, unselfish, competent, and diligent. The notion that a woman might not have to be “twice as good” to succeed in a realm like politics—and what it would look like to have a female politician who acts and succeeds like a man, no more and no less—is what is explored with great comic results. The cognitive dissonance between gendered expectations and reality—where Selina’s “unladylike” behavior ranges from her lack of political integrity and competence to her cold interpersonal relationships with her staff and even her daughter, her unemotional/transactional sexual relationships, and her casually and consistently profane language—is a big part of the comedy. The show satirizes the state of contemporary American politics, which we viewers suspect is peopled with just such characters (who are willing to manipulate, deceive, think only of their own careers, and do whatever is politically expedient), as well as satirizing the conventional gendered assumptions and stereotypes we may not readily admit, but still employ. In some ways, Veep is the satirical and silly version of House of Cards: Selina Meyer is as grasping and amoral as Frank Underwood, but without the sinister undertones because she and her staff are so hapless. And her clothing choices are not dissimilar to those of Claire Underwood: they are the same sheath dresses and killer high heels, but instead of steely grays and blacks of House of Cards, Selina is often in bright colors. She embodies Frank, with a twist, and dresses like Claire, with a twist. Selina is funny because she herself is cynical and without a moral compass, and we know how to read her ironically. Veep’s other cousin is the NBC comedy Parks and Recreation, which was an imagining of equally inept local bureaucrats led by an earnest Leslie Knope. In contrast to Veep, the comedic and ironic arc on Parks and Recreation is the actual absence of real political power, since the Department of Parks and Recreation in Pawnee, Indiana, has so little power that it can’t even get a parks project completed. Many of the same themes that come through Veep can be seen in Parks and Recreation, including the limited nature of the power held by the respective female characters, be they vice president of the United States or deputy director of parks in Pawnee. Veep is a sharp critique of the contemporary state of American politics, highlighting the lurching and unintentional series of missteps and scandals run not by prudent, public-spirited leaders, as Leslie Knope imagines herself to be, but by bungling and self-interested average folks grasping for power. While viewers may laugh at the ridiculous situations,

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

117

it satirizes the audience’s gendered assumptions and expectations as well. By placing a woman at the center of the action, the show creates space for viewers to experience the cognitive clash of their own expectations when a female politician steps into political roles, and offers one possibility: that the hypocrisy or ineptitude of entitled male politicians is possible for females as well, and that the feminist argument for more women in politics may not lead to more diligence, competence, or honesty. Feminist pleasure at seeing a woman in the top tier of political leadership is tempered with anxiety about the likelihood of a woman being equally petty, incompetent, or selfish as a man could be; fears about gender difference may also turn into fears of gender similarities in wielding power, which adds self-critique to the humor. Conclusion Narratives about women, gender, and power on television have proliferated in number and diversity. Looking back at the history of female characters on television, we can see that women have gained power and expanded opportunity, no longer limited to primarily domestic and supportive familial roles. We also see how genre conventions shape the kinds of female narratives that are expected or possible within each genre. Recent moves that mix genres (e.g., “dramedies” and action thrillers that combine with more dramatic character development) are making new space for more three-dimensional portrayals of women as central, complex, flawed, and interesting characters. The rise of the male antihero also gives us pause as we consider whether we are seeing the rise of female antiheroes, or whether something different is at work in these powerful female characters. These women, particularly those in the overtly political realm, provoke and reflect both anxieties about women and power, as well as pleasure in watching portrayals of women that are more relatable and realistic, even as they are enormously successful and—to quote one character—“badass.” It is this “badassery” that also often satisfies us as viewers—seeing a woman “win” a political battle, defeat a sexist assumption or stereotype, or in a more traditional sense, triumph against an “evil” entity (corrupt political foe, heartless corporate greed, megalomaniacal villain). Is this simply the same kind of satisfaction that audiences have long experienced watching the hero succeed? Part of what we see is that women who are exercising power are expanding the options available to them and

118 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren taking on roles that had previously been confined to male heroes. While it can be exciting to finally see women routinely serving as candidates, cabinet secretaries, and president, these portrayals also reflect our cultural ambivalence toward women in powerful executive roles. Unlike many male political protagonists, they often have a more complicated backstory regarding how they came to power—whether assiduously nonpartisan and not politically ambitious, as Elizabeth McCord is when plucked off her horse farm to serve as secretary of state, or as the sweet Southern wife Mellie Grant seems at the start of Scandal—and struggle to be taken seriously by their male colleagues. Myriad narratives have grappled with the stereotypes and struggles that real-life female officeholders have faced in garnering respect for their authority and not being underestimated as naive and emotional, reduced to their physical attractiveness, or judged primarily by their roles as wives, girlfriends, or mothers. In these television narratives, we see powerful women wrestle with the costs of their political ambitions and their own insecurities, as they—and we viewers— wonder: Do they belong here? There is something deeply relatable, for many individual women viewers and in the cultural zeitgeist, in seeing these characters grapple with the trade-offs of career, romantic partnerships, and children. Sometimes, as with Alicia Florrick and Elizabeth McCord, we see them weighing the cost to their children of the time and energy they are devoting to political service, wondering if it’s worth it or struggling with their own self-confidence in the face of the daunting jobs they take on. Sometimes watching can be aspirational or deeply pleasurable, when we see a woman succeed in solving an intractable foreign policy problem with her superior intelligence and skill, or outwit a political opponent. Some of the pleasure may consist in seeing the fullness of contemporary women’s multifaceted lives, filled with so many possibilities: challenging work, fulfilling partnerships, enjoyable sex, enriching friendships, frustrating competition, the joys and demands of parenting. Some of the pleasure may come from having multiple female characters (and their diverse choices) to relate to in the narrative, and its openended space to keep grappling with issues in different ways. These shows have their aesthetic pleasures, too: the gorgeous cashmere coats worn by Olivia Pope or the sleek, sharp-edged clothes and hair of Claire Underwood; the elegant halls of power they inhabit; the physically attractive men and women they love and lust after; even the thrill of suspense as shows are skillfully shot and savvy soundtracks artfully compiled to heighten the drama of the political stakes.

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

119

One of the anxieties lying under the surface of these myriad and proliferating explorations of women in executive office is the uneasiness surrounding women and aging. Most of the protagonists we see cracking open the doors of executive power on television are women in their 30s and 40s. They are often still parenting young children, and even experience unexpected pregnancies and new motherhood. They appear stylish, sexually attractive, and premenopausal. They have decades left to fulfill their professional promise. Part of what may assuage cultural fears about women’s political power is being able to portray these characters as “likable” and predictably feminine, balancing their assertiveness and toughness with scenes of maternal warmth and sexual desirability. Yet most women enter political careers later in life than men do, often after children are older or grown; certainly by the time they acquire enough political experience and acumen to serve on a president’s cabinet or be elected to the White House, they are often well into their 50s, 60s, or even 70s. On the one hand, this delayed onset of political careers (which often keeps women from ever reaching the highest echelons, like the US Senate or the Oval Office) may be changing. As we see younger women from Sarah Palin to Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Condoleezza Rice, and Nikki Haley running and serving in statewide and national offices, politics may be opening up as a realistic and achievable career for women across the lifespan. There is much to cheer in that shift, and perhaps these televisual narratives are helping to normalize and legitimize that change. On the other hand, typically women succeeding in politics have looked more like grandmothers Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren than like 29-year-old Alexandria OcasioCortez. And if our pop culture models for political women have to temper their strength and ambition by embodying maternal nurturance or a frisson of youthful seductiveness, that leaves little space for legitimizing and encouraging women’s gravitas and power as they continue to age. In the 21st century, valuing women primarily for their sexual attractiveness and availability is commonly condemned as sexist objectification. Yet in the 2016 election cycle, both Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton were mocked by opponents and pundits for their appearance, as if a woman past her childbearing years had nothing valuable left to offer, too ugly and unbearable to look at or listen to in public. If the only role models advertisers and showrunners can rely on to grab viewers’ interest are younger women, then the mature women who are often vying to be our real-life political leaders are left invisible, and our cultural anxiety about women aging is left to fester undisturbed.

120 Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren Sometimes we feel these female characters’ deep ambivalence about the moral and political limits of the job, and their inability to always do the “right” thing. This ambivalence cuts right to the heart of masculine power: Do women “belong” in the tough, competitive, even amoral world of politics? Or does their very womanliness disqualify them from this realm? Conversely, must women take on a masculine role if they want to succeed in politics? Is there room to run “as a woman”—to be sexual, feminine, maternal, nurturing, and smart, powerful, bold, courageous? Or does the Oval Office require women to don masculine traits and norms if they wish to enter? Other characters— such as Claire Underwood, Mellie Grant, and Selina Meyer—upend our stereotypes about women in politics being gentler, kinder, or more trustworthy. Their ruthlessness is key to their success. What is perhaps new and different about these women is how that success is simultaneously admirable and horrifying. Unlike older, more familiar depictions of women’s unseemly ambition, seen in archetypes such as Lady MacBeth, these women are not simply and brutally punished for their skill, desire, and power. They reap the rewards of their risk-taking and manipulation, even as they sometimes pay the price or demonstrate the bankruptcy of the system itself. The ambivalence and complexity around these narratives in these varied genres allows us as viewers to imagine all the possibilities of how women might gain and wield power in previously masculine spaces, with all its attendant pleasures and anxieties. Far from the obvious ridiculousness of a woman in the Oval Office in Kisses for My President, these contemporary television shows offer multifaceted portraits of substantively different women wielding executive power in a variety of ways. Realistic, fantastical, melodramatic, thrilling, ironic, or satirical— each of these imaginative narratives offers a playful way to seriously examine not only gendered assumptions about power, masculinity, and executive office but about our definition of politics itself. Notes 1. Beail and Goren, “Introduction,” in You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby, 3. 2. Heldman, “Cultural Barriers” in Rethinking Madam President, 31. 3. Vaughn and Goren, Women and the White House, 1. 4. Ibid., 2. 5. James Gandolfini, Michael Chiklis, Jon Hamm, Bryan Cranston, Dominic West, Idris Elba, Matthew Rhys, etc.

Women, the Presidency, and Popular Culture

121

6. See Goren, “If You Don’t Like What They Are Saying,” 35–62. 7. “Wanna Partner?” Season six finale of The Good Wife, original airdate May 10, 2015. 8. “Mind’s Eye,” The Good Wife, original airdate March 8, 2015. 9. Alfre Woodard also plays Mariah Dillard on Netflix’s Luke Cage, in which Dillard is a long serving local councilwoman representing the people of her treasured Harlem. Woodard seems to strike casting directors as a woman with gravitas and political skills, since she is now following in the footsteps of James Cromwell, Alan Alda, Gene Hackman, Martin Sheen, and other male actors who regularly get cast as elected officials as well as the president. 10. “It’s Good to be Kink,” Scandal, original airdate March 19, 2015. 11. These include many of the Norman Lear creations, including All in the Family, Maude, The Jeffersons, One Day at a Time, among others. CBS was also famous for shows like M*A*S*H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Rhoda, and Alice.

7 The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell

THE CHAPTERS OF THIS BOOK TAKE STOCK OF WHAT THE 2016 presidential election results mean for the prospect of a woman being elected president in 2020 and beyond. In this chapter, we focus our attention on one of the more overlooked and understudied developments resulting from the 2016 election: the public’s evolving view of presidential candidate spouses. More specifically, we ponder the public’s expectations and possible reactions to the spouses of the next group of women who throw their hats in the ring to become the president of the United States. A prominent change in presidential politics over the past generation is that the public now expects the spouses of presidential candidates to play highly visible and active roles in their campaigns.1 The public feels it is through the actions and statements of the candidate’s spouse that they can gain authentic insights into who the candidate is as a person.2 As the spouses of presidential candidates increasingly become political actors of great interest during the campaign season,3 the systematic dynamics of how the public evaluates them becomes a critical part of understanding the state of modern campaigns. The initial 2020 field for the Democratic presidential nomination turned out to be one of the most diverse in history, with an especially strong roster of female candidates with realistic chances to emerge as the party’s nominee, including Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Amy Klobuchar leading the pack. In this chapter, we ask, how does the prospect of a “First Gentleman” sit with the public? What sort of expectations do the men who aspire to the role of would-be

123

124 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell First Gentleman need to live up to in order to win the approval of the public and thus act as an asset in their spouse’s campaign? Understanding the public’s evolving expectations for presidential spouses, as well as how these expectations are mediated by gender, will be crucial to a full understanding of the 2020 presidential election. We draw on public opinion data to illustrate the American public’s perceptions toward presidential candidate spouses, with specific emphasis on the gendered nature of those opinions. We also examine what Bill Clinton’s experience as the first male spouse of a major party presidential nominee portends for other men in that position. Furthermore, we take a look at some of the leading female contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nominations and how the profiles of their spouses comport with the expectations of presidential spouses, and how the campaigns might decide to craft their images for the public. Finally, we consider what these latest trends mean for public reaction to the prospect of a First Gentleman rather than a First Lady serving in the White House. Gendered Expectations for Presidential Candidate Spouses: New Traditionalism In order to fully appreciate how the 2020 female presidential contenders and their spouses may be received by the public, it is essential to begin by reviewing what we know about the expectations for presidential candidate spouses in general. Over the past generation, there has been an evolution in expectations for presidential candidate spouses, to the point where the American public now holds a mix of traditional and modern expectations—a mixture we have labeled “new traditionalism.”4 The “traditional” piece of new traditionalism refers to the reality that despite many important advances toward gender equality, the American public still prefers a traditional would-be First Lady who supports her husband, embraces her role as a mother, and signals that she does not want to play an active role in making government policy.5 The traditional expectations for presidential spouses and would be First Ladies are shown in public opinion polls. A clear majority of the public, 78 percent, believes it is inappropriate for a presidential spouse to hold an official advisory role in the president’s office, and a smaller majority think that it is inappropriate for the president’s spouse to hold even an unofficial or unpaid position in the president’s office.6 Support

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

125

for a traditional First Lady is present even among the youngest generations of Americans, who often embrace more progressive views on social issues. In August 2016, Fusion asked young Americans, age 18– 35, “Would you prefer to see the next (2016) president’s spouse play a traditional role as many first ladies have done in the past or be more involved in policy making?” and the plurality, 46 percent, indicated that they would like to see the president’s spouse play a traditional role, while 44 percent responded that they would like to see the president’s spouse more involved in policymaking.7 Another way the public’s expectations for presidential spouses remain traditional can be seen through the public’s concerns about presidential spouses pursuing their own careers. In terms of expectations for women in society in general, Americans are now quite comfortable with the idea of women pursuing careers, even if they have children.8 In contrast to this idea, Americans remain split on whether they think First Ladies should hold a paid job in the private sector while in the White House. About half of Americans think it is not appropriate for a First Lady to continue her career while in the White House.9 Further, while the public responds favorably to candidate spouses discussing their roles as mothers and wives,10 a poll from 2017 shows that Americans are quite split on whether presidential candidate spouses should even talk about their own accomplishments while campaigning for their spouse.11 Thus, polling results suggest that Americans want presidential spouses to play largely supportive, rather than autonomous, roles. Even though investigations of the topic have been limited, a handful of pollsters have attempted to get at gender differences in expectations for presidential spouses by posing hypothetical questions about the appropriate nature of certain activities in which a spouse could engage. For the most part Americans’ expectations for presidential spouses do not meaningfully differ based on the sex of the spouse; however, there are two revealing exceptions that are worth highlighting. Americans are more comfortable with a male presidential spouse working for pay and running for elective office compared to a female presidential spouse.12 Polls found that 64 percent of Americans think it is appropriate for the husband of the president to hold a paid job in the private sector, while only 50 percent think it is appropriate for the wife of a president to do this. Similarly, 44 percent of Americans think it is appropriate for the husband of a president to hold some type of elected office, while only 32 percent think this is appropriate for the wife of a president to do this.13 Thus, in some key ways, Americans are more comfortable with male presidential spouses

126 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell taking on autonomous roles and activities, opening the possibility that Americans’ expectations for a male spouse would be somewhat less traditional. These gender differences in expectations may give male spouses a degree of leeway that has not been granted to their female counterparts. While a First Gentleman cannot afford to ignore the public’s concerns about drifting too far into a policymaking role, there appears to be more room for them to carve out a distinctive presence for themselves that operates outside the boundaries of traditional expectations. The “new” part of new traditionalism refers to the public’s expectation that candidate spouses act as active and visible presences on the campaign trail on behalf of their spouses, and for them to take on highprofile roles once in office. While the public does not want the president’s spouse, regardless of sex, to be a White House adviser, the public does expect the presidential spouse to maintain a high-level profile by helping the president carry out the ceremonial responsibilities of the job, doing good work on behalf of the nation, and helping the president win reelection. Americans are nearly unanimous in thinking it is appropriate for the president’s spouse to act as the official host at White House events, expectations that do not differ by spousal sex. Similarly, the vast majority of Americans think it is appropriate for a presidential spouse of either sex to champion a nonpartisan cause such as mental health, childhood obesity, or literacy. Importantly, 2017 survey data show that a solid majority of Americans, 68 percent, believe it is important or very important for the wives or husbands of presidential candidates to campaign on behalf of their spouses.14 There is a sense that Americans are not only electing a president, but a First Family, and therefore the public wants the opportunity to assess the familial ties of the candidate.15 Moreover, the spouse offers the public unique, personal insights into the candidate that other campaign surrogates are simply not in a position to do.16 In summary, the new traditionalism framework posits that candidate spouses who put their families ahead of their own career goals, make it clear that they are not interested in shaping policy, and pursue a highprofile schedule focused on supportive activities are rewarded with high public approval and those who transgress these expectations are punished in terms of public support. Survey data also reveal that male candidate spouses may have more leeway when it comes to the traditional expectations for the role. The new traditionalism framework helps explain the different levels of popularity of recent presidential candidate spouses and is instructive for presidential campaigns, going forward, who seek to have their spouses

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

127

play a strategic role in the campaign. Michelle Obama maintained high approval ratings throughout her husband’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. By giving up her own career, consistently emphasizing her role as “mom in chief,” and refraining from political or policy influence, while also being one of the most active First Ladies in terms of public appearances and championing causes on behalf of children and families, Michelle Obama was able to embody new traditionalism and reap the benefits in terms of public support.17 By operating within the new traditionalism framework, Michelle Obama managed to appeal across partisan lines more effectively than her husband, President Barack Obama, and other national political figures. In contrast, during the 2016 election Melania Trump joined Bill Clinton as the least popular presidential candidate spouses in modern times.18 In some ways, the negative public response was surprising. Melania Trump adopted a supportive, behind-the-scenes demeanor throughout the 2016 campaign that is in keeping with traditional expectations for presidential candidate spouses. In the few interviews she did during the campaign, Melania Trump made it clear that her first priority was being a mother and that politics and policy were her husband’s job, not hers. An emphasis on motherhood and a clear distance from policy has typically engendered a favorable view of candidate spouses among the public; this was not the case for Melania Trump. Melania Trump’s low favorability ratings appear to be a product of transgressing the “new” component of new traditionalism. As previously mentioned, a large majority of Americans think it is important for candidate spouses to be visible and active on the campaign trail on behalf of their husbands or wives. Melania Trump violated this norm of modern campaigns. In contrast to her predecessors, who headlined hundreds of campaign events as surrogates for their spouses,19 Melania Trump gave only a few speeches on behalf of Donald Trump’s candidacy throughout the campaign.20 Her first speaking role at a campaign event was not until April 2016, and after her controversial speech at the Republican Convention in July 2016 she was absent from the campaign trail until close to the election.21 By limiting her public appearances and dramatically limiting her speeches, Melania Trump not only defied contemporary expectations for presidential candidate spouses but also limited her ability to craft her own image and generate the soft news, feelgood media stories typical of candidate spouses. There are several lessons to draw from this review of the public’s evolving expectations for and reactions to presidential candidate spouses.

128 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell We believe that all presidential candidate spouses in 2020, regardless of their sex, will be judged on how well they are able to meet the new traditionalism expectations discussed in this section. If the Democratic Party nominates a woman for president in 2020, her spouse will be presented with the challenge of navigating the new set of expectations as a man. It is clear that the public wants and expects candidate spouses to be active and visible on the campaign trail, regardless of gender. Although the public may be more accepting of a male spouse having his own career while in the White House, the spouse will need to forgo his career, at least during the campaign, and devote himself to making hundreds of campaign appearances on behalf of his spouse if he wants to meet the public’s expectations. While the traditional expectations for presidential spouses may be moderated to some degree for male spouses, the public is clear that it expects those spouses to play a supportive rather than a leading role. The public wants them to act as a surrogate for their spouse rather than to discuss their own accomplishments, and the public thinks it is inappropriate for spouses to shape policy or act as policy advisers, regardless of their sex. Thus, male spouses who are able to take on this visible yet supportive role will most likely generate the most positive response from the public and be best positioned to help his wife win the presidency. The Anomaly of the Bill Clinton Experience in 2016 The 2016 presidential election was unprecedented for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that Bill Clinton became the first male presidential candidate spouse of a major party nominee after Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination of the Democratic Party. Yet as groundbreaking as this development was for American politics, we caution drawing too many lessons from the Clinton experience. The unique nature of Bill Clinton’s previous tenure on the political scene created a template that will be unlike the campaign environment other spouses of presidential aspirants will face moving forward. It should not serve as a model for any future presidential campaign and their spouses regardless of their sex. The most obvious factor besides his sex that distinguished Bill Clinton from previous presidential candidate spouses was his status as a former US president. His extensive political background also included stints as Arkansas governor and attorney general, not to mention his

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

129

previous support for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary and his continued presence on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates in his postpresidential years. Bill Clinton had a record of political experience that was unmatched for any spouse before him and likely more political experience than any spouse of a major party presidential candidate will have in the foreseeable future. Although presidential candidate spouses in the next round of political cycles might have formal political experience of some kind, it is unlikely to be comparable to the scale of Bill Clinton’s long record of public service. With his vast political résumé, Bill Clinton was not the little-known quantity that other presidential candidate spouses were in prior elections. Figure 7.1 displays data collected from the Roper Center Public Opinion Archive calculating the average percentage of Americans unable to express an opinion about the spouses of major party nonincumbent presidential nominees during the year of the election in 1988– 2016.22 We exclude spouses of incumbent presidential candidates due to the boost in name recognition that sitting First Ladies have enjoyed, as documented in previous research.23 According to this chart, Bill Clinton was by far the most well-known nonincumbent presidential candidate spouse in the time frame, with only 7 percent of Americans on average unable to rate him in public opinion polls. Contrast that number to the 41.6 percent of the public on average unable to rate the other 11 nonincumbent spouses over this period. This enormous chasm in name recognition illustrates that Bill Clinton was unique in his role as a presidential candidate’s spouse, not just because he was the first male to be in that position, but also because he was much more widely known than any of his predecessors. Presidential candidate spouses other than Bill Clinton had a much greater opportunity to shape their images in the public’s mind. The male spouses of the 2020 presidential candidate contenders and beyond will also have greater latitude to introduce themselves to the public on their own terms. Bill Clinton was a polarizing political force with a history of involvement in the political process, and many Americans had formulated opinions about him long before the 2016 election began. Indeed, the main reason Bill Clinton was one of the least popular presidential spouses, along with Melania Trump, was because he was viewed as a national political figure in our polarized era, rather than as a typical presidential spouses who is able to rise above partisan polarization at least to some degree.24 The next generation of male presidential spouses will be liberated to shape a less partisan image that is more in line with

130 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell Figure 7.1 Average Percentage of Americans Expressing No Opinion Toward Nonincumbent Presidential Candidate Spouses, 1988–2016

the ones cultivated by most of the women in that role over the past two decades. The rise in partisan polarization and negative partisanship will make it a challenge for any spouse to engage the political process without stoking the passions of the opposition in the electorate.25 Nevertheless, even accounting for this heightened state of polarization, they will have a much easier path to doing so than Bill Clinton did in 2016. In some measure, the controversial profile established by Bill Clinton may provide a favorable contrast to other men who find themselves in the position of potentially becoming the nation’s First Spouse. Distance from the model Bill Clinton established becomes even more paramount in the era of the #MeToo movement. Clinton’s history of sexual misconduct has been cast in a new light since the movement gained traction in late 2017, forcing many Democrats to seriously reevaluate his past behavior. Among those Democratic politicians leading the charge on this matter is 2020 presidential candidate US senator Kirsten

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

131

Gillibrand, who publicly suggested that Clinton should have resigned from the presidency during his second term in office.26 Future male spouses who do not have Clinton’s troubling history will give less ammunition to their partisan critics who question their fitness as a future First Gentleman in the White House. At least in 2020 they will also be better positioned to question Donald Trump’s record of sexual misconduct and mistreatment of women compared to Bill Clinton in 2016. Clinton was hamstrung by his own past and became a major talking point for the Trump campaign to deflect media coverage from the Access Hollywood tape that captured Trump bragging about making unwanted advances toward women. The leading female presidential contenders in 2020 are unlikely to be in the compromised position the Clinton campaign found itself in when attempting to successfully address allegations of Trump’s history of sexual misconduct during the previous election. This favorable contrast also applies to the former president’s involvement in the Clinton Foundation, which created a massive headache for Hillary Clinton’s campaign team throughout the 2016 election. The foundation’s network of controversial donors generated constant headlines that were an ongoing distraction for the Clinton campaign. It also prompted many media outlets to pose survey questions examining public reaction to Bill Clinton’s role in the foundation that placed even more focus on this controversy.27 Furthermore, it provided more ammunition for the Trump campaign to lodge attacks against Hillary Clinton’s ethics as a means of distracting from the questionable practices of the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Whatever the merits of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable activities, its complicated web of financial, legal, and political entanglements are beyond the scope of any foundation or charitable organization with which a future presidential candidate spouse would be involved. More likely, any involvement in nonprofit organizations will be an asset for a candidate spouse to highlight on behalf of the presidential contender’s campaign rather than the millstone it was for the Clintons in 2016. Moreover, Bill Clinton’s policy record as president also created a set of political challenges related to a candidate’s spouse with which no other presidential campaign has ever had to deal. This situation was compounded for the Clinton campaign since Hillary Clinton had played such a major role in her husband’s administration, including leading the task force charged with overhauling the nation’s healthcare system. 28

132 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell Hillary Clinton constantly found herself on the defensive in her attempts to justify the Clinton administration’s record on numerous policies that turned out to be either controversial or highly unpopular in retrospect, including the 1994 crime bill, financial deregulation, fiscal austerity, capital gains tax rate reductions, immigration reform, welfare reform, and many others.29 These policies produced even more backlash among the left wing of the Democratic Party following the surprisingly strong insurgent challenge of US senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the 2016 presidential primary process. Although Hillary Clinton retained her front-runner status throughout the duration of the nomination fight, Bill Clinton’s record as president gave Sanders plenty of fodder to question the progressive bona fides of Hillary Clinton’s record and issue priorities as president. This line of attack was strengthened when Hillary Clinton responded to media inquiries about what role Bill Clinton would play in her administration by suggesting she would place him in charge of economic policy.30 While Bill Clinton’s policy record ultimately did not cost Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination and likely was not a major factor in her eventual loss in the general election to Donald Trump, it was on balance a net liability that plagued her campaign over the duration of the 2016 election cycle. The campaign had little control of the narrative concerning what policies it wanted Bill Clinton to act as a surrogate for. He was consistently in the position of responding to questions from the media and other campaigns rather than spotlighting issues that would bolster Hillary Clinton’s campaign message. The next group of female presidential contenders and their spouses will have much more of a blank slate on issues from which to formulate strategy. They will not be burdened with controversial issues that could undermine their campaigns the way Hillary Clinton was in the 2016 election. Rather, they will have the luxury of a potential presidential spouse being able to focus on a broadly popular issue that enjoys consensus support. The gender dynamics will still create a new set of challenges the campaigns of leading female presidential candidates will have to consider. However, whatever gender-related complications may arise, they will pale in comparison to the political minefield Hillary Clinton and her advisers struggled to deal with in both the 2008 and 2016 campaigns. Any political strategists interested in successfully incorporating presidential candidate spouses into their teams should avoid using the Clinton experience as a guidepost. It was an anomaly that provides

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

133

minimal insight from which the next generation of women running for president can glean. Possible Female 2020 Presidential Candidates and Their Spouses Bill Clinton’s former role as president and the distinctiveness of the Clintons as a political couple severely limit relying on his experience in that campaign as a useful model for future presidential spouses. However, with political observers touting several prominent female Democratic senators as strong candidates for the presidency in 2020, males on the campaign trail as presidential spouses become a real prospect with implications for the gendered nature of the First Spouse role as both a member of the campaign team and as First Spouse in a presidential administration. Earlier in this chapter, we noted that in public opinion surveys Americans have expressed more support for a male presidential spouse working for pay and running for elective office than for a female presidential spouse. The public is more comfortable with male spouses taking on autonomous roles and activities in an administration. As it becomes more common for presidential campaigns to have male political spouses, expectations for the role of a candidate’s spouse may evolve. For instance, the presence of male presidential spouses could loosen the constraints society has placed on presidential wives in the White House and on the campaign trail. If the public warms to the idea of a First Gentleman influencing and speaking about nongendered policy areas, this support could have a lasting impact on the public’s expectations for presidential candidate spouses, whether male or female, going forward. It is a distinct possibility that as men assume the position of presidential spouse, Americans may become more accepting of spouses playing more autonomous and influential roles in their spouse’s administration. While we are still waiting for madam president, it is instructive to explore some of the potential ways in which husbands entering the mix of presidential spouses on the campaign trail may affect the gendered nature of the presidential spouse position. For example, we might consider whether husbands will be employed on the campaign trail in the same fashion that female spouses in the new traditionalism model have

134 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell been in contemporary presidential elections. Some husbands, however, may assume a lesser presence on the campaign trail as female presidential candidates seek to assert their independence. Or a male spouse might take on a more dominant role in campaign strategy traditionally seen as a male activity. If male spousal activities are of a lesser and/or different nature than envisioned in the new traditionalism model, such activities could influence the role wives are expected to play on the campaign trail as well. How likely are they to affect the “new traditionalism”— the expectation to be a highly visible campaign surrogate but within the context of a traditionally supportive role—that we described in our book American Presidential Candidate Spouses? Surveys of the public opinion toward potential First Spouses represented the major data underlying the analyses undertaken in that work. As pollsters query the American public about their opinions of the potential First Spouses in upcoming presidential elections, which may include a number of male spouses in the supporting role, we must take into account the sex of the spouse in analyzing that opinion data—perhaps asking new questions beyond the favorable and unfavorable opinions of the spouses may become routine. Questions about the nature of opinions of male spouses may affect how the public perceives the role of the First Spouse. Public support for less traditional roles might expand for both female and male spouses. In our book, we characterized the prominent and strategic roles spouses have come to play in presidential campaigns:31 active presence on the campaign trail (although Melania Trump in 2016 was somewhat of an exception), headliners at fundraisers, and subjects of intense media attention in both news outlets and entertainment-oriented venues. We emphasized political scientist Lauren Wright’s compelling empirical evidence that candidate spouses are the most valuable presidential campaign asset.32 They have an ability to “go personal” in a way no other campaign surrogates can. “Candidate spouses are uniquely positioned to draw on intimate, familial, and day-to-day experiences to give the nation a sense of who the candidate is as a person, as a father or as a mother, as a husband or as a wife, and in many other aspects of their life outside of the public’s view.”33 In previous elections, only a small number of women beyond Hillary Clinton have sought a major party nomination for president. Most prominently in recent elections, in 2016, former Hewlett Packard chief executive officer Carly Fiorina announced her candidacy for the Republican

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

135

nomination and participated in a number of candidate debates before dropping out. Her husband, Frank Fiorina, had retired from a successful business career years earlier to play “helpmate” for Fiorina to advance her career. According to a CNN report, he had “dedicated his life to quietly supporting her, first in business, then in politics.”34 He explained that he only cautiously gave her advice. In an example of “going personal,” Frank responded in a NBC Today Show interview that “from the very first times I met her she is one of the hardest working, smartest and has more integrity than most anyone I have ever met, so it is a really good combination.”35 He even had his portfolio picked out if he were to become the First Spouse. He would focus on the disease of drug addiction and veterans’ issues.36 His daughter had died as a direct result of drug overdoses. During the 2018 campaign, political pundits listed three female Democratic US senators among the top contenders for that party’s presidential nominee in 2020. The Washington Post in July 2018 listed Kirsten Gillibrand sixth in its list of the top 15 contenders. Kamala Harris was listed as third, and number two was Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders was listed as number one. Chris Cillizza in The Point on July 19, 2018, listed “rankings of the 10 men and women most likely—as of today—to wind up as the Democratic nominee in 2020. In ranking these candidates, we considered current polling, historic trends and lessons that the 2018 Democratic primaries have taught us. So, we tended to default to early polling leaders. And women. And liberals.” 37 Gillibrand, Harris, and Warren were ranked fourth, third, and second respectively, with Joe Biden ranked number one in this analysis. All three of these potential female presidential candidates are married. Thus, the husbands may have been auditioning for First Gentleman, giving clues concerning how they see themselves in the First Gentleman role and how constrained they might be in such a role, as First Ladies have been. Harris has been married to Douglas Emhoff since 2014. He is currently the managing West Coast director for Venable in Los Angeles. Gillibrand’s husband is Jonathan Gillibrand, a British venture capitalist who works in New York City. The couple have been married since 2001. Warren is married to her second husband, Harvard law professor Bruce Mann. Warren and Mann have been married since 1980. Examining their rise to political power, there is little to suggest that Gillibrand and Mann would be heavily involved in strategizing about

136 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell their wives’ presidential runs. We could easily envision Mann returning to his professorial duties at Harvard at the end of the 2020 campaign and the traditional duties of the First Spouse being lessened if Warren were to win the presidency. In a 2012 interview, Mann said he sees his role as helping people make the personal connection they need to support Warren. “They realize that Elizabeth can’t be everywhere at once. When I talk to them, they seem pleased to see someone who’s known Elizabeth a very long time, who knows her very well and can talk about her and give them a bit of a sense of what kind of person she is,” a statement in keeping with new traditionalism regarding First Spouses.38 We could also foresee Mann highlighting donor events, being a draw but not necessarily an “arm twister” for large financial contributions to Warren’s campaign. Whether Emhoff would continue his business occupation if he became a First Spouse may be more complicated as this economic activity might conflict with governmental policies. He may find that acting in the role of First Spouse is an attractive alternative means of public influence. Emhoff did not receive much media attention as his wife sought election to the US Senate and became a highly visible leader of her party. Brides published an article in 2017 titled “7 Reasons Sen. Kamala Harris’s Husband, Douglas Emhoff, Would Make a Great First Man.”39 He is willing to compromise, prioritizes philanthropy, learns from his mistakes, has no problem meeting new people, makes plans and follows through, cares about children, and is married to Kamala Harris are the seven reasons given. Many of these qualities deviate quite substantially from the public images that developed around Bill Clinton and Melania Trump in 2016. Little was written about Jonathan Gillibrand playing much of a role in Kirsten Gillibrand’s senate campaigns or in her official duties as a senator from New York. He did not appear to be a force in her campaign strategizing based on the public record. Seeing as Kirsten Gillibrand was such a vocal critic of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump’s treatment of women, it would have been instructive to learn whether Jonathan Gillibrand was employed as a surrogate to address questions related to this topic. Perhaps the campaign could have viewed him as an effective spokesperson for navigating a topic that has generated negative blowback from within the Democratic Party. Whatever their approach, the men standing beside the women on the presidential campaign trail in the 2020 presidential election will be vastly different from Bill Clinton in many respects. What that difference

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

137

means for how the public views them in the context of the next campaign for the presidency remains to be seen. Of course, it is also possible that none of these women or other female contenders will emerge as prominent candidates as the 2020 election advances.40 Conclusion: The Future Prospects of a First Gentleman in the White House Looking to the future of presidential politics, it will be worthwhile to study how candidate spouses behave and what type of image they craft for themselves as the political and cultural expectations of society evolve. The decision of future presidential candidate spouses to embody new traditionalism would make strategic sense. Embodying new traditionalism has led to the strongest approval ratings from the public, and candidate spouses can best help their spouses win the election if they themselves are popular.41 In an era of social media, 24-hour cable news coverage, and rapidly changing journalistic norms, it seems likely that the expectations from the public for candidate spouses to be active and visible on the campaign trail will remain high, if not increase. Melania Trump defied expectations for contemporary spouses by playing a low-key role on the campaign trail during the 2016 presidential election, and this decision contributed to her distinctively low ratings during the campaign. The dividing line between the private and public lives of national-level candidates in modern political life has virtually vanished, and any spouse who chooses to stay on the sidelines in 2020 will likely experience the political fallout of a lower standing in the eyes of the American public. Yet, it is also possible that expectations for presidential candidate spouses may evolve away from new traditionalism. One factor that may spark an overhaul of traditional expectations for presidential candidate spouses would be a male assuming the role of presidential spouse in reality as opposed to merely in the abstract. Americans are more comfortable with a male presidential spouse working for pay and running for elective office than a female presidential spouse.42 Once a man assumes the role of presidential spouse, expectations for the role may evolve in this direction. If the public does warm to the idea of a First Gentleman influencing and speaking about nongendered policy areas, this could have a lasting impact on the public’s expectations for

138 Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell presidential candidate spouses going forward. As men assume the position of presidential spouse, Americans may become more accepting of spouses playing more autonomous and influential roles. Notes 1. See Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses. 2. See Wright, On Behalf of the President. 3. See Vigil, Moms in Chief. 4. See Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses. 5. Burrell, “The Governmental Status of the First Lady in Law and in Public Perception,” 233–247; Stokes, “First Ladies in Waiting,” 167–194. 6. Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses, Chapter 2. 7. “Fusion 2016 Issues Poll: First Spouses,” Fusion, August 19, 2016, https://fusion.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/fusion-poll-11-first-spouses.pdf. 8. Lydia Saad, “Gallup Vault: A Sea Change in Support for Working Women,” Gallup, July 20, 2017, https://news.gallup.com/vault/214328/gallup-vault-sea-change -support-working-women.aspx. 9. According to the 2004 USA Today/Gallup poll, 50 percent think it is appropriate and 47 percent think it is inappropriate for the First Lady to hold a paid job in the private sector. 10. Vigil, “Feminine Views in the Feminine Style”; Mandziuk, “Whither the Good Wife?” 11. According to original survey data collected September 15–17, 2017, by a GfK/Knowledge Networks nationally representative poll of 1,000 respondents, 46 percent thought it was inappropriate for presidential spouses to talk about their own accomplishments while campaigning for their spouse. 12. Elder, Frederick and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses, Chapter 2. 13. Ibid, 24. 14. Ibid, Chapter 2. 15. Kelly Dittmar, “Gender Expectations and the Presidential Partnership.” 16. See Wright, On Behalf of the President. 17. See Vigil, Moms in Chief; Hayden, “Michelle Obama, Mom-in-Chief”; and Harris-Perry, Sister Citizen. 18. See Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses. 19. See Wright, On Behalf of the President; and MacManus and Quecan, “Spouses as Campaign Surrogates.” 20. See Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses. 21. Alan Rappeport, “Melania Trump, Solo in Pennsylvania, Tries to Smooth Husband’s Rough Edges,” New York Times, November 3, 2016.

The Public’s Perceptions of Candidates’ Spouses

139

22. For more information on how this data was collected, see Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses, Chapter 2. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid, Chapter 5. 25. See Abramowitz, The Great Alignment; Jacobson, “The Triumph of Polarized Partisanship in 2016”; Abramowitz and Webster, “The Rise of Negative Partisanship”; and Campbell, Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America. 26. Li Zhou, “Sen. Gillibrand said Bill Clinton Should’ve Resigned over Monica Lewinsky. Clinton Disagrees,” Vox, June 1, 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/6 /1/17417222/bill-clinton-lewinsky-kirsten-gillibrand-me-too-movement. 27. See Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses. 28. See Troy, Hillary Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. 29. Tessa Berenson, “Hillary Clinton Struggles to Defend 1994 Crime Bill,” Time, April 15, 2016, http://time.com/4295463/hillary-clinton-struggles-to-defend -1994-crime-bill. 30. Amy Chozick, “Hillary Clinton Shapes Potential New Role for Bill Clinton,” New York Times, May 16, 2016. 31. Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses, 1. 32. See Wright, On Behalf of the President. 33. Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses, 4. 34. Dana Bash and Abigail Crutchfield, “The Man Behind Carly Fiorina Opens Up,” CNN, December 21, https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/frank-fiorina -interview-carly/index.html. 35. Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb, “Carly Fiorina, Husband Talk 2016 with Kathie, Hoda,” Today, May 5, 2016, https://www.today.com/news/carly-fiorina -talks-2016-kathie-lee-gifford-hoda-kotb-t19301V. 36. Bash and Crutchfield, “The Man Behind Carly Fiorina Opens Up.” 37. Aaron Blake, “The Top 15 Democratic Presidential Candidates for 2020, Ranked,” Washington Post, July 6, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news /the-fix/wp/2018/07/06/the-top-15-democratic-presidential-candidates-for-2020 -ranked-3/?utm_term=.49cdd4427a10. 38. Shira Shoenberg, “Harvard Law Professor Bruce Mann Adjusts to Public Role as ‘Elizabeth Warren’s Husband,’” MassLive.com, October 1 2012, https:// www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/harvard_law_professor_bruce_mann _adjusts_to_elizabeth_warren_husband.html. 39. Jessie Mooney, “7 Reasons Sen. Kamala Harris’s Husband, Douglas Emhoff, Would Make a Great First Man,” Brides, August 10, 2018, https://www .brides.com/story/kamala-harris-husband-douglas-emhoff. 40. For instance, US Senator Amy Klobuchar and US Representative Tulsi Gabbard could emerge from the large field of Democratic presidential candidates as leading contenders. 41. Burrell, Elder, and Frederick, “From Hillary to Michelle.” 42. Elder, Frederick, and Burrell, American Presidential Candidate Spouses, Chapter 2.

8 Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch Karen M. Hult

AS 2019 DAWNED, WOMEN OCCUPIED THE PRESIDENCIES of Lithuania, the Republic of China, and Nepal and served as prime ministers in Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom.1 Despite the presence of women as national leaders in countries around the world and the several who declared themselves candidates for the 2020 US Democratic presidential nomination, no woman has yet to secure the top executive spot in the United States.2 Moreover, while women continue to struggle for parity with men in Congress and many state legislatures, they also face challenges in adding executive experience to their public résumés. Even so, women have occupied and are increasingly holding higher positions in US local, state, and national executive branches. To the extent that the pools from which presidential candidates emerge include those with demonstrated executive experience, it is useful to probe the governmental arenas in which women participate and the nature of that involvement. Doing so may not only expand the places where the initial mentioners of possible candidates in the media, in political parties, and among interest groups look, but also highlight more role models for those yet unnamed girls and women with ambitions to be called “madam president.” In this chapter, I sketch the expansive landscape of women in executive positions at varying levels of US government. While exploring the emergence, numbers, and contemporary locations of such female officials, I focus as well on the opportunities and challenges they face

141

142 Karen M. Hult and the implications for women pursuing the presidency. Emphasizing a single branch of government and treating individuals as units of analysis has limitations, including the risks of neglecting the “balance of women’s leadership” across other branches and levels of government.3 Nonetheless, identifying key patterns in sometimes less studied executive branches may contribute to more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of sex, gender, and leadership. Potential paths for female presidential candidates may well wend through myriad positions, encompassing diverse tasks, at varying levels of government and in differing policy arenas and economic sectors. Table 8.1 shows offices that may be possible sites from which to develop and to showcase capacities and qualities relevant to running for and serving as US president. Such positions also may be places for finding future prospects.

Table 8.1 Possible Stops on a Presidential Career Path Office

Chief executive Other chief executive office in executive branch Department or agency head

Senior professional or administrator

Popular Election

Appointment

Governor Mayor

For-profit CEO Nonprofit CEO

State or local agency heada

US cabinet secretary State or local agency head

Lieutenant governor White House staffer State attorney general Top gubernatorial adviser County executive County administrative officer City or town manager Political appointee Career Senior Executive Service (SES) official State or local career official

Note: a. In many states, some department or agency heads stand for direct election. In 2018, Ballotpedia reported that 303 seats were up for election in 43 states. Examples of such positions are secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, superintendent of public instruction, public service commissioner, and railroad commissioner. At local levels, executive positions also may be elected, including those for county sheriff, prosecutor, and treasurer.

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

143

Elected Chief Executives If there is a conventional “opportunity structure” for those who aspire to the presidency, it is one that includes visible high-level offices.4 Service as a governor is part of a frequent path; four of the last seven presidents were governors. Governors are the only elected US government officials with responsibilities that are closest to the president’s. Like presidents, governors serve as the single visible face and voice of the government, and voters typically hold them responsible for everything from the performance of the state economy to the quality of public education to responses to natural disasters to symbolizing a state’s values to those outside. Meanwhile, as concerns with mounting gun violence in Chicago and corruption in big cities like Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Nashville hit home, mayors frequently join governors as the targets of complaints and criticism.5 Holding such offices, then, may serve as public testing grounds for, builders of confidence in, and barriers to advancement for women (and men) who may pursue the presidency. Finally, in considering elected chief executives, it may be worth keeping in mind crossnational findings that “women are less likely to become the chief executive when that position commands a greater share of authority.”6 Governors

There have been 44 women governors in 30 states throughout US history, beginning in 1925 with the elections of Miriam Ferguson (Texas: 1925–1927, 1933–1935) and Nellie Tayloe Ross (Wyoming: 1925– 1927). The first woman elected governor in her own right was Connecticut’s Ella Grasso in 1974. Of the 44 total, 30 were elected, 3 replaced husbands, and 11 took office through constitutional succession, with 6 ultimately winning full terms—26 have been Democrats and 18 Republicans. Arizona stands out as “the first state where a woman succeeded another woman as governor, and the first state to have had four women governors.”7 Although 17 of these women served in the 20th century, there have been 30 female governors in the first 19 years of the 21st century (as well as one woman appointed to be governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), with 9 holding office in 2019. All 4 of the female governors whose terms ended in 2018 sought and won reelection; 2 others faced term limits. Meanwhile, a total of 16 women ran

144 Karen M. Hult for governor in 2018 with 8 winning. The first women of color also were elected governor following the turn of the century: Nikki Haley (R-SC) and Susana Martinez (R-NM). Overall, however, women’s success in reaching a governorship has mostly stabilized since 2000. Moreover, striking to many is that a woman has never been elected governor in a populous state like California, Florida, Illinois, or New York. State context evidently is key. Scholars have found that “women are more likely to enter gubernatorial primaries in states with more women state legislators and states with more favorable climates, such as a history of women’s office holding [and] high levels of women’s education.”8 Political party may be an increasingly important dimension of state context. In her study of gubernatorial candidates, campaign consultants, and political activists, Kelly Dittmar found that Republican consultants were less likely than Democratic ones to report candidate gender differences in voter perceptions or in the strategic approaches consultants recommended; she also reported partisan differences in candidate and campaign practices. 9 Nevertheless, “women who have reached the governor’s mansion do not necessarily credit their parties with their success.”10 Once they take office, all governors confront myriad issues and constituencies. The handful of analyses that compare contemporary female and male governors find relatively few differences. Such comparisons are complicated by the relatively low number of women who have held the office; by varying state political, social, and economic conditions and dynamics; and by agreed-upon evaluative dimensions. Lori Dickes and Elizabeth Crouch lament the “paucity of research [about] the policymaking influence of women executives in cities, states, and nations,” and the absence of work that addresses “the role of gender on the policy successes of governors.”11 In an initial foray into such work, they find that the sex of a governor was not a statistically significant influence on the legislative policy success between 1990 and 2017. This supports the view that the job of governor may be becoming gender indifferent. A look at 2018 reelection contests, for example, shows that both female and male candidates confronted voter concerns about jobs, education, and infrastructure (e.g., Gretchen Whitmer and Bill Schuette in Michigan; Gavin Newsom and John Cox in California). Even so, many analyses appear to treat gender in gubernatorial research as a “self-explanatory” category.12 Moreover, this shift has not extended to all areas. Considerable research suggests that women confront partic-

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

145

ular challenges “when speaking authoritatively on financial issues, war, military strategy, and international policy,” reflecting persistent biases about women’s capacity to handle a struggling economy or to respond calmly and forcefully to threats.13 Such gendered expectations mean that female governors receive special scrutiny when crises arise. Mayors

Becoming a governor, much less reaching the presidency, almost always involves having been a candidate in other elections. Indeed, the premise of a commonly used political ambition measure “is that a governor progressing steadily up from substate to statewide elective office to the governorship will be stronger than those who start at the top as their first office.”14 Service in a local elective office such as mayor may be such a step toward higher office. Between 1981 and 2015, for example, mayor was the “entry-level” elected office of 17 percent of governors and the penultimate position for 14 percent.15 Women have succeeded at being elected mayors of numerous US cities. Although New York City and Los Angeles never have elected female mayors, other large cities have, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Sacramento, and Scottsdale. In 2018, women were mayors of 297 of the 1,365 cities with populations of 30,000 or more and 23 of the 100 largest cities, including Phoenix, Charlotte, Fort Worth, Seattle, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Omaha. The numbers have increased dramatically since 1999, when 45 women were mayors of cities with populations of 30,000 or more.16 Female mayors have had visible success. In 2004, for example, Governing Magazine named Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin (the last female mayor so chosen) to its list of “public officials of the year,” pointing to her handling of city budget problems and gaining state, county, and city support for a long delayed court-ordered sewer modernization project. The citation also praised her restoration of public confidence in city government and her skill at revitalizing working relationships with state and county officials. In 2019, 3 of the 19 officials in Governing Magazine’s “Women in Government” were mayors. More generally, as with governors, the tasks and activities of mayors appear to be moving toward gender indifference. As the website of the US Conference of Mayors suggests, members routinely grapple with concerns ranging from infrastructure, immigration, crime, education, housing, jobs, and transportation.

146 Karen M. Hult Other Elected State Executives

Besides the mayor’s office, the path to the governorship not infrequently passes through other state-level elected positions. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, in 2018, “74 women [held] statewide elective executive offices, [including] 23.7% of the 312 available positions.” The women included 28 Democrats, 44 Republicans, and two in nonpartisan positions; 9 (12.2 percent) were women of color. By 2019, with the election of Janet Mills in Maine, women have been elected to statewide executive office in all 50 states.17 And, in Oregon for the first time, three of the five statewide elected officials were women. Lieutenant Governors

Forty-five states have lieutenant governors. In 2018, 30 lieutenant gubernatorial seats were contested, with 20 states selecting a lieutenant governor as part of their gubernatorial elections, and the other 10 holding separate lieutenant gubernatorial elections. By 2019, 15 women served as lieutenant governor; 12 women were elected to the position in November 2018, with all but one running separately. Although the duties of lieutenant governors vary widely, many states have been increasing their responsibilities, frequently adding tasks involving law enforcement, physical infrastructure, or homeland security to their portfolios.18 For instance, among other tasks, Lieutenant Governor Dianne Primavera of Colorado serves on the Education Leadership Council and on the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs. In Indiana, Suzanne Crouch serves as secretary of agriculture, oversees the offices of defense development, community and rural affairs, and housing and community development. Not surprisingly, governors are more likely to assign lieutenant governors broader and more important responsibilities when they have been elected as a team or are members of the same political party. Such responsibilities help lieutenant governors not only to replace governors who resign or die but also to position themselves to run for the governorship. Female lieutenant governors may benefit in other ways if the tasks they are assigned are gendered masculine (such as those in homeland security, corrections, and energy). Of course, assuming these more significant tasks can also highlight controversial or questionable actions, potentially a bigger risk for women if they are expected to be less competent than men.

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

147

State Attorneys General

Long acknowledged as significant at the state level, state attorneys general have become more visible nationally over the past several decades.19 The state government lawsuits against tobacco companies seeking reimbursement for smoking-related Medicaid expenses were initiated by attorneys general in Mississippi, Minnesota, Florida, and Texas. California attorney general Xavier Becerra has received frequent national attention for his suits (with other state attorneys general) against federal agencies and against President Donald Trump’s national emergency order. Similarly, his immediate predecessor, US senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Kamala Harris, used her occupancy of the position as an indicator of executive experience. Attorneys general are elected in 43 states and appointed by the governor in 5 others; in Maine, the legislature selects the attorney general by secret ballot, whereas the state supreme court appoints them in Tennessee. Much like serving as lieutenant governor, being attorney general evidently can hold both promise and pitfalls for its occupants. Yet women are not common occupants of the position. In 2019, women served as attorneys general in 8 states (including Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon) as well as in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Secretaries of State

Many Americans no doubt first learned of the state governmental position of secretary of state in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. That, of course, was the year that Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris presided over the disputed recounts of votes cast in several counties. Forty-seven states have similar officials. Although their duties vary, most secretaries of state handle “elections, business registration, licensing and regulation, legislative record keeping, and publishing,” and some are also responsible for overseeing state lands, facilities, or warrants. In 35 states, these officials are elected, and in the others (including Florida after 2003) the governor appoints them. Secretary of state is a somewhat more common statewide position for women to hold. In 2019, women occupied 14 of the 47 positions, reaching it through election in 10 states. As party and ideological polarization rose in the 2000s and ballot access became more contested, the secretary of state’s office began to generate the kind of visibility—and

148 Karen M. Hult scrutiny—that Harris experienced. Although this might make the position a useful stepping-stone to higher office, it also carries clear risks. In 2018, for example, two secretaries of state won their parties’ nominations for governor—Brian Kemp of Georgia and Kris Kobach of Kansas—amplifying criticisms of alleged ballot suppression, registration limitations, and voting location manipulation. Along with secretaries of state in Arizona and Kentucky (both women), they received considerable negative publicity and several court challenges.20 Despite these difficulties and possible public perceptions of the job’s feminine gendering, more than 30 secretaries of state have become governors since 1904, at least 4 of whom were women. However, two of those women, Rose Mofford and Olene Walker, replaced governors who had either been impeached or stepped down to assume a national cabinet position. Meanwhile, the secretary-of-state position has been on the path to higher office for presidential hopefuls like Jerry Brown and Mario Cuomo and for future US senators such as Mark Hatfield and John D. Rockefeller IV. Other Statewide Elected Offices

In a handful of states, other positions also are elective. The positions arguably vary in their perceived gendering. More “masculine” offices may include other agency heads than those just examined as well as membership on multimember boards. Treasurers, for instance, are elected in 36 states; in 2019, women held 11 of these elected positions. Insurance commissioners are elected in 11 states, and in 2019, 5 women occupied those seats. Agriculture commissioners are elected in 12 states (all in the southeast except for Iowa and North Dakota), a position occupied in 2019 by 1 woman (Nikki Fried, the only Democrat to win statewide office in Florida in November 2018). Meanwhile, women served as appointed agriculture commissioners in 13 states. Every state except Wyoming has a natural resources commissioner, but only 4 states hold elections for these positions. In early 2019, 2 women, both Democrats, were elected natural resources commissioner (in New Mexico and Washington); 2 men, both Republicans, occupied the other seats. In the 4 states that elect labor commissioners, 3 have women in those positions: 2 Republicans in North Carolina and Oklahoma, and 1 elected on a nonpartisan ballot in Oregon. In 11 states, commissioners are elected to multimember public service commissions, where women hold 14 of the 51 elected positions. Possibly the most “feminine” position,

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

149

superintendent of schools (or instruction or education) is elected in 13 states. In 2019 women held just over one-half (7) of those positions. Appointed Executives Elective offices need not constitute the only path to the presidency. Voters (and financial contributors) may scrutinize potential candidates’ résumés for additional evidence of policy experience, partisan work, or management expertise. Candidates also rely on experience in a variety of appointed executive positions to establish their credibility. Moreover, before running for elective office, women may be more likely than men to acquire relevant experience through government positions or political appointments. Federal Cabinet Secretaries and Agency Heads

As Table 8.2 demonstrates, over the course of US history, 37 women have held cabinet positions in 18 different departments. Since the administration of Gerald Ford, presidents have had at least one female cabinet secretary. For the most part, women have been placed in “outer cabinet” departments (in Table 8.2, all but the “inner cabinet” Homeland Security, Justice, and State Departments), and they frequently have headed departments whose responsibilities are consistent with feminine gender roles, such as education and health and human services. In other cases, women have been “gender outsiders in relation to both the policy jurisdictions and constituencies,” moving into departments like energy, interior, and transportation. Moreover, women secretaries may be nominated to some departments that traditionally have been led by a woman, to other departments distant from a president’s agenda, and still to others in which they are expected to wield considerable power. Thus, under George W. Bush, Elaine Lan Chao was named the fifth woman labor secretary, heading a department of little relevance to the president’s agenda, whereas Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice headed departments of critical significance. More recently, of course, the glass walls surrounding the inner cabinet became somewhat more porous as women were named attorney general, secretary of state, and secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. MaryAnne Borrelli cautions, though, that Janet Reno’s career and subsequent nomination appear supportive of traditional patterns of

150 Table 8.2 Women Cabinet Secretaries, 1933–2019 Name

Frances Perkins Oveta Culp Hobby

Carla Anderson Hills

Patricia Roberts Harris

Juanita M. Kreps Shirley M. Hufstedtler Margaret M. Heckler

Elizabeth Hanford Dole

Ann Dore McLaughlin Lynn Martin Barbara H. Franklin Donna E. Shalala

Hazel R. O’Leary Janet Reno Madeleine Korbel Albright Alexis M. Herman Ann M. Veneman Gale A. Norton Elaine Lan Chao Condoleezza Rice Margaret Spellings Janet Napolitano

Department/Agency

Labor Health, Education, and Welfare Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Health, Education, and Welfare Health and Human Services Commerce Education Health and Human Services Transportation Labor Labor Labor Commerce Health and Human Services Energy Justice State

Labor Agriculture Interior Labor State Education Homeland Security

President

Roosevelt Eisenhower

Ford

Carter

Carter Carter Reagan

Reagan G. H. W. Bush Reagan G. H. W. Bush G. H. W. Bush Clinton

Clinton Clinton Clinton

Clinton G. W. Bush G. W. Bush G. W. Bush G. W. Bush G. W. Bush Obama

Years Served

1933–1945 1953–1955

1975–1977

1977–1979 1979

1979–1981

1977–1979 1979–1981 1983–1985

1983–1987 1989–1991 1987–1989 1991–1993 1992–1993 1993–2001

1993–1997 1993–2001 1997–2001

1997–2001 2001–2005 2001–2006 2001–2009 2005–2009 2005–2009 2009–2013

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

Table 8.2 Continued Name

Hilda Solis Hillary Clinton Lisa Jackson

Susan Rice Kathleen Sebelius Sally Jewell Penny Pritzker Gina McCarthy Samantha Power

Department/Agency

Labor State Environmental Protection Agency UN Ambassador Health and Human Services Interior Commerce Environmental Protection Agency UN Ambassador

Sylvia Mathews Burwell Office of Management and Budget Health and Human Services Loretta Lynch Justice Elaine Lan Chao Transportation Betsy DeVos Education Kirstjen Nielsen Homeland Security Nikki Haley UN Ambassador Gina Haspel Central Intelligence Agency

President

Obama Obama Obama

151

Years Served

2009–2013 2009–2013 2009–2013

Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama

2009–2013 2009–2014 2013–2017 2013–2017 2013–2017

Obama

2014–2017

Obama Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump

2015–2017 2017– 2017– 2017–2019 2017–2018 2018–

Obama

Sources: Borrelli, The President’s Cabinet, Appendix, 229–231.

2013–2017

gender politics in cabinet appointments. Like the vast majority of women secretaries, Reno was a “policy generalist,” though unlike other attorneys general, she did not have a strong relationship with the president.21 Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state under Barack Obama was the first time a woman was named to head the State Department at the beginning of a president’s term. Obama’s secretary of homeland security, former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, also was the first woman to head that newer department; she was followed by another woman, Kirstjen Nielsen, relatively early in the Trump administration.

152 Karen M. Hult Less clear is when women will become secretaries of the remaining departments of the inner cabinet, Defense and the Treasury. Although holding a cabinet position is neither a common nor a necessarily successful route to later elective office, the attention Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received as a possible presidential candidate in 2008 and Hillary Clinton’s run in both 2008 and 2016 suggest it is scarcely unreasonable to view it in this light. Other recent female cabinet secretaries also have entered electoral politics. Elizabeth Dole, though she failed in her effort to secure her party’s presidential nomination in 2000, was elected US senator from North Carolina in 2002, and Janet Reno sought the Florida governorship. After serving as president of the University of Miami, former Clinton secretary of health and human services Donna Shalala was elected to the US House of Representatives in 2018. Perhaps at least as important for women’s presidential bids, women being named to cabinet positions and performing strongly— particularly in areas framed as “masculine” such as national security and economics—may increase public confidence in women’s governing capacities. At the same time, such women—no matter what their previous experience—evidently still will struggle with assumptions about their competence. 2018 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton confronted persistent criticism for her performance as secretary of state, including her reliance on a private e-mail server and her alleged lack of attention to conditions in Libya, leading to the attack on diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi that killed four.22 Other Senior Executives

National cabinet officers are only the tip of a single iceberg in the eligibility pool of presidential hopefuls. Hundreds of other possible candidates may be working in senior administrative and professional positions in government settings throughout the United States, which may be additional places that women ultimately seeking the White House might be found, although glass ceilings and glass walls persist. In a study of representation by sex and race in the executive branch under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, Aikaterini Anestaki and colleagues examined the numbers of women and of racial or ethnic minorities in presidential appointments, the Senior Executive Service (SES), and across General Schedule (GS) levels. They conclude that “women and racial minorities [were] better represented under the

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

153

two Democratic presidencies,” including occupying more senior positions in the career service.23

White House staff. Since Richard Nixon, presidents have had White

House Office staffs of at least 400 people, 50 to 75 of whom are political or policy professionals.24 Relatively few former White House staffers have gone on to pursue visible elective office, but doing so is scarcely unprecedented. Prominent examples include Senator Elizabeth Dole, who served on the Nixon and Reagan staffs, and Vice President Richard Cheney, who worked as President Ford’s chief of staff. One-time Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles twice ran for the US Senate in North Carolina after leaving the White House, and Mitchell Daniels Jr., a former Reagan staffer and George W. Bush’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget, won the Indiana governorship in November 2004. Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s first chief of staff, left the White House to seek (and ultimately win) the position of Chicago mayor. Only a relatively small number of women have occupied high-level positions on presidents’ staffs. For example, no woman ever has served as chief of staff, at the top of the formal White House hierarchy. From Nixon through the first term of George W. Bush, the US Government Manual lists four women with the title “deputy chief of staff,” three in the Clinton presidency and one under George W. Bush. Under Barack Obama, women served as deputy chiefs of staff throughout his administration, including occupying both deputy chief positions (typically for “operations” and for “policy”) from 2012 through 2016. Women also were deputy chiefs of staff in the Trump presidency (Katie Walsh and Kirstjen Nielsen), albeit for relatively short stints. If one examines the overall White House hierarchy implied by the titles of staffers listed in the US Government Manual, one sees that women rarely occupy close to half of the positions toward the top of the hierarchy (senior adviser, assistant to the president) and are more likely to have the titles of deputy assistant to the president and special assistant to the president (see Table 8.3).25 Nevertheless, the proportions of women in higher-level positions generally have increased over time, and they have tended to be higher in Democratic administrations. Typically, too, the last year of a presidency has been the point at which administrations report the highest percentages of women serving in the White House Office. Below the highest levels of the hierarchy, women increasingly have breached glass ceilings, serving as directors of particular White House units. Frequently, such offices involve outreach activities

154 Table 8.3 Number and Percentage of Female Staffers, by Title and Year Year

1969–1970 1970–1971 1971–1972 1972–1973 1973–1974 1974–1975 1975–1976 1976–1977 1977–1978 1978–1979 1979–1980 1980–1981 1981–1982 1982–1983 1983–1984 1984–1985 1985–1986 1986–1987 1987–1988 1988–1989 1989–1990 1990–1991 1991–1992 1992–1993 1993–1994 1994–1995 1995–1996 1996–1997 1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Senior Adviser 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (25) 1 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33) 2 (67) 2 (40) 1 (33)

Assistant to the President 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (13) 2 (20) 1 (10) 2 (22) 1 (8) 1 (7) 1 (6) 1 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (8) 1 (8) 1 (8) 1 (7) 1 (23) 3 (39) 7 (32) 6 (32) 7 (36) 8 (38) 8 (29) 6 (32) 8 (13) 7 (29) 4 (29) 4 (27)

Deputy Assistant to the President 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (25) 1 (7) 3 (18) 3 (21) 3 (19) 3 (14) 5 (26) 3 (20) 3 (20) 4 (18) 5 (25) 7 (37) 9 (38) 11 (46) 11 (38) 15 (50) 17 (61) 16 (59) 21 (64) 21 (66) 20 (57) 3 (12) 3 (12)

Special Assistant to the President 1 (7) 1 (5) 1 (6) 1 (6) 1 (7) 1 (5) 1 (13) 2 (20) 2 (22) 2 (29) 2 (40) 1 (14) 4 (24) 9 (23) 11 (23) 10 (20) 9 (23) 10 (22) 13 (29) 15 (33) 11 (27) 14 (30) 13 (32) 10 (29) 0 (0) 29 (46) 22 (41) 28 (57) 22 (51) 15 (50) 26 (59) 31 (72) 9 (28) 9 (33)

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

Table 8.3 Continued Year

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Senior Adviser 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Assistant to the President 4 (33) 3 (23) 4 (27) 4 (31) 4 (27) 3 (20) 7 (33) 7 (35) 5 (29) 7 (35) 10 (50) 11 (52) 12 (54) 3 (19) 6 (17)

Deputy Assistant to the President 3 (12) 7 (27) 8 (50) 6 (37) 7 (44) 7 (47) 9 (45) 9 (75) 8 (53) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

155

Special Assistant to the President 10 (37) 2 (100) 3 (100) 3 (100) 1 (50) 1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Note: Figures are drawn from annual issues of the United States Government Manual, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/GOVMAN. The reporting period changed between 2000 and 2011.

or those that are gender stereotyped as female; examples include the offices of public liaison, communications, and First Lady. Yet such glass walls have weakened as women have become the national security assistant (Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers), assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism (Frances Fragos Townsend), and White House counsel (Beth Nolan, Harriet Miers). Notable as well is Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s relatively long tenure as White House press secretary under President Donald Trump. In most of the latter cases, however, women were not the first occupants of these positions in their administrations. Still, although women are serving more widely throughout the White House Office, evidence of glass walls persists. At least according to United States Government Manual listings from 1978 through 2004, in 18 of the years 100 percent of the staffers in the Office of the

156 Karen M. Hult First Lady were women. 26 It remains largely the case that as Karen Hult and MaryAnne Borrelli reported in 2005, “Women also serve with unusual consistency in the offices of public liaison, congressional liaison, and personnel.”27 Perhaps most important for signaling policy competence, such units rarely are central to the executive policymaking process. Indeed, “the first unequivocal association of a woman with national security policy in the White House Office appeared in the 1988–1989 issue of the Government Manual, with domestic policy in 1993–1994, and with economic policy and with environmental policy in 1994–1995.” 28 Not until the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations have women held positions in which they could readily engage in the policy process. That both glass ceilings and glass walls have shown evidence of permeability under administrations of different political parties, however, suggests that the inclusion of women in a broader range of White House political and policy tasks is institutionalizing and may be altering gender expectations. Even so, Noelle Norton and Barbara Morris warn that “masculinist organization culture permeates the structure and processes of the EOP [Executive Office of the President].”29 Federal agencies. Women occupy senior positions throughout the

national executive branch, serving as both political appointees and career civil servants. Experience in such positions may help potential presidential candidates establish their credentials as managers with experience working in the federal executive. At the same time, to the degree women’s military and national security competencies are challenged, glass walls may make federal executive work less useful. For example, Lauren Schulman, who worked on the Obama National Security Council staff, notes that relatively few women have worked in senior intelligence and national security positions; she calls the Trump administration “one of the most predominantly male administrations we’ve had.”30 Across the departments, women make up about one-third of the SES, including both career and noncareer officials.31 In the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations, female appointees “reached the highest levels [in the SES] and racial minorities fared best in SES and GS8-15 positons” in Obama’s first term.32 Clinton appointed women to almost one-third of the available positions in the executive branch requiring Senate confirmation, and his successor, George W. Bush, also appointed many women. Obama continued this emphasis,

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

157

though differences in the numbers of female appointees under Clinton and Obama were not statistically significant; both administrations’ records, however, exceeded that of George W. Bush.33 National executive branch organizations remain gendered. Glass walls remain in the SES, where women are most likely to work in “redistributive” agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services and least likely to work in more “distributive” settings (e.g., the Department of Interior).34 Women who reach SES status also may be at differential risk of facing “glass cliffs” depending on the type of agency in which they work. Using expressed intent to leave their positions within the year as a proxy for glass cliffs and data from the 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Meghna Sabharwal found that women in redistributive agencies were “less likely to experience glass cliffs when compared with distributive and constituent agencies.”35 Contrary to her expectations, women in regulatory agencies were least likely to confront glass cliffs.36 Meanwhile, women in redistributive agencies were “less likely to be involved in organizational decisionmaking, report lower empowerment, face inequities at work, and express lower satisfaction with work-life balance than their male peers,” factors that have been associated with turnover.37 One possible explanation for the differences between regulatory and redistributive agencies in tendencies for women to confront glass cliffs may be their distinct structuring, with the former typically being less hierarchical and more collegial. The reasons for such differences, of course, deserve further probing. As long as concerns about US international and domestic security are prominent and the president’s role as commander in chief remains “fully masculinized,” female presidential candidates likely will need to provide evidence of experience or expertise in these areas.38 Of particular concern, then, may be the notable dearth of high-level women in national security positions, which evidently reflects and reinforces what Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau called the “ignorance-apathy” and “pacifist” stereotypes of women.39 Without looking at positions in departmental hierarchies, the most recent data from the Office of Personnel Management indicated that women made up 49 percent of Department of Defense civilian employees and 34 percent of those in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the Department of Homeland Security, women also made up just over 34 percent of the workforce, including 23 percent of Secret Service officials and 28 percent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel.40

158 Karen M. Hult There has been some movement toward increasing the representation of women in senior positions in the State and Defense Departments and in the intelligence services. Several visible women from the two departments have received considerable attention and some mention as potential presidential or vice presidential candidates over the past 25 years: for example, Sheila Widnall (secretary of the Navy, 1993–1997), Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (the first woman to achieve the rank of three-star general in the US Army), and former secretaries of state Madeleine Korbel Albright and Condoleezza Rice. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, of course, sought the presidency in 2016. And, under Donald Trump, the first woman, Gina Haspel, became CIA director, and Heather Wilson was named secretary of the Air Force.41 Although the work of Nancy E. McGlen and Meredith Reid Sarkees has not been systematically updated since 2001, little suggests that the hierarchies of the State Department and especially the Defense Department have changed in ways that would make it easier for women “to break into the decision-making ranks.”42 Nor is there much evidence that the glass walls in the Defense Department, in which women are “often segregated by the internal topography . . . to areas with limited impact on foreign policy,” have broken down.43 It seems probable as well that senior female career officials at the Defense Department might be “more hard line” on policy issues than their male counterparts, as well as far more likely than career women at the State Department to “say their gender limits their ability to influence policy.”44 Reports of the early days of the National Security Council staff under President Trump are even less positive. According to Toosi, in contrast to the Obama administration, most key positions were held by “white men, a disproportionate number with military backgrounds.” Indeed “when McMaster took over from [Mike] Flynn [at NSA], a female staffer sent him an email . . . that urged him to stamp out sexism,” and referred to a “culture of misogyny.”45 Apparent glass walls also exist in other policy arenas. At the same time, women are more likely to work in more “feminized” departments. These include, for example the Departments of Education (62 percent female), Health and Human Services (61 percent), and Housing and Urban Development (59 percent).46 As Rachel Augustine Potter and Craig Volden note in a study of agency officials overseeing rulemaking from 1995 through 2014, “overall women are more likely to be put in positions of power in agencies that deal with what have classically been referred to as ‘women’s policy issues’ like education and health.”47 In examining the

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

159

success of more than 700 agency officials in guiding regulations from initiation to becoming law, they conclude that female officials benefited from a “performance premium”: success was “best explained by the pairing of women with their substantive area of policy interest.”48 Despite concerns about possible essentialism in the analysis, the evidence does suggest the importance of “institutional context” to effectiveness. State agencies. The numbers of women heading state departments and

agencies has also been growing. Composing roughly 2 percent of all department heads in 1964, the proportions rose to 11 percent in 1984, to more than 25 percent in 1999, to close to 30 percent in 2005, and to 34 percent by 2012–2014.49 States vary considerably in the proportions of women heading executive branch agencies, ranging from 43 percent in Arizona and Oregon to 17 percent in Georgia.50 Overall, state agency heads continue to be “becoming younger, more representative in terms of [sex], race/ethnicity, and better educated.”51 Yet, women executives in state government continue to be concentrated in gender stereotypical agencies, such as those responsible for aging, the arts, community affairs, libraries, and human services and welfare, though more are leading departments like finance and homeland security. Looking more broadly at women administrators and professionals in state agencies, federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data from 2015 (the latest available) indicate that in state government proportionately fewer women were classified as “officials, administrators” (33.6 percent) and among “skilled” employees (16.6 percent), but occupied 59.7 percent of “professional” and 51 percent of “technical” positions. Overall, the median salary for women in state government ($45,090) trailed that of men ($51,345).52

Local agencies. Systematic data over time about women’s employment

at the US local level are even more difficult to find. Focusing on a specific leadership position—the chief administrative officer (CAO)—in counties, cities, and towns, however, reveals some information. The International City Managers Association reported that at the end of 2018, 17.9 percent of CAOs were women (compared with fewer than 2 percent in the mid-1970s and 14.4 percent in 2014).53 More generally, Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene observe that “leadership in local government is maledominated,” with more male than female employees. At the same time, glass walls persist, with major departments such as police, fire, public works, and transportation employing mostly men.54

160 Karen M. Hult Governors’ offices. A final source of female leaders considered here

are governors’ senior staffs. As of June 2018, governors of 11 states— including California, Ohio, and New York, as well as Arkansas and Wyoming—had female chiefs of staff.55 When including others with “policy influencing titles” (e.g., budget director, legal adviser), however, there appears to be relatively little difference since 2005 when women made up over 40 percent of governors’ top advisers.56

Conclusion An overview of possible steps along a presidential career path that winds through diverse executive jobs points to both opportunities and obstacles for women. Certainly, since the 1970s, more women have assumed a wider variety of positions at all levels of US government, and they wield considerable authority as governors, mayors, and agency heads. At the same time, many women in government at all levels continue to work under glass ceilings and within glass walls. Many face glass cliffs once they breach glass ceilings or shatter glass walls. It remains difficult to be confident that a woman soon will be elected president of the United States. The bases for such a conclusion are both variegated and familiar, with factors ranging from the ambition and resources of individual women and men, to gendered expectations of office-holders and of governmental leadership, to the structure of the US political system. From a more global perspective, Devin Joshi and Ryan Goehrung highlight an additional caution: “Women are less likely to become the chief executive officer when that position commands a greater share of authority.”57 At the individual level, varying political gender role socialization and political confidence levels often mean that women are “less likely than men to be self-starters in running for office.”58 Furthermore, campaigns and elections are deeply gendered. Such gendering encompasses features ranging from the pervasive language of war and (male) sports to expectations of candidates’ attire and of appropriate campaign and voter outreach strategies. Evidence suggests as well that voters frequently prefer male office holders and rely on “gender stereotypes to infer candidate traits, issue competencies, and ideologies.”59 Sarah Fulton’s concerns about the neglect of “sex-based heterogeneity in quality” in studies of gender parity and electoral outcomes (an “omitted variable bias”) also deserve attention: women need to be perceived as

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

161

significantly more qualified to “perform on par with men.”60 In sum, “gender not only is embedded in expectations for and behavior of candidates but also influences the psychological and strategic considerations of all of those involved.”61 The mounting distinctions between the Democratic Party and Republican Party shape, reflect, and interact with these gendered dynamics. By 2019, “women’s representation among Democratic officeholders . . . is far greater than their representation among Republican officeholders.”62 These differences likely involve more than voter choice alone. One study of campaigns found that, although political consultants for both parties “report that voters associate traditional gendered traits with men and women candidates,” Republican consultants were less likely to point to gender differences in voter perceptions or in strategic approaches.63 In addition, the parties appear to be diverging in both the supply and the demand for female candidates. The larger pool of potential Democratic candidates reflects women’s greater tendency to identify with the party and other “professional and educational patterns in the parties.”64 More important, according to Melody Crowder-Mayer and Rosalyn Cooperman, is party culture. What these scholars label “women’s representation policy demanders” are more plentiful and more influential in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party.65 The two parties’ differing cultures—and “their orientations to women’s representation— shape the behavior of female party elites.”66 Influenced in turn are potential candidates’ willingness and ability to seek elective office and the encouragement and support they can expect from party elites as well as from rank-and-file party identifiers. Finally, it is difficult to overlook the constraints of a presidential system in which votes are cast for individuals and not for parties and in which the electoral college aggregates votes by state. Nonetheless, there is cause for longer-term optimism. Women have breached ceilings and walls and frequently avoided cliffs in federal, state, and local executives. They appear poised to continue to do so. The early field of candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination included several women, at least two of whom (Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar) have elected executive experience (as California attorney general and Hennepin County, Minnesota, prosecutor, respectively). As subnational officials increasingly assume a range of “homeland security” responsibilities, more women will be in positions to show their capacity to handle security-related concerns. Ongoing efforts to

162 Karen M. Hult encourage women to participate in government may add to both the numbers and the visibility of female leaders; the work of the Women’s Foreign Policy Group, the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, and the Women Under Forty Political Action Committee are illustrations. Moreover, amplifying effects of women reaching more senior positions should not be overlooked. As Mary Ellen Guy has noted, “the more women there are in top-level positions . . . the greater willingness there is to routinely authorize the hierarchical promotion of very skilled, competent women.”67 Increasing numbers of women would expand and deepen the pool of possible female presidential candidates. At least as important, as more of those women become known, they become role models for others. Perhaps then a woman in the United States will be able to take a place among female leaders of other nations. Notes 1. See UN Women, “Facts and Figures,” https://www.unwomen.org/en/what -we-do/youth/facts-and-figures. As of January 2019, 11 women served as heads of state and 10 as heads of government. Meanwhile, in January 2017, 18.3 percent of government ministers were women, with the most commonly held portfolio by women ministers being in ministries involving the environment, natural resources, and energy, followed by “social sectors” such as social affairs and education. 2. Nor are US women clearly faring better in the private sector. In 2018, women made up 5 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, a 25 percent decline (from 32 to 24) since 2017. See Valentina Zarya, “Women Make Up 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs,” Fortune, May 21, 2018, https://fortune.com/2018/05/21/women-fortune -500-2018/. They are underrepresented more generally as one moves up the ladder in management, business, and financial occupations: Catalyst.org reports that in 2017 women made up 44 percent of the S&P 500, but only 4.8 percent of the CEOs, 11 percent of the top earners, and 26.5 percent of executive and senior level officials and managers. See Sharon Florentine, “Women Still Underrepresented in Fortune 500 Leadership Roles,” CIO, August 31, 2018, https:// www.cio.com/article/3302376/women-still-underrepresented-in-fortune-500 -leadership-roles.html. 3. See, for example, Joshi and Goehrung, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Women’s Political Leadership,” 351. 4. See Schlesinger, Ambition and Politics. 5. See, for example, Richard Fausett, Monica Davey, and Tim Arango, “‘It’s the Human Way’: Corruption Scandals Play Out in Big Cities Across U.S.,” New York Times, February 5, 2019. 6. Joshi and Goehrung, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Women’s Political Leadership,” 354.

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

163

7. Center for American Women and Politics, “History of Women Governors,” https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/history-women-governors. See also Sanbonmatsu, “Women’s Election to Office in the 50 States.” 8. Sanbonmatsu, “Women’s Election to Office in the 50 States.” 9. Dittmar, Navigating Gendered Terrain. 10. Sanbonmatsu, “Women’s Election to Office in the 50 States.” And, as Bernick (“Studying Governors over Five Decades” 136) notes, “gender competes with party as a voting cue and can play an important role in voting.” 11. Dickes and Crouch, “Policy Effectiveness of U.S. Governors,” 91; Bernick, “Studying Governors over Five Decades,” 136. 12. Bernick, “Studying Governors over Five Decades,” 133. 13. Mayhead and Marshall, Women’s Political Discourse, 208; Fulton, “Running Backwards and in High Heels,” 304. 14. Barbara Lee Family Foundation, “Speaking with Authority.” 15. Ferguson, “Governors and the Executive Branch,” Tables 8.1, 8.2. 16. See “List of Current Mayors,” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/List _of_current_mayors_of_the_top_100_cities_in_the_United_States. 17. Center for American Women and Politics, “Women in Statewide Office 2018,” http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-statewide-elective-executive-office -2018. 18. National Lieutenant Governors Association, “Lt. Governors,” 2013, http:// www.nlga.us/lt-governors. 19. Nolette, Federalism on Trial. 20. Alan Greenblatt, “Not Just Georgia’s Brian Kemp: Other Secretaries of State Accused of Abusing Elections Power,” Governing.com, October 17, 2018, https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-secretary-state-brian-kemp -georgia-candidate-conflict.html. 21. See Borrelli, The President’s Cabinet. 22. See, for example, Robert O’Harrow, Jr., “How Clinton’s Email Scandal Took Root,” Washington Post, March 27, 2016; Molly O’Toole, “In Final Report, Benghazi Committee Finds No New Evidence of Clinton Wrongdoing,” Foreign Policy, June 28, 2016. 23. Anestaki et al., “Race and Gender Representation in Presidential Appointments, SES, and GS Levels,” 199. 24. The Trump White House Office appears to be somewhat smaller, reflecting both ongoing turnover and apparent effort to reduce the range of activities that have become lodged there in recent administrations. 25. As Hult and Borrelli (“Organizational Interpretation or Objective Data?”) and others point out, the Manual itself is in part a public relations document. If anything, however, that may mean that it overstates the numbers of women in senior positions, even as it understates women’s presence in the White House. The numbers of names and positions included in the Manual notably have declined over the last several administrations, making it even more difficult to track the presence and status of women. 26. Hult and Borrelli, “Organizational Interpretation,” Table 8. None of the staffers listed in the Office of the First Lady (FLO) were women from 1981 through 1988; in 1997, 83 percent were female. Beginning in 2005, at least one man has been listed as a staffer in the FLO; significant majorities are female.

164 Karen M. Hult 27. Ibid., 22. 28. These included Alison Fortier, special assistant to the president for national security affairs; Carol Rasco, assistant to the president for domestic policy; Laura D’Andrea Tyson, chair of the council of economic advisors; and Kathleen A. McGinty, deputy assistant to the president and director of the office of environmental policy. 29. Norton and Morris, “Feminist Organizational Structure in the White House,” 457. 30. David Nakamura, “With Haley’s Departure,” Washington Post, October 9, 2018. 31. James Guyot, “Women in Government,” PA Times, June 22, 2018, 32. Anestaki, et al., “Race and Gender Representation in Presidential Appointments, SES, and GS Levels,” 218. 33. Ibid., 207. 34. These classifications are based on those of Theodore Lowi and described, for example, in note 2 of Sabharwal, “From Glass Ceiling to Glass Cliff.” 35. Ibid., 413. 36. Ibid., 416. 37. Ibid., 420. 38. Duerst-Lahti, “Gendering Presidential Functions.” 39. Holsti and Rosenau, “Gender and the Political Beliefs of American Opinion Leaders,” 114. 40. See US Office of Personnel Management, “Cabinet-Level Agencies,” https://www.opm.gov/. 41. Wilson announced that she would resign in May 2019 to become president of the University of Texas at El Paso. 42. McGlen and Sarkees, “Foreign Policy Decision Makers,” 119. Nakamura, “With Haley’s Departure.” 43. McGlen and Sarkees, “Foreign Policy Decision Makers,” 120. 44. Ibid., 138–139. 45. Toosi, “Inside the Chaotic Early Days of Trump’s Foreign Policy.” 46. US Office of Personnel Management, “Cabinet-Level Agencies.” 47. Rachel Augustine Potter and Craig Volden, “Women’s Leadership in the U.S. Federal Bureaucracy,” November 2018, https://csdp.princeton.edu/sites/csdp /files/media/potter_volden_112018.pdf, 2–3. Of the more than 700 agency officials studied, however, fewer women than men were appointed overall and to so-called “women’s agencies.” Obama, for example appointed 210 of these officials, 66 of whom were female (31 percent); he named 37 women to 80 slots in “women’s” agencies (46 percent). 48. Potter and Volden, “Women’s Leadership in the U.S. Federal Bureaucracy,” 3. 49. Bowling and Wright, “Change and Continuity,” 431; Bowling, “State Bureaucracies,” 512; Palley, “Women’s Policy Leadership,” 249; Center for Women in Government and Civil Society, “Women in State Policy Leadership,” 2006, https://www.albany.edu/womeningov/publications/APMSG2006.pdf . 50. The mean percentage of female department heads is 33 percent. See Bowling, “State Bureaucracies,” 513.

Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Executive Branch

165

51. Bowling and Wright, “Change and Continuity,” 432. 52. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Type 1 State, Table 3, Type Summary. 53. Barrett and Greene, “The Gender Disparity in Climbing Local Government’s Ladder.” 54. Ibid. 55. National Governors Association, “Governors’ Office Staff Directories 2018.” 56. Center for Women in Government and Civil Society, “Women in State Policy Leadership.” 57. Joshi and Goehrung, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Women’s Political Leadership,” 354. 58. Dittmar, Navigating Gendered Terrain. 59. Fulton, “Running Backwards and in High Heels,” 304. For supporting illustrations see Astor, “’A Woman, Just Not That Woman’.” 60. Fulton, “Running Backwards and in High Heels,” 308. 61. Dittmar, Navigating Gendered Terrain, 4. 62. Crowder-Meyer and Cooperman, “Can’t Buy Them Love,” 1211. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid, 1212. 65. Ibid, 1212–1213. 66. Ibid, 1222. 67. In Barrett and Greene, “The Gender Disparity in Climbing Local Government’s Ladder.”

9 Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security Meena Bose

ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY MUST CONSIDER the responsibilities inherent in serving as commander in chief. Military service is not a requirement for the presidency, but a presidential candidate needs to demonstrate the ability to command the respect of troops. Furthermore, in the 21st century, a presidential candidate must present a clear agenda for national security and combating terrorism. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, painfully reinforced the fundamental importance of protecting the United States from external threats. As the war on terrorism proceeds in the coming years, future presidents will have to wrestle with how to protect the United States and when that will entail sending American troops into combat. For women presidential candidates, the challenges of leadership in national security and serving as commander in chief are especially great. No presidential candidate needs to have special credentials to meet these expectations—indeed, several presidents never served in uniform or in a senior defense or national security position before the White House. Nevertheless, the barriers that women have encountered historically in schools, the workforce, and politics suggest that women presidential candidates will face extensive questioning on their ability to lead the defense of the United States. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 campaigns demonstrated this scrutiny (perhaps more so in 2008 than 2016), as did Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s 2008 campaign

167

168 Meena Bose and Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s brief 2016 campaign to a lesser degree. A military example of the obstacles women have faced in national security illustrates the challenges for a woman to become commander in chief. In the 1970s, military leaders strongly opposed the admission of women to the military service academies, and retired general William C. Westmoreland declared, “Maybe you could find one woman in ten thousand who could lead in combat, but she would be a freak and we’re not running the Military Academy for freaks.”1 Westmoreland’s comment did not prevent the admission of women to the service academies, but it bluntly illustrates the hurdles women had to overcome to integrate themselves into the military. The obstacles to leadership that women face in the political world are similarly significant, especially to become the nation’s chief executive and lead US armed forces.2 This chapter examines the challenges and opportunities for women presidential candidates in the 21st century, focusing in particular on the demands created in the post-9/11 era for protecting US national security and combating terrorism. It finds that the credentials of past presidents make amply clear that many potential women presidential candidates do have the qualifications to run for office. At the same time, a woman who runs for president will face strong scrutiny about her ability to direct national defense and, subsequently, a higher threshold for gaining support. As journalists Eleanor Clift and Tom Brazaitis wrote in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, “Women had to face the hard reality that voters may not trust them to lead the country in a time of war.”3 To address these topics, I begin by examining the credentials of past presidents, focusing on educational background, elected office (national, state, and local), military service, and appointed positions in the executive branch. I then provide a brief summary of selected historical case studies of women presidential and vice presidential candidates, focusing in particular on the above credentials. I turn to a brief discussion of how public attention to national security heightened after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, focusing on the 2004 presidential election. Next, I examine the national security credentials of two-time presidential candidate Clinton in 2008 and 2016, as well as Palin’s 2008 vice presidential candidacy and Fiorina’s 2016 presidential candidacy. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the prospects for women presidential candidates in 2020 and beyond.

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

169

Qualifying for the Presidency With 45 occupants of the Oval Office since 1789, generalizations about American presidents are difficult to reach. The Constitution presents only three requirements: that the president is a natural-born citizen (or citizen at the time of ratification, a provision that pertained only to the early presidents); that the president has lived in the United States for at least 14 years; and that the president is at least 35 years old. These qualifications were deemed necessary to ensure the president’s loyalty to the United States as well as the president’s maturity to hold the nation’s chief executive office.4 Beyond these three requirements, however, some common characteristics of presidents have become apparent over time. Presidential scholars George C. Edwards III and Stephen J. Wayne have identified several common features in the social and political backgrounds of presidents. As they wrote in an early 21st century chapter of their classic textbook, Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making, “American presidents have not been typical Americans. They have been advantaged by virtue of their wealth, the professional positions they have held, and the personal contacts they have made.”5 In the 20th century, only President Harry S. Truman lacked a college education. (Warren G. Harding earned a two-year degree.)6 Only three 20th-century presidents—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan— experienced poverty as children. And, with the rise of media technology, communication skills have become increasingly important for presidents, as evidenced most notably by former actor Reagan’s political career.7 In their comprehensive late 20th-century survey of historians ranking “presidential greatness,” presidential historians Robert K. Murray and Tim H. Blessing explored these background characteristics in great detail. They found that nine presidents concluded their education with secondary school, and four of those presidents—Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Johnson—never had formal schooling.8 Nevertheless, the rise of the United States as a global power in the 20th century, combined with the national increase in college degrees, make higher education a practical necessity for presidents today. Schools in which multiple future presidents earned their undergraduate degree include the following: Harvard University (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy); William and Mary College (Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Tyler); and Princeton and Yale Universities (James Madison and Woodrow Wilson of the former, and George H. W.

170 Meena Bose Bush and George W. Bush the latter). Three presidents graduated from undergraduate military service academies (Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower from the United States Military Academy at West Point, Jimmy Carter from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis), and three presidents completed their degrees at public schools (James Polk, University of North Carolina; Lyndon B. Johnson, Southwestern Texas State College; and Gerald Ford, University of Michigan).9 As for prepresidential careers, certain common characteristics are evident from Washington to Trump. Nearly three-quarters of presidents earned their law degree or prepared for the bar exam. Until war hero Zachary Taylor became president in 1845, all of his predecessors had been members of the US or Continental Congress. Seventeen presidents previously served in the US Senate, 19 served in the US House of Representatives, and 11 served in both chambers of Congress. Seventeen presidents served as governors, and 14 were vice presidents. In the early days of the American republic, the secretary of state position was viewed as a common stepping-stone to the presidency, but the last secretary of state to become president was James Buchanan in 1857 (though Hillary Clinton waged a strong campaign in 2016, four years after serving as secretary of state in the Obama administration). Several presidents also participated in local politics, including Abraham Lincoln, John Tyler, James Buchanan, Calvin Coolidge, and Andrew Johnson.10 As far as general credentials for the presidency are concerned, women would not appear to face any more significant barriers than men. Beyond the three basic constitutional requirements, the primary expectation for presidential candidates today is education. Although this standard might have posed challenges in much of the twentieth century, as women were not granted admission to many top colleges and universities until the 1960s or later, it no longer poses a barrier today.11 Nevertheless, women who have run for the presidency historically have faced many questions about their qualifications for the office, focusing in particular on matters of national security. A few case studies illustrate this point. Historical Case Studies of Women Who Ran for President and Vice President US history includes fewer than two dozen case studies of women who have conducted a campaign for the presidency or vice presidency, and an even smaller number of women who have been major-party candi-

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

171

dates. The following examples provide historical background and selected analysis of a few women presidential and vice presidential contenders, focusing on those cases that are particularly important for assessing national security credentials.12 In the 19th century, publisher and banker Victoria Woodhull ran for president in 1872 as the Equal Rights Party nominee, and critics derided her as “Mrs. Satan.” 13 Attorney Belva Lockwood ran for the office twice, in 1884 and 1888, on the National Equal Rights Party ticket, but neither she nor Woodhull won any electoral college votes. In the 20th century, the Republican Party had two women contenders for president: US senator Margaret Chase Smith campaigned for the Republican nomination in 1964, and former two-time US cabinet secretary Elizabeth Dole campaigned in 1999 for the 2000 presidential race. The Democratic Party had a few presidential contenders in the 20th century, including US congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, who sought the Democratic nomination in 1972, and US congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, who considered doing so for the 1988 presidential race, though she ultimately decided against it. 14 Political activist Lenora Fulani waged presidential campaigns for the New Alliance Party in 1988 and 1992. In the 21st century, women presidential candidates have gained increased public visibility. Former US senator and ambassador Carol Moseley Braun competed for the Democratic nomination in 2004, and former First Lady and then US senator (2001–2009) and secretary of state (2009–2013) Hillary Clinton waged historic campaigns in 2008 and 2016, as will be discussed later in the chapter. US congresswoman Michele Bachmann competed for the Republican nomination in 2012, as did business executive Carly Fiorina in 2016 (whose campaign also will be discussed later). The Green Party nominated former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and physician Jill Stein in 2012 and 2016. Several women in US politics have competed for the vice presidency on both major- and minor-party tickets as well. In 1984, the Democratic Party made history when it nominated Geraldine Ferraro to run for vice president, with Walter Mondale at the head of the ticket. The first woman to be nominated by one of the two major political parties for executive office, Ferraro mounted a strong campaign with Mondale, but the two ultimately won only Minnesota, Mondale’s home state, and the District of Columbia in the election. More recently, the Green Party selected Winona LaDuke as presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s

172 Meena Bose running mate in 2000, and the Reform Party nominated Ezola Foster to run with presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan the same year. Neither party, however, amassed a single electoral college vote.15 In 2008, the Republican Party made history when it nominated Alaska governor Sarah Palin to join Arizona senator John McCain’s presidential campaign as the vice presidential candidate, and that case study will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter. The unique presidential selection process in the United States of requiring a majority of electoral college votes rather than popular votes makes a successful third-party victory highly unlikely.16 Therefore, a closer look at some of the major-party efforts of women in the 20th century to become president and vice president is instructive for historical context before examining the 21st century cases. When Margaret Chase Smith, Republican senator from Maine, announced on January 27, 1964, that she would seek the Republican nomination for president, the news made the front page of the New York Times.17 Smith was the first woman to serve in both chambers of Congress (she initially completed her husband’s term in the US House of Representatives as a widow, and then subsequently won election herself), as well as the first woman to seek a major-party nomination for the presidency.18 In studying press coverage of Smith’s campaign, scholars Erika Falk and Kathleen Hall Jamieson noted “less coverage, less serious coverage, and a minimization of her accomplishments.”19 For example, three newspapers in 1964 each ran approximately 7.5 articles on Smith every month, while her closest competitor for the Republican nomination, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, typically had 25 articles each month. Smith was identified as “Mrs.” almost one-third of the time, while Rockefeller was usually identified as “Governor.” And newspapers often suggested that Smith actually might be seeking the vice presidency, even though she repeatedly denied such plans.20 Smith’s longstanding commitment to US military preparedness made her an especially compelling candidate in the presidential campaign that followed perhaps the most heated Cold War confrontation, namely, the Cuban missile crisis. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since 1953, Smith had vigorously and consistently advocated a strong military defense for the United States. During the Korean War, she had chaired a subcommittee that examined allegations of ammunition shortages in the conflict.21 She had issued a “Declaration of Conscience” during Senator Joseph McCarthy’s investigations about

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

173

alleged communists, in which she stoutly defended “the right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest, the right of independent thought,”22 thereby clearly criticizing McCarthy’s actions, though never mentioning him by name. After the Bay of Pigs failure in 1961, Smith spoke of “the necessity for real firmness if we ever hope to achieve peace.”23 Despite Smith’s clear interest in seeking the presidency, however, her refusal to raise campaign funds or take time from her Senate responsibilities to build a national following severely hindered her prospects.24 Smith pursued the presidential nomination all the way to the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, but delegates ultimately selected Arizona senator Barry Goldwater.25 Eight years later, two-term US representative Shirley Chisholm, Democrat from New York City and the first black woman to serve in Congress, campaigned to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. Chisholm focused primarily on domestic policy, calling for cuts in defense spending to provide more resources for programs such as education.26 Like Smith, Chisholm pursued the race up to the party convention, where she won delegate votes but ultimately lost to George McGovern, senator from South Dakota. In looking back at the race, Chisholm reflected, “The Presidency is for white males. No one was ready to take a black woman seriously as a candidate.”27 Nevertheless, when Chisholm spoke on the convention floor in 1972, she declared, “The next time a woman runs, or a black, a Jew . . . I believe he or she will be taken seriously from the start. The door is not open yet, but it is ajar.”28 A decade later, the Democratic Party nominated Geraldine Ferraro to become vice president of the United States. A former teacher and lawyer, Ferraro had served as assistant district attorney in Queens, New York, and she was completing her third term in the US House of Representatives when she ran for vice president in 1984.29 As the first woman to win a major-party nomination for executive office, Ferraro underwent intense public scrutiny. Media coverage focused on her clothes, makeup, and hair; after her debate with Vice President George Bush, one reporter wrote, “her manner was matched by her neutral brown suit.”30 Ferraro addressed “women’s” issues, such as abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment, but she did not hesitate to present her views on national security as well. In her October debate with Bush, Ferraro was asked, “How can you convince the American people and the potential enemy that you would know what to do to protect this nation’s security?” 31 Her reply: “The people of this country can rely

174 Meena Bose upon the fact that I will be a leader. . . . I’m prepared to do whatever is necessary in order to secure this country and make sure that security is maintained.” 32 But the candidates whose national security views were most important to voters were presidential incumbent Ronald Reagan and Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. Mondale lost resoundingly to Reagan, who won 59 percent of the popular vote and 49 states.33 Although Pat Schroeder ultimately decided not to enter the 1988 presidential race, her brief consideration of a campaign in 1987 merits attention because of the reaction it received. A Colorado member of the US House of Representatives from 1973 to 1996, Schroeder joined the Armed Services Committee in her first term. The committee chairman was so furious to have a woman and a black man on his committee (Ron Dellums of California) over his express veto that he initially insisted the two share a chair.34 Fifteen years later, Schroeder contemplated a run for the presidency after US senator Gary Hart announced he would not run. Yet Schroeder was beset by questions about her candidacy as a woman as well as about her appearance, and she soon announced that she would not enter the race. Her tearful announcement raised questions about her ability to manage the responsibilities of chief executive, particularly in national security affairs. As a Republican pollster remarked, “The number one negative for women is emotional instability.”35 The last major-party woman presidential candidate in the 20th century was Elizabeth Dole, who briefly ran a presidential campaign in 1999. Unlike her predecessors, Dole possessed executive-branch experience, having served as secretary of transportation under Reagan and as secretary of labor under Bush. Dole also had experienced presidential campaigns firsthand, as her husband, former senator Bob Dole of Kansas, was the Republican candidate for president in 1996, and he had previously run for president in 1988. Bob Dole also was President Gerald Ford’s running mate in his unsuccessful election campaign in 1976. Elizabeth Dole commenced her candidacy in January 1999 but quickly ran into difficulties with fundraising. Dole additionally had trouble defining her agenda, earning a reputation more for asking supporters their thoughts than identifying her own priorities.36 In foreign policy, Dole made a strong case for US military action in Kosovo, drawing upon her extensive experience in the 1990s as president of the American Red Cross to visit refugee camps during the crisis. Yet Dole continued to face criticism for her personality traits, particu-

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

175

larly her attention to detail. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd skeptically discussed how Dole would run the Kosovo war, writing, “It’s hard to imagine the woman who likes to coordinate the color of her shoes with the color of the rug on the stage where she gives a speech, dealing with any crisis that involved a lot of variables, a lot of unpredictable turns that she could not control.”37 Dole ultimately left the presidential race not because of questions about her abilities in national security, but because of her inability to raise sufficient funds to compete with candidates George W. Bush and Steve Forbes. This brief survey of presidential and vice presidential campaigns by women in the 20th century shows that factors other than foreign policy credentials drove these candidates out of their races, and that national security expertise was not a primary concern. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the 21st century, however, command of national security issues and demonstrated judgment to make sound decisions in those areas have become standard expectations in every presidential campaign. National Security Issues in the 2004 Presidential Race The 2004 presidential campaign concentrated on Iraq, terrorism, and, surprisingly, candidates’ military service during the Vietnam War. The race in many respects echoed election years during the Cold War, when candidates focused on a long, global struggle in which the United States played a primary role. Although neither major party in 2004 fielded a woman candidate for president or vice president, the issues at stake merit brief attention because of their continued importance for presidential and vice presidential candidates in subsequent elections. Despite the contested results of the 2000 presidential election, Republican incumbent president George W. Bush had strong public support for much of his first term in office. In late September 2001, he received the highest presidential approval ratings ever recorded. By 2004, though, Bush faced questions about the ongoing war in Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.38 Democratic challenger and US senator from Massachusetts John Kerry organized his 2004 presidential campaign largely around these contentious issues. In October 2002, Kerry had voted to authorize war in Iraq, but he criticized the president for haste and a lack of postwar

176 Meena Bose planning, stating, “It was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition—and with no plan to win the peace.”39 Apart from the difficulties of separating his postinvasion criticism from his prewar support, Kerry also faced a number of questions about his service in the Vietnam War, focusing on allegations about the veracity of his military record as well as on Kerry’s later opposition to the war.40 During the presidential debates in the fall of 2004, both candidates returned repeatedly to homeland security, Iraq, antiterrorism policies, and defense spending. Even questions on budget deficits turned into debates about wartime spending and homeland security.41 Ultimately, the importance of such issues for voters versus topics such as the economy, education, health care, and values is difficult to identify definitively.42 Nevertheless, the close election results—Bush won 51 percent of the popular vote and 286 electoral college votes, while Kerry received 48 percent of the popular vote and 252 electoral college votes—certainly indicate that the nation was more willing to stay the course in the war on terror than to make a change in leadership at the time.43 A group of pollsters who convened after the 2004 election concluded that public support for the president in a time of war and terrorism raised virtually insurmountable barriers for challengers.44 Public confidence in a candidate’s national security expertise and leadership abilities became key issues for both Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy and Sarah Palin’s vice presidential candidacy in 2008. 2008: The Year of the Woman for the White House? The 2008 presidential race represented both a historic achievement and disappointment for women in presidential politics.45 US senator from New York and former First Lady Hillary Clinton waged a fierce battle for the Democratic presidential nomination but lost in a close contest to US senator from Illinois Barack Obama, who went on to win the White House. On the Republican ticket, presidential nominee and US senator from Arizona John McCain surprised his party days before the nominating convention by selecting Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. While numerous topics about the Clinton and Palin campaigns merit scholarly attention, from political expertise to popular appeal to media coverage and more, a close examination of their national security credentials and policy agendas is important for understanding the strengths and limits of their campaigns.

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

177

After winning reelection as US senator from New York in 2006, Clinton was widely viewed as a presidential candidate for 2008. She was not the first Democrat to declare her candidacy, as Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa did that in late 2006, just a few weeks after the midterm elections.46 But Clinton’s website announcement on January 20, 2007, that “I’m in,” with the accompanying statement, “And I’m in to win,” clearly showed attention to every detail for what many expected to be history in the making.47 Indeed, when Obama announced his presidential candidacy the following month, it did not appear to mount a substantial challenge to the Clinton campaign, given the latter’s resources of money, party support, staff, visibility, media coverage, and more. But by the end of 2007, the Clinton team was well aware of the challenge posed by Obama, and as the nominating battles developed, national security played an important part—though perhaps not a critical role— in each candidate’s campaign. Eight candidates competed for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, and all had to address questions about national security expertise from the outset. In the first Democratic presidential debate on April 27, 2007, the first question addressed the highly controversial Iraq War. Obama declared that he had opposed the war from the start, as an Illinois state senator during the heated public debates about invading Iraq, because of the challenges of postwar reconstruction. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina discussed his public apology for voting in the fall of 2002 to authorize the use of military force in Iraq if needed to ensure that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was not developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Clinton described her vote for authorizing military force as “a sincere vote, based on the information available to me.” She added, “And I’ve said many times that if I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted that way.”48 The debate soon moved to other issues, but Clinton’s 2002 vote authorizing military force against Iraq became a key topic of debate throughout her campaign. Despite conflicts over the Iraq War and other contentious issues, such as whether the state of New York should provide driver’s licenses for undocumented residents (which sparked much discussion in a fall 2007 debate), Clinton seemed to be on a steady path to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007.49 At an October 2007 student conference in Washington, DC, a major news commentator predicted that Clinton would secure the nomination on Super Tuesday in February 2008, and then the real question would be which of the several Republican Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential Campaign

178 Meena Bose candidates (as many as a dozen in the summer of 2007) would prevail to win their party’s nomination. 50 In November 2007, though, the competitiveness of the Obama campaign became clear at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner, which most of the Democratic candidates attended. Quoting Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., Obama said he was running because of “the fierce urgency of now.”51 He promised to end the Iraq War; close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which had been widely criticized for indefinitely holding suspected terrorists without due process; fight al-Qaeda; combat terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and climate change; and more. Clinton tried to counter Obama’s message of change by emphasizing the need for a president with political expertise to follow through on campaign promises. As she said at the 2007 Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner, “Change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to make it happen. . . . I know what it’s going to take to win.”52 Clinton’s diverse and extensive political career included experience in both state and national government, with both executive and legislative responsibilities in the latter. A Wellesley graduate and Yale-educated lawyer, Clinton first served as a law professor in Arkansas and then became a partner in the prestigious Rose Law Firm while her husband practiced state politics. As governor, Bill Clinton frequently asked his wife to assist with his agenda as well, and she chaired statewide task forces on health care and education reform. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary Clinton kept an office in the West Wing, the first First Lady ever to do so, and her agenda over eight years included health care, women’s rights, and children’s issues.53 Continuing to shatter precedent, Clinton became the first First Lady ever to be elected to Congress, and she joined the Senate in 2001. Clinton served on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Special Committee on Aging; and, most significantly, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the first New York senator to do so. Although Clinton’s area of expertise was primarily in domestic policy, she steadily built a record for herself in foreign affairs through her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee and her frequent speeches about the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq and terrorism. Furthermore, Clinton was respected internationally through her extensive travels as First Lady, during which she honed her diplomatic skills well. As the contest with Obama became more heated in 2008, particularly as Obama moved ahead in the delegate count for the Democratic

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

179

presidential nomination, Clinton increasingly stressed her leadership abilities and portrayed Obama as a political novice. As the nominating contests began in January 2008, Clinton declared that although Martin Luther King Jr. played a critical role in pressuring Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “it took a president to get it done.”54 She also criticized Obama for claiming anti–Iraq War credentials while still voting to approve funding for the war as a US senator. A few weeks later, the Clinton campaign aired the “3 a.m. ad,” in which an announcer warned of an upcoming global danger, and then Clinton appeared in a business suit at 3 a.m. to answer a phone call about the problem. Both Clinton’s statement about President Lyndon B. Johnson and civil rights, and her television ad stating she was most prepared to address threats to national security, were criticized for having racist implications (the former because it was seen as highlighting Johnson’s civil rights leadership over that of King and other civil rights advocates, and the latter because some viewed it as suggesting that an African American president would not be ready to respond to the middle-of-the night call).55 Ultimately, Clinton’s inability to win the 2008 Democratic nomination was due to several factors.56 Obama’s phenomenal campaign and communication skills, internal weaknesses in the Clinton campaign, the strong presence of former president Bill Clinton, and the difficulty of separating Hillary Clinton’s campaign from the Clinton presidency’s successes and controversies all contributed to the loss. With strong domestic opposition to the Iraq War by 2008, particularly among Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s 2002 vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq certainly complicated her candidacy for the party nomination.57 But Clinton’s judgment on this topic was not a decisive factor in her candidacy, nor was her political or national security expertise. Sarah Palin’s 2008 Vice Presidential Campaign

The question of professional expertise and readiness for the presidency that Clinton raised about Obama’s candidacy soon shifted to the Republican ticket. Days before the Republican National Convention in September 2008, Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona made the stunning announcement that his vice presidential candidate would be Alaska governor Sarah Palin.58 The first woman to be on a Republican presidential ticket, Palin became an instant celebrity, with continuous media coverage of her political career, family, and professional aspirations. Within a few weeks, though, Palin’s lack of detailed

180 Meena Bose knowledge about national and international policy issues became evident, and her chaotic management style raised further questions with the McCain-Palin campaign about her ability to serve as vice president. In her convention acceptance speech, Palin conveyed bluntness, ferocity, devotion to family, and keen appreciation of daily challenges faced by working-class Americans. Speaking for 45 minutes, Palin shared her family life, initial entry into politics via the school parentteacher association for her kids, and her views on policy issues from promoting oil and natural gas production in Alaska to reducing tax burdens for individuals and companies. As for Washington commentators and journalists who had expressed criticism about her abilities, Palin declared that she was not interested in their views, but in “serv[ing] the people of this great country.”59 Nevertheless, McCain’s campaign team wanted the public to hear more from Palin, so they arranged a series of interviews with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric that proved to be disastrous. With limited preparation time, Palin’s discussion of policy issues appeared naive and unclear, and her undeveloped policy views at times were unnerving. For example, Palin had previously cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia to demonstrate her foreign-policy experience. When Couric asked her to explain, Palin did not add much more except to reiterate that Alaska’s “next-door neighbors are foreign countries.”60 When Couric asked which news sources Palin read regularly, she replied, “I’ve read most of them, again, with a great appreciation for the press, for the media . . . all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.”61 Palin’s lack of specificity communicated uncertainty and raised many questions about her readiness to serve as second-incommand in the White House. Although Palin gave a much stronger performance in other settings, including the vice presidential debate in early October, she was not able to assuage the concerns raised about her policy expertise.62 Indeed, a few years later, Palin aide Nicolle Wallace revealed that she had concerns almost from the outset: “There was a moment shortly after I met her that I realized that she was in over her head.”63 As in the Clinton campaign, national security expertise was not a decisive factor in explaining Palin’s difficulties on the campaign trail. Nevertheless, Palin’s lack of policy knowledge broadly, including domestic, foreign, and national security policy issues, further weakened a Republican presidential ticket that already was facing headwinds from the economy, eight years of a Republican White House, the ongoing Iraq War, and more.

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

181

Clinton’s Political and Public Leadership in the Obama Presidency Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential run in 2008 quickly prompted speculation about a second campaign. When asked in the fall of 2009 if she would ever consider another presidential run, Clinton replied, “It never crosses my mind.”64 With a “24/7 job” as Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton had a full diplomatic agenda that she pursued strenuously, with extensive travel, meetings with foreign leaders, and active participation in Obama’s national security meetings. But after stepping down as secretary of state in Obama’s second term, Clinton started to prepare the groundwork for another presidential campaign. Even with repeated, often partisan, criticism of some of her actions as secretary of state, Clinton appeared at the outset of the 2016 presidential campaign poised to wage a successful campaign for the Democratic nomination, without repeating the mistakes of 2008 or facing an unexpected new competitor. Obama’s surprise decision as president-elect to ask Clinton to serve as secretary of state in his administration served many purposes. It demonstrated gracious outreach to a formidable competitor, thus building essential intraparty unity, both popular and elite. Strategically, Obama’s choice ensured that his opponent would now be part of his policy team, thereby removing the possibility of continuous public critique from the Clintons (as former president Clinton would be far less likely to criticize Obama’s policy agenda with Hillary as the primary adviser and spokesperson in foreign policy).65 And the appointment also benefited Hillary Clinton, as it enabled her to build professional expertise in an area that she had engaged primarily through the prism of domestic politics as First Lady and US senator. In her four years heading the State Department, Clinton demonstrated tremendous fortitude for representing the United States abroad, traveling close to 1 million miles and visiting 112 countries. 66 From China to Afghanistan to Russia, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and more, Clinton worked tirelessly to represent US interests abroad while helping allies pursue their own strategic and diplomatic goals and pressing adversaries to find areas of common ground with the United States. As she wrote in the conclusion to her memoir about her State Department tenure, “If the United States continues to lead the world in the years ahead . . . it will be because we have learned to define the terms of our interdependence to promote more cooperation

182 Meena Bose and shared prosperity and less conflict and inequality.”67 Clinton’s work as secretary of state focused on promoting US diplomacy and establishing the foundation for developing agreements with other countries on security, economics, human rights, and more.68 Two controversies from Clinton’s time as secretary of state involved her crisis management skills and her judgment about use of technology— namely, e-mails. The first problem came after a terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, resulting in the tragic deaths of US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs who were working for the Central Intelligence Agency, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.69 Congress conducted numerous investigations into the events leading up to the attack, along with the Obama administration’s initial response and explanation (which initially had suggested it was a spontaneous protest rather than a coordinated terrorist attack), with Clinton testifying multiple times on how the four Americans were killed.70 The second problem developed from those investigations, as a House committee investigating the Benghazi attack requested Clinton’s e-mails about Libya, and Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail account as secretary of state was revealed.71 At the State Department’s request, Clinton had turned over some 30,000 e-mails in 2014, but she kept e-mails considered to be “personal.” As the State Department reviewed and released e-mails pertinent to the investigation, questions arose about some e-mails containing classified information. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server concluded in the summer of 2016 that Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” with classified information, but it did not recommend criminal charges. Nevertheless, the e-mail controversy would become a volatile, perhaps even decisive, issue in the 2016 presidential race.72 2016: The Year of the Woman, Part Two The 2016 presidential election was in many ways much more surprising, indeed stunning, than 2008.73 The Democratic field saw an unexpectedly strong challenge to Hillary Clinton’s second campaign from US senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders. On the Republican side, 17 candidates competed for the party nomination, including one woman, business executive Carly Fiorina. Although she did not progress far in

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

183

the race, Fiorina’s brief campaign illustrated problems that women often face in running for the White House, such as critiques about her appearance. National security expertise did not become a major issue for either Clinton or Fiorina, though broader expertise in executive governance did. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Campaign

When she announced in a two-minute internet video in the spring of 2015 that she would run for president again, Clinton focused on what people around the United States were doing—starting school or a new job, getting married, looking at life after retirement, and more. In the last part of the video, Clinton appeared on screen and said, “I’m getting ready to do something too. I’m running for president. . . . The deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion.”74 With this statement, Clinton made clear her dedication to fighting for working-class Americans and her determination to win their support. And at the time, her ability to win the Democratic nomination seemed almost assured. As the New York Times wrote about the announcement, it “effectively began what could be one of the least contested races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history.”75 In fact, a few Democrats waged campaigns for the presidential nomination, and Senator Sanders’s candidacy gained significant traction in 2016, leading Clinton to modify her policy agenda and providing an indication of the criticism she would face in the general election.76 The popularity and endurance of Sanders’s candidacy surprised the Clinton campaign. As Clinton herself later wrote, “I didn’t expect Bernie to catch on as much as he did. . . . But Bernie proved to be a disciplined and effective politician. He tapped into powerful emotional currents in the electorate.”77 Sanders’s populist critique of Wall Street corruption and an economic system that favored the wealthy resonated with voters.78 He won three-quarters of the delegates needed for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Clinton ultimately required support from superdelegates (who overwhelmingly supported her) to cross the threshold of delegate votes for the nomination.79 But Sanders’s campaign, along with pressure from other Democrats, likely influenced Clinton to modify policy positions in two key areas: she said she would consider raising taxes on the wealthy to ensure, and perhaps even expand, Social Security benefits; and she withdrew her

184 Meena Bose support for Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, whose development she had overseen and endorsed as secretary of state, because of concerns about whether it would sufficiently protect US economic interests.80 Nevertheless, the populist challenge that Clinton successfully addressed to secure the Democratic presidential nomination became a key source of contention in the general election campaign as well. In the general-election campaign against surprise Republican nominee Donald Trump, Clinton did not face specific challenges about expertise in national security, but the Trump campaign repeatedly questioned her legitimacy as a candidate. During the 2016 Republican National Convention, keynote speakers such as retired lieutenant general Michael T. Flynn and New Jersey governor Chris Christie responded favorably to the audience chanting “Lock her up!” in response to their statements about Clinton’s misuse of classified information in her e-mails. 81 (Ironically, Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser less than a month into the Trump presidency because of allegations about improper communications with Russia. He later pleaded guilty to charges of not being truthful about those communications when asked by FBI agents or high-ranking administration officials, specifically the vice president–elect, during the 2016–2017 transition period.) Trump did not initially echo the crowd when people repeated the phrase during his nomination acceptance speech, responding, “Let’s defeat her in November.” 82 But a week later, after Clinton’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Trump responded to supporters chanting the phrase that “I’m starting to agree with you.”83 Trump’s political and personal attacks continued through Election Day. During the first presidential debate in September 2016, Clinton stressed that she had prepared for the debate as well as for the presidency, while Trump criticized her policy views and government experience.84 Trump bombarded Clinton with assertions about her weakness in combating terrorism, failing to protect US interests in alliances, and starting discussions with Iran for a flawed deal on nonproliferation. Furthermore, he declared that Clinton lacked a “winning temperament” as well as sufficient stamina to be president.85 In the second presidential debate, Trump live-streamed an appearance in the debate hall with three women who had accused former president Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting them, in what appeared to be a clear effort to divert attention from an audiotape of a conversation several years earlier in which he

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

185

had made derogatory comments about women.86 In the third presidential debate, Trump attacked Clinton’s positions on refugee policy, border security, immigration, trade, and more.87 The shocking election results, in which Clinton prevailed in the popular vote but Trump won the White House with a majority of the electoral college vote, are difficult to explain.88 Clinton’s national-security credentials and her ability to be commander in chief were not questioned directly, but Trump frequently stated she had demonstrated poor judgment in public office and not achieved results. He also continued to criticize her use of a private e-mail server for potentially creating national security risks. (The issue became front-page news again less than two weeks before the election when FBI director James Comey announced that additional e-mails had been found on a computer of one of Clinton’s top aides that could be relevant to the earlier investigation. One week later, Comey stated that the e-mails had no new information to merit reopening the investigation, but the uproar over the initial news may have influenced voters, as Clinton later said.)89 Ultimately, Trump’s vociferous attacks on Clinton’s positions and actions on national security may have contributed to a larger narrative that his campaign presented questioning her ability to serve as chief executive. Carly Fiorina’s 2016 Presidential Campaign

Fiorina’s campaign ended early in the nominating contests, just after the New Hampshire primary, but in that time the candidate faced some challenges comparable to Clinton’s. Trump made offensive comments about Fiorina’s appearance as well, telling Rolling Stone, “Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!”90 Fiorina pushed back at the next primary debate, declaring that “women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”91 But Fiorina’s primary problem was building visibility and a broad voter base. Furthermore, while Fiorina tried to focus on national security and combating terrorism, stressing her work as an adviser to top intelligence and security officials and cabinet departments, news coverage and voters concentrated primarily on her work as chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard.92 Limited direct expertise in national security combined with inappropriate commentary by Trump on her appearance may have hindered the Fiorina campaign, but those were not decisive factors in ending her campaign (or her brief vice presidential candidacy with US senator Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign).93

186 Meena Bose What Will 2020 and Beyond Bring for Women and the White House? The 21st century has seen a woman presidential candidate come close to winning a major-party nomination, as well as that same candidate winning her party’s nomination eight years later and then going on to win the popular vote in the general election but lose the electoral college vote. While the unexpected loss in 2016 may make prospects for a woman winning the White House seem far away, the close race as well as the high margin of victory in the popular vote indicates that the American public is willing to support a woman for president. Analyses of Clinton’s two presidential campaigns suggest that several factors may have contributed to the election results, including intraparty conflicts, the high visibility of former president Clinton in the 2008 campaign, and other issues unique to the Clinton candidacy, such as campaign difficulties, heightened visibility and public scrutiny since the 1990s, controversies in the Clinton presidency, and more. Questions about Clinton’s national security expertise did not dominate either campaign. What are the prospects for women presidential candidates in 2020? The historic gains that women made in the 2018 congressional midterm elections are instructive: more than 100 women were elected to the US House of Representatives (35 of them for the first time), and 5 women won election to the US Senate for the first time (with a total of 25 women senators in the 116th Congress of 2019–2021).94 The partisan difference was noticeable: in the 116th Congress, approximately 40 percent of Democratic lawmakers were women, while less than 8 percent of Republican lawmakers were women.95 Immediately following the midterm elections, at least four Democratic women lawmakers were expected to run for president; on the Republican side, a few women popular within the party seemed likely to consider a run in the future, if not in 2020 (which would mean an intraparty challenge).96 The extensive discussion about possible presidential candidates focused on the widely recognized expectations for competitive candidates, including fundraising, providing crisis leadership, and executive experience.97 Notably, national security expertise did not come up as an issue or concern. Thus, evaluation of women presidential candidates’ prospects for victory may now focus on their ability to do the job, just like with male candidates, without special concern about expertise in a particular policy area. And that in and of itself marks a significant advancement in the possibility of the United States having a woman president in the near future.

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

Notes

187

Special thanks to Hofstra students Nicholas Miller and Emma Rossetti for their helpful research on the 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns. 1. Atkinson, The Long Gray Line, 408. Westmoreland repeated the comment during Memorial Day services in 1976, shortly before women entered the military academies. See “Women at West Point ‘Silly’ to Westmoreland,” New York Times, May 31, 1976. 2. Of course, many other nations, including advanced industrialized democracies, have elected women to their highest executive office, such as close US allies the United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher from 1979 to 1990) and Israel (Golda Meir from 1969 to 1974). For fascinating profiles of women chief executives worldwide, see Opfell, Women Prime Ministers and Presidents. 3. Clift and Brazaitis, Madam President, ix. 4. Edwards and Wayne, Presidential Leadership, 7th ed., 256. This edition is cited because the information is part of a chapter titled “The Psychological Presidency,” which is not part of the most recent edition of the textbook. See also Edwards, Mayer, and Wayne, Presidential Leadership, 10th ed. 5. Ibid. 6. Murray and Blessing, Greatness in the White House, 31. 7. Edwards and Wayne, Presidential Leadership, 256–257. 8. Murray and Blessing, Greatness in the White House, 31. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., 33–34. The Murray/Blessing study goes through Ronald Reagan, and I have updated the figures to include George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. 11. For a history of the admissions process at three Ivy League universities— Harvard, Yale, Princeton—and the decision to admit women, see Karabel, The Chosen. 12. Specifics in this section on women US presidential and vice-presidential contenders draw upon Rutgers University Center for American Women and Politics, “Women Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates: A Selected List,” at http:// www.cawp.rutgers.edu/levels_of_office/women-presidential-and-vice-presidential -candidates-selected-list; Hamlin, “Madame President: A History of the Women Who Ran Before Hillary”; Brynn Holland, “8 Women Who Ran for the White House,” November 4, 2016, at https://www.history.com/news/8-women-who -ran-for-president; and Michele Gorman, “Female U.S. Presidential Contenders Before Hillary Clinton in 2016,” Newsweek, August 5, 2016. 13. Watson, “Introduction: The White House as Ultimate Prize,” 14. 14. Ibid., 15. 15. Ibid., 9, 15. 16. For an explanation of how the electoral college works, see Wayne, The Road to the White House 2016. 17. Martin, The Presidency and Women, 117. 18. Watson, “Introduction: The White House as Ultimate Prize,” 15; and Falk and Jamieson, “Changing the Climate of Expectations,” 48. 19. Falk and Jamieson, “Changing the Climate of Expectations,” 48. 20. Ibid., 48–49. 21. Sherman, No Place for a Woman, 127–128.

188 Meena Bose 22. Ibid., 110. 23. Ibid., 173. 24. Ibid., 191. 25. See biography of Margaret Chase Smith on her library website, http://www .mcslibrary.org. 26. Clift and Brazaitis, Madam President, xxii. 27. Watson and Gordon, “Profile: Shirley Chisholm,” 55. 28. Ibid. 29. Watson and Gordon, “Profile: Geraldine Ferraro,” 158. 30. Heith, “The Lipstick Watch,” 126–127. 31. Commission on Public Debates, The Bush-Ferraro Vice-Presidential Debate, October 11, 1984, transcript available at http://www.debates.org. 32. Ibid. 33. Pomper, “The Presidential Election,” 60. For a discussion of Ferraro’s limited influence in the race, see Keeter, “Public Opinion in 1984,” 105–106. 34. Watson and Gordon, “Profile: Pat Schroeder,” 117. 35. Clift and Brazaitis, Madam President, 67. 36. Watson and Gordon, “Profile: Elizabeth Dole,” 201–203. 37. Clift and Brazaitis, Madam President, 100. 38. For a discussion of the short-term “rally effects” that President Bush received after 9/11, with a peak approval rating of 90 percent, see DiIulio, “Election Results, Rally Effects, and Democratic Futures,” 150–153. Originally published in Crossroads: The Future of American Politics, edited by Andrew Cuomo (Random House, 2003), 94–100. 39. John Kerry, “Announcement Speech,” Patriot’s Point, South Carolina, September 2, 2003. 40. For a discussion of the allegations about Kerry’s military service in Vietnam, see Kate Zernike, “Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss,” New York Times, May 28, 2006. 41. Commission on Presidential Debates, 2004 Debate Transcripts, available at http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html. 42. Election-day polls in 2004 found that voters identified “moral values” as the single most important issue in the presidential race. The survey listed “terrorism” and “Iraq” separately, however; when the two topics were considered together, they moved to the top of the list, with 19 percent of voters identifying “terrorism” as the most important issue, while 15 percent did so for “Iraq.” See Katharine Q. Seelye, “Moral Values Cited as a Defining Issue of the Election,” New York Times, November 4, 2004, 4. 43. Details on the 2004 presidential election results are available at http://www .cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results. 44. Louis Menand, “Permanent Fatal Errors: Postcard from Stanford,” New Yorker, December 6, 2004. 45. Both the 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns are historic events in US politics that are and will continue to be the subject of extensive scholarly analysis. The brief case studies presented in this chapter do not aim to provide a comprehensive summary or assessment of each election; rather, they focus on selected examples of women candidates for president, with particular attention to how important national security credentials were for each candidate.

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

189

46. Jeff Zeleny, “Iowa Democrat Is First Democrat to Start Presidential Run,” New York Times, December 1, 2006. 47. “Hillary Clinton Launches White House Bid: ‘I’m In,’” CNN, January 22, 2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/clinton.announcement. 48. “Transcript: The Democrats’ First 2008 Presidential Debate,” New York Times, April 27, 2007. 49. “The Yes, No and Maybe on Driver’s Licenses,” New York Times, November 1, 2007. 50. The comment was made at the Center for the Study of the Presidency Conference in Fall 2007, which the author attended. 51. “Obama’s Speech from 2007 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner,” Washington Post, December 17, 2008. 52. Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama and Clinton Duel for Iowa Democrats,” New York Times, November 11, 2007. 53. Of the many biographies of Hillary Clinton’s early life and political career with Bill Clinton, Gail Sheehy’s Hillary’s Choice and Carl Bernstein’s A Woman in Charge are especially instructive. Hillary Clinton’s own first memoir is also informative: Clinton, Living History. 54. Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr, “Clinton’s King Comment ‘Ill-Advised,’ Obama Says,” Washington Post, January 14, 2008. 55. Orlando Patterson, “The Red Phone in Black and White [Op-Ed],” New York Times, March 11, 2018. 56. Several books have examined carefully the many surprises in the 2008 presidential campaign, and two notable accounts by journalists who covered the race are John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime; and Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson, The Battle for America: The Story of an Extraordinary Election. 57. Holsti, American Public Opinion on the Iraq War. 58. “Transcript: McCain Announces Sarah Palin as His VP,” National Public Radio (NPR), August 29, 2008. 59. “Palin’s Speech at the Republican National Convention,” New York Times, September 3, 2008. Also see Chris Cillizza, “Seven Years Ago Today, Sarah Palin Gave the Best Speech of Her Career,” Washington Post, September 3, 2015. 60. Tim Mak, “5 Best Couric-Palin 2008 Moments,” Politico, April 2, 2012. 61. Ibid. 62. Although Palin fared much better in the vice presidential debate than in the CBS interviews, her success appeared to be based more on confidence and comfort with the public than on policy substance. As Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote, “At one point, she literally winked at the nation.” Peggy Noonan, “Palin and Populism,” Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2008. 63. Ryan O’Connell, “‘The View’s’ Nicolle Wallace Reveals When She Lost Faith in Sarah Palin,” The Wrap, October 22, 2014, https://www.thewrap.com /the-views-nicolle-wallace-reveals-when-she-lost-faith-in-sarah-palin. 64. Kate Phillips, “Clinton Says She Won’t Run Again,” New York Times, October 12, 2009. 65. Obama’s selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state prompted many comparisons to President Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals” in the cabinet, what historian Doris Kearns Goodwin identified in her extensive study with the same

190 Meena Bose name. See Goodwin, Team of Rivals. For a discussion of Obama’s initial cabinet appointees, see Sam Youngman, “Obama’s ‘Team of Rivals’ Cabinet Living Out the President’s ‘No Drama’ Mantra,” The Hill, December 28, 2009. 66. Matthew McKnight, “Political Scene: Evaluating Hillary Clinton,” New Yorker, January 31, 2013; Susan B. Glasser, “Was Hillary Clinton a Good Secretary of State? And Does It Matter?” Politico, December 8, 2013. 67. Clinton, Hard Choices, 494. 68. For a thorough assessment of Clinton’s travels and work as secretary of state by a journalist who accompanied her on several trips, see Ghattas, The Secretary. 69. Erica Ryan, “Chronology: The Benghazi Attack and the Fallout,” NPR, December 19, 2012; “Benghazi Mission Attack Fast Facts,” CNN Library, September, 4, 2018. 70. Leigh Ann Caldwell, “Five Takeaways from Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony,” NBC News, October 22, 2015, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016 -election/five-takeaways-clintons-benghazi-testimony-n449506. 71. The evolution of the e-mail controversy is detailed in Casey Hicks, “Timeline of Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandal,” CNN Politics, November 7, 2016, https:// www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-email-timeline/index.html. 72. Hillary Clinton argues that the e-mail controversy unduly dominated the 2016 presidential campaign and may have contributed to her election loss in her memoir What Happened. 73. See endnote 45 for a discussion of the specific focus of these highly abbreviated case studies in the 2016 presidential race. 74. Amy Chozick, “Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid,” New York Times, April 12, 2015. 75. Ibid. 76. Five candidates participated in the first Democratic presidential debate in October 2015: Clinton, Sanders, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, Vietnam War veteran and former US senator from Virginia Jim Webb, and former Rhode Island governor (and previously Republican US senator) Lincoln Chafee. Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig also competed briefly for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he was not able to participate in the first two debates and then ended his campaign. See “Meet the Candidates in Tonight’s First Democratic Debate,” PBS NewsHour, October 13, 2015; and Nick Corasaniti, “Lawrence Lessig Ends His Long-Shot Presidential Bid,” New York Times, November 2, 2015. 77. Clinton, What Happened, 226. 78. Mara Liasson, “How This Election’s Populist Politics Are Bigger Than Trump and Sanders,” NPR: Morning Edition, April 25, 2016. 79. Wilson Andrews, Kitty Bennett, and Alicia Parlapiano, “2016 Delegate Count and Primary Results,” New York Times, July 5, 2016. 80. Max Ehrenfreund, “How Hillary Clinton’s Positions Have Changed As She’s Run Against Bernie Sanders,” Washington Post, April 29, 2016. 81. Peter W. Stevenson, “A Brief History of the ‘Lock Her Up!’ Chant by Trump Supporters Against Clinton,” Washington Post, November 22, 2016; Peter W. Stevenson, “Michael Flynn’s Speech at the Republican National Convention Predicted His Demise Perfectly,” Washington Post, February 14, 2017.

Gender and Leadership Challenges in National Security

191

82. Jeremy Diamond, “Trump On ‘Lock Her Up’ Chant: ‘I’m Starting to Agree,’” CNN Politics, July 29, 2016, https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics /donald-trump-lock-her-up/index.html. 83. Ibid. 84. Aaron Blake, “The First Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate Transcript Annotated,” Washington Post, September 26, 2016. 85. Ibid. 86. Daniella Diaz and Jeff Zeleny, “Trump Appears with Bill Clinton Accusers Before Debate,” CNN Politics, October 10, 2016, https://www.cnn.com/2016/10 /09/politics/donald-trump-juanita-broaddrick-paula-jones-facebook-live-2016 -election/index.html. 87. Politico staff, “Full Transcript: Third 2016 Presidential Debate,” Politico, October 20, 2016, https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016 -presidential-debate-230063. 88. Nate Silver, “The Real Story of 2016,” FiveThirtyEight, January 19, 2017, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016. 89. Emma Green, “Can the FBI Sway an Election?” Atlantic, October 28, 2016, www.theatlantic.com; Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, and Adam Goldman, “Emails Warrant No New Action Against Hillary Clinton, F.B.I. Director Says,” New York Times, November 6, 2016; Comey, A Higher Loyalty; Clinton, What Happened, 403–407. 90. Jessica Estepa, “Donald Trump on Carly Fiorina: ‘Look At That Face!’” USA Today, September 10, 2015. 91. Jenna Johnson, Abby Phillip, and Robert Costa, “Fiorina Ends Her Republican Presidential Campaign,” Washington Post, February 10, 2016. 92. Andrew Malcolm, “Carly Fiorina: ‘Here’s What I Will Do As Commander in Chief,’” Investor’s Business Daily, July 28, 2015. 93. Amber Phillips, “Carly Fiorina and the Shortest Vice Presidential Candidacy in Modern History,” Washington Post, May 3, 2016. 94. Drew DeSilver, “A Record Number of Women Will Be Serving in the New Congress,” Pew Research Center, December 18, 2018. Also see “The Women of the 116th Congress,” New York Times, Special Section, January 17, 2019. 95. Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Carrie Dann, “Midterms 2018: It Was the Year of the Woman—For Democrats, Not Republicans,” NBC News, November 20, 2018. 96. Emma Newburger, “A Historic Number of Women Were Elected in 2018— These Four Are Expected to Run for President in 2020,” CNBC, November 21, 2018. 97. Clift and Brazaitis, Madam President, 315–321.

10 Confronting Barriers on the Road to Madam President Caroline Heldman and Lori Cox Han

IN THIS VOLUME, WE BROUGHT TOGETHER SOME OF THE top scholars on both gender and the US presidency to shed light on persistent barriers to electing a woman president. The chapters included here examined the role of political parties, campaign finance, masculinity, allegations of sexual violence, popular culture, candidate spouses, perceptions of women executives, and the post-9/11 foreign policy era on hindering or facilitating the election of a woman president. Some factors remain persistent barriers to a female presidency (e.g., masculine expectations, double standards for female executives, bias against women as commander in chief), while other factors can facilitate a pathway to the presidency (e.g., political parties, campaign finance, supportive spouses, and popular culture). In this concluding chapter, we summarize the major points of each chapter and provide a look forward. What influence do political parties have in facilitating the election of a woman president? Anne Pluta and Misty Knight-Finley conclude that the parties have significant influence through their recruitment and support of female candidates and their ability to connect women to political networks that improve their electability. The parties play a crucial role for women in building a pipeline to national political office that is necessary for electing the first woman president. In 1992, the parties were instrumental in the first Year of the Woman, when an unprecedented 11 women ran for the Senate and 106 for the House. In 2018, the numbers were even larger, netting a historic 25 female senators and 102 women in the House. Many women elected in 2018 represent “firsts”—the

193

194 Caroline Heldman and Lori Cox Han youngest, the first Native American woman, the first Muslim American woman. Pluta and Knight-Finley find that partisan differences in the latest Year of the Woman highlight the power of the parties in advancing women. While 2018 was a boon for Democratic women candidates, the number of Republican women in Congress dropped to its lowest point since 1994. The new Congress welcomed 90 Democratic women but only 15 Republican women. The authors identify several barriers to Republican women running for and winning national office, which limits their pipeline to the presidency. First, Republican women are viewed less favorably within their own party than Democratic women, likely because of the prevalence of traditional gender stereotypes, which power-seeking women invariably challenge. Republican voters are also more likely to view female Republican candidates as more feminine and thus less adept on issues with high salience to Republican voters—for example, national security and immigration. Additionally, there are fewer women in leadership positions in the Republican Party, and Republican elected officials are less likely than Democratic elected officials to endorse women candidates. The authors also identify that the institutional apparatus established to elect women candidates has a predominate focus on Democratic candidates. Clearly, the Republican Party has much room to improve in both recruiting and electing women. Money remains a top priority for congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential candidates and can speak directly to candidate viability. Is campaign fundraising still a barrier to electing the first woman president? Victoria A. Farrar-Myers finds that the answer is no. Women running for Congress and governorships are just as adept (or, in some cases, more adept) at fundraising than their male competitors. She extends her data analysis to the 2016 presidential election and finds that Hillary Clinton raised more than any other candidate in history—male or female—with the exception of Barack Obama. So fundraising was not a factor in Clinton’s 2016 loss. In the 2018 congressional election, women candidates of both political parties were as successful at raising funds as male candidates, so no structural campaign finance barrier exists for female presidential candidates. Meredith Conroy explores a third potential barrier to electing the first female president—masculine conceptions of presidential leadership. She finds that the elevation of masculinity in media framing of the 2016 election continues to disadvantage women running for this office. In addition, the language that candidates and media use to talk about

Confronting Barriers on the Road to Madam President

195

who is fit to be president is gendered in ways that damage women’s chances to win the office, whether a woman is in the race or not. Voters prefer more masculine candidates for the presidency, so candidates engage in “feminization” of their opponents—both men and women— in order to show that they are “man enough” for the position. This masculinity contest marks every election, and by definition, diminishes women’s legitimacy for the office. Conroy finds that media frames that stereotype women as cautious and soft-spoken while men are discussed as tough and aggressive reinforce the idea that leadership is masculine, and presidential leadership especially so. The use of game and sports metaphors in discussing presidential (and other political) contests also serves to symbolically exclude women candidates since sports are associated with ideal notions of manhood. Conroy analyzes the 2016 presidential primary and general elections and finds that masculine frames were frequently employed to feminize Republican men in the primary, and Trump used masculine frames to delegitimize Hillary Clinton. In short, the ways in which we talk about the office of the presidency are masculinized in ways that limit women’s chances of holding this office, and this played out in specific ways that harmed Clinton’s candidacy in the 2016 election. Caroline Heldman offers further analysis of how masculinity and sexism played out in the 2016 election with a look at how the nation handled Trump’s multiple allegations of sexual violence. She finds that the electoral insignificance of the 22 allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, and the ease with which he used these allegations to bolster his manhood, speak to the masculine requirements of the presidency that continue to inhibit women’s electoral chances. For context, Heldman examines how prevailing notions of prototypical citizenship limit perceptions of who can “legitimately” hold this office. A vast majority of Americans think of the prototypical citizen as white and male, and given the symbolism of the presidency as the ideal citizen, this narrow conception of prototypical citizenships poses a challenge for women and people of color who run for the presidency. As the first black candidate in a general election, Obama faced electoral penalty in his 2008 campaign and again in 2012. Women who run for the presidency also face an automatic “gender penalty” because this contest is always fundamentally a contest of American masculinity. Heldman argues that, after eight years of a black presidency and facing the possibility of electing another candidate who violates norms of ideal citizenship, the Republican Party elevated a candidate who would serve as a “corrective” in restoring the social order.

196 Caroline Heldman and Lori Cox Han Republicans initially dismissed Trump’s candidacy, but it soon became evident that he was effective at tapping into the fears about the shifting social order through his overt sexism and rhetoric targeting immigrants and other marginalized groups. Beyond appealing to fears of a shifting social order, Trump boasted masculinity contests in the Republican primary through his “feminization” of Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. He also explicitly inserted a discussion of penis size into a primary debate. In the general election, Trump targeted Hillary Clinton with sexist framing—the “Woman Card,” “Frail,” and “Nasty Woman” frames—as well as derided her ability to lead and her appearance in gendered ways that harkened to masculine conceptions of the presidency. Trump also used his multiple allegations of sexual violence to bolster his image of virile masculinity. He scoffed at the allegations, but did not dismiss them, as though he was letting his base in on an inside joke. Trump also joked that some of the women who accused him of sexual violence were not good looking enough for him to assault. He also went on the offensive by bringing women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual violence to a debate, and it worked. A greater percentage of voters thought Hillary Clinton’s handling of her husband’s alleged sexual assaults disqualified her for the presidency more than Trump bragging about sexual assault in the Access Hollywood tape. That Trump won by not only weathering but weaponizing 22 allegations of sexual misconduct speaks to the robust conflation of the presidency and masculinity. Linda Beail and Lilly J. Goren analyze depictions of women executives in popular culture with a focus on television, and find that female executives have come a long way from the stereotypical portrayal of President Leslie McCloud in the 1964 film Kisses from My President. This early portrayal played gender role conflict for entertainment, and “corrected” it by having President McCloud resign when she becomes pregnant. Contemporary popular culture is marked by a proliferation of and diversity in the number of female characters portrayed in positions of executive power on such shows as Scandal, The Good Wife, Madam Secretary, Veep, Parks and Recreation, Homeland, Game of Thrones, The Crown, and Quantico. Beail and Goren note that although representations of female executives are plentiful, the ways in which female power is portrayed reflect societal ambivalence toward politically powerful women. Female leaders are often shown as reluctant leaders with complicated backstories on how they rose to power, and they typically pay a price for their ambition. Powerful women are also depicted as not

Confronting Barriers on the Road to Madam President

197

being taken as seriously as male characters. Self-doubt is also a common theme for women leaders, which leads viewers to question whether women belong in positions of executive power. Beail and Goren conclude that even though popular culture portrayals of female executives are stereotypical and limiting in many ways, they are varied enough to show viewers many different possibilities for gaining power. Women are shown in varying genres and positions, wielding power in an assortment of ways. The sheer variety in the narratives allows viewers to imagine executive power and politics in new ways that challenge traditional notions of who can hold the presidency and how presidential leadership looks. Brian Frederick, Laurel Elder, and Barbara Burrell address the question of the role played by male spouses now that a historic number of women are running for the presidency in 2020. They argue that perceptions of presidential spouses has an important bearing on how voters perceive the candidates and could affect electability. These authors find that candidate spouses have become more important in recent presidential contests, as candidates are now more likely to be held accountable for their spouses’ actions and beliefs. The authors note that while gender roles and norms have shifted significantly in the past half a century, most Americans still prefer a traditional would-be First Lady who plays a supporting role for her husband rather than an active advising or policy role. In polls, Americans also hold male presidential spouses to different standards than female presidential spouses. They are more likely to think it is appropriate for a male spouse to hold an elected office than a female spouse. They are also more likely to think male spouses can hold a paid job in the corporate sector than female spouses. Americans do not differ in their attitudes about male and female spouses hosting ceremonial events, championing causes, or campaigning on behalf of their spouses. When it comes to the impact of candidate spouses on the 2020 election, male spouses have more leeway in how they are evaluated by the public, but all would-be First Partners are expected to campaign on behalf of their spouses and to take a supportive, nonpolicy role vis-à-vis the candidate. Male spouses who appear to take a lead rather than supportive role will face public disapproval given how the First Partner position is viewed. Karen M. Hult examines the unique barriers to executive positions for women. She finds that women have made significant gains in governorships, mayorships, lieutenant governors, state attorneys general, secretaries of state, and other statewide and federal executive positions

198 Caroline Heldman and Lori Cox Han since the 1970s, although they remain underrepresented compared to men. Executive positions carry more political clout than other positions, and governorships are especially important executive offices because they have served as stepping-stones for four of the last seven presidents. Although women have made numeric progress in executive positions, Hult concludes that female executives are held to different standards, and they encounter “glass ceilings” and work within “glass walls.” For example, women who are elected governor are just as likely as their male counterparts to enjoy policy success, but more likely to face criticism when crises emerge. Additionally, women are typically elected or appointed to executive positions that command less authority. This double standard does not bode well for electing the first female president, as the presidency is the ultimate executive position. Are national security concerns a barrier to electing the first female president? Meena Bose concludes that women are disadvantaged in the post-9/11 era. The challenges of being perceived as a viable commander in chief are especially great for women candidates because women have historically been excluded from military ranks, and this area is seen as a male policy domain. She notes that Americans do not trust a woman to lead us during times of war because of gender stereotypes about women being less capable of military leadership. Bose examines national security issues with women who ran for the presidency and vice presidency and finds that national security is a far more salient issue for candidates after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in a way that hinders women. She concludes that, despite Hillary Clinton’s extensive foreign policy credentials, Clinton was not able to convince voters that this expertise mattered. And in 2016, Donald Trump was able to effectively use Clinton’s record on foreign policy against her, despite having no record of his own in terms of military or government experience. To summarize, political parties play a key role in developing a female pipeline to the presidency by recruiting and supporting female candidates; there is no gender bias when it comes to fundraising; masculine framing of the presidency from candidates and the press limit women’s electability; popular culture portrayals of female political executives make a female presidency more likely; male spouses are still expected to take a supporting role and to campaign for their spouses; biases persist in evaluations of women political executives; and the elevated importance of national security issues post-9/11 disadvantages women running for the presidency because they are seen as less viable military leaders.

Confronting Barriers on the Road to Madam President

199

The landscape for women running for the presidency has undeniably improved since Victoria Woodhull first threw her hat in the ring in 1872, and even since Elizabeth Dole was treated as the first (somewhat) legitimate female contender by the press in 2000. With that said, the fundamental way in which we define the office of the presidency—as a masculinist domain won by the candidate who is “man enough” to hold the position—effectively excludes many male and virtually all female leaders. The 2016 election was a wake-up call for many who underestimated the barriers to a female presidency. And although Trump’s ascendency to the Oval Office on overtly sexist appeals inspired a historic gender gap, the largest single-day protest in history, the #MeToo movement, a second Year of the Woman in 2018, and a historic number of women running for the presidency in 2020, none of these factors change the fundamental masculinity and, by default, maleness of the presidency. With 13 percent of the American electorate “angry or upset” about the idea of a (generic) woman winning the White House, the “gender penalty” for running for the presidency remains persistent and significant. Time will tell if the six women seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency in the early stages of the 2020 campaign will produce another woman nominated for president and/or vice president, and perhaps more importantly, whether the number of women running for president in this campaign cycle is a harbinger of things to come or simply a political aberration due to the current political environment. No doubt, the Trump presidency has inspired, directly or indirectly, new social movements regarding women’s rights and gender equality, which can have a direct effect on the desire of voters to see more women running for political office at all levels of government. Two of the women seeking the Democratic nomination in 2020—Senators Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts—demonstrated their viability through early fundraising, debate performances, media attention, and polling. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is recognized for her pragmatic approach to policy issues and hails from a part of the country that Democrats must win to take back the White House in 2020 and beyond. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, despite a slow start to her presidential campaign, has had impressive credentials in fundraising beginning with her appointment to the Senate in 2009; Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is a veteran who speaks directly to various foreign policy issues as related to the military and national security; and while Marianne Williamson has no political experience, she has generated much interest among voters who want to hear what a

200 Caroline Heldman and Lori Cox Han political outsider has to say about various issues as the antiestablishment mood continues. We believe that the number of women currently running for president in 2020, or being considered as future presidential candidates in 2024 (particularly those on the Republican side when the nomination process will be presumably without an incumbent), represents positive momentum in the quest to elect the first woman president. Yet we remain realistic in our assessment of the challenges that still exist. The ultimate goal, beyond electing madam president, is to normalize the idea of women running for and winning elective office at all levels of government, as well as being appointed to various leadership positions within government and the private sector. The cultural shift that is still taking place can be slow and subject to different interpretations based on generational and other social factors. Yet the progress we have seen in this regard, since the publication of our first volume, Rethinking Madam President, back in 2007, leaves us cautiously optimistic that the idea of electing the first woman president is still a question of not if, but when.

Bibliography

Abramowitz, Alan I. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018. Abramowitz, Alan I., and Stephen Webster. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41 (2016): 12–22. Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew J. Dowdle. “The Money Primary: What Influences the Outcome of Pre-Primary Presidential Nomination Fundraising?” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32 (2002): 256–275. Allen, Jonathan, and Amie Parnes. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. New York: Crown Publishing, 2017. Anderson, Karrin Vasby. “From Spouses to Candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Dole, and the Gendered Office of U.S. President.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (2002): 105–132. Anderson, Karrin Vasby, and Kristina Horn Sheeler. Governing Codes: Gender, Metaphor, and Political Identity. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005. Anestaki, Aikaterini, Meghna Sabharwal, Kenneth Connelly, and N. Joseph Cayer. “Race and Gender Representation in Presidential Appointments, SES, and GS Levels During Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations.” Administration & Society 51 (2019): 197–228. Atkinson, Rick. The Long Gray Line: The American Journey of West Point’s Class of 1966. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1989. Balz, Dan, and Haynes Johnson. The Battle for America: The Story of an Extraordinary Election. New York: Viking Penguin, 2009. Barbara Lee Family Foundation. “Speaking with Authority.” 2001, https://www .barbaraleefoundation.org/research/speaking-with-authority. ———. “Voters, Candidates, and #MeToo.” February 2018, https://www.barbaralee foundation.org/research/voters-candidates-and-metoo. Barrett, Katherine, and Richard Greene. “The Gender Disparity in Climbing Local Government’s Ladder.” Governing, January 28, 2019.

201

202 Bibliography Bauer, Nicole M. “Who Stereotypes Female Candidates: Identifying Individual Differences in Stereotype Reliance.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 3 (2015): 94– 110. Beail, Linda, and Lilly J. Goren. Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America. New York: Bloomsbury Publishers, 2015. ———. “Introduction.” In Goren, ed., You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby. Beail, Linda, and Rhonda Kinney Longworth. Framing Sarah Palin: Pitbulls, Puritans, and Politics. New York: Routledge Press, 2012. Beaman, Lori, et al. “Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (2009): 1497–1540. Beckwith, Jack, and Nick Sorscher. “Trump and the Media: A Text Analysis.” The DataFace, August 15, 2016, http://thedataface.com/2016/08/politics/trump-media -analysis. Bernick, E. Lee. “Studying Governors over Five Decades: What Do We Know and Where We Need to Go.” State and Local Government Review 48 (2016): 132–146. Bernstein, Carl. A Woman in Charge. New York: Knopf, 2007. Bhatia, Sudeep, Geoffrey P. Goodwin, and Lukasz Walasek. “Trait Associations for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in News Media: A Computational Analysis.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 9 (2018): 123–130. Blumell, Lindsey E. “She Persisted . . . and So Did He: Gendered Source Use During the Trump Access Hollywood Scandal.” Journalism Studies, August 17, 2017, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1360150. Borrelli, MaryAnne. The President’s Cabinet: Gender, Power, and Representation. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002. Bowling, Cynthia J. “Bureaucracies.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 11th ed., edited by Virginia Gray, Russel L. Hanson, and Thad Kousser. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ/Sage, 2018. Bowling, Cynthia J., and Deil S. Wright. “Change and Continuity in State Administration: Administrative Leadership Across Four Decades.” Public Administration Review, Volume 58, No. 5 (1998): 429–444. Brooks, Deborah Jordan. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. Burke, Cindy, and Sharon R. Mazzarella. “‘A Slightly New Shade of Lipstick’: Gendered Mediation in Internet News Stories.” Women’s Studies in Communication 31 (2008): 395–418. Burnet, Jennie E. “Women Have Found Respect: Gender Quotas, Symbolic Representation, and Female Empowerment in Rwanda.” Georgia State University, Anthropology Faculty Publications, Paper 3, 2011, http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/anthro _facpub/3. Burrell, Barbara. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014. ———. “The Governmental Status of the First Lady in Law and in Public Perception.” In Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? edited by Lois Duke Whitaker. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999. ———. Public Opinion, the First Ladyship, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. New York: Routledge, 2001. Burrell, Barbara, Laurel Elder, and Brian Frederick. “From Hillary to Michelle: Public Opinion and the Spouses of Presidential Candidates.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 41 (2011): 156–176.

Bibliography

203

Bystrom, Dianne. “Advertising, Websites, and Media Coverage: Gender and Communication Along the Campaign Trail.” In Carroll and Fox, eds., Gender and Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Campbell, James E. Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016. Carpinella, Colleen M., and Kerri L. Johnson. “Appearance-Based Politics: Sex-Typed Facial Cues Communicate Political Party Affiliation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013): 156–160. Carroll, Susan J., and Richard L. Fox, eds. Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. ———. “Introduction: Gender and Electoral Politics in the 21st Century.” In Carroll and Fox, eds., Gender and Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Claassen, Ryan L., and John Barry Ryan. “Social Desirability, Hidden Biases, and Support for Hillary Clinton.” PS: Political Science & Politics 4 (2016): 730–735. Clift, Eleanor, and Tom Brazaitis. Madam President: Women Blazing the Leadership Trail. New York: Routledge, 2003. Clinton, Hillary Rodham. Hard Choices. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. ———. Living History. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003. ———. What Happened. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017. Comey, James. A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership. New York: Flatiron Books, 2018. Conroy, Meredith. Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015. Conroy, Meredith, and Jon Green. “Something To Run For.” Data for Progress, October 2018, https://wthh.dataforprogress.org/something-to-run-for. Conroy, Meredith, Sarah Oliver, Ian Breckenridge-Jackson, and Caroline Heldman. “From Ferraro to Palin: Sexism in Coverage of Vice Presidential Candidates in Old and New Media.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 3 (2015): 573–591. Cronin, Thomas E., and Michael A. Genovese. The Paradoxes of the American Presidency. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. “Men and the News Media: The Male Presence and Its Effect.” In Men, Masculinity, and the Media, edited by Steve Craig. London: Sage Publications, 1992. Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. “Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture Among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation.” Journal of Politics 80 (2018): 1211–1224. Devos, Thierry, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. “American=White?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (2005): 447–466. Dickes, Lori A., and Elizabeth Crouch. “Policy Effectiveness of U.S. Governors: The Role of Gender and Changing Institutional Powers.” Women’s Studies Institutional Forum 53 (2015): 90–98. DiIulio, John J., Jr. “Election Results, Rally Effects, and Democratic Futures.” In Classic Ideas and Current Issues in American Government, edited by Meena Bose and John J. DiIulio, Jr. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007. Dittmar, Kelly. “Encouragement Is Not Enough: Addressing Social and Structural Barriers to Female Recruitment.” Politics & Gender 11 (2015): 759–765.

204 Bibliography ———. “Gender Expectations and the Presidential Partnership.” Center for American Women and Politics, Presidential Gender Watch, June 16, 2015, http://presidential genderwatch.org/gender-expectations-and-the-presidential-partnership. ———. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategies in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2015. Dolan, Kathleen, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. “Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Gender Balance in Government.” American Politics Research 37 (2009): 409–428. Ducat, Stephen. The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. “Gendering Presidential Functions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, December 17, 2013. ———. “Presidential Elections: Gendered Space and the Case of 2012.” In Carroll and Fox, eds., Gender and Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. ———. “Reconceiving Theories of Power: Consequences of Masculinism in the Executive Branch.” In The Other Elites: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive Branch, edited by MaryAnne Borrelli, and Janet M. Martin. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Rita Mae Kelly. “Gender, Power, and Leadership.” In Gender, Power, Leadership, and Governance, edited by Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. Eagly, Alice H., and Steven J. Karau. “Role Incongruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (202): 573−598. Edwards, George C., III, and Stephen J. Wayne. Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making, 7th ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006. Edwards, George C., III, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Stephen J. Wayne. Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making, 10th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018. Elder, Laurel. “The Partisan Gap Among Women State Legislators.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 33 (2011): 65–85. Elder, Laurel, Brian Frederick, and Barbara Burrell. American Presidential Candidate Spouses: The Public’s Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Falk, Erika, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. “Changing the Climate of Expectations.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Farrar-Myers, Victoria A. “A War Chest Full of Susan B. Anthony Dollars: FundRaising Issues for Female Presidential Candidates.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. ———. “Donors, Dollars, and Momentum: Lessons for Presidential Candidates Waging a Viable Campaign for the Nomination.” In From Votes to Victory: Winning and Governing the White House in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Meena Bose. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2011. ———. “Money and the Art and Science of Candidate Viability.” In Han and Heldman, eds., Rethinking Madam President. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. Farrar-Myers, Victoria A., and Brent D. Boyea. “Campaign Finance: A Barrier to Reaching the White House?” In Women & Executive Office: Pathways and Performance, edited by Melody Rose. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2013. Farrar-Myers, Victoria A., and Justin S. Vaughn. Controlling the Message: New Media in American Political Campaigns. New York: New York University Press, 2015.

Bibliography

205

Ferguson, Margaret. “Governors and the Executive Branch.” In Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 11th ed., edited by Virginia Gray, Russell L. Hanson, and Thad Kousser. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ/Sage Publications, 2018. Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (2004): 264–280. ———. “To Run or Not to Run for Office: Explaining Nascent Political Ambition.” American Journal of Political Science, 49 (2005): 642–659. ———. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 108 (2014): 499–519. Franceschet, Susan, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. “Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina.” Politics & Gender 4 (2008): 393–425. Fulton, Sarah A. “Running Backwards and in High Heels.” Political Research Quarterly, 65 (2012): 303–314. Gabriel, Mary. Notorious Victoria: The Uncensored Life of Victoria Woodhull— Visionary, Suffragist, and First Woman to Run for President. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 1998. Galligan, Yvonne, Sara Clavero, and Marina Calloni. Gender Politics and Democracy in Post-Socialist Europe. New York: Barbara Budrich Publishers, 2007. Garland, Jon, and Neil Chakraborti. “‘Race,’ Space and Place: Examining Identity and Cultures of Exclusion in Rural England.” Ethnicities 6 (2006): 159–177. Ghattas, Kim. The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2013. Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Joanna Everitt. “Metaphors and Misrepresentation: Gendered Mediation in News Coverage of the 1993 Canadian Leaders’ Debates.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 4 (1999): 48–65. Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005. Goren, Lilly J. “If You Don’t Like What They Are Saying, Change the Conversation: The Grifter, Don Draper, and the Iconic American Hero.” In Beail and Goren, eds., Mad Men and Politics, 35–62. Goren, Lilly J. “Fact or Fiction: The Reality of Race and Gender in Reaching the White House.” In Vaughn and Goren, eds., Women and the White House. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2013. ———, ed. You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby: Women, Politics, and Popular Culture. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2009. Green, Emma. “A Lot Has Changed in Congress Since 1992, the ‘Year of the Woman.’” Atlantic, September 26, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013 /09/a-lot-has-changed-in-congress-since-1992-the-year-of-the-woman/280046. Hamlin, Kimberly A. “Madame President: A History of the Women Who Ran Before Hillary.” Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective 9 (2016), http://origins .osu.edu/article/madame-president-history-women-who-ran-hillary/page/0/1. Han, Lori Cox. “Donald J. Trump.” In Hatred of America’s Presidents: Personal Attacks on the White House from Washington to Trump, edited by Lori Cox Han. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2018. ———. In It to Win: Electing Madam President. New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. ———. “Is the United States Really Ready for a Woman President?” In Han and Heldman, eds., Rethinking Madam President. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. Han, Lori Cox, and Brian Calfano. “Conflict and Candidate Selection: Game Framing Voter Choice.” American Politics Research 46 (2018): 169–186.

206 Bibliography Han, Lori Cox, and Caroline Heldman, eds. Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. ———. Women, Power, and Politics: The Fight for Gender Equality in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Han, Lori Cox, and Diane J. Heith. Presidents and the American Presidency, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Harris-Perry, Melissa. Sister Citizen: Shame Stereotypes and Black Women in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011. Havel, James T. U.S. Presidential Candidates and the Election: A Biographical and Historical Guide. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Hayden, Sara. “Michelle Obama, Mom-in-Chief: The Racialized Rhetorical Contexts of Maternity.” Women’s Studies in Communication 40 (2017): 11–28. Heilemann, John, and Mark Halperin. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: HarperCollins, 2010. Heith, Diane J. “The Lipstick Watch: Media Coverage, Gender, and Presidential Campaigns.” In Anticipating Madam President, ed. Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Heldman, Caroline. “Cultural Barriers to a Female President in the United States.” In Han and Heldman, eds., Rethinking Madam President. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. Heldman, Caroline, Meredith Conroy, and Alissa R. Ackerman. Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2018. Heldman, Caroline, Susan J. Carroll, and Stephanie Olson. “‘She Brought Only a Skirt’: Print Media Coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s Bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination.” Political Communication 22 (2005): 315–335. Herrnson, Paul S., J. Celeste Lay, and Atiya Kai Stokes. “Women Running ‘As Women’: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies.” Journal of Politics 65 (2003): 244–255. Holman, Mirya, Jennifer L. Merolla, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. “Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes, and Candidate Evaluations.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (2016): 134–147. Holsti, Ole R. American Public Opinion on the Iraq War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011. Holsti, Ole R. and James N. Rosenau, “Gender and the Political Beliefs of American Opinion Leaders,” in Women and World Politics, eds. Francine D’Amico and Peter Beckman, Amherst, MA: Bergin and Garvey, 2004, 113–142. Huddy, Leonie, and Terkildsen, Nayda S. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1993): 119–147. Hult, Karen M., and MaryAnne Borrelli. “Organizational Interpretation or Objective Data? Examining the U.S. Presidency Through the Government Manual.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2005. Inter-Parliamentary Union. “Women in National Parliaments.” November 1, 2018, http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm. Jacobson, Gary C. “The Triumph of Polarized Partisanship in 2016: Donald Trump’s Improbable Victory.” Political Science Quarterly 132 (2017): 9–41. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Bibliography

207

Joshi, Devin, and Goehrung, Ryan. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Women’s Political Leadership: From Presence to Balance.” Politics & Gender 14 (2018): 350–375. Kaiser Family Foundation. “Population Distribution by Gender.” State Health Facts, 2015, http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-gender/?currentTime frame=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc %22%7D. Karabel, Jerome. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, and Jessica Robinson Preece. “How to Elect More Women: Gender and Candidate Success in a Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (2017): 927–943. Katz, Jackson. Leading Men: Presidential Campaigns and the Politics of Manhood. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2012. ———. Man Enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity. New York: Interlink Publishing Group, 2016. Katz, Neal. Scandalous: Fame, Infamy, and Paradise Lost (The Victoria Woodhull Saga Volume II). San Diego, CA: Top Reads Publishing, 2018. Keena, Alex, and Misty Knight-Finley. “Governed by Experience: Political Careers and Party Loyalty in the Senate.” Congress & the Presidency 45 (2018): 20–40. Keeter, Scott. “Public Opinion in 1984.” In The Election of 1984, edited by Gerald M. Pomper. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 1985. Kellerman, Barbara, and Deborah L. Rhode, eds. Women & Leadership: The State of Play and Strategies for Change. New York: Wiley, 2007. Kenski, Kate, and Erika Falk. “Of What Is This Glass Ceiling Made? A Study of Attitudes About Women and the Oval Office.” Women & Politics 26 (2004): 57–80. Koch, Jeffrey W. “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens’ Impressions of House Candidates’ Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2002): 453–462. Koenig, Anne M., Alice H. Eagly, Abigail A. Mitchell, and Tiina Ristikari. “Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms.” Psychological Bulletin 137 (2011): 616–642. Krook, Mona Lena. “Why Are Fewer Women than Men Elected? Gender and the Dynamics of Candidate Selection.” Political Studies Review 8 (2010): 155–168. Krosnick, Jon A., and Donald R. Kinder. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming.” American Political Science Review 84 (1990): 497–512. Ladam, Christina, Jeffrey J. Harden, and Jason H. Windett. “Prominent Role Models: High-Profile Female Politicians and the Emergence of Women as Candidates for Public Office.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (2018): 369–381. Lawless, Jennifer L. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post-September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (September 2004): 479–490. Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Lawrence, Regina G., and Melody Rose. Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, 2nd ed. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

208 Bibliography MacManus, Susan A., and Andrew F. Quecan. “Spouses as Campaign Surrogates: Strategic Appearances by Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates’ Wives in the 2004 Election.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (2008): 337–348. Mandziuk, Roseann M. “Whither the Good Wife? 2016 Presidential Candidate Spouses in the Gendered Spaces of Contemporary Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 103 (2017): 136–159. Manning, Jennifer E. “Membership in the 115th Congress: A Profile.” Congressional Research Service, October 1, 2018, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44762.pdf. Martin, Brett. Difficult Men: Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution: From The Sopranos and The Wire to Mad Men and Breaking Bad. New York: Penguin Books, 2014. Martin, Janet M. The Presidency and Women: Promise, Performance, and Illusion. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003. Maxwell, Angie, and Todd Shields. “The Impact of ‘Modern Sexism’ on the 2016 Presidential Election.” Diane D. Blair Center of Southern Politics & Society, June 2017, https://blaircenter.uark.edu/the-impact-of-modern-sexism. Mayhead, Molly A., and Brenda Devore Marshall. Women’s Political Discourse: A Twenty-First Century Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. McCann, Joy. “Electoral Quotas for Women: An International Overview.” Parliamentary Research, October 1, 2013, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament /Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/ElectoralQuotas. McGlen, Nancy E. and Meredith Reid Sarkees. “Foreign Policy Decisions Makers: The Impact of Gender,” in The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Susan J. Carroll. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001. Mendelsohn, Matthew. “The Media and Interpersonal Communication: The Priming of Issues, Leaders, and Party Identification.” Journal of Politics 58 (1996): 112–125. Mercer, Andrew, Claudie Deane, and Kyley McGeeney. “Why 2016 Election Polls Missed Their Mark.” Pew Research Center, November 9, 2016, http://www.pewresearch .org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark. Miller, Melissa K., Jeffrey S. Peake, and Brittany Anne Boulton. “Testing the Saturday Night Live Hypothesis: Fairness and Bias in Newspaper Coverage of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign.” Politics & Gender 6 (2010): 169–198. Murray, Robert K., and Tim H. Blessing. Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents from George Washington Through Ronald Reagan, 2nd ed. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994. Nolette, Paul. Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2015. Norton, Noelle, and Barbara Morris. “Feminist Organizational Structure in the White House: The Office of Women’s Initiatives and Outreach.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (2003): 477–487. Okimoto, Tyler G., and Victoria Brescoll. “The Price of Power: Power Seeking and the Backlash Against Female Politicians.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (2010): 923–936. Opfell, Olga S. Women Prime Ministers and Presidents. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1993. Osborn, Tracy. “Women State Legislators and Representation: The Role of Political Parties and Institutions.” State and Local Government Review 46 (2014): 146–155. Palley, Marian Lief. “Women’s Policy Leadership in the United States.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (June 2001): 247–250.

Bibliography

209

Parker, Christopher S., Mark Q. Sawyer, and Christopher Towler. “A Black Man in the White House?” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 6 (2009): 193–217. Pasek, Josh, Jon A. Krosnick, and Trevor Tompson. “The Impact of Anti-Black Racism on Approval of Barack Obama’s Job Performance and on Voting in the 2012 Presidential Election.” October 2012, http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick /docs/2012/2012%20Voting%20and%20Racism.pdf. Patterson, Thomas E. “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters.” December 7, 2016, https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage -2016-general-election. ———. Out of Order. New York: Vintage, 1994. Pew Research Center. “Hillary Clinton Favorability Timeline.” May 19, 2015, http:// www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline. Pomper, Gerald M. “The Presidential Election.” In The Election of 1984, edited by Gerald M. Pomper. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 1985. Sabharwal, Meghna. “From Glass Ceiling to Glass Cliff: Women in Senior Executive Service.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (April 2015): 399–426. Sanbonmatsu, Kira. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. ———. “Women’s Election to Office in the 50 States.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 4th ed., edited by Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. ———. “Women’s Pathways to State Legislatures.” May 2012, https://scholars.org /sites/scholars/files/ssn_key_findings_sanbonmatsu_on_women_in_legislatures_1 .pdf. Schaffner, Brian F., Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta. “Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism.” Paper presented at the Conference on the U.S. Elections of 2016: Domestic and International Aspects, IDC Herzliya Campus, Israel, January 8–9, 2017. Schlesinger, Joseph A. Ambition and Politics. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Schneider, Monica C., Miyra R. Holman, Amanda B. Diekman, and Thomas McAndrew. “Power, Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women’s Political Ambition.” Political Psychology 37 (2016): 515–531. Schroeder, Pat. “Forward.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Sepinwall, Alan. The Revolution Was Televised: The Cops, Crooks, Slingers, and Slayers Who Changed TV Drama Forever. New York: Touchstone, 2013. Sheehy, Gail. Hillary’s Choice. New York: Random House, 1999. Sheeler, Kristina Horn, and Karrin Vasby Anderson. Woman President: Confronting Postfeminist Political Culture. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2013. Sherman, Janaan. No Place for a Woman: A Life of Senator Margaret Chase Smith. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000. Smith, Aidan. Gender, Heteronormativity, and the American Presidency. New York: Routledge, 2017. Smith, Eric R. A. N., and Richard L. Fox. “A Research Note: The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (2001): 205–221. Smith, Rogers M. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in US History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.

210 Bibliography Stokes, Ashli Quesinberry. “First Ladies in Waiting: The Fight for Rhetorical Legitimacy on the Campaign Trail.” In The 2004 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective, edited by Robert J. Denton, Jr. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Streb, Matthew J., Barbara Burrell, Brian Frederick, and Michael A. Genovese. “Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2008): 76–89. Tesler, Michael, and David O. Sears. Obama’s Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Thomas, Sue. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Toosi, Nahal. “Inside the Chaotic Early Days of Trump’s Foreign Policy.” Politico Magazine, March 1, 2019. Troy, Gil. Hillary Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. Lawrence: Kansas University Press, 2006. Uscinski, Joseph, and Lily Goren. “What’s in a Name? Coverage of Secretary Hillary Clinton During the 2008 Democratic Primary.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (2010): 884–896. Valentino, Nicholas A., Fabian G. Neuner, and L. Matthew Vandenbroek. “The Changing Norms of Racial Political Rhetoric and the End of Racial Priming.” Working Paper, November 2016, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310230276_The _Changing_Norms_of_Racial_Political_Rhetoric_and_the_End_of_Racial_Priming. Vaughn, Justin S., and Lilly J. Goren, eds. Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2012. Vigil, Tammy R. “Feminine Views in the Feminine Style: Convention Speeches by Presidential Nominees’ Spouses.” Southern Communication Journal 79 (2014): 327–346. ———. Moms in Chief: The Rhetoric of Republican Motherhood and the Spouses of Presidential Nominees, 1992–2016. Lawrence: Kansas University Press, 2019. Watson, Robert P. “Introduction: The White House as Ultimate Prize.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, 1–17. Watson, Robert P., and Ann Gordon. “Profile: Elizabeth Dole, Executive Leadership.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, 201–203. ———. “Profile: Geraldine Ferraro, Media Coverage of History in the Making.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, 157–160. ———. “Profile: Pat Schroeder and the Campaign That Wasn’t.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, 117–120. ———. “Profile: Shirley Chisholm, Blazing Trails.” In Anticipating Madam President, edited by Robert P. Watson and Ann Gordon, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, 53–55. Wayne, Stephen J. The Road to the White House 2012. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. ———. The Road to the White House 2016: The Politics of Presidential Elections, 10th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2015. Weeks, Ana Catalano. “Quotas and Party Priorities: Direct and Indirect Effects of Quota Laws.” Political Research Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1177/10659 12918809493.

Bibliography

211

Wilson, Marie C. Closing the Leadership Gap: Why Women Can and Must Help Run the World. New York: Penguin, 2004. Women’s Media Center. “The Status of Women in U.S Media 2017.” March 21, 2017. http://www.womensmediacenter.com/assets/site/reports/10c550d19ef9f3688f _mlbres2jd.pdf. Woodall, Gina Serignese, and Kim L. Fridkin. “Shaping Women’s Chances: Stereotypes and the Media.” In Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House? edited by Lori Cox Han and Caroline Heldman. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. Wright, Lauren. On Behalf of the President: Presidential Spouses and White House Communications Strategy Today. New York: Praeger, 2016. Xydias, Christina. “Women’s Rights in Germany: Generations and Gender Quotas.” Politics & Gender 10 (2014): 4–32.

The Contributors

Linda Beail is professor of political science at Point Loma Nazarene

University. With research interests in theorizing about motherhood as a political identity, the politics of popular culture, and religion in US politics, she is the coauthor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America. Her current research is on pleasure and anxiety in the pop culture representations of political women. Meena Bose is executive dean for Public Policy and Public Service

Programs, Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy, and International Affairs, and director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, at Hofstra University. She is the author of Shaping and Signaling Presidential Policy: The National Security Decision Making of Eisenhower and Kennedy, and the editor of several volumes in presidential studies. She has coauthored the textbooks American Government: Institutions and Policies, 16th edition, and The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, 5th edition.

Barbara Burrell is professor emerita in political science at Northern Illinois University. She is the author of several books on women congressional candidates and first ladies, and the textbook Women and Politics: A Quest for Political Equality in an Age of Economic Inequality. She is also a coeditor of the encyclopedia Women in the American Political System and a coauthor of American Presidential Candidate Spouses: The Public’s Perspective.

213

214 The Contributors Meredith Conroy is associate professor of political science at Califor-

nia State University San Bernardino and a senior researcher with the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. Her research on the role of gender and media in politics has been published in the International Journal of Communication and Politics, Groups, and Identities. She is the author of Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency.

Laurel Elder is professor of political science and the coordinator of women’s and gender studies at Hartwick College where she teaches courses on US politics. She is the coauthor of two books: American Presidential Candidate Spouses: The Public’s Perspective and The Politics of Parenthood: Causes and Consequences of the Politicization and Polarization of the American Family. She has also authored numerous articles focused on explaining women’s continued underrepresentation in political office.

Victoria A. Farrar-Myers is a senior fellow at the John G. Tower Center for Political Studies at Southern Methodist University. She has written numerous books and other publications on the US presidency, campaign finance, and democratic processes and institutions. Also an elected official, she serves on the city council and is deputy mayor pro tem of Arlington, Texas.

Brian Frederick is associate professor and chair of the political science department at Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts. His research focuses on the US Congress, gender in politics, and campaigns and elections. He is author of Congressional Representation and Constituents: The Case for Increasing the House of Representatives and coauthor of American Presidential Candidate Spouses: The Public’s Perspective.

Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, Wisconsin. She teaches US government, the presidency, politics and culture, gender studies, politics and literature, and political theory. Her research often integrates popular culture and literature as a means to understanding politics. She is coeditor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America and Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics, and author of You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby: Women, Politics, and Popular Culture.

The Contributors

215

Lori Cox Han is professor of political science at Chapman University.

With research and teaching interests in the presidency, media and politics, women and politics, and political leadership, she is the author or editor of numerous books, including Advising Nixon: The White House Memos of Patrick J. Buchanan; Presidents and the American Presidency, 2nd edition; Women, Power, and Politics: The Fight for Gender Equality in the United States; New Directions in the American Presidency, 2nd edition; Hatred of American Presidents: Personal Attacks on the White House from Washington to Trump; In It to Win: Electing Madam President; A Presidency Upstaged: The Public Leadership of George H. W. Bush; and Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House?

Caroline Heldman is professor of politics at Occidental College in Los Angeles and the executive director of the Representation Project. She specializes in systems of power (gender, race, class, ability, sexuality) and the US presidency. She is the author of four books: Protest Politics in the Marketplace: Consumer Activism in the Corporate Age; Women, Power, and Politics: The Fight for Gender Equality in the United States; The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement; and Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election. In addition, she has been active in “real world” politics as a professional pollster, campaign manager, and commentator for CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and CNBC. Karen M. Hult is professor and chair of political science at Virginia

Tech, where she also is a core faculty member in the Center for Public Administration and Policy in the School of Public and International Affairs. She is the author or coauthor of four books: Agency Merger and Bureaucratic Redesign; Governing Public Organizations; Empowering the White House: Governance Under Nixon, Ford, and Carter; and Governing the White House: From Hoover Through LBJ. Her articles have appeared in numerous scholarly journals and edited volumes.

Misty Knight-Finley is assistant professor of political science at Rowan University. Her research examines how institutional and individual identities shape politics and public policy in areas such as health, welfare, and immigration. She has additional interests in legislative behavior, political careerism, and campaign finance in the US Congress.

216 The Contributors Anne Pluta is assistant professor of political science at Rowan University. Her research interests include the US presidency, gender and politics, and political communication, and her work has appeared in Presidential Studies Quarterly and Congress and the Presidency.

Index

ABC. See American Broadcasting Corporation Abrams, Rachel, 87 Abrams, Stacey, 2 Abu Ghraib, 175 Access Hollywood tape, 83, 84fig, 131 Actual dollars, 47tab, 48 Adkins, Randall, 55 Advisers, 40, 126, 160, 181, 185; number and percentage by title and year, 153, 154–155tab African Americans, 85; in popular culture, 111, 114, 129n9; Pressley as, 31–32. See also Obama, Barack Age, 124–125; in 103rd congress, 37–38, 38fig, 39fig; in Democratic Party compared to Republican Party, 29, 29tab, 37–38, 38fig, 39fig, 40; in television, 119 Agriculture commissioners, 148 Air Force, 33, 158 Allen, Jonathan, 7 Ambitions, 21–22, 120; of First Ladies, 114, 125 Ambivalence, 120 American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 10–11, 83, 112 American Presidential Candidate Spouses (Frederick, Elder, and Burrell), 134 American Red Cross, 174 Anestaki, Aikaterini, 152–153 Antiestablishment environment, 6–7 Antiheroes, 103–104, 117

Antiterrorism, 176 Appearance, 62, 80, 113; clothing in, 108, 111, 116; of Fiorina, C., 182–183, 185; makeup in, 111–112, 173; sexual attractiveness in, 119; stylist for, 111– 112 Appointed executives: in federal agencies, 156–159; federal cabinet secretaries and agency heads as, 149, 150–151tab, 151– 152; in governors’ offices, 160; in local agencies, 159; in state agencies, 159; White House staff as, 153, 154–155tab, 155–156 Assistant to President, 154–155tab Authority, 160

Bachmann, Michele, 3, 9, 75 Backstory, 118 Barrett, Katherine, 159 Bay of Pigs, 173 Becerra, Xavier, 147 Bergen, Candice, 114–115 Bergen, Polly, 97–98 Bernick, E. Lee, 163n10 Bhatia, Sudeep, 69 Biden, Joe, 39 “Big money,” 55 Birther movement, 83, 85 Black, Diana, 48 Black Americans. See African Americans Blackburn, Marsha, 2, 19 Blasey Ford, Christine, 88–89

217

218 Index Blessing, Tim H., 169 Blumell, Lindsey, 90 Bona fides, 132 Borrelli, MaryAnne, 149, 151, 156, 163n25 Boston City Council, 32 Bowles, Erskine, 153 Boxing-match metaphor, 6 Brazaitis, Tom, 168 Buchanan, James, 170 Burke, Tarana, 87 Burrell, Barbara, 134 Bush, Billy, 83, 84fig Bush, George H. W., 2; feminization of, 66; as political insider, 13; women cabinet secretaries of, 150tab Bush, George W., 5; Dole and, 62; Kerry, J., compared to, 66; as political outsider, 13; in 2000-2012 presidential campaigns and GCF, 68–69, 68fig; women cabinet secretaries of, 149, 150tab Bush, Laura, 130fig Business interests, 49, 50tab, 51, 57n6

Cabinet, 3, 118, 119, 142fig, 148 Cabinet secretaries: in television, 110–111; women as, 149, 150–151tab, 151–152. See also Secretaries of state California primary, 5 CAO. See Chief administrative officer Career and life paths, 30 Career diversity, 34, 34fig Carroll, Susan J., 62 Carter, Graydon, 60 Carter, Jimmy, 13, 170; women cabinet secretaries of, 150tab Caucuses, 6, 56, 107; Iowa, 3, 5 CBS, 11, 110, 114–115, 121n11, 180 Celebrity culture, 108 Central Intelligence Agency, 110 Chafee, Lincoln, 190n76 Chao, Elaine Lan, 149 Chief administrative officer (CAO), 159 Chief of staff, 111, 153 Chisholm, Shirley, 75 Christie, Chris, 184 Cillizza, Chris, 135 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (Citizens United), 46, 54 Clift, Eleanor, 168 Clinton, Bill, 10, 39; Clinton, H., compared to, 63, 131–132; extramarital affairs of, 109, 184–185; policymaking by, 132–

133; as political outsider, 13; as presidential candidate spouse, 127, 128– 133, 130fig; Trump, D., compared to, 83, 131; Trump, M., compared to, 129; visibility of, 186; women cabinet secretaries of, 150tab Clinton, Hillary, 2, 119; announcement in 2015 from, 183; assets and, 9; biographies of, 189n53; California primary for, 5; Clinton, B., compared to, 63, 131–132; as commander in chief, 185; in Democratic presidential debate, 183, 190n76; e-mails of, 5, 152, 182, 184, 185, 190n72; as First Lady, 10; fundraising by, 46, 54, 194; GCF and, 70; “Hillary effect,” 23; liabilities of, 9, 131–132; in media coverage and masculinity, 62, 63; national security and, 167–168; popular vote for, 4, 185, 186; as presidential candidate spouse, 130fig; public opinion polls related to, 5–6, 83; Sanders, B., and, 132, 182– 184; as secretary of state, 151, 151tab, 152; in State Department, 181–182; 2018 and, 25. See also 2016 presidential election Clinton Foundation, 131 Clinton Global Initiative, 5 Clothing, 111; in House of Cards, 108, 116; in Veep, 116 Cold War, 24, 172, 175 Comey, James, 185 Commander (Navy), 33 Commander in chief, 16, 157; challenges for, 167, 168, 193, 198; Clinton, H., as, 185; in popular culture, 97–98 Commander in Chief (TV show), 10–11, 97–98 Commissioners, 148 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 143 Communists, 172–173 Community, 102 Comstock, Barbara, 48 Congress, 1, 14; Democratic Party compared to Republican Party in, 26–27; elections for, 46; pathway through, 53 2018 congressional midterm elections, 1, 9, 25–26; Democratic Party compared to Republican Party in, 186; disbursements in, 51–52, 52tab; individual donors in, 51–52, 52tab; sexual violence and, 87; small donors in, 51–52, 52tab 102nd congressional session, 23–24

Index 103rd congress and 116th congress, 20, 23– 24; age in, 37–38, 38fig, 39fig; education in, 31–32, 33fig; first jobs by party in, 34, 35fig; operationalization of variables in, 29–30, 29tab; political experience and, 35–37, 36fig, 37fig; women by party in, 28, 28tab; work experience in, 32–34, 34fig, 35fig 115th Congress, 31 Congressional Biographical Directory, 29, 30 Congressional campaign finance expenditures, 47–49, 47tab Congressional page, 39 Conroy, Meredith, 77, 194–195 Constitution, 8 Continental Congress, 170 Conventional wisdom: barriers in, 7–8; reality compared to, 7–12, 18n18, 18n28; viability in, 8 Cooperman, Rosalyn, 161 Corfman, Leigh, 88 Crouch, Elizabeth, 144 Crouch, Suzanne, 146 Crowder-Mayer, Melody, 161 Crowley, Joe, 19 Cruz, Ted, 61, 78, 185 Cuban missile crisis, 172 Current political environment, 17

The DataFace, 69 Davis, Geena, 10–11, 97–98 Defense Department, 158 Democratic Party, 15; diversity within, 3; leadership in, 23; in 1992, 24; in 2020 presidential election, 89–90; recruitment in, 22, 25–26 Democratic Party compared to Republican Party, 86, 90, 144; age in, 29, 29tab, 37–38, 38fig, 39fig, 40; in 116th congress, 28tab; in 2018 congressional midterm elections, 186; in Congress, 26–27; congressional campaign finance expenditures and, 47–49, 47tab; demographics in, 29, 29tab; education in, 29–30, 29tab, 31, 32fig; gender dynamics in, 161; gender stereotypes in, 27; geography related to, 27; individual donors in, 51–52, 52tab; in 1992, 24– 25; PACs and, 49, 50tab, 51; party culture in, 161; political experience in, 29, 29tab, 35–37, 36fig, 37fig, 42n42; political polarization in, 27, 40;

219

recruitment in, 27; small donors in, 51– 52, 52tab; in 2018, 25–26, 186; work experience in, 3, 29, 29tab, 32–34, 35fig, 40; WRPDs in, 27–28. See also 103rd congress and 116th congress Democratic presidential debate, 183, 190n76 Democratic socialist, 38 Demographics, 15; in Democratic Party compared to Republican Party, 29, 29tab Deputy chief of staff, 153 Dickes, Lori, 144 Diekman, Amanda, 22 Diplomacy, 111–112 District of Columbia, 171 Dittmar, Kelly, 144 Dole, Elizabeth, 3, 8–9, 75, 152, 153; masculinity and media coverage of, 62; presidential candidate spouse and, 130fig; sexism against, 91 Domestic policy, 164n28 Donald J. Trump Foundation, 131 Doonesbury, 66 Dowdle, Andrew, 55 Ducat, Stephan, 61 Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, 70 Dukakis, Kitty, 130fig

Economic advisors, 164n28 Education, 29–30, 29tab; in 103rd congress, 31–32, 32fig Edwards, George C., III, 169 Elder, Laurel, 134 Elected chief executives: commissioners as, 148; governors, 142tab, 143–145; lieutenant governors as, 142tab, 146; mayors as, 142tab, 145; secretaries of state as, 147–148; state attorneys general as, 142tab, 147; superintendents of schools as, 148–149 Election Day, 10, 184, 188n42 Electoral college, 4, 17n7, 185 E-mail, 5, 152, 182, 184, 185, 190n72 Emanuel, Rahm, 153 Emhoff, Douglas, 135–136 EMILY’s List, 6, 22, 25, 26 Encouragement, 22 Environmental policy, 164n28 Epstein, Jeffrey, 81–83 Equal Rights Amendment, 173 Ernst, Joni, 2 Executive leadership, 16 Extramarital affairs, 109, 184–185. See also Sexual misconduct

220 Index FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal agencies, 156–159 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 5, 7, 182, 185 Federal cabinet secretaries and agency heads, 149, 150–151tab, 151–152 Female department heads, 164n50 Female representation barriers, 21–22 Feminist power, 112–114 “Femiphobic,” 60–61 Ferguson, Miriam Amanda “Ma,” 13–14, 143 Ferraro, Geraldine, 12 Film, 97–98; television compared to, 101 Finkenauer, Abby, 38, 39 Fiorina, Carly, 3, 9, 61, 75, 134–135; appearance of, 182–183, 185; on defense, 167–168 Fiorina, Frank, 135 First Family, 97, 126 First Gentleman, 97, 135–136; on policymaking, 133, 137–138; role of, 125–126 First Ladies, 97; ambitions of, 114, 125; Clinton, H., as, 10; employment of, 124, 138n9; Obama, M., as, 127; policymaking of, 125 First Partner, 16, 197 First Spouse, 16, 130, 133–136 FiveThirtyEight.com, 29 FLO. See Office of the First Lady Flynn, Michael T., 184 Forbes, Steve, 62 Former U.S. senators, 3, 11, 171, 190n76 Fortier, Alison, 164n28 Fox News, 69, 88, 96n82 Frail frame, 79–80 Framing, 23, 79–80. See also Gender conflict framing Franklin, Shirley, 145 Frederick, Brian, 134 Freshmen, 30, 33, 37. See also 103rd congress and 116th congress Fried, Nikki, 148 Front-runners, 5, 9, 132 Fulani, Lenora, 75 Fulton, Sarah, 160–161 Fundraising, 15, 21, 49, 50tab, 51, 110; by Clinton, H., 46, 54, 194; in 1872, 45; by Sanders, B., 54

Gabbard, Tulsi, 2, 139n40 Game frame, 64–65 Game-playing, 112

GCF. See Gender conflict framing Gender: congressional campaign finance and, 47–49, 47tab; language related to, 60–61; leadership and, 8; PACs and, 49, 50tab, 51 Gender and party in voting, 163n10 Gender conflict framing (GCF), 15, 68–69, 68fig; analysis of, 65–66; boxing-match metaphor as, 6; consistency of, 59–60; description of, 59, 65; in media coverage and masculinity, 64–66, 70–71 Gender gap, 86 Gender stereotypes, 8–9; in Democratic Party compared to Republican Party, 27; in media coverage, 59; in popular culture, 117–118 Gendered expectations, 116–117, 144–145 Gendered metaphors, 63 Genre conventions, 117 Gillibrand, Jonathan, 135–136 Gillibrand, Kirsten, 2, 130–131, 135–136 Glass ceilings, 19, 97, 153, 156, 160, 198 Global parity, 141, 162n1, 187n2; quotas in, 20–21; U.S. in, 4, 20–23 Goehrung, Ryan, 160 The Good Wife (TV show), 108–109 Goodwin, Doris Kearns, 189n65 Goodwin, Geoffrey P., 69 Gore, Al, 18n18, 68, 68fig Gore, Tipper, 130fig Goren, Lilly, 100 Governors, 12–14, 25; elected chief executives, 142tab, 143–145; lieutenant, 142tab, 146; of Rhode Island, 190n76; senior staff of, 160; women of color as, 144 Grasso, Ella, 143 Green Party, 171–172 Greene, Richard, 159 Grey’s Anatomy (TV show), 104, 105 Gulf War, 111 Guy, Mary Ellen, 162

Haley, Nikki, 2, 144 Harding, Warren, 14 Harris, Kamala, 2, 135, 136, 147, 161 Harris, Katherine, 147–148 HBO (TV network), 11, 115 Healthcare, 24, 131, 176, 178 Heldman, Caroline, 62, 99 Herrnson, Paul, 23–24 Hewlett-Packard, 3, 134–135, 185 Hill, Anita, 24 Hill, Katie, 52–53

Index “Hillary effect,” 23 Holman, Miyra, 22 Holsti, Ole R., 157 Homeland (TV show), 11 Horn Sheeler, Kristina, 63 Hostess/Beauty Queen frame, 63 Houlihan, Christine, 33 House Democratic Minority Leader, 13 House of Cards (TV show), 11–12, 106– 108, 116 House of Representatives, 1, 12, 19, 47–48, 47tab; age in, 38fig; education related to, 32fig, 33fig; first jobs and, 34fig; first political experience and, 36fig; first political experience by party and, 37fig; in 1992, 24; representation in, 23–24; in 2018, 25; Whip in, 106, 107 Housewives, 102 Hult, Karen, 156, 163n25 Hurt, Harry, 81 Hypermasculinity, 9; of Trump, D., 76, 77– 78, 86

Individual donors, 50tab, 51–52, 52tab Inflation, 47tab, 48 International City Managers Association, 159 Iowa caucuses, 3; for Obama, B., 5 Iraq War, 177, 178, 179, 180 Israel, 187n2 Issues, 49, 50tab, 51 Jewish candidates, 18n18 Johnson, Katie (fictitious name), 81–82 Joint Chiefs of Staff, 157 Jones, Cherry, 97–98 Joshi, Devin, 160

Kantor, Jodi, 87 Katz, Jackson, 64, 77 Kavanaugh, Brett, 26, 88–89 Kelly, Rita Mae, 70 Kennedy, John F., 18n18; Obama, B., compared to, 14 Kennedy, Joseph P., 32 Kerry, John, 32; Bush, G. W., compared to, 66; in 2000-2012 presidential campaigns and GCF, 68–69, 68fig Kerry, Teresa Heinz, 130fig King, Cheryl, 76 King, Michelle, 110 King, Robert, 110 King of Swaziland (fictitious character), 111–112

221

Kisses From My President, 97–98 Klinkner, Philip, 85 Klobuchar, Amy, 2, 139n40, 162 Korean War, 172–173

Labor, 49, 50tab, 51 Language, 78–79, 114; gender related to, 60–61; masculinity and, 59–61 Large donors, 49, 50tab Latent sematic analysis (LSA), 69 Latina, 115 Lawrence, Regina G., 62, 64 Lay, Celeste, 23–24 Leadership, 8, 16, 23 Leading Men (Katz), 64 Lear, Norman, 121n11 Left wing, 81, 87, 132 Legum, Gary, 78 Leoni, Téa, 11 Lessig, Lawrence, 190n76 Lieberman, Joseph, 18n18 Lieutenant governors, 142tab, 146 Lincoln, Abraham, 189n65 Live-streamed, 184–185 Local agencies, 159 Lockwood, Belva, 75 Louis-Dreyfus, Julia, 11, 98, 115 Love, Mia, 48 Lowi, Theodore, 164n34 LSA. See Latent sematic analysis Luke Cage (TV show), 121n9 Luria, Elaine, 33

MacBeth, Lady (fictitious character), 120 Machiavellian, 106–107, 110, 112 MacMurray, Fred, 97 MacWilliams, Matthew, 85 Madam president: belief in, 56; reflections and implications for, 53–56; small donors for, 55–56 Madam Secretary (TV show), 11, 110–112 Makeup, 111–112, 173 Male antiheroes, 103–104, 117 Male norm perspective, 63 Mann, Bruce, 135–136 Mar-a-Lago, 82fig, 83 Martinez, Susana, 144 Masculinity: “femiphobic,” 60–61; gender stereotypes and, 59; language and, 59– 61; in 2016 presidential election, 77–79. See also Hypermasculinity; Media coverage and masculinity M*A*S*H (TV show), 121n11

222 Index Maxwell, Angie, 85 Mayors, 142tab, 145 McAndrew, Thomas, 22 McCain, Cindy, 130fig McCain, John, 62; in 2000-2012 presidential campaigns and GCF, 68, 68fig McGinty, Kathleen A., 164n28 McGlen, Nancy E., 158 McSally, Martha, 48 Media coverage, 15 Media coverage and masculinity: Dole in, 62; game frame in, 64–65; GCF in, 64– 66, 70–71; “gendered mediation” in, 63–64; gendered metaphors in, 63; male norm perspective in, 63; media role in, 61–62; Obama, B., in, 62; sports and military metaphors in, 64 Medicaid, 147 #MeToo movement, 16, 26, 75, 87, 89–90 Midterms. See 2018 congressional midterm elections Milano, Alyssa, 87 Military metaphors, 64 Military veterans, 33, 35fig, 42n49 Miller, Carol Devine, 39 Mills, Janet, 146 Minority Leader, 13 Mondale, Walter, 12 Money and viability, 47tab, 55; PACs in, 48–49, 50tab, 51, 57n6 Moore, Roy, 88 Morris, Barbara, 156 Moseley Braun, Carol, 3, 75 Motherhood, 114 Murphy Brown (TV show), 114–115 Murray, Patty, 24 Murray, Robert K., 169 Muslim-American women, 19, 193–194

Napolitano, Janet, 151 Nasty Woman frame, 80 National security, 164n28, 186; Clinton, H., and, 167–168; commander in chief in, 167; Fiorina, C., and, 185; postpost9/11, 16, 168, 198 National security assistant, 155 Native American, 193–194 Natural-born citizen, 8, 169 Naval Academy, 33 Netflix, 11–12, 121n9 Neuner, Fabian, 85 New York City, 60–61, 135, 145, 173 Newsweek, 66–67

Nielsen, Kirstjen, 151, 151tab 9/11, 9–10, 16, 168, 193, 198 Noem, Kristi, 48 Non–career politician, 3 Nondisclosure, 81 Nongovernmental jobs, 30 Nonprofits, 22, 34fig, 35fig, 131, 142fig Nordic countries, 20 Norton, Gale, 149 Norton, Noelle, 156 Nteta, Tatishe, 85

Obama, Barack, 87, 106; appointments from, 164n47; Iowa caucuses for, 5; Kennedy, J. F., compared to, 14; Lincoln compared to, 189n65; in media coverage and masculinity, 62; as political outsider, 13, 77, 85; in 2000-2012 presidential campaigns and GCF, 68, 68fig; prototypical citizenship and, 77; women cabinet secretaries of, 150–151tab, 151 Obama, Michelle, 127; as presidential candidate spouse, 130fig Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria, 19, 38–39 Oceno, Marzia, 85 Office of the First Lady (FLO), 163n26 Officeholders, 98, 118, 161 Olson, Stephanie, 62 O’Malley, Martin, 190n76 Omar, Ilhan, 19 “On-deck circle,” 12 Online, 9, 62 O’Reilly, Bill, 88, 96n82 Oval Office, 120, 169, 199; age in, 119; in popular culture, 97–98, 107–108

PACs. See Political action committees Palin, Sarah, 12, 77, 100, 189n62 Palmieri, Jennifer, 70 Parent-teacher association, 180 Parks and Recreation (TV show), 116 Parnes, Amie, 7 Party culture, 161 Pathbreaking, 24 Patterson, Thomas E., 69 Paul, Rand, 61 Pelosi, Nancy, 1, 13, 48, 119 Pence, Mike, 2 Perry, Rick, 60–61 Pioneer frame, 63 Pluta, Anne, 193–194 Policymaking, 27–28, 126, 144, 156, 164n28, 198; by Clinton, B., 132–133;

Index First Gentleman on, 133, 137–138; of First Ladies, 125 Political action committees (PACs), 22, 54; in 2016 presidential election, 48–49, 50tab, 51, 57n6 Political environment, 13, 15 Political insider, 13 Political outsiders, 111, 149; Obama, B., as, 13, 77, 85; Trump, D., as, 4–5, 13 Political parties, 20, 22–23. See also specific parties Politico, 52–53 Popular culture, 10–12, 15, 16, 99; African Americans in, 111, 114, 129n9; commander in chief in, 97–98; film in, 97–98, 101; gender stereotypes in, 117– 118; “having it all” in, 101; multilayering in, 100–101; narrative diversity in, 103; trade-offs in, 118. See also Television Popular vote, 172, 174, 176; for Clinton, H., 4, 185, 186 Pork barrel projects, 106–107 Post-9/11, 16, 168, 193, 198 Postmortem, 7 Postpresidential, 129 Potter, Rachel Augustine, 158–159 Power dynamics: ambivalence in, 120; in satire, 114–117; in television, 98–99, 104–117 2000 presidential election: congressional campaign finance expenditures, 47–49, 47tab; source of funds in, 49, 50tab, 51 2000-2012 presidential election and GCF: data of, 67–68; scores of, 68, 68fig 2004 presidential election: congressional campaign finance expenditures, 47–49, 47tab; “moral values” in, 188n42; source of funds in, 49, 50tab, 51 2008 presidential election, 100, 188n45; congressional campaign finance expenditures, 47–49, 47tab; source of funds in, 49, 50tab, 51 2016 presidential election, 188n45; antiestablishment in, 6–7; Clinton, H., in, 1, 3, 4–7, 14–15, 17n7, 69, 70, 75; congressional campaign finance expenditures, 47–49, 47tab; divisiveness in, 6; electoral college in, 4, 17n7, 185; Fiorina, C., in, 185; GCF and, 69; insider access on, 7; masculinity in, 77– 79; PACs in, 48–49, 50tab, 51, 57n6; public opinion polls on, 10; response to,

223

86–88; sexism in, 5, 7, 76, 78–81, 85, 91, 95n62; sexual violence in, 76, 81– 83, 82fig, 84fig, 85, 91; source of funds in, 49, 50tab, 51. See also Clinton, Hillary; Trump, Donald 2020 presidential candidate spouses, 133– 134; Emhoff as, 135–136; Gillibrand, J., as, 135–136; Mann as, 135–136; Trump, M., as, 127, 130fig, 137 2020 presidential election: Democratic Party in, 89–90; diversity in, 124; possibilities for, 186, 200; sexism in, 75, 89–90; sexual misconduct and, 130– 131; sexual violence in, 75, 89–90; Warren and, 2 2024 presidential election, 2, 200 Prenomination, 3, 9, 75 Preprimary period financial viability, 55 Presidential candidate requirements, 8, 18n18, 169–170, 187n4 Presidential candidate spouses, 123, 138n11, 197; accomplishments of, 125, 128, 138n11; Clinton, B., as, 127, 128– 133; gendered expectations for, 124–128; husbands as, 133–136; new traditionalism for, 124–128, 137; as official host, 126; paid jobs for, 125– 126, 128, 133; Trump, M., as, 127, 137. See also First Gentleman; First Ladies Presidential Leadership (Edwards and Wayne, S. J.), 169 Presidential manhood and citizens, 76–77 Pressley, Ayanna, 31–32 Primavera, Dianne, 146 Private sector, 125, 162n2 Protestant, 8, 18n18 Protests, 86 Prototypical citizenship, 77–78, 81, 89–90, 195 Public opinion polls, 9–10, 18n28, 85; Clinton, H., related to, 5–6, 83 Public service, 79 Puppet frame, 63

al-Qaeda, 178 Quasi commander in chief, 97–98 Quayle, Dan, 115

Racism, 77. See also African Americans Rasco, Carol, 164n28 Ready to Run, 26 Reagan, Ronald, 150tab; as political outsider, 13; Romney, M., compared to, 66–67

224 Index Record-breaking, 1 Recruitment, 22 Reform Party, 171–172 Reid Sarkees, Meredith, 158 Reno, Janet, 149, 151, 152 Representations, in television, 98–99 Representatives. See House of Representatives Republican National Convention, 173, 179, 184 Republican Party: Access Hollywood tape and, 83; in 1992, 24; recruitment in, 25– 26; Rice for, 3. See also Democratic Party compared to Republican Party Résumé, 6–7, 129, 141, 149 Reuters poll, 85 Reynolds, Kim, 2 Rhimes, Shonda, 112–113 Rhode Island governor, former, 190n76 Rice, Condoleezza, 3, 149, 152 Richards, Ann, 13–14 Romney, Ann, 130fig Romney, Mitt, 66–67, 68, 68fig, 86 Rose, Melody, 62, 64 Rosenau, James N., 157 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana, 48 Rubio, Marco, 60–61, 78–79 Run for Something organization, 25 Running mate drought, 12–14

Sabharwal, Meghna, 157 Sanders, Bernie, 5–6, 38–39, 135, 190n76; Clinton, H., and, 132, 182–184; fundraising by, 54 Sanders, Sarah Huckabee, 155 Satire, 114–117 Scandal (TV show), 11–12, 112–114 Schaffner, Brian, 85 Schneider, Monica, 22 Schrier, Kim, 52–53 Schroeder, Patricia, 3, 53, 75 Secret Service, 157 Secretaries of state: Clinton, H., as, 151, 151tab, 152; as elected chief executives, 147–148 Senate, 1–3, 12, 13, 19; former members of, 3, 11, 171, 190n76; in 1992, 24; in 2018, 25. See also Congress; specific members Senate Armed Services Committee, 172, 174, 178 Senate Judiciary Committee, 88 Senior advisers, 154–155tab

Senior Executive Service (SES), 156–157 Sex scandals, 113; on television, 108–109 Sexism, 16, 23; merchandising of, 81; in 2016 presidential election, 5, 7, 76, 78– 81, 85, 91, 95n62; in 2020 presidential election, 75, 89–90 Sexist language, 78–79 Sexual attractiveness, 119 Sexual harassment, 87, 88 Sexual misconduct: Clinton, B., and, 130– 131; 2020 presidential election and, 130–131; Trump, D., and, 76, 83, 88, 90, 91, 131, 195, 196; Twitter and, 88 Sexual violence, 16; allegations, by Trump, D., 81–83, 82fig; in 2016 presidential election, 76, 81–83, 82fig, 84fig, 85, 91; in 2020 presidential election, 75, 89–90; Trump administration related to, 88–90; 2018 congressional midterm elections and, 87 Shalala, Donna, 39, 152 Shattered (Allen and Parnes), 7 She Should Run, 26 Sherrill, Mikie, 52–53 Sherrill, Rebecca M., 33 Shields, Todd, 85 Showtime (TV network), 11 Sinema, Krysten, 19 Small donors, 46, 49, 50tab, 51–52, 52tab, 56 Smith, Margaret Chase, 75 “Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President,” (Streb), 18n28 Social expectations, 16 Social order maintenance, 78, 83, 85 Social Security, 183–184 South, 2, 27 Speaker of the House, 1, 13 Sports metaphors, 64 State agencies, 159 State attorneys general, 142tab, 147 State Department, 149, 151, 151tab, 158– 159; Clinton, H., in, 181–182 State dinners, 97 State legislatures, 25, 27, 35–37, 35fig, 36fig, 37fig State of Affairs (TV show), 111 Stein, Jill, 75 Stepping-stone, 5, 148, 170, 198 Stokes, Atiya, 23–24 Stoynoff, Natasha, 82fig, 83 Streb, Matthew J., 18n28 Structural barriers, 53–54

Index Stylist, 111–112 Subcategory, 49 Super Tuesday, 5, 177–178 Superintendents of schools, 148–149 Supply and demand, 22–23, 40 Supreme Court, 26 Susan B. Anthony’s List, 22, 25

Task force, 131, 178 Taylor, Zachary, 170 Television, 10–12, 97, 121n9; assumptions on, 107; authority within, 105; cabinet secretaries in, 110–111; celebrity culture from, 108; community in, 102; complimentarity in, 103; cultural values and, 99; female leads of, 104–105; female showrunners of, 105; feminine/domestic space of, 102; film compared to, 101; genre conventions on, 117; golden age of, 103; image rehabilitation on, 109–110; immediacy of, 101–102; Lear in, 121n11; Machiavellian in, 106–107, 110, 112; male antiheroes in, 103–104, 117; medium of, 101–103; options from, 99; political women characters in, 106–110; pork barrel projects on, 106–107; power dynamics in, 98–99, 104–117; representations in, 98–99; “role model effect” in, 106; seriality of, 102–103; sex scandal on, 108–109; social norms in, 106; without softness, 107–108; truth in, 110; vice presidents in, 10–11; voice in, 110. See also specific shows Terrorism, 176, 178, 182, 188n42 Thatcher, Margaret, 187n2 Thomas, Clarence, 24, 88 Tlaib, Rashida, 19 Tobacco companies, 147 Toosi, Nahal, 158 Trailblazer, 63 Trans-Pacific Partnership, 183–184 Trudeau, Gary, 66 Trump, Donald, 6; Access Hollywood tape of, 83, 84fig, 131; African Americans related to, 85; antiestablishment related to, 4–5; Clinton, B., compared to, 83, 131; election for, 4, 17n7; hypermasculinity of, 76, 77–78, 86; as political outsider, 4–5, 13; Rubio and, 60–61; sexist language of, 78–79; sexual misconduct and, 76, 83, 88, 90, 91, 131, 195, 196; sexual violence,

225

allegations, by, 81–83, 82fig; social order maintenance by, 78, 83, 85; 2016 presidential election and GCF, 69; women cabinet secretaries of, 151tab. See also 2016 presidential election Trump, Ivana, 81 Trump, Melania, 127, 129, 130fig, 137 Trump Administration, 17n7; sexual violence related to, 88–90; White House Office of, 155, 155tab, 163n24 20th century, 143, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175 21st century, 23, 119, 171, 172, 175, 186; antiheroes in, 104; female governors in, 143; national security in, 167–168; presidential candidate requirements in, 167–169; representations in, 98 24 (TV show), 98 Twitter, 60–61; #MeToo movement from, 87; sexual misconduct and, 88 Tyson, Laura D’Andrea, 164n28 UN ambassador, 2, 151tab Underrepresentation, 19–20, 22; in senior positions, 161–162, 162n2; of women of color, 21. See also specific topics United States (U.S.): female representation barriers in, 21–22; global parity of, 4, 20–23; political parties in, 22–23; private sector of, 162n2. See also specific topics United States Government Manual, 153, 155–156, 163n25 UnREAL (TV show), 104, 105 Unruly Woman frame, 63

Valentino, Nicholas, 85 Vandenbroek, Matthew, 85 Vasby Anderson, Karrin, 63 Vaughn, Justin, 100 Veep (TV show), 11, 98, 115 Viability, 6; in conventional wisdom, 8. See also Money and viability Vice presidents, 2, 4, 8, 199; candidates for, 12–13; nominees for, 18n18, 62, 77, 185, 189n62; Quayle as, 115; in television, 10–11 Vice-president–elect, 184 Vietnam War, 175, 176, 190n76 Voice, 80 Volden, Craig, 158–159

Walasek, Lukasz, 69 Wall Street, 45, 183 War chest, 56

226 Index Warren, Elizabeth, 2, 119, 135–136 Washington, DC, 177–178 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie, 48 Wayne, Carly, 85 Wayne, Stephen J., 169 Webb, Jim, 190n76 Websites, 57n2, 145, 177 Weinstein, Harvey, 87 West Virginia state legislature, 39 West Wing, 112, 178 Westmoreland, William C., 168, 187n1 What Happened (Clinton, H.), 7, 190n72 Whip (House of Representatives), 106, 107 White House: pathway to, 56; Republican Party in, 24, 55. See also specific topics White House Office, 153, 156, 163n25; press secretary in, 112, 113, 155; of Trump Administration, 155, 155tab, 163n24 White House Project, 8–9 Williamson, Marianne, 2 Winners, 47–49, 47tab Women and the White House (Vaughn and Goren), 100 Women cabinet secretaries (1933-2019), 149, 150–151tab, 151–152

Women of color, 146; as governors, 144; in 2018, 25, 88; underrepresentation of, 21 “Women’s agencies,” 158, 164n47 Women’s Marches, 25, 75, 86 Women’s representation policy demanders (WRPDs), 27–28 Woodard, Alfre, 111, 121n9 Woodhull, Victoria, 45–46, 57n2, 75 Work experience, 30; in Democratic Party compared to Republican Party, 3, 29, 29tab, 32–34, 35fig, 40 Working-class, 27, 180, 183; against Trump, D., 90 World War II, 66 Wright, Lauren, 134 WRPDs. See Women’s representation policy demanders Yale Club, 60–61 Year of the Woman (1992), 20, 41; Thomas in, 24; women’s organizations in, 24– 25. See also 2018 congressional midterm elections Zeitgeist, 118

About the Book

SCHOLARS AND PUNDITS ALIKE HAVE SPENT MORE THAN a little time speculating about why Hillary Clinton lost the presidency to Donald Trump in 2016. Their conclusions may differ, but few would disagree that Clinton's nomination by a major party changed the political landscape in significant ways—nor that the results of the 2016 election provoked a large number of women to run for office at all levels of government. The genie is out of the bottle. In this context, the authors of Madam President? critically analyze the barriers facing women on the road to the White House—from gender stereotyping to biased media coverage, the conflation of masculinity and the presidency, gendered conceptions of leadership, and more. Lori Cox Han is professor of political science at Chapman University. Caroline Heldman is professor of politics at Occidental College.

227