What Will It Take to Make A Woman President?: Conversations About Women, Leadership and Power (18 page)

MS
: You’re talking about your granddaughters. I have two daughters. The way that our society and culture raises girls and young women is not
always to necessarily see themselves as leaders. What would you want to say to girls and young women today in terms of valuing their voices and believing that they have what it takes to follow their calling, or what it takes to be a leader?

BL
: That’s a really good question, because when I was a child—and my mother is eighty-eight years old and we were raised with my grandfather and my dad who was in the military. And my grandfather, I mean, he would get furious if I ever acted like I couldn’t do something because I was a girl. It was like, “You’re just as good as those boys. What’s wrong with you?” And my mother would say, “So what if there’s a boy trying to beat you in this or that? You better study hard so you can beat this guy and make a better grade than that boy next door.” You know what I mean? That was early on. It was like I had no options [
laughs]
. So thank goodness my family were feminists, even the men in my family, at an early age. Not every girl has that kind of encouragement early on. And so I think what is important is that at an early age, young girls have an educational environment and the family support systems in place where everything is equal to boys and that they’re told early on that there is no difference in terms of their abilities and their intellectual capabilities and their opportunities. This has to be taught early. And then we have to make sure that the opportunities are there and that we
don’t
discriminate against those girls and we
do
have what it takes for girls to succeed in school. I fortunately went to an all-women’s college, which was great. By the time I got to Mills College, I was so far ahead of most of my counterparts and my friends in school because I had had this upbringing. But the support that was there for me as a young girl and as a teenager and a young mom and all, it was just always, “You’re no different from this guy in terms of your ability or capacity. Just work hard and know that you’re going to hit some ceilings that you’ve got to shatter. But you better do it, or else” [
laughs]
.

CLAIRE MCCASKILL

“The more voices, the more different voices, that are involved in public policy, the more sound the public policy is going to be. And frankly, our system of government depends on the acceptance of Americans, that they are being represented in an effective way. So the more Washington reflects how our country actually looks, the more confidence the American people are going to have in it, and therefore our democracy will continue to be the strongest in the world.”

A
DAUGHTER OF RURAL
Missouri, Democrat Claire McCaskill has earned a reputation in the U.S. Senate as an independent, plain-spoken fighter for accountability in government, fiscal responsibility, and better opportunities for America’s middle class families. McCaskill started out as a young assistant prosecutor in Kansas City, where she specialized in prosecuting arson and sex crimes. Later, as the first woman to serve as Jackson County Prosecutor, she established a first-of-its kind domestic violence unit for the Kansas City region. McCaskill continued raising the level of accountability in Missouri as the state’s auditor, and later took on her own party establishment, becoming the first person to ever defeat a sitting Missouri governor in a primary election.

In 2006, when McCaskill became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Missouri, she brought that same fight for accountability to the halls of Congress. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, McCaskill has led the effort to confront sexual assault in the military, and better protect survivors. And McCaskill has recently helped lead the effort to renew the Violence Against Women Act.

McCaskill was resoundingly reelected to the Senate in 2012, winning her race by more than 15 percentage points—the biggest margin for a Missouri Senate candidate in nearly two decades. Claire has pledged to use the next six years to continue her fight for stronger accountability in government, and for better opportunities for America’s families.

MARIANNE SCHNALL
: Why do you think it is that we have not yet had a woman president?

CLAIRE MCCASKILL
: Well, I think that some of the typical socialization that women go through in this country has not always encouraged some of the traits that are incredibly important in our political system. Now, I’ve had a front-row seat and I feel blessed to have had the front-row seat to see a lot of changes in this regard, but when I began in politics over thirty years ago, there really weren’t a huge number of mentors that were women in elective office. There were a few, but they were an anomaly. They were not really part of the fabric of elective office holders in this country. And that has changed over these thirty years.

But I was taught as a young girl that it was impolite to talk about money. I was taught that it’s not something you inquired about and that it would be a sign of failure if you needed to ask someone for money. Well, clearly you cannot be successful in modern politics if you do not get very comfortable with talking about money and the notion of asking complete strangers for checks with commas in them. This is as essential to success as breathing, especially in a race like president of the United States. And
to get to be a candidate for president of the United States, you have to demonstrate your ability at other offices, and that obviously entails fundraising also. So that skill was, and still is, [a factor]—whether it is the reluctance of women to be donors or the reluctance of women to “close” on fundraising.

MS
: What can we do? What do you think are some concrete steps or changes that would help in terms of encouraging women, both into the political pipeline and certainly advancing through it?

CM
: Well, I think one, which is related to socialization, [is that] women have to be taught that ambition is ladylike, that women need to learn that having ambition is important for their families. As I like to say to potential women donors . . . the same women that won’t hesitate to buy a blouse on sale, whether it’s on sale for $99 or whether it’s on sale for $19. A woman will buy a blouse on sale, thinking it is such a good bargain, and it will sit in her closet because it gaps in front or it isn’t exactly the right color. It might sit in her closet for a year with the tag still on it. Those same women are reluctant to write a check for that same amount to a political candidate. And part of that is that we are naturally wired to be nurturers, protectors, and we see our security as really important. So spending money on a politician’s race, how does that get you security? That’s not tangible. That’s not like a savings account. It’s not an insurance policy. And so what women have to realize is that power is the
ultimate
security. Power brings about a much broader type of security for their children and for their grandchildren. So getting comfortable around the notion of participating fully in the process
and
that ambition is something that should be admired in a woman. And there shouldn’t be a tsk tsk. You know, I’ve had tsk tsks through my life. I remember when I was very young and a state representative, and they wrote a feature about me for the Kansas City paper and
they titled it “Blonde Ambition,” and I remember cringing when I saw the headline. And then I caught myself and thought,
Well now, why are you so worried that they’re saying you are ambitious? [laughs]
I was naturally uncomfortable that somebody had called me out on being ambitious. So I think our young ladies, our young women, my daughters, their daughters, all need to understand that ambition is an important form of getting security for you and your family and for the values that you are committed to.

MS
: What is the larger picture here? You were just talking about the importance of women supporting other women candidates, and certainly this is also something that we hope men will get behind. Why is it important that we have more women’s voices represented in Washington?

CM
: Well, I think it’s very important because the more voices, the more different voices, that are involved in public policy, the more sound the public policy is going to be. And frankly, our system of government depends on the acceptance of Americans, that they are being represented in an effective way. So the more Washington reflects how our country actually looks, the more confidence the American people are going to have in it, and therefore our democracy will continue to be the strongest in the world. So it’s for the health of our democracy; it’s for the ability of Washington to work collaboratively. You know, I joke with some of my male colleagues . . . I think we all want to make sure that everyone understands that some of the perceived differences between men and women are just wrong, actually wrong and stereotyping and inappropriate. On the other hand, I never in my life have had the urge to punch anyone. Now a lot of my male colleagues and my husband scratch their head at that, because they’ve had the urge to punch someone. And so, that difference, you know, we sometimes call it the testosterone-driven leadership, holds us back sometimes, particularly when you have a real challenge with coming together because
of the polarization that is occurring in our political system. You’ve got the far right and the far left, camping out and really not wanting to give much deference to the middle. And I think women are really comfortable with compromise. We want everyone to get along. You know, I want my kids not to fight with one another. I can hear my husband’s words, “Let them go.” I’m going, “No! I don’t want them to fight” [
laughs]
. And I think there is this collaborative desire that we have as women that we want to find that common ground and the consensus and make progress and really try to solve a problem, rather than just posturing.

MS
: Do you actually see that playing out? I saw a great roundtable that Diane Sawyer had on ABC News where she brought all the female senators together. In that interview, you called Washington a “combative place” and said that it’s almost like a team sport. I saw an article in
The New York Times
recently, in which Republican Senator Rob Portman said that just with having a slight increase in women there is having a positive impact because “women tend to be interested in finding the common ground.” Do you actually see that it does lead to more consensus? And what is the approach to working with, let’s say, even the Republican women in Congress?

CM
: Well, if you noticed in that dialogue, I think it was Kay Bailey Hutchison that was the one who spoke out and said, “I think we would do a better job in terms of leading the Senate.” And that wasn’t a progressive, feminist, Democratic, liberal woman senator from a blue state—that was Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas [
laughs]
. So I do think you saw in that interview, and we see in our work on a daily basis, that whether it’s Lisa Murkowski, or whether it’s Susan Collins, or whether it’s Kelly Ayotte. . . . I’ve certainly worked with Olympia Snowe—we worked on a number of things together. I think we do; we get together, we talk. I think
we are most comfortable trying to gravitate toward what we have in common, rather than underlining what separates us. And that’s the beginning of how you get there, that you’re comfortable gravitating toward the common ground, rather than toward the confrontational, political differences.

MS
: I have heard that the Senate women all get together regularly for bipartisan dinners. Is that still going on?

CM
: Oh, yeah.

MS
: What is the purpose of those dinners? I just love that concept.

CM
: Well, it was going on before I got here, and we try to do it at least once a quarter. We sometimes do it more frequently than that if we have a special reason to get together. For example, we all got together for dinner at Secretary Clinton’s home, celebrating Susan Collins’s wedding, a shower/dinner honoring her nuptials. And we have a special dinner for the women on the Supreme Court on an annual basis, where the women senators and the women justices get together—just us, no staff—and dish [
laughs]
, eat and dish. And it’s great! We do it, and we talk about a lot of things. I mean, we’re known to get off topic and visit about our children, or visit about challenges that we’re having personally, but we also get to some policy stuff and kind of pick each other’s brains about where we are on issues and what we can do to move things forward. The last dinner we had, there was a discussion about us working together on some human trafficking issues, on a bipartisan basis. And so, yeah, they’re great. So we all try to go out of our way to get to those to the extent that we can, and they’re terrific.