What Will It Take to Make A Woman President?: Conversations About Women, Leadership and Power (23 page)

MARIANNE SCHNALL
: Why do you think we’ve not yet had a woman president? What do you think it will take to make that happen?

NANCY PELOSI
: Well, [there are] two reasons why we will, and one is there are plenty of talented women—one in particular, Hillary Clinton, who I think would go into the White House as one of the most well-prepared leaders in modern history. She has the full package of having served in the White House and as a senator and secretary of state. She knows the issues in depth and she has great values, a good political sense, and is highly respected by the American people. So . . . how long will it take? Just as soon as she makes her decision! [
laughs]
That would be the shortcut—it isn’t a shortcut, it’s over two hundred years due. Why I think it will also happen is the American people are very, very ready for a woman president. They’re far ahead of the politicians, and that may be why we haven’t had a woman president. I always thought it would be much easier
to elect a woman president of the United States than Speaker of the House, because the people are far ahead, as I say, of the electeds, on the subject of a woman being president. And in Congress, you know, as I said on the day I was sworn in, you have to break the
marble
ceiling—forget glass, the marble ceiling that is there of just a very male-oriented society where they had a pecking order and they thought that would be the way it always was and they would always be in charge, and, “Let me know how I can help you, but don’t expect to take the reins of power.” So it was interesting to me that we were able to elect a woman Speaker, and it wasn’t because I was a woman. That’s the last thing I could ask my members: to vote for me because I was a woman. But I just had to get there in the way that a woman would get to be president; not because she’s a woman—says she immodestly—but because she has the talent and the know-how and inspires confidence that she can do the job, whatever that job happens to be. In this case we’re talking about president of the United States.

MS
: Looking at the bigger picture, because sometimes this gets framed as equality for equality’s sake, but why is this important to have more women represented and women’s voices—not just ultimately in the presidency, but in Congress and in Washington?

NP
: Well, I think you’re right—it’s about equality, but it’s not just about equality. And the reason it’s necessary to have more voices is because that strengthens the debate and it strengthens the decisions. It isn’t that women coming in are better than men; they’re different from men. And I always say the beauty is in the mix. To have diversity of opinion in the debate strengthens the outcome and you get a better result. I do think that women bring a tendency, an inclination, toward consensus building that is stronger among women than men, as I have seen it so far.

MS
: Women have made progress, and certainly it was history-making in terms of the number of women in Congress from this last election, but it’s still very far from parity. As women have seemed to make strides in so many other areas, why do you think progress for women in Washington has been so slow?

NP
: Well, we’ve had a woman Speaker of the House. I don’t think enough appreciation was given to that, because I think a lot of people didn’t know what the Speaker of the House was. Now they do because they see an obstructionist one. Not to toot my own horn, but that’s a very big deal. President, vice president, Speaker of the House—you’re not there because the president chose you, you are there with your power derived from the membership of the Congress of the United States, so you go to the table as a full partner in the balance of power. And our checks and balances . . . the legislative branch is the first branch, the executive branch is second, and then the others. But more fundamental, what we have in our House—and it was a decision we made to make it so, and we want to do more—is our caucus is a majority of women, minorities, and LGBT. That is, 54 percent of the House Democratic caucus is not white male. In the history of civilization, you have never seen a representative body for a leading party that was so diverse. And the majority not being the so-called majority, as previously conceived.

Also, our committees will lead—should we win—but even in the minority, our top Democrats on these committees are a majority of women and minorities. Now, getting just to women and why aren’t there more . . . I’m drawing some conclusions the last few years when we’ve pushed and pushed and we’ve gained more, but in order for us to really kick open the door, we have to change the environment we’re in. The environment I would like to see is one where the role of money is reduced and the level of civility is heightened. If you have less money and more civility, you will
have more women. And that’s one of the reasons—not the only reason, but to protect our democracy—that we are pushing for campaign finance reform to reduce the role of money in politics. If you bring more women, more young people, more minorities, more diversity, more of a face of America to public office and to public service, just speaking in terms of women, I can guarantee you: if you lower money and increase civility, you will have many more women. And that’s what we have to do: create our own environment. We’ve been operating in an environment that has not been friendly to the advancement of women, especially now that it’s become so harsh and so money driven.

MS
: Looking at the landscape right now, it does look very daunting to run, and even when you get to Washington, very challenging. What advice or encouragement would you want to offer to a woman who is considering pursuing elected office but feels discouraged?

NP
: Well, one of the things that was very disappointing when they went after me in such a major way, is women would come say to me, “I’m not subjecting my family to that.” And I say, you have to know what you believe and how important it is to you, how urgent it is for the country, and then that doesn’t matter. You’ve stepped into the arena, you’re in the fight, you throw a punch, you’re going to get one thrown at you, and vice versa. They throw one at you, you’ve got to be ready to throw one at them [
laughs]
, because it’s a rough terrain. It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s what it is now.

So what I tell women is, “This is not for the faint of heart, but you have to have a commitment as to why you want to engage in public service.” We want people who have plenty of options in life to engage in public service—not anybody where this is the only job they could get. So we’re competing for their time, and their time, their priority decision will
be made as to how important it is for them to make their mark, whether it’s on issues that relate to the economy, national security, family issues, education, healthcare, and those kinds of things. But I consider every issue a women’s issue. So you have to believe in who you are and what difference you can make. You have to care about the urgency and the difference it will make to your community, and you have to, again, have confidence in the contribution that you can make. You believe, you care, you have confidence in the difference that you can make. And that’s not to be egotistical, it’s just to be confident.

I tell women . . . “If you have a vision about what you believe about America, about our country and our families, you have to have knowledge about the situation. You don’t want to be a notion monger, you want to be an idea creator. So you have a vision, you know your subject—you don’t have to know every subject—you can focus, whether it’s foreign policy or whatever. Vision, knowledge, judgment springing from that knowledge, confidence, a plan, thinking strategically about how you would get this accomplished. When you tell the story of your vision with your knowledge and how you plan to get it done, you will be so eloquent, you will attract support. You will be lifted up and you will lift others up.”

MS
: You have written a whole book about knowing your power. Do you think part of the problem is that women and girls today don’t know their power? And what can we do to change that, for even women to know that they have a vision worth pursuing?

NP
: Well, here’s the thing: I wrote that book—it’s like just a little puff—because people were saying I always wanted to be Speaker since I was five years old; I had no interest in running for office when I was five years old, nor when I was a teenager, nor when I was forty years old. I had an interest in politics, but not in running for office. So I thought I sort of had to
keep the record straight. But for that reason, I was able to say to people, “Be ready. Just be ready. Take inventory of what your skills are. And if that means being a mom and all the diplomacy, interpersonal skills, management of time—all the rest that is involved in that—value that.” How many times do you ask somebody, “What do you do?” “I’m just a housewife.” Just a housewife? No, proudly a housewife, or a homemaker, or whatever the term is these days. But that’s what women used to say when I was young, and I’d say, “Don’t say that! I’m a stay-at-home mom, too, but I don’t think I’m just a housewife!” So in any event, take inventory of what your possibilities are and have confidence in that. . . . And what you have—as I say with the vision, knowledge, et cetera—you have your own authenticity that is very sincere and very convincing. So be proud of the unique contribution that only you can make. That really is what I want people to think—to enjoy why they’re attracted to a certain issue, to savor learning more about it, that they can have opinions that are respected, they have standing on the issue, a plan for how they can implement something to make progress for our country and our families . . . and that argument will always win the day.

MS
: You were the first female Speaker of the House, which is a huge milestone. What advice or perspective can you offer on breaking through glass ceilings, or as you say, “marble ceilings” and being the first or one of very few women in the room and the pressure that comes with that?

NP
: The only time I’m the only woman in the room is when I go to the leadership meeting. But by and large I have made sure that women were chairing our committees when I was Speaker, or the senior Democrat on each of the committees, where I had the jurisdiction, because I think it’s really important for people to know: it’s not just about one woman, it’s about women. And it’s about the issues that we care about and the reinforcement
of a message, not just one person saying it. The Speaker has awesome power, there’s no question about it. That role, number three—president, vice president, Speaker of the House—they are the highest positions in the country. But the fact is that, again, it’s not about one woman, it’s about what this means in the lives of women. So the interaction of women on these issues was [more] important for the members than the reinforcement on how we see our role. We’re there for our country, we’re there for our districts, but women in America see us partially as their own, even if we don’t represent them officially.

MS
: Did you feel the magnitude of being in that position? Because being the first is something that’s significant, even thinking about what the pressure’s going to be on the first woman president. Did you feel that you could be there and be your authentic self, or did you feel the weight of people’s expectations?

NP
: Marianne, I want to tell you something, and as I think back on it, I was so busy. I was so busy. We had an agenda to get done for the American people. And while I never set out to be Speaker and I never even envisioned it, one thing led to another and there I was, but I just knew I had a responsibility. As I look back on it, maybe I should have taken time to just sit there and say, “Wow,” but I didn’t even have a second to do that. I’m looking at President Bush’s library, and he used to say, “You’re number three.” He’d point to himself, one, point to Cheney, two, [point to me], three. Yes, it would be driven home to me that I was in this very exalted position, but it was only important to the extent that I could involve other women at the proper level, so that it wasn’t just about one person. It’s pretty thrilling to be Speaker, no question about that. But, again, right away we had sent the president the Lilly Ledbetter [Fair Pay Act], and one week and one day after his inaugural address we sent him the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act. I mean, that’s when we had President Obama, but when we won, President Bush was president and we had a 100-hour agenda—the first 100 hours we raised the minimum wage; it hadn’t been raised in eleven years. We had our “Six for ’06” [agenda], most of which became the law of the land. So we were on a schedule. There wasn’t really too much time to think of how important I was. It was really more important for our members and our women to take ownership of the issues that build consensus around where we would go from here.