Sheryl Sandberg, Nancy Pelosi, and the Suburbanization of the Democratic Party

By now as all the post-2018 midterm elections have made clear, the Democratic Party’s blue wave was driven in larger part by female voters in middle class to affluent suburbs.  The question now to be answered is what will be the policy consequences of this?    Of course starting in January one will find out, with the question being will women do politics differently than men or will they conform to the rules of power that confront them?  The answer may be a little bit of both, but it is important to understand the perspective that the female suburbanization of the Democratic Party offers, and perhaps how the experiences of Sheryl Sandberg and Nancy Pelosi tell us something about what difference women do or do not make in the world of work and politics.
The question of whether women offer a unique perspective started with Carol Gilligan’s 1982 In a Different Voice.  It argued that men and women morally perceive the world in different ways, with the former depicting it in a hierarchical, right/wrong, black/white way versus a more nuanced  relational way.  Gilligan’s work was a landmark in psychology, paralleled by Mary Field Belenky’s, et al, 1986 Women’s Ways of Knowing and  Deborah Tannen’s 1990 You Just Don’t Understand,  which described the unique ways women come to learn, know, and communicate.  The core arguments for all three, and subsequent feminist writers, was that the unique experiences of women compared to men provide a female perspective in critical activities in life.  Men and women performing similar functions do things differently, might be one way to capture this idea.
Politically the argument would be that female legislatures would do politics differently, both in terms of style and policy agenda.  Margaret Conway’s 1995 Women and Public Policy noted important differences along these fronts, and since then other scholars have found contrasting ways men and women politically engage or act as public officials.  However, as other scholars, such as Robin West, have noted, lumping all women together in one group is stereotyping–there are important differences in perspectives among women based on race and class, for example. This is the concept of intersectionality recognizing the interplay of gender along with race, class, and sexual orientation,  for example. Much, but certainly not all of the  political research has focused on middle class white women, ignoring important perspective and policy differences that may divide women across a range of variables that also divide men.  Enter Sandberg and Pelosi.
Sandberg is a feminist icon to some for her book Lean In and claims that women should take charge.  Yet as many critics point out, she spoke with the voice of white affluent privilege, largely  ignoring the circumstances that women of color and less modest means face.  Her book was a claim that women would do business differently, but as the recent NY Times expose on Facebook and she revealed, it is hard to see how Sandberg brought a different way of doing business to the corporate world.  She adopted the same techniques and perhaps dirty tricks that men used when Facebook was challenged.
Nancy Pelosi ranks among the richest members of Congress, with net wealth estimated at nearly $30 million.  She is the former Speaker of the House, skilled legislatively, as a fundraiser, and as a leader.  It is hard to argue that her career has demonstrated a real difference compared to men in terms of the work she has done.  However both she and Sandberg are accomplished and represent one important perspective of women, but it is far from clear that they represent transformative figures that embody a unique female perspective.  They changed their worlds and conformed at the same time.
Why is all this significant?  The suburban blue wave that occurred on election day was one driven by affluent white women.  When it comes to partisan politics and policy,  the Democratic Party is largely being remade in the image of this powerful group of women.  If these women are the drivers of the Democratic Party now, their views should inevitably come to dominate as they take ownership of the party. Almost anyone, except former governor Chris Christie, gets this.  Sunday on ABC’s This Week when asked if it was a problem that women were not joining the Republican Party, he said they were welcome so long as they “believe in Republican philosophies and Republican approaches to government.”  Christie apparently thinks he and his other white male friends own the Republican  Party, define its orthodoxy, and that its principles are immutable.  Such an attitude is a recipe for political extinction.
The new Democratic Party will evolve;  it  is a party of women who share affinities with Sandberg and Pelosi.  It will be a perspective representing one set of middle to upper income values, but it is not clear that the interests served will necessarily be as progressive or as representative of the interests of the poor and people of color as some might think.  The challenge for the new Democratic Party will be how to hold together a constituency that contains suburban white women, people of color, urban liberals, and perhaps the poor.  These three sets of values are not necessarily compatible, and the challenge facing this new suburbanization of the Democratic Party is to ask whose preferences are not only included by excluded, and whether the female vote will really be transformative.

Reviewing the DNC: Obama’s Missed Opportunity and the Road Ahead

The two national conventions for the Republicans and Democrats are over.  Who had the better show and benefited the most form their rival performances?  The simple answer is that Obama came out better, but it was because of him.

The RNC and DNC were theaters in contrast that bore powerful similarities.  The RNC seemed less about Romney and more about its future stars Rubio, Christie, and Ryan.  The best night for the RNC was Wednesday with the VP nominee Ryan speaking.  Romney gave his best speech in a long time but it was still was far from a home run.  He ended his speech with the Reaganesque challenger of asking if we are better off now than four yers ago, forcing Obama and the Democrats to have to respond to it. 

Did Romney get a post-convention bump?  All indications are that there was little bump.  Polls suggested at most a one or so point bump.  Perhaps this was due to the fact that so few watched the convention.  Those who watched were the hardcore, those whose minds were probably already made up.  It is doubtful the undecided watched since there was little news or theater here. In fact, surveys suggest less that 5% of the public is undecided at this point, again showing that there was little potential for much bump.

The DNC had two great nights.  Ms. Obama and Mayor Castro were greater speakers for the president and for why the election mattered.  Ms. Obama did what Ms. Romney failed to do–put a more human face on her husband.  Castro rocked, clearly setting himself up for the future.  It was like watching a young Obama again.

Night two was Bill Clinton.  It was an amazing speech, even if long (as expected).  He made the clearest case again Romney and the Republicans and also seemed to give credit to his wife and perhaps help position here for 2016 should she decide to run.

Obama thus entered the third night after two previous evenings of great performances.  He merely needed to give his usual great speech to follow up and it would have been a hat trick for the DNC.  Obama failed.   The speech, in the words of Tom Brokaw, was “workmanlike.”  It was competently given but uninspiring.  Obama failed to do what he needed to do–to inspire and make the case for four more years.  He and the other Democrats made the case for why the Republicans should not be given a chance, but like the GOP and Romney, the case for electing him was not given.  Biden too was similarly flat.

Obama should thank Clinton, Castro, and his wife. Were it not for their strong performances the convention would not have helped him.  There are some indications of a small post-convention bump and some signs that his approval rating went up.  Whether this is real or merely temporary, and how the Friday unemployment numbers stunt the bump is yet to been seen.

Bottom line–the two conventions really did not change much.  Romney still has a personalty problem and Obama has a problem making the case for four more years.  Neither candidate is as inspiring as their future leaders seem to be, and both will get their bases out but not in an enthusiastic way.  Both candidates need narratives and reasons for their candidacies.  It is unlikely that either much moved swing voters.

Looking to the future, the DNC and RNC need to change to be relevant.  No one watches and they are not interesting.

Looking to the future, the number of swing states is shrinking.  Polls suggest Pennsylvania is out of reach for Romney and he seems to be pulling out his ads from there.  Ohio seems to be solid for now for Obama and this is really the state where the presidential fight is all about.  If we look at the approximately eight or so swing states in play, the two campaigns are looking to move a  few million (maybe five million or less voters).

A Reagan Redux Election?
One thing is clear about this election–it is a tale of two Reagans.  Romney is running Reagan’s 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter–asking if we are better off now than four years ago.

Conversely, Obama is or needs to run Reagan’s 1984 campaign for re-election-declaring it’s morning in America.  He needs to look to the future and convince the voters that he has turned things around and that the country is moving in the right direction.  Given the cloudy economic news and uncertainty, this may be difficult to do.  However, “Morning in America “ is certainly a better message than “Foreward.”

The RNC’s Lost Opportunity: Empty Chairs and Empty Suits

Political conventions are merely media events and infomercials.  With nothing left to chance, they are supposed to be choreographed events that communicate various messages and themes to diverse constituencies and groups with they aim to eventually sell their product and brand to the American public.  The same was supposed to be true with the RNC that recently concluded, yet for all the millions of dollars and planning and preparation that went into it, the RNC was largely a squandered opportunity.  The RNC was an empty suit.

The RNC had to accomplish one major task–rebrand or reintroduce Mitt Romney to the American  public.  This was the Etch-a-Sketch task of humanizing their candidate so that he would connect with the American public.  As it is well known, Americans just do not like Romney as a person.  They do not feel that they kind warm up to him or identify with him and conversely they feel that he does not understand them and their life.  We want to connect and bond with our presidents and Romney mostly fails here.  He is Richie Rich, the out of touch white millionaire.   He is like the first George Bush who was amazed by scantrons at grocery stores, who could not describe how he was personally affected by the recession, and who looked at his watch in the middle of a presidential debate.  Romney is not the second Bush who Americans wanted to have a beer of cup of coffee with. 

Yes Romney is rich and successful.  But he is the guy who bests us $10,000 and bemoans his wife has only two Cadillacs.  He wears pressed and creased blue jeans.  He is robotic and all business and believes corporations are people.   He reminds women of their first husband and workers of the guy from HR who laid them off.   This is why the Bain Capital attack is so devastating. While a majority of the American public does not like the economic direction or policies of Obama, a majority like him and when push comes to shove, the presidential race comes down to personality versus economy-likeability or unlikeability and the former generally wins.  Romney has a personality problem and the RNC was supposed to warm him up or humanize him.

Network television recognizes that the conventions are simply media events–free informercials.  The networks lose money covering them and thus, they gave the RNC (and the DNC next week) one hour of prime time to message.  The GOP squandered their time.  Night one was the appeal to women and  begin to introduce Mitt.  Ann Romney spoke with the effort to get women to like Mitt. She needed to appeal to the suburban women of Eden Prairie , Edina, and Minnetonka, Minnesota and get their to like her husband.  Ms. Romney told us she liked women and  that her husband was a business success but otherwise no insights into why she loved him or why others should.  She needed to be personal, to tell a story about her husband’s human side, but she never did.  Viewers knew no more about Mitt’s personal side after her speech then before.  The speech failed.  Moreover, as I watched Mitt watch his wife speak he looked passionless, reinforcing the robotic image.  Even when the two sat together watching Governor Christie speak seemed detached from the events and one another.

Governor Christie was the other speaker on night one.  He was supposed to rouse the conservative base, made the case against Obama, and make the case for Romney.  He was all New Jersey that night replete with Springsteen references but the speech was not about Romney.  Romney came late  in the speech.  Christie speech was a dog and pony for him.

Night two’s theme again was women, working class, and the case against Obama.  Condoleezza Rice spoke, but she came on five minutes before prime time and part of mer message was muted.  She spoke platitudes of patriotism and the American dream–themes common in the entire convention, but she was also a token to try to show that the mostly aging angry white delegates were diversified.  She tried to paint herself as the American dream and one of us, not of course mentioning she was one of the architects of the Bush wars or that she was a newly minted member of Augusta.

Paul Ryan’s speech was impeccably delivered.  But it too showed this was not Romney’s convention  or party.  Ryan spoke of generational divides and AC/DC v Musak.  He well criticized Obama (an  easy thing to do) but did a poor job in articulating his vision for America. Moreover, his speech failed the truth test on so many counts.  The factory in Janesville closed before Obama was president.  Obama did not go on a apology tour.  Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it was Bush who added more to the national debt than any other president.  Ryan was wrong with the facts.  Moreover, he also did little to highlight Romney, again preparing himself for the party mantle in 2016.

The final night was bizarre.  The Clint Eastwood opening eclipsed Romney.  Rubio spoke well but long and again only got to Mitt late even though the purpose of the Florida senator’s speech was to introduce the candidate.  Mitt finally got on at 10:35 EDT, giving him little prime time to sell himself.

Mitt gave his best speech to date.  He needed to humanize himself, articulate his vision for his presidency and the world, and criticize Obama.   Romney was at his best with the critique of Obama and the sense of disappointment many felt.  This was a good but easy task.  Romney’s did finally give some vision of his presidency with his five-point vision, but it was largely devoid on specifics on how he would generate 12 million jobs.  Finally, Mitt gave hints of humanizing himself but about all that really came though was that he is the embodiment of the American dream and that he is an economic success.  Yes some statements about people filling up their gas tanks were poignant but not enough.

Beyond what was seen at the convention there was what was not seen.  John McCain was left out of prime time.  Tim Pawlenty’s miserable and unfunny speech was nasty and badly delivered and showed why his presidential candidacy was for naught and why he never had a chance at VP.  Bachmann and Palin were hidden.  No seen also was the GOP platform banning all abortions or restricting immigration.  It was convention long on nasty and anger and short of what they would do.  It appealed to patriotism, nationalism, and flag waving, but demonstrated little in terms of diversity or tolerance for difference in opinion.  Why, I wondered, is this affluent so angered and threatened by the changing world around them?  It was a crowd composed mostly of the Silent Generation ready to die off and of Gen X Ayn Rand accolades.  Perhaps they seen the generational and demographic clock ticking against them and worry correctly they soon their world will end.

In the end, the metaphor for the RNC was not the empty chair that Eastwood spoke to.  It was the empty suits that the GOP message presented.  It was an opportunity squandered.

Debating Government: The Competing Values of Public Service and Market Activity

JFK, Space-Aliens, and Government
I am not a big believer in conspiracies. It was a single shooter in Dallas in 1963 and there is no massive government cover-up over space aliens and area 51 in New Mexico. Yet the events unfolding in Wisconsin over efforts to strip public employees of their bargaining rights and the ugly Prosser/Kloppenburg Supreme Court race, the potential government shutdown in DC, and the coming train wreck over the budget in Minnesota are all connected. The common thread in all these events is a simple question and debate: “Why Government?”

Why Government?
More specifically, the question is over the value of government in terms of what it uniquely does or performs. It is a core debate over whether the free market and logic and values are sufficient for ordering American society, distributing wealth and income, and delivering the good life, or whether the government itself is necessary or needed to accomplish this task. The core debate then is over whether there are unique values and contribution that government and its workers offer, thereby distinguishing them from the free market.

This is a question that has dominated my teaching in classes on ethics, public policy, and economic development policy for at least a decade. It is also a question that has become the focus of many talks I give to community and governmental groups. The latter especially are asking me to address it as they feel increasingly assaulted and demonized.

Americans have never really liked government. It started perhaps with our animosity to George III when we dumped tea in Boston Harbor. American ambivalence can be seen in attitudes over government programs such as welfare and Social Security (we hate one, like the other), and views on government regulation (we like the FDA to regulate drugs to be sure they are safe but dislike this regulation when it slows down what we hope are new cures for cancer). Even the TEA party is torn over government–they want less taxes and less government and plea for a more libertarian society, yet they demand that the government keep their hands off of their Medicare and Social Security.

But the most recent disdain toward government was launched by Ronald Reagan in 1981 when he declared government the problem, not the solution, and also stated that one of the most feared statements one can hear is “I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” Statements such as this demonized government, and it is not hard to connect this spirit to current attacks on school teachers and public employees by NJ and WI Governors Christie and Walker.

Not Necessarily a Partisan Issue
At the crudest level the debate over the unique value of government is a Republican/Democrat one, with the former described as anti-government and the latter pro. This is not a fair characterization. Many GOP like some aspects of government–the military and the police, and many Democrats dislike parts of government–regulation of reproductive and marital rights. But even more deeply, under president Clinton and VP Gore, embraced ideas from Reinventing Government by Gaebler and Osborne to re-engineer the public sector. The latter argued for the introduction of many private sector ideas and the spirit of entrepreneurship into the government in order to revitalize it. They wanted to make government, as Ross Perot said: “Run more like a business.”

Thus we saw statements that government should treat citizens more like customers, that it should be more market savvy, and that it should do more privatization and encourage competition to save money and improve performance. Why all this discussion is charming, what it failed to do was two things: 1) It misunderstood something the constitutional framers saw; and 2) it failed to capture a unique conception or role for government.


Markets versus Government
The American Constitutional framers feared powerful government. Efficient governments are a threat to individual liberty. Their goal in designing a complex government with checks and balances, separation of powers, bicameralism, and staggered electoral terms was to slow down the process of political change. It was to prevent an impulsive tyranny of the majority from infringing the rights of the minority. Better to create an inefficient government than an efficient one that makes the trains run on time at the expense of individual rights. Thus, a constitutional government such as ours was never meant to be efficient in the sense of competing with the private sector.

Efficiency is only one of the values of government, but there are others. This is the second mistake now being made. Governments are not just supposed to be efficient, they are also supposed to be fair, care about equity and equality, and respect other values such as transparency and respect for individual rights. Gaebler and Osborne failed to appreciate this, and so do many in both parties as they argue over the value of government.

Thus, on one level, listen to economists and they will tell you that the rationale for government is to address the problem of market failure. Government must act when the market either cannot or is not able to solve problems. Classically these are problems involving public goods such as national defense or security, or externalities such as pollution. These are issues where there is no market incentive to solve the problems.

The Value of Government
Yet this economic justification of government is thin. There is a broader value for government based on democracy and the public interest. As I discussed with my students the other day, many local governments in MN have recreation centers, parks, and libraries. True there may be no return on investment to them and they may not be efficient to operate, but that is not the end of the debate on whether government should provide them. Instead, it is about whether the people want these amenities. It is the peoples’ choice to offer these goodies. Moreover, the way the government makes choices and decisions are not always efficient but again, efficiency is not the final value. We do not value elections, due process, or civil liberties and rights because they are efficient, we prize them because they promote fairness and accountability.

The private sector almost singularly promotes efficiency and the bottom line. In the end, while many businesses claim “they do it all for you,” how many of you believe that is true? It is only to the extent that doing it for you is profitable or makes sense. Think about how much we all hate phone trees with businesses–it may be cheap to do this but does any customer think this is good service.

Citizens are not Customers
Contrary to what some may contend, citizens are not customers. A business-customer relationship is a cash nexus with loyalty determined along a singular dimension. A government-citizen relationship is deeper, reflecting many more complex values and connections regarding democracy, transparency, and accountability. “No taxation without representation” captures this sentiment while “No user fee without representation” misses it. The former suggests a right to a voice, the latter not necessarily. There is a big worry when some advocate that government should be more like a business. It is a logic that changes and challenges the basic values of government–suggesting government is not necessary and that it is simply a thorn in the side of the market.

Conclusion
The real debate in Wisconsin, DC, and St. Paul is one over government versus the market. It is one about the values of government and what it can contribute to the promotion of a good society. This is a debate worth having, and it is one that advocates for government need to reframe in terms of a language and set of values that describes what government uniquely can do. If they fail to do that they will lose the debate.