Carol Moseley Braun knows there is more than one definition of power.
The Cook County Recorder of Deeds yanked the Democratic Party`s nomination out from under incumbent Sen. Alan Dixon of Illinois. In doing so, the African-American, 44-year-old divorced mother handed Dixon his first electoral defeat in 42 years, and caused many who had defined power as a smooth-running, well-financed political machine to expand their understanding of the word.
In an election season marked by voter displeasure with politics as usual, some of the country`s foremost women politicians are describing their own concepts of power:
– Rep. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): ”Power means being able to do something for others.”
– Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): ”Anyone who goes into politics or life wanting power is not a good person.”
– Says Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.): ”Politics is social work with power.”
Those thoughts, along with the experiences of these prominent women and more than 20 others, form the heart of ”Women in Power, the Secrets of Leadership” (Houghton Mifflin, $21.95).
Authors Dorothy W. Cantor and Toni Bernay, both psychologists, say that women politicians possess a unique, almost missionary view of power and seek to wield it simply as a way to make life better for those they govern.
The book, a combination self-help guide and research study, represents the latest in a growing genre of semi-scholarly efforts to examine and explain the differences between women and men in the political and business world.
It is sure to provoke argument, particularly from those who warn that focusing on singular female attributes unfairly stigmatizes and stereotypes women.
One already feeling uncomfortable with the Cantor and Bernay thesis is former Vermont Gov. Madeleine Kunin, now a senior fellow at the Bunting Institute at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.
Kunin, who declined to be included in the study because she didn`t have time, says there are differences between men and women in power, but that there is ”a big danger in generalizing about women” because, like men, they bring with them a vast range of personalities and motivations.
She calls it simplistic to expect that the presence of more women would make the political arena more humane and responsive, or necessarily less corrupt. ”I don`t think we`re going to see a benign world as a result,” says Kunin.
Perhaps not, say Cantor and Bernay, but the world of politics certainly would change.
Men tend to seek power for its own sake and for personal gain, but women generally pursue elective office to solve specific problems, the authors say. Once women attain power, they are more likely to emphasize cooperation and caring, while men are more comfortable with competition and ”command and control” hierarchies.
Women ”have a point of view and they act on it,” Cantor says. ”Women bring more team-building, collaborative, mothering skills,” Bernay adds.
During in-depth conversations with 25 elected leaders, who included governors, mayors, state officeholders and congresswomen, the authors identified similarities that go beyond a shared definition of power.
By and large, the women reported being raised in a nurturing atmosphere, where they grew up believing they were capable of achieving anything they wanted. Their mothers taught them it was fine to take risks, as well as to be strong-willed and aggressive. They found living with siblings taught them the skills of competition and negotiation needed to succeed in male-dominated domains. Many attended all-girls` schools, and most are married and have children. They all saw possibility where others might see only obstacles and peril.
Cantor and Bernay say the country needs more women politicians. They note that only two women sit in the 100-member U.S. Senate, three women control governorships, 29 serve in the 435-member U.S. House and that women hold just 18 percent of all state legislative positions. The Center for the American Woman and Politics at Rutgers figures that at the current rate at which women are winning House seats, it will take 410 years before the percentage of women in Congress reflects the general population.
The authors call on parents to encourage daughters consider politics, and include exercises to help women enhance self-esteem.
That is all well and good to Judy Rosener, a political scientist and management professor at the University of California at Irvine who has been in the forefront of the debate over women, men and power. But Rosener says Cantor and Bernay give short shrift to the structural impediments to power for women, such as the difficulty in raising funds and beating incumbents, and what she terms entrenched sexism.
Harriett Woods, president of the National Women`s Political Caucus, agrees that women continue to face obstacles. But she points out that more male politicians, including Democratic presidential hopefuls Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and former California Gov. Jerry Brown, are adopting what can be viewed as a women`s agenda.
Not only are more men championing traditional ”women`s issues” of health care, child care and education, but they also advocate an inclusive approach to governing that values the notion of empowering others, Woods says. Even more important for women, voters seem to be responding.
For that reason and others, Cantor and Bernay see 1992 as a year of promise for women candidates. ”Because of the current political climate of dissatisfaction, the country in general is more willing to look at outsiders. And women,” Bernay says, ”are outsiders.”
