Sen. Claire
McCaskill: Why Women Should Embrace Their Ambition
In a new memoir, Plenty Ladylike, Claire McCaskill shares the
story of her life as a senator from Missouri, a wife, and a mother. McCaskill recently
visited campus as a guest lecturer in the Authors@Wharton series. While she was
on campus, Laura Huang, a Wharton management professor, spoke with
McCaskill about the ambition that has brought her to where she is and the
challenges she faced along the way.
An edited transcript of
that conversation appears below.
McCaskill: My 2012
reelection really had a national profile, because my opponent [Todd Akin] was
the lamebrain who said that the woman’s body has a way of shutting itself down
if it’s a “legitimate rape” [to prevent pregnancy]. The race got a lot of
attention, and I had engaged in some really high-risk strategy in that race
that I think represents what more women should do in their careers, and that
is, take risks. I wanted to write the book about that campaign and the strategy
I embraced. Once I got into it, the publisher said, “Well, your whole career
has been full of owning your ambition and being risky. Why don’t we tell more
stories than just the campaign?” It’s really for young women. It’s for women
who aren’t comfortable saying they are ambitious. It’s for women who feel that
security is more important than getting ahead. It’s for women who are facing
that moment where they don’t know if they should take a risk. This is supposed
to be a gentle push to get more women to be risk takers.
Huang: One of my
favorite anecdotes is from one of the earlier chapters, where you talk about
how a failure to make a cheerleading squad then launched you into one of your
first campaigns. Can you tell us a little about that high school campaign that
you underwent?
McCaskill: I had
been a cheerleader since junior high. I thought it was everything. I didn’t
make it on the squad my senior year in high school, and I thought the world was
over. So I began a stealth campaign that I’ve never talked about until this
book. Because what I decided was, I could be homecoming queen. I describe in
the book how I went about campaigning for homecoming queen. I did the math. I
figured out that the homecoming queen every year was the girlfriend of the
quarterback or the co-captain. Well there are only a couple of those. But there
are a lot of linemen. There are a lot of tackles and guards and linebackers and
guys in the secondary. So I began making friends with the people who weren’t
the quarterback.
As it turned out, it
worked. They ended up voting for me for homecoming queen. I was, of course, embarrassed,
and am still kind of embarrassed that I did that. But I wanted to tell the
story because I thought it was an example of how you can embrace a strategy and
get something done, and in the process, I made a lot of friends I wouldn’t have
made otherwise. So it ended up being a win-win. A lot of those linemen are my
friends to this day, but I also figured out how to do the math in a political
campaign.
McCaskill: At the
time, I don’t think I thought of it as ups and downs. I was very focused on a
goal. I was just driving toward that goal. Every problem I encountered,
especially some of the sexism I encountered early in my career, when I went to
the state legislature in my 20s, I used that as fuel, rather than confront it,
perhaps, as I should have. I internalized it, and said, “I’m gonna show ’em.
I’m gonna show ’em. I will be better than they are. I will go farther than
they’re gonna go. I will achieve” what I thought was going to be my ultimate
accomplishment, which was governor of Missouri. As it turned out, I lost that
race. But because I lost that race, I went on to win the Senate seat. Of
course, I put all my personal stuff in there: my divorce and the problems with
my first marriage. So it does have the ups and downs. But to me at the time, it
was just me headed toward something I wanted very much.
McCaskill: I say in
the book I’m not sure I did it right. That’s one thing I want to stress. There
are way too many women who write books who have accomplished things in their
lives who do it almost looking down, like, “This is how I did it all.” But I
don’t get it right every day. I didn’t get it right in my life, many times.
Perhaps when I was
confronted, especially with some of the cruel sexism early in my career, it
would’ve been better for me to brave enough to be more confrontational. At the
time, I thought it was going to hurt my career. So instead, I used a sense of
humor. I became very good at self-deprecating humor. I became very good at
laughing with my male colleagues, even though sometimes those jokes were at my
expense. I was willing to endure that because I thought if I came on too
strong, it would limit my effectiveness, especially in a legislative body. How
you get along with others is very important in terms of your ability to
accomplish the goals that you set out to accomplish. It really was this mix of
spine of steel, but a big smile, and willing to laugh, sometimes even at jokes
that hurt.
Huang: That whole
time you really stressed being prepared and working hard. I noticed throughout
the book how hard you actually worked. It was almost a crash course in politics
because I didn’t understand how much went into these campaigns and how much
work went into a lot of the investigative things that you had done. In terms of
preparation, talk to us a little bit about how you prepare and how you’ve
prepared throughout your career, and what hard work means to you….
McCaskill: Well,
it’s interesting. I don’t know that it’s as much as a challenge for young women
today because there are more women. There are more women at Wharton. There are
more women in law school. There are more women in med school. There are more
women — although, still not enough — in boardrooms … and who are CEOs. There
are role models out there. When I began in politics, when I began in the
prosecutor’s office as a trial prosecutor, there were really no women around to
speak of who I could see as my role models.
So it really was trying
to go along to get along. But I was always sure that if I knew more that I
could have credibility. So the fact that I was a prosecutor, the fact that I
knew my way around a courtroom, that I had tried a lot of criminal trials
helped counter the fact that I had long blonde hair. When I came to Jefferson
City, that gave me credibility that women sometimes hadn’t had coming to
Jefferson City, perhaps replacing their husbands who had died or even coming
from a more traditional female career. I came with a background that really
helped me establish myself as someone who was very knowledgeable in criminal
law. That, I think, very much helped me get over the hump of being taken
seriously.
Huang: And even
roles you had later on. There’s this famous earmarking speech that you gave,
where [New York Sen.] Chuck Schumer said it was one of the top 10 speeches that
he had ever heard. That was behind closed doors. Can you give us a little bit
of insight into that speech?
McCaskill: The short
definition of earmarks is congressionally directed spending. The longer
definition was that senators and congressmen would go behind closed doors and
sprinkle fairy dust to decide where we were going to spend money. It was
usually based on how senior you were, what party you were, what committee you
served on. So I was sitting in caucus one day, and someone was with righteous
indignation saying how great earmarks were, and I’d just had enough…. I just
stood up and said, “Hey, all you appropriators love them because you get most
of them.” I just basically did five minutes of me going off, in a passionate
way, about all the flaws of the earmarking system, and how it wasn’t based on
merit and how in many ways it represented the worst of what Washington does
because it’s all about who you know, not the merit of the project.
After that speech, our
caucus decided to not do earmarks.
McCaskill: You gotta
get comfortable that everybody is not gonna like you. I talk about [that] in
the book’s … last chapter, The Disease to Appease. Women have a much more
serious case of the disease to appease, sometimes, than men. I want everyone to
like me. Most people who go into politics really want everyone to like them
because they’ve chosen a career where you put yourself out for public
acceptance or rejection every two, four, or six years. It’s hard to get used to
the fact that people don’t like you. But you can’t get anything done if you
don’t make somebody mad. It’s impossible to get anything done without angering
someone. So you’ve just gotta get comfortable.
When I gave that speech,
there were people in my caucus who were furious: “Who does she think she is?”
Probably some of ’em think that to this day. But that’s OK. You don’t have to
have everybody like you. Obviously you need to take care of your family and
your good friends and try to make friends, but it shouldn’t be an exercise
where you’re trying to please everyone all the time. That’s why people are so
sick of Washington….
McCaskill: I think
we’re natural negotiators. We have strengths that men don’t have. We are more
conciliatory. I give speeches to men sometimes, and I [ask them], “When have
you ever had the nerve to punch somebody? When have you had the feeling you’ve
wanted to punch somebody?” It’s surprisingly common among men. It’s not that
common among women. There’s not that combativeness that sometimes gets in the
way with men. I think women can be hyper-competitive. But I think there is a
desire to sugarcoat it and say, “Oh, I really want you to get it, too.” Or, “I
want you to be my friend,” and “Ooh, I want us to get along.” Instead of
powering through a situation and trying to just get something done, even if it
means stepping on toes.
McCaskill: I
don’t know. I think it’s probably how goal-oriented I am. Part of that is
owning your ambition. Because I was ambitious and comfortable with being
ambitious, everything was about, “Will this help me reach my goal?” I’m not
saying that you have to be the Iron Lady, or not have feelings. Frankly, being
vulnerable is part of being a more attractive candidate — especially for bigger
jobs in politics. So people can relate to you. But you also have to be careful
that you don’t allow the emotional moment to get in the way of your ability to
communicate. At the end of the day, if you fail to communicate,
especially if you’re in political office, then you fail at your job. Twitter
Huang: Speaking of
vulnerability … what still gives you the jitters, that you feel like you have
to do that extra preparation for, that really makes you nervous going out to
do?
McCaskill: When I’m
speaking on behalf of others… I did a lot of work for Barack Obama when he ran
for President. I debated Carly Fiorina onMeet the Press [when] she
was representing John McCain, and I was representing Barack Obama. I’m trying
to help Hillary Clinton right now.
It’s one thing when I’m
speaking for me. But when you’re trying to represent a candidate you believe
in, you want to be extra careful and cautious that you don’t end up making a
gaffe that hurts them. That probably is where I try to be — not too careful,
because then you’re not authentic — but careful that I don’t mix that I’m
speaking to help another candidate, as opposed to necessarily trying to push my
own agenda. That’s hard, but I really have gotten to the point now that I don’t
mind making mistakes. I’m comfortable making mistakes. My mouth has gotten me
in trouble so many times.
Huang: Speaking of
which, has Hillary forgiven you? [In 2006 McCaskill said on Meet the
Press that former President Bill Clinton was “a great president, but I
don’t want my daughter near him.”]
McCaskill: Yeah,
we’re fine…. I apologized for saying a comment that was gratuitous and painful
and hurtful to them, which I shouldn’t have done…. I try not to make mistakes,
but if I do, if you say you’re sorry and you’re genuine about it, people are
pretty forgiving.
McCaskill: I want
women who are working to get this [from the book]: Mothers who don’t work
outside the home are not perfect, and mothers who do work outside the home are
not perfect.
There is not a perfect
mother. Mothers are like snowflakes. They’re all different. What you do is you
prioritize your children in ways that are meaningful. For me, I manage my guilt
by really not sweating the small stuff. I forgot about the dust bunnies under
the bed, even though my mother-in-law would tsk-tsk when she came over.
Sometimes my kids’ clothes weren’t pressed like mine were when I was a little
girl. But that’s OK. I asked my kids when I was writing this book, “How did you
suffer because of my work? Tell me when I failed you. I want to know now that
you’re grown what hurt.” Lily, my youngest child says, “Well really, Mom, the
only thing I remember is that I always had Lunchables for lunch, instead of a
homemade sandwich.”…
Now, I’m not sure if
that’s true or if she was trying to make me feel good…. But either way, I
figure the parenting turned out OK. Because either she wanted to make me feel
better, which means she [was raised] with the understanding of how other people
feel, or the Lunchables weren’t that big a deal. Politics has a lot of
flexibility for women, in terms of their schedules. There are too many women
who shy away from politics because they are worried about having a family and
what they see as the dirty, rotten world of political life. I hope this book
tells some young, aspiring women politicians that they can be great moms and
have a full personal life, and also go out there and get some stuff done in the
public sector that needs to be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment