Gendered Media Coverage: The Differences in Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner's Political Coverage

            In comparing the media coverage between comparable male and female politicians, it is often easy to see that they are both equally criticized and applauded for decisions and political actions. However, there are often noticeable gender biases in political candidate’s coverage. As society tends to have certain gendered expectations for men and women, they also expect these to match the tendencies of their politicians. Therefore, they expect men to be aggressive and powerful while the women should be approachable and compassionate. This easily translates into the language and type of coverage surrounding male and female candidates.  Therefore, a close comparison of two comparable politicians and their respective media coverage can yield interesting results.

So is the case with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. Having both served as Majority Speaker of the House of Representatives, they have received fairly equal coverage in their political spheres. Neither politician was particularly popular, as they both receive a lot of criticism for their strong political opinions and actions. Speakers of the House tend to become the easy target for criticisms of either political party, and such has been true for both Pelosi and Boehner. And yet, there are noticeable differences in the way that the media has treated Pelosi and Boehner. Many more articles have been written on the fashion and appearance of Pelosi, specific, derogatory female terms have been used against her, and then the unique situation of her position as the first woman to serve as the Speaker of the House. All of these factors contributed to an unfair, gendered bias towards Pelosi in media coverage of her as a politician.

Erika Falk, the head of the master’s program at John Hopkins University, recently studied eight female candidates in 2008 and discovered each “received about ‘four physical descriptions for every one that described a man.’… about 29 percent of articles about Hillary Clinton contained a physical description” (Ferla 3). This research applies perfectly to Nancy Pelosi’s media coverage because there are many articles regarding her fashion and appearance. A quick Google search of either Boehner or Pelosi with the key word “fashion” proves the point. Only one relevant article appears for Boehner, while countless appear for Pelosi (see Bibliography for an extensive list of these articles).

Pelosi has particularly hit the spotlight in the category of fashion and appearance because she has been applauded for her fashion sense, which was ironically chosen by her husband (Alvarez 3). The Huffington Post releases mid-year style reports on her, and The New York Times Lizette Alvarez even went so far as to say, “Fashion authorities say Mrs. Pelosi should be applauded for her color choice… Women are already taking note of her style; orders of Tahitian pearls have skyrocketed” (Alvarez 1). While there is a legitimate place for a discussion on fashion and appearance and its effect on politics, it is clear that Pelosi has received unfair coverage on her fashion sense, while Boehner’s fashion is extremely ignored. This disparity in media coverage demonstrates that there was a large focus on her appearance, leaving a gap in coverage on the issues and her opinions. This also leads reporters and writers to draw conclusions on Pelosi’s leadership style based on her appearance, which clearly crosses a line into unfair and biased reporting.

The English language makes it difficult for commentators to find biting terms for male politicians, as many of the typical characteristics expected of politicians are masculine. However, it becomes easy to find specific, demeaning words for women in politics because they often are stepping outside of the traditionally expected bounds of femininity. Two such examples are ‘shrew’ and ‘harpy.’ These harsh terms have been liberally applied to Pelosi in her coverage, both by online commenters and actual reporters (Parkinson 5 and Kimball 1). But perhaps an even greater offense comes in phrases such as “the pink-painted halls of her private chambers” and “You’re the one who lives next to Phil,” she squeals, talking to a skinny blonde” (Grigoriadis 1). These particularly feminized criticisms of Pelosi come from Vanessa Grigoriadis in The New York Magazine. They point out her feminine traits in negative ways, illustrating her pink walls and squealing voice. These gendered terms cannot be seen in the descriptions of Boehner because hyper-masculinized traits can only be seen as positives rather than negatives in the political spectrum.

This final point is more of a side note, as it is a disparity in coverage simply because of Pelosi’s unique position as the first female Speaker of the House. Chris McGreal of The Guardian remarked, “Pelosi is being heralded as the most powerful woman in American history and the most powerful Speaker of the House of Representatives in a century” (McGreal 1). This pioneer position as the first woman and first Italian-American gives Pelosi a different amount of coverage and commentary in the media than Boehner. It is inherently gendered because it is a part of women’s history, but this is not necessarily a positive or negative difference. Rather, it is a simple gendered difference worth noting.

In short, men and women certainly experience differences in political coverage based off of inherent gendered biases. Pelosi and Boehner are no exception to the rule. Pelosi was differently covered based on fashion and appearance, gendered, disparaging terms, and her status as the first female Speaker of the House. These differences can be seen in the political coverage of all politicians, and critical readers should watch for them and be aware of the inherent cultural gendered biases in American politics.  

Bibliography

Alvarez, Lizette. "Speaking Chic to Power." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Jan.

2007. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. 

Ferla, Ruth La. "The Fashion Conservatives." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21

Oct. 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. 

Grigoriadis, Vanessa. "Why Is Nancy Pelosi Always Smiling?" Why Nancy Pelosi Remains

Upbeat Despite Dwindling Poll Numbers --. New York Magazine, 1 Nov. 2009. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. 

"John Boehner 8^TH District of Ohio." John Boehner. U.S. House of Representatives, n.d. Web.

09 Nov. 2012.

Kimball, Chase. "Pat Bagley, Liberal." The Salt Lake Tribune. The Salt Lake Tribune, 21 Aug.

2012. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.

McGreal, Chris. "Nancy Pelosi: Is This the Most Powerful Woman in US History?" The

Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. 

Parkinson, John, and Arlette Saenz. "Pelosi Says GOP Plan on Student Loan Rate ‘Assault on

Women’s Health’." The Note. ABC News, 26 Apr. 2012. Web. 8 Nov. 2012

 “Representative Nancy Pelosi." Representative Nancy Pelosi. U.S. House of Representatives,

n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. 

Singer, Emily. "Nancy Pelosi's Midyear Style Report." The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 July 2011. Web. 09 Nov 2012. 

The effects of gender in media coverage

The media has extreme power when it comes to selectivity of who to cover, and who not to. Some of many of media’s roles are to serve as a mentioner, expectation-setter, and agenda-setter. As a mentioner, the media decides whose name gets out in the media. As an expectation and agenda-setter, the media can cover particular angles of the politicians in the spotlight and therefore control where the focus will be. The media paid extensive attention to the 2008 vice presidential debates, much more so than the debates between McCain and Obama who were running for president. Pew Research reported that “Last week Palin led all the candidates in coverage, registering as a significant or dominant newsmaker in 51% of campaign stories. /…/ Biden, who has largely been ignored by the media, was a significant or dominant factor in 30% of the stories last week.” (Jurkowitz 2008)

Being the first Republican woman ever to be nominated to be a vice presidential candidate; Sarah Palin was a fascinating politician for media to scrutinize. Studies confirmed this fascination through stating that more people paid attention to the vice presidential debates than the presidential debates. “Discussion about McCain selecting Palin accounted for 7 percent of all television election coverage of the 2008 campaign, while the debate between Palin and Biden was the most-watched vice presidential debate in U.S. history, attracting nearly 70 million viewers.” (Forster 2012) Therefore, this election is a good one to research in order to find out what role gender played in media’s coverage of the candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

Palin seemed to attract more coverage in media than her opponent Biden did regardless of the type of media outlet. “The average number of stories a day in overall coverage was 36 for Palin, compared with 14.9 for Biden. On television, Palin was the subject of 8.8 stories a day compared with 4.6 for Biden; in newspapers, it was 15 compared with 8.2 stories a day, and on political blogs, 14.2 compared with 3.2 stories a day.” (Forster 2012) So first of all, media seemed much more interested in Palin than Biden. Palin had the novelty of being the first Republican woman on a major party ticket, which means that her gender put her in the spotlight as soon as she received the nomination.

The evidence that Palin was covered significantly more than Biden raises the questions of why and if the content of the coverage incorporated gender stereotypes. A study by Bode and Hennings confirm the gendered differences within the coverage of Palin and Biden. The study anticipated that the gender stereotypes of men and women would emerge and be visible through media coverage. Biden was hypothesized to receive more coverage concerning male-dominated topics, such as the economy and foreign policy. Palin was expected to receive much more coverage dealing with Sarah Palins life outside of politics – her family relationships, her sense of fashion (or lack thereof),  and her stance on more social rather than political issues. If there were any political issue coverage of Palin, the issues were anticipated to correspond with what women are thought to be better at. Those issues, called women’s issues, range from education to health care. The authors of this study also found that “the media did tend to talk about family (newspapers and television) and physical appearance (newspapers and blogs) significantly more in coverage of Palin than in coverage of Biden”, along with the finding that “Biden received significantly greater coverage dealing with foreign policy (newspapers and blogs) and the economy (television and blogs).” (Bode and Hennings 2012) We can draw one conclusion from these findings – media already choose based on the gender of the candidates what to focus their coverage on.

 Another study was conducted by Forster after the 2008 race that further confirms the findings in the first study. As stated earlier, Palin’s immense coverage seemed to be focused on gender stereotypes including stories addressing her fashion sense, her family, and her position on social issues. However, one surprising finding that contradicts the assumption that Palin would have received more coverage regarding women’s issues, such as health care, suggests that Biden received significantly more coverage on these issues than Palin did. This surprising finding is confirmed by Bode and Hennings as well: “Biden actually received significantly more coverage [than Palin] in each of those realms [education and health care] (in television and blogs).” (Bode and Hennings 2012) Female politicians are often gendered into a corner of politics where those topics belong to the thought to be “experts” – women– however, the 2008 election showed some evidence of an anomaly in that case.

So what effects does this difference in coverage produce? The authors of the study of the differences in coverage and its content between Palin and Biden state: “Each of these differences could have had important influences on public opinion formation and the public's voting decisions in this particular race.” (Forster 2012) More research has to be completed in order to fully answer the question of how undecided voters tend to respond to media’s coverage of female and male candidates, which is far from gender neutral. Does Sarah Palin’s skirt being too short affect voters? These are the types of questions that will shed more light on the power that the media possesses when labeling Sarah Palin’s coverage as a ‘feminine’ one and Joe Biden’s as ‘masculine’.

-Johanna Killpack

Sources:

BODE, LETICIA and VALERIE M. HENNINGS. 2012. Mixed signals? Gender and the media's coverage of the 2008 vice presidential candidates. Politics & Policy 40, no. 2: 221-257.

Forster, Stacy. University of Winsconsin News. Accessed 11/8/2012. http://www.news.wisc.edu/20852   

            

Jurkowitz, Mark. Pew Research Center Publications. Published 10/7/2008. Accessed 11/8/2012. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/986/campaign-economy-news-coverage

Potential Effects of Gender in Media Representation

The media is one of the biggest influences in our lives today, especially when it comes to forming opinions about political candidates. While we may make some initial conclusions about a candidate based on their political party, the other information we receive about these candidates is up to the media networks. This information can be extremely detrimental or beneficial to a candidates political race, dependent upon how it is presented to the community. We are sure that in the case of some networks, the candidates political party makes a difference in how they are presented, but could this also be affected by the candidates gender? Our society has many long standing stereotypes of males and females especially when it comes to the political realm, these stereotypes might effect media representation of both sexes. We can study this by looking at two similar candidate's, one male and one female, media representation will help us to see if there is a gender-based bias present in media portrayal of political candidates.

The two candidates chosen are Michele Bachmann from Minnesota and Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, they are both incumbent Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. In trying to limit the amount of variables, aside from gender, that may influence the media's representation, these two were chosen for their similarities to each other. Although no two political figures have the same exact credentials or stances on issues, these two are both from the same area of the country and have many similar interests and views, especially on social issues. These two political figures were chosen because they have also had their share in the media recently, specifically in relation to the recent presidential election. Bachmann and Ryan have also both experienced media coverage based on their physical appearances and clothing choices, and this will perhaps show that stereotypes are not as present as previously supposed. However, although these candidates do have similarities they also have differences, therefore the variables concerning differing media coverage might be affected by these other characteristics.

Michelle Bachmann's history with the media has been rocky through her years as a Representative in the House, especially in the past year as she began a presidential nomination race, which she lost, and then in her efforts to gain back her voters after this attempt. However, this is not about what she said but how she is presented in general in the media, in two articles following election day her slim victory was addressed similarly. In an article, by the Associated Press, posted on the Oregonian's website and in a New York Times article concerning the election state by state, Bachmann was associated with such issues as same-sex marriage and abortion. The authors of these articles also discussed the fact that she spent so much money on her campaign and barely came out on top. In a third article on the Los Angeles Times website, Bachmann was linked with ideas that she was “distracted by her own celebrity,” and again the large amount of money she spent on her campaign was brought up. Also discussed were the charges against her that she was “a polarizing and divisive member of Congress.” These are just a few examples of the top search result articles that can be read by searching for information on Michele Bachmann.

Due to his selection as Mitt Romney's running mate in the 2012 Presidential election, Paul Ryan has become extremely popular in the media and their speculations about his future. In one recent article, posted on the New York Times, Ryan's future in the Republican party is discussed, including his House budget plan and his more conservative views and what that could mean for a future Presidential bid. In a second article, from ABC News, Ryan's future was discussed in relation to the three previous Vice Presidential candidates on the losing side, and their lack of future political endeavors. While no conclusions were drawn, the article did also mention Ryan's budget plan for the House. A third article, from the Huffington Post, talked about Ryan's war on poverty, and his ideas on how helping the less fortunate would help the country as a whole. These three articles are just a few of the top search result articles for Paul Ryan that were found following the election from a simple web search.

What is interesting to see in the differences of coverage for these two candidates is the topics chosen by the authors to associate with the individual that was being discussed. For Michele Bachmann they seemed to focus on the social issues that she supports rather than her stances on military or financial policy. And then for Paul Ryan they focus supremely on the financial aspect of his political stances even though he is also a staunch conservative on many of the social issues. However, these differences might be due to the fact that female politicians are expected, by society, to be more focused on social issues while male politicians are supposed to be focused more on financial and military issues. Therefore, this difference might be due to the stereotypes held by the society or the ones held by the media themselves. But other differences such as the focus of how much money Bachmann spent on her campaign or the claims Ryan “putting on a face” of caring about poverty stricken individuals seems to be more of a media bias that extends into the political parties of the individuals rather than their gender.

Media plays a large role in our perception of the world around us, especially when it comes to political candidates and their stances on most political issues. Both Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan have had large doses of recent political media coverage that has varied in subtle ways when discussing political issues they support. These slight differences are potentially based in gender bias stereotypes, of the media, for what issues should matter for certain candidates based on their gender or sex. More research concerning the media representation of political candidates, based on their gender, would be a beneficial study aiding individuals to address what is truly important politically. In conclusion, while it is interesting and telling to study media and gender, we must always keep in mind that the political party matters just as much.

References:

Ryan Articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/ryan-in-republican-forefront-but-loss-may-also-bring-blame.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/paul-ryan-palin-edwards-lieberman/story?id=17664742#.UJtWB8XA8oY

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/paul-ryan-poverty_n_2088417.html

Bachmann Articles:

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/2012_election_michele_bachmann.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/state-by-state-election-coverage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bachmann-wins-minnesota-election-20121107,0,1399275.story 

Role Model in Germany

The economic crisis that arose in Europe in 2009 (known as the Eurocrisis) left many countries of the European Union (EU) in difficult financial situations with very little ability to help themselves. Causes varied from country to country, some of which include real-estate bubbles which popped, leaving private debt which many countries assumed, international trade imbalances, bailouts given to troubled banking industries, and the impact of a global recession. Some countries were hit harder than others. One of the countries that seems to have avoided much of the crisis in Germany, which stands at the head of the EU giving hope for what the Union’s future might be. This “honest, thrifty, industrious”¹ country is governed by a representative democracy, which the Chancellor as the head of government. The current Chancellor of Germany, and the head of government throughout this major economic crisis, is a woman by the name of Angela Merkel.  This woman has led her country, which has been an example to neighboring nations and an aid to those in need of the greatest help, with such authority and aptitude that she has “become the most powerful German woman since Catherine the Great ruled Russia”². Her intelligence, drive, and firsthand experience and witness of the impacts of political actions in citizens’ lives has helped her become the capable leader she is today.

 As a young child Ms. Merkel experienced the building of the Berlin Wall and witnessed the sorrow it brought to the people in her father, the pastor’s, church. She also visited Czechoslovakia during its revolution in 1968 and also experienced the fear of learning that the Russian troops had put a stop to it. Being one to often speak up in class about such situations, she had to learn to speak and when to hold still based on the visible reactions of those around her. Ms. Merkel said herself, “Yes, it is a great advantage from the time in East Germany, that one learned to keep quiet. That was one of the strategies for survival. As it is today.”

Her experience in East Germany, a place known for its lack of drive to excel beyond mediocrity, did not deter her own diligence in obtaining an education and graduating in physics from Leipzig University, later earning a doctorate. The personal dedication to rise above mediocrity is seen in the way she conducts Parliament meetings. During a debate over the pros and cons of euro bonds (a system that allows investors to loan money with time restrictions and a defined interest rate to the Eurozone bloc which then sends that money specific governments³) Ms. Merkel said that these bonds “would turn mediocrity into Europe’s yardstick. We would be abandoning our ambition of retaining our prosperity in worldwide competition.”⁴

Her education as a scientist is also seen as an influence in the way she addresses problems or losses of arguments that are natural and common in the political sphere. Most see losses of arguments as just that, a loss or a failure. Ms. Merkel, as a scientist, instead sees a loss as knowledge of what will not work. (Sounds quite a bit like another famous scientist we know who discovered a thousand ways a light bulb did not work.) Wolfgang Nowak, a former senior adviser to Gerhard Schroder, Ms. Merkel’s Social Democratic predecessor remarked that Ms. Merkel has “now barriers on her thinking.”

Along with this characteristic, the Chancellor is known for thinking through her words, their impact and meaning, and her desire and ability to say what it is she wants to say in a direct way, a quality often found lacking in the politicians who rush to say whatever it is they think the voters want to hear. This might stem from her experience with questions from pupils during her time teaching. Either way, such deliberation during conversation suggests that as a leader, Ms. Merkel leads a more democratic deliberation process, allowing comments and negotiations to be made. Such leadership is often credited as more common among women leaders⁵ and sometimes invokes feelings of inadequacy or weakness in leadership. Seeing Ms. Merkel’s success in reasoning with members of her country’s Parliament as well as country leaders in the EU perhaps brings a new perspective to the effectiveness of democratic conversation.

Chancellor Merkel has been successful in her leadership within her own country and the continental representation within the European Union. She has taken her childhood experiences and added the knowledge and habits necessary to be in politics to her already strong, capable personality. She has shown that a more democratic style of conversation and negotiation, which style is often seen as feminine, weak or incapable, can bring forth the best ideas and solutions and has shown this while maintaining a strong leadership position demanding respect.

As attention continues to turn to the participation of women in politics (or the lack thereof) studies have shown that the “role model effect” has significant influence on girls, young women, and mature women. This effect says that as women become more involved in politics, other women become more motivated to participate as well. The studies show, however, that rather than mere numbers, it is the visible and viable offices that have the greatest influence.⁶ Chancellor Merkel is a prime example of a woman who occupies both a viable and visible office in politics and has used her experience and capabilities to lead her country and others during very difficult and tumultuous  economic times.

1. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/germany-and-euro-crisis-powerhouse-really-so-pure­

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/world/europe/unmasking-clues-to-angela-merkels-methods.html?pagewanted=all

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurobonds

4. http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/the-making-of-angela-merkel/

5. Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates

Lyn Kathlene

The American Political Science Review 
Vol. 88, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 560-576

Published by: American Political Science Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2944795

6. David E. Campbell and Christina Wolbrecht (2006). See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents. The Journal of Politics, 68, pp 233-247 doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00402.x

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/24/eurobonds-an-essential-guide

President Cristina Kirchner

 “She wears more make-up than Katie Price (British TV personality), never leaves home without high heels, owns at least 200 black dresses” and is known as “the Botox Evita” (The Sun). “[She is a] ruthless politician… [a] steely, unflinching leader… brazen…strong willed,” and ready “for a fight” (The Sun). Both of these accounts were recently used to describe Argentinian President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Cristina, as she is known throughout the country, is a controversial figure in Latin American politics, appearing to constantly manipulate her public image to suite her political agenda. Considered by many in the Argentinian and international community as a corrupt and self-promoting figure, a brief look into Cristina’s leadership style reveals what can happen when a female politician create an questionable image as a hardline policy maker while promoting her femininity and sexual charms.

      With a political career spanning almost 50 years as a lawyer, provincial and national deputy, and senator, many consider Cristina Kirchner to be well qualified to fill the Presidential role (BBC). Having succeeded her husband, Nestor Kirchner, as president, many in the public who were familiar with the populist policies of the former administration believed that Cristina would focus her presidency on implementing social reforms to help the poor and strengthening the economy. Many were shocked to see that after only a year in power, President Kirchner turned not toward the economy but toward a strong stance against many Argentinian media corporations.

      In 2008, after just a year in office, the leading national media outlets, Clarin and La Nacion, ran several anti-Kirchner articles in their websites. After the release of these articles President Kirchner’s administration began to restrict the level of government advertising directed towards these publications. In an attempt to promote her image and popularity, President Kirchner only approved government funding for news outlets that promoted “friendly” and “respectful” portrayals of her administration (The Crimson). This caused a backlash from the local media outlets who continued to highlight corruption scandals among President Kirchner’s political allies. This backlash led to members of Kirchner’s party to submit and approve a variety of laws that restricted the rights of media outlets across the nation. In one law the government “effectively took control of the country’s only newsprint manufacturer, declaring that the production, sale, and distribution of newspapers were of ‘public interest’ and therefore to be controlled by the national government (The Crimson). Another law broadened the national definition of terrorism, so much so that social protests, anti-administration headlines, and articles criticizing the President could be considered an act of terrorism (Reuters).

 When asked to explain these highly restrictive laws and practices, President Kirchner and her administration explained that the new laws were intended to protect the Argentinian people from the monopoly building media outlets who terrorized the population (Retuers). In an interview at Harvard University, Kirchner even said that Argentina had “never seen as much freedom of expression as now” and that her strong policies would strengthen rather than hurt the press in Argentina (The Crimson).

Another important issues on the Kirchner administrations agenda, is the issue surrounding the Falkland Islands. The islands which reside 300 miles north east of Argentina were taken by Britain in a1982 invasion (The Sun). In an attempt to flex some muscle on the international stage, President Kirchner called upon the British government to begin talks with Argentina on the Falklands sovereignty. To prove her power among the Latin American countries, President Kirchner even “persuaded countries including Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay to ban Falkland vessels from their ports…[showing] Latin American solidarity” (The Sun). Although many British representatives were not willing to listen to President Kirchner’s demands at first, her persistent harassment of the British government supposedly lead “David Cameron…to dust off war plans to defend the island” (The Sun).

This image of Kirchner as a hardline policy maker is juxtaposed with the self-promoted image of herself as the new Evita. Eva Peron, known as a great Argentinian political figure, is worshiped by citizens across the nation and idolized for her work in helping the poor and underrepresented. Kirchner is known to feed off of this image, often saying that she identifies with the stylish, and beautiful, “Evita of the hair in a bun and the clenched fist before a microphone” (The Sun).  To promote this image of a stylish and passionate leader, Kirchner works tirelessly to maintain a fashionable wardrobe. Building a reputation as a lover of fashion, and someone who “deploys her glamour and sexuality as a potent weapon” to be used to gain the public’s love and affection (The Sun).

Although President Kirchner’s husband, Nestor, was known for being a tough and at times manipulative executive during his presidency, his wife has turned out to be an even tougher and more manipulative. Along with the laws restricting the national media and the battle with Britain over the Falkland Islands, the current President Kirchner has worked hard to push any political agenda or policy that could give her any kind of advantage at the polls or with the people. Just recently Kirchner’s administration was able to push through a new law lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. Having a large “youth movement” in support of her political ideals, Kirchner fought for the approval of this bill and won with a landslide vote (Christian Science Monitor). Unlike her husband, who worked tirelessly to create political ties to the national unions, President Cristina Kirchner believed the unions were receiving too much power and overruling some of the policies she wanted to implement; therefore she dropped her alliance with the unions and instead focused her energy on her youth organizations (Christian Science Monitor). Through these policies, Kirchner showed the lengths that she was willing to go to secure her political power, reverting to actions and policies that her husband never used.

The factors that best explain why Kirchner chooses this particular leadership style root back to her idolization of the Evita figure and her desire for Argentina to be taken seriously among the international elites. President Kirchner wants to make as lasting an impression on her people as Evita did 60 years ago. By maintain her image of fashion and power, President Kirchner is able to show the Argentinian public that she too will fight for her people’s rights, will fight against the international elites that seek to overlook their people, and will make Argentina the center of the international community.

Through her work to create an image as a hard line politician and a fashionista, President Cristina Kirchner has shown the complex role of a politician trying bring to competing worlds together in one.

BBC. "Latin America World." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12284208 Accessed October 31, 2012

Reuters. "Argentinian Terrorism."  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/28/us-argentina-terrorism-idUSTRE7BR1BZ20111228 Accessed October 31, 2012

The Crimson. "Kirchner's lack of answers." http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/10/1/kirchner-argentina-abuses/. Accessed October 30, 2012

The Sun. "Sexier than Evita, as tough as Maggie with her eyes on the Falklands". http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4074118/Cristina-Fernandez-de-Kirchner-Shes-sexier-than-Evita-as-tough-as-Maggie-with-her-eyes-on-the-Falklands.html Accessed November 1, 2012

Becky Lockhart: A New Style of Leadership

 “I offered a different style of leadership to the House, one that would afford every Representative the opportunity to take part more fully in the process. I believe that debate should be embraced and encouraged. We should not be afraid of this great American process of making law and setting policy. This way of doing business is at times messy, and it is of course, more time-consuming. Not everyone enjoys this change, but I believe it is a healthier way for the House of Representatives to function.” ~Rep. Becky Lockhart on her first term as Utah’s Speaker of the House.(link)

In November of 2010 following the general election, Utah Republicans elected their state’s first female Speaker of the House. Rep. Becky Lockhart of Provo, Utah won the speakership by two votes over the incumbent Speaker, Rep. David Clark.  Lockhart argued that Republicans were tired of Clark’s heavy handedness and were ready for a change. The Salt Lake Tribune reported Lockhart saying, “I think the caucus made a decision tonight that they're ready for a new style of leadership and that's what we're going to provide. We're going to work to have openness and have collaboration and have discussion about the issues." Lockhart has certainly lived up to her promise to provide a new style of leadership. In this post, I’ll look at three characteristics of her first term as Speaker: her facilitating style, her encouragement of debate and openness, and her view on campaigning. 

Lockhart as Facilitator

Lyn Kathlene, a professor at Purdue University, has found that leadership style, on average, differs between men and women. In an academic article, she wrote:

“Research has found  that women  do not use  or  perceive  their  positions  of  power  like  their male  counterparts.  Eagly  and  Johnson's  (1990) meta-analysis  of  experimental  and  organization  research  on  gender  and leadership  style  found  that  women  tended  to  lead more  democratically,  while  men  tended  to  be  more autocratic.  Similar results  were  found  in  a legislative setting,  where  women  chairs were  more likely to use their position  as a facilitator or moderator  of committee  discussion,  rather than  as  a way  to  control  witness  testimony,  direct committee  discussion,  and join in the substantive  debates" (p. 561).

The argument that women have a more facilitating style of leadership finds great evidence in Becky Lockhart’s first term. In legislative sessions, Lockhart tends to let the discussion go where it may so that all representatives can have a say, rather than pursuing a specific agenda. The Daily Herald published an article examining Lockhart’s leadership style, noting that some called it “leading from behind.” They reported that Lockhart “allows the process to work itself out rather than pushing her own agenda.” In interviews with several Republican representatives, there was general respect and appreciation for her inclusiveness, while still questioning the strength of her leadership. Several expressed frustration at the lack of clear direction to how a caucus meeting or House session moved forward.

When you consider Kathlene’s argument that men and women often have different leadership styles, it is interesting to note that out of 58 Republicans in Lockhart’s caucus, only 3 representatives, other than Lockhart, are women. All the representatives interviewed in the Daily Herald article were men. Perhaps their frustration and discomfort were rooted in the fact that they are more comfortable with a more dominant style of leadership.

Encouraging Debate and Openness

Lockhart’s facilitating style of leadership has led her to encourage debate in the House and openness between leadership, representatives, and the public. Lockhart came into the speakership on a promise of furthering open discussions and lively debate - and she has done just that. In a legislative report on the 2012 session found on Lockhart’s website, she wrote, “lively debate ensures we create the best policy for the state. It’s great to participate in these discussions.” The Daily Herald reported that Lockhart has been true to her word: “Lockhart has been said to be open and fair to all members of the House. She is not one to cut off debate or strong-arm lawmakers into voting a certain way, as her predecessors did.” While many representatives appreciate the opportunity to have a say in the process, others complain it takes too long.

As an example, in the 2011 redistricting process, sessions often seemed unorganized and occasionally came to a standstill. When progress wasn’t being made, instead of forcing an agenda, Lockhart called for a recess to give more time for discussion with each other and the public. Lockhart, rather than addressing the problem of lengthiness, boasts that the redistricting process was the most open, inclusive and transparent of any in Utah history (Lockhart Website). She and the rest of the redistricting committee held several public meetings around the state to get public input and created a website to give information to the public and to get feedback. Despite Democrats’ complaints, Lockhart believes the redistricting process was open and fair - a legislative success. It was a combination of her trademark emphasis on openness and debate.

Lockhart’s Campaigning Style

Another characteristic of Lockhart’s leadership style is her campaigning tactics. As leader and spokesperson of her party, a speaker is expected to rally support for her representatives during election season and to help in campaigns. While Lockhart has said she is working hard to campaign with her representatives to help them get re-elected (Salt Lake Tribune), she is bucking a tradition of contributing donations to their individual campaigns, calling the practice “wrong-headed” (Utah Pulse). While we could speculate on the reasons for this change, whether ideological or gender-based, this is quite different from her male predecessors. 

Though Lockhart is not contributing money, she is hoping the time she spends on the campaign trail will translate to votes for her as Speaker. Utah Policy reports Lockhart saying, “I’m taking nothing for granted and will campaign hard [for the speakership].  My style is that I welcome all input.”  Lockhart’s campaigning style fits well with her tendency towards openness and government transparency.

Conclusion

Whether or not Lockhart can be a representation of the leadership style of most women, her case study does fit well with Dr. Kathlene’s argument that women leaders are more democratic and facilitating. This facilitation and encouragement of debate and openness has led to both critics and supporters, which may be affected by the fact that the vast majority of the representatives she works with are men. However, Lockhart’s efforts to include every representative and to campaign diligently must be paying off - as of today, she has no challengers for her position as Speaker of the House (Utah Policy). In the end, perhaps we can conclude that Lockhart’s representatives prefer a more open approach, even when frustrating, as they have made Lockhart a shoo-in to again lead the Utah House of Representatives.