tv After Words CSPAN March 28, 2016 12:00am-1:01am EDT
pakistan. so as a woman that has written about politics for a couple of decades now and the mother of two daughters, i wanted to know why america never elected a woman president and what was holding us back. >> host: so what is holding us back? it seems it has been almost 100 years since women have had the right to vote. why is it that we don't have a woman as president were in office? splenic we will get to the history as you said but i think the obvious place people go for this is the double standard and we have seen a lot of outrageous attacks in this election about hillary clinton and against carly fiorina when she was in the race. people get called out as soon as they do this. it's a little bit shocking that
we have what i would call and a valid misogynist as the front-runner of the republican party. donald trump has made outrageous comments about women, so when an know and experience sexism in every field in every business and every education and that's real if there's something really surprising and it surprised me as much as anyone when i was doing the research and that is voters are not making their decisions based on gender bias. they are thinking about ideological political parties and questions of temperament when they decide who to vote for this so they care much more about those things and i don't gender so although we still have a lot of sexism in the general culture, it's not impacting the final count of the election. so i kind of like to say it's
like a paper tiger show either toothless. >> host: you talk about how they should be warm and strong. so are there other things that are impacting the way that women and men think about candidates that you might tie to their gender? >> a lot of the ways that we perceive candidates is gender of course the. research shows there's a way people perceive politicians, women in politics and women in business because there's a different relationship between voters and political leaders then there is between a boss and employee into the research shows that the so-called double bind that women can't if they are weak we know what they are considered.
it doesn't look like that still pertains in politics that people want a leader, man or woman who is relatable and they feel understands them in this whole empathy polling but they also want someone that is going to stand up for them so the studies show women that are both tough and warm actually form actually get kind of a boost in their favorability ratings with voters they do not buy candidates that are angry and i think when we get to the general election we will see how this plays out because there's so much anger in the electorate being expressed by certain candidates at the moment. >> host: people go through history and has held us back historically but then again why haven't we seen a woman president? >> guest: obviously for at least 130 years of our history
more like 200 years of our history it was sexism and legal gender discrimination. what it is though is america's elections are pretty unique in comparison to the world so the problem is incumbency. there are so few offices open at any level that it's hard to even when they win elections at the same rate as men do it's hard to change the ratio and another part of it which is important is what political scientists call the gatekeepers. in some ways it's what we saw with the oscars this past week. there's a group of people who have been in power for a very long time. they are predominantly men and predominantly white. congress in 1960 was 95% white male and in the history of the united states about 12,000 men
have served in congress and 308 women. so we have a resistance as the gatekeeper level which has partly to do with gender but a lot to do with people wanting to hold positions of power that they have had a. so we are currently disadvantaged because there has been a sort of in gender pay for hundreds of years and so what can we do? how can we get out of that conundrum it seems to be something if we are fighting history we are going to have a long way to go. >> guest: in countries around the world they've decided they need to take positive actions to get a more diverse and representative government.
many of the things they do internationally are off the table in the united states whether it is in the corporate boards or legislatures. so i think what we have seen -- i guess this is going to the recent history since we don't have any institutional methods, what we have had is the women behind the women. we have had women looking at this impregnable wall, keeping the vitamin cozy and comfortable inside congress and inside the white house and saying how are we going to chip away at this solid foundation so they start groups that are dedicated to getting enough money to the candidates whether it is on the democratic side or the republicans might like the gop wish list. they create interest groups that
push women's issues onto the agenda whether it is now back in the height of the second wave of feminism or pro-choice america and planned parenthood now so we wouldn't be where we are today unless we have the women that decided we have to play the political game the way the men play it. we have to be effective to show that we deserve to be there. one of the most interesting things about doing this book was interviewing close to 100 people and many of them were pioneers and many of them were this new generation in their 30s and 40s taking leadership and they have really created a counter establishment particularly in the democratic party. >> host: you say recent history which we really can't forget as you said in 1960 there were no women essentially so we
are kind of at this point i think we take for granted that we have come so far so fast that your point is well taken if we have to fight history it will be hard to get to people participation. we know we are stuck at 18% to 17% over the world and every sort of governing body, 20% of your doing well unless as you mentioned the quota cuts off the table. why do you think they are off the table in this country? >> guest: i think it has to do with our racial history but then in the 60s and 70s they became a code word for a not letting african-americans into institutions that they had been excluded from for close to 400 years. so i think the way that race drove the politics in the 60s and 70s and into the early
'80s has a lot to do with why we are stuck not being able to do things to increase diversity whether it's immigrants or other ethnic groups or women. >> host: here in this incredible race right now and we know that women are important. why is the women's vote imported into this that overstated or understated? >> guest: in some ways it is understated. if you look at the 2012 election, roughly 10 million more women than men voted. women make up the majority of the voters and as i said earlier its it's pretty solid somewhere between 56 and 60% consistently for the democratic candidate for president in the last four to five presidential actions.
if change is because women also tended to not vote in all so we have this almost seesaw seesaw of women making a difference. the research shows also that women are concerned about party and ideology but the reason they are put in a critic is that the critic is that essentially the democratic party has become a feminist party. you cannot be opposed to women's equal to the advancing opportunity and succeed as a democrat on the national level and in most states as well. >> host: it's interesting that when you look at both parties in the book and women from both parties that shows the progress they were making it is interesting where she said if you want to really advance the issues that matter you have to get outside of the party and
create bipartisanship and that's what is going to really push the envelope and actually that brings us back to what you were saying earlier. you talk about the bipartisanship thatwe see when women are in elected office and how they work together because it talks about how washington is gridlocked and how can we possibly be governing the the nations believe we are operating but it seems like the women in congress and the senate have done things differently. can you talk about that? >> guest: there's about 20 women in the senate right now about two thirds democrat, one third republican. coming back to when there were essentially no women in the senate 30 years ago no democratic woman had ever been elected to the senate in her own right so the women that came in particularly in 1992 there's
about six of them i think they were outsiders in this institution and they reached out to each other not because of some chromosome determination that they were senators that wanted to get something done so the story is senator barbara mikulski and kay bailey hutchison republican from texas, one of the second or third elected hutchison reached out on a bill to improve women's retirement security and it was in a very polarized moment as gingrich was taking over the congress and they worked together on disability and they went out together to make this deal happen when nothing was happening in congress because of the partisanship and they realized that they had such a good working relationship and
liked each other so much that they created these bipartisan dinners and there were a lot of people who thought like the new girls club and the rule is it is now a tradition that has gone on since about 1993, 1994 and it's out of contrast that they've developed and things like ending the government shutdown came out so what i heard over and over again, republican women into democratic women it's like our life experience leads us to wanting to be pragmatic and get things done and how you break through the barriers to get an adequate compromise for people and that's the way that our government needs to work if we are going to have a functioning government.
>> host: it reminds me of the woman that i've had a pleasure of working with but she does talk about how that ability to compromise and that ability to understand each other's position and how that is critical to the government and we have to let loose of that so it's interesting that the bipartisanship dinners have really had an impact. how else do the women in the governing positions make a difference? the question is does it even make a difference because if it doesn't then of course it's nice to have representation but what is the impact? that is the heart of it. i would say there are three reasons. one as we talked about this more collaborative style. there's the important symbolism and i know we tend to say maybe that isn't so important but think about it. think about flipping a coin and 44 times it comes up heads.
so our girls in this country, i am a mother of teenagers look at this and say why hasn't there been a woman? part of their aspiration about what is possible in their life has to do with seeing women as ceos coming as president, all the top leadership positions. as you said they are nowhere near equal at all the tables of power in our society. there is also the symbolism and message and sends to the world. we are saved by extremism that the common denominator is misogyny and the repression and oppression of women and girls and so for a woman to be at the head of the most powerful country in the world when one of our key allies doesn't allow women to drive in our most
significant enemy at this time is literally executing women and girls simply for being women and girls i think this sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for but the most important reason is actually women do different things when they are in government and they make women and girls opportunity, equal to v. and advancement a priority in the way that is very rare for men to do. >> host: there's a great example of that in the book but it was about the fact that there wasn't a woman in the room it might not occur to them to keep that particular provision that was important. so i thought that was a great example. >> host: >> guest: there's an expression in dc if you are not at the table you are on the menu and the affordable care act is a good example of this.
it's things that look like they may not be able to pass the full bill. the leadership went into meetings and started cutting things out of the bill. the leadership was entirely male. a couple of the kennedys had to have the senate and one of the things they cut was the women's health amendment and so again, senator mikulski who is the author of that amendment got wind of this and in the democratic caucus meeting for this now with a significant number of women she stood up and talk to talked to the other women in the caucus and said this is not a compromise that is acceptable to us. long story short, she made it happen and it was allowed to be the first and one of the only amendments when they finally passed over care reform so the
reason that women are charged more for insurance now, the reason that the institute of medicine is deciding whether a sensual healthcare needs of women is because of that moment that the women stood up and said no, not to us you cannot take this. >> host: it's sort of a prospective when things these are designed from one its design flaws and we talk about that and do that as about as well. what we find we focus on the economic participation that we see that there is a correlation between the women's participation and growth and the bottom line. there is a great report that says we can drive $20 trillion of growth by 2020 if women had equal opportunity to have equal opportunity to participate in the world so we just are at or on apparel of losing huge opportunities and the same is true in the political participation. >> host:
>> guest: let's take a weekend support weekends are for the economic participation to the policy. the united states used to have one of the highest rates of women's participation in the labor force but it's now 16 or 19. i never quite remember my exact statistics that went from two or three to 16 or 19th in the world and economic participation and everybody agrees the reason for that is we didn't have the same policies around paid family leave and maternity leave and childcare and three k.. we are one of three countries in the world dot the developing world that the entire but the entire world doesn't guarantee paid paternity leave a. for scuba it's frightening. it is holding us back and we know it's costing us five points
of gdp so full participation we know they reinvest their earnings back to the communities and drive 90% back the deposit of cycles again why are we seeing this? why don't policymakers say what is in the best interest of everybody? >> guest: i agree. it's not a women's issue, it's an american issue and a family issue. i think we have a representative government and as you said people bring their experiences. you cannot avoid the fact that people bring particular experiences and because of the history of sexism and gender discrimination women have a perspective that is different so let me compare the democratic candidates for president who are still in the race, hillary clinton and bernie sanders.
sanders talks about being pro-choice and supporting paid maternity leave. he often forgets to call it paid family leave, he talks about supporting childcare and pre- k.. he has something like a 14 trillion-dollar budget to pay for pre- college and all the other things on his agenda. he hasn't budgeted for childcare or pre- k.. hillary clinton has a 100% voting record, to back that she talks about the problem in the amendment that in fact access to reproductive care is essentially unavailable because of policy. she's the one who talks about the level of the workforce participation. she's funding childcare and paid family leave and in her college
plans she talks about finding subsidies for parents to pay for child care so i think if you're a democrat whichever candidate you support it as an example of priority and women because of our experience figured out a way to integrate this perspective whether it is a national security or economic or healthcare. it's not just a discrete women's issue. >> host: i know for example in the judicial world of the women judges may not go differently on general matters but on issues relating to sex discrimination you do see a difference in the voting pattern so it is the experience you bring to bear which is where justice o'connor has this great quote that the key to the rule of law as an impartial judiciary and the
precipitation of women. i'm really struck by what you said earlier that we are fighting history if it isn't sexism at the polls in the voting booth now and if it is about as you said income in the end than the end of the week of the lack of the political participation since women have the right to vote and the ability to participate can you talk about 18481 of my most cherished historical events and so many others that died before the amendment of the women's suffrage was passed and yet you see this incredible thing in the book about how we lost our opportunity. can you talk about that? >> the fact that it took 70 years shows how much resistance
there was to the women exercising the most fundamental right of citizenship. i talk about this absolutely hysterical predictions about what would happen to the country into civilization and we only got there because a social movement that was involving literally millions of women when the population in the united states was more like 30 million by 300 some. they were organized. they were lobbying legislatures and writing petitions, they were marching into during hunger strikes. they were in the states they had the vote and they were electing politicians. they were doing public speaking, they were strategizing.
basically about 2 million women in the country had the experience in 1920 that you needed to run the campaign for the political office and what happened is the meters leaders said we are going to stay out of the politics and we need to educate women about their votes with the women are activists that the league of women voters comes out of one of the organizations to say at that moment the parties were really scared of women. they were ready to give them top leadership posts and in the political parties they wanted to run the candidates, they were putting forward a women centric policies and claimed that women stepped off of the main stage of politics they said we don't actually have to worry about them so we lost several decades
of that gradual building and it was a moment back to the point of the gatekeepers. they wanted women said they were going to come and you cannot run for this post because we need women. >> host: that is interesting. the decisions could be impacting today's actions but then it begs the question why can't the political gatekeepers today make an effort? or why don't they? >> guest: we see some of it, the republicans back in 2012 wrote a report about what the party needed to do and came up with recommendation that didn't work so great that they won a few senate seats.
the democratic party. we see at the party level that they are including women. the fact is they have very little control over who runs for office and this is a perfect example of that. donald trump, who knows what party he was ever a member of before decides he's running for the republican nomination. and he's been on principle caucusing with democrats for 30 some years. there is a little but of a comparison here. in argentina where you have more typical parties, the president now is a billionaire and he had that platform. he wanted to be president but he had to form his own political
party to create a party that could then nominate him. he wasn't allowed to just jump into one of the existing parties and run so there's a lot of very boring electoral rules issues that make it harder. >> host: let's bring it back to the women's vote. we know the vote matters. you told us to percentage points so we know that by the majority that voted democratic but do they vote the same way? >> guest: that is a difficult question. one can democratic and republican women don't vote the same way so some republican women are very socially conservative against abortion and against marriage and that's the reason they are voting republican. there is a silent majority among republican women who are
pressured and tend to be more conservative on economic issues but quite progressive and liberal on social issues and very strong feminists even if they don't call themselves feminist and they are disturbed by. sometimes i feel like a cast member on survivor. the great granddaughter of herbert hoover broadens the republican political action committee and she's pretty much appalled at how an extreme religious right has taken over the party. on the democratic side i think what we have seen is some generational tension into the older generation who were the pioneers who faced barriers in their personal life know this
history that it took women acting together to get as far as we've gotten and we haven't gotten far enough and i think they know how american politics works and understand if you don't have institutional mechanisms to increase the women's representation, having women that they had as president does a lot to shift the culture and shift ideas. younger women i saw interviewing before the campaign started in earnest is a lot of enthusiasm among democratic women for hillary clinton. i think with the younger women got this question of why it's wife melanie lynn and i don't think it is a question that they don't want a woman president or don't look forward to it. i think they are balancing to candidates they see as good in different ways and so it's a case where they are absolutely
not going to sacrifice women's equality but there are other progressive issues they want to see advanced and for many of them they feel that sanders is the better vehicle for that. >> host: there's a great article that basically was saying sexism at work helps hillary clinton. there was a concept that women have different experiences as they go through life so it matters in a certain generation at this particular moment may not matter to them later and vice versa so they may be voting on their ideals but they are not feminist but what matters to them is different in this moment of their life which makes a lot of sense. >> guest: absolutely. i had that experience myself when i was participating in a lot of different political movements. not one person in the movement talked about child care and how was i going to manage having
children and having a career. it was excruciating when i got to that point so i think one of the ways we can help some of these college age women is to keep pushing this debate forward even if they end up at a different place i think ultimately democratic women will come around to supporting hillary clinton and be enthusiastic about it but i think getting the family questions into the conversation isn't second-tier or back burner but it is essential to how happy you are and how successful you are in your career, how your children thrive is good for everyone. >> host: there's this idea that why women go into politics and why they are running so for
us to focus more on the participation of leadership at we find they are often in power and they use their power for purpose that is a big driver for them and i think what is interesting about what you say in the book is that women run because they want to solve problems and they are both democrats and republicans you quoted in the book that state men often run because it is a career opportunity and there are larger power play but i think the issue about melanie wells and maybe you find this in your research, they are starting to segue this, so i would say older women in the colonials are starting to want the same thing so they don't want to sacrifice we may see this generational shift in the priority is to
wanted to ask you about that. do women run for different reasons? >> guest: we see this among the millennialist who want to reshape the business world come absolutely. they want to do good. >> host: they do not want to go to work unless their companies stand for something. this is a great shift for the american general and the world absolutely. women perceive that it is more difficult to win elections. now currently, exactly.
so i think the sacrifice that it takes to run for office particularly for women who don't have the ready networks that the men in politics do. you have to feel there is a purpose to it. they want the status of prestige maybe it's a sign of progress that women are setting a new standard may be purpose is the new power.
the caliber of the politicians improve because it has become more competitive. the women are better qualified and it's just lifts the excellence. >> host: we have 17% of leadership at almost every governing body. i think that is where the president sort of claim to that and what davis found his there's 70% so it could be in some way we get conditions to say 20% representation is normal so do you find that playing out of? >> guest: it just reminded me as i was doing this book and i would say i am writing about
looking into this question of is america ready to elect a woman president and with nick a difference, what are the barriers and i would say nine out of ten times. then they would say i'm not just going to vote for a woman because she's a woman. of course not, no one does. so this gets to that identity politics question. so, trump and sanders can appeal to the downscale working-class men and that is a movement but if they appealed that his identity politics. there is a double standard and i think that it may have something to do with if we get beyond 17% or if we have a woman that is unusual so that's too much. that's strange to see. it's not natural in some ways with women having power and we see that play out in the board room and again there the
stereotype even if you look at the media how women are depicted makes a difference and it reminds me of this great story that we heard where she says i never aspired to be a secretary of state because i never saw the secretary of state in fast-forward a few generations she was having dinner in her granddaughter was there and they were talking about how she broke the barrier and then her granddaughter citizen but a girl's job? so how quickly it changes the expectation of what is appropriate to be doing so breaking through as the title of your book and i think is an important concept for the breakthrough. >> guest: there is great research that relates to this in the united states and internationally something like 17 countries that when
adolescent girls see viable women running for office or winning office it if jumpstart their political ambition and they talk about how they want to run for office and how they are going to be politically active service role model for this isn't just nice, it's one of the things that is going to change that from 17% to where it should be at roughly 15%. >> host: and it's important for those around the world of the message we send to other nations around the world for 80% of the media so that isn't helping. there's another great story about how she was in washington and someone came up to her i want to say it was from -- she
said you have to help us and she said i'm an actress. i do research on the media but you need to talk to the ambassador and they said no you have to stop exporting some of the tv that we get because it i changing the standards in the country. so having the way women are depicted is a breakthrough and sends a signal to the rest of the world about how we view women. >> host: the ambassador told me the story working on the asian economic summit. i don't see women mentioning it anywhere. she talked nicely to people and the next year and the year after suddenly japan has made one in economics the centerpiece of trying to get the country out of this terrible long-term economic
decline realizing the economic importance. >> host: for me it is having the evidence-based case. but one of the most and you just alluded to it when he said if i want to be competitive he talks about the participation of women as and so that is a shift but it's based on the evidence-based case not the right, yes we know it's the right thing to do but based on the fact your book shows the participation. through >> guest: i think it will be transformational on the gender issues that our systems were not built for the 21st century to meet the aspirations of any woman under 45 and as you said most of the men under 45 are
really under these old models of the breadwinner husband i can't be involved with my family so i do think that the leadership at the top particularly in the american system of government is so important for setting the table, setting up the agenda about what matters and using the bully pulpit to say this is not a back burner we are going to focus on advancing gender equal to become a bringing ourselves to the 21st century. >> host: since we are such a slow process if we have so much built into the system and the world is getting so much faster and competitive if we don't take these moments to redesign the way the systems work we will be left behind and i think that if this convergence of technology
but also the evidence-based case it is what you need to do to stay competitive and so for me while your book is so important in particular we need women as policymakers to make those changes and that is something that's kind of missing. we can create great technology and work from home and do all the things we need to do but if that if our policies don't support it we cannot stay competitive. >> guest: my first book was on the progressive era where they were dealing with a lot of the same things and one of the things for business's policies helped set up the floor and kind of keep out the bad actors. so there's probably a lot of businesses out there that are ready to do the right thing by the workers who have been children whether it is men or
women so they can to be competitive with germany or the business down the street who is going to undercut them is whether it's things like them in my age or social security or more family focused policies the rest of the world has discovered is necessary to harness the immense economic potential it cannot all be done by business. there's a lot of debate about how you do it and i do think there is room for compromise between republicans and democrats. is it a merrily taxation or tax credits? what's the balance of mandates versus incentives. there's disagreement on this. there has to be middleground reached and back to the point having the women as that of the committees in the senate and the house as president because it's
more likely that that hard work will get done. >> host: what do you think is holding back these conversations these are the conversations that seem to be happening all over but why is this not at the top of the mind for people? >> guest: it goes back to the 17%. that means 83% is being driven by men and historically, culturally men have not had to make these family issues a priority because society took care of it for them. everything was set up for them to go about their business and achieve positions of power and not really worry about this for
example so i think as the younger women who i see very much expressing very forthrightly the importance of gender inequality not necessarily as the conversations to change then these issues become important. they've always been treated as come to us after we take care of the military come after we take care of the economy, after we take care of the federal reserve the part of part of it is changing it from this is gross stuff to this is american stuff. >> host: when we talk about changing the culture and maternity leave with the birth of his daughter and making it a priority i do think that the next generation understand and they really get it. why would you design a school
day where the work is 93 it is just a design blog at this point and nobody benefits so that is not in anyone's interest. i want to see some of these younger guys that are also looking at the world in a much more creative way they are reinventing things, they know that this is a reset moment so why can't it be where everyone can benefit? that's the point that needs to be made a strong is that it's not a woman's issue. >> host: i'm very optimistic. i don't think that it's a barrier to electing women anymore. i don't think that sexism is particularly a barrier to not adopting the policies. i feel like it created a playing field isn't level yet. history shaped our playing field and we have to make some efforts
to level it and bring women up and also to spread the idea among younger men through older generations. >> host: we see the large banks putting in the policies because they want to stay competitive and grow gdp. there is a great quote where he says they are the largest force in the world today and there is great research that says they have more economic power so i think people want to get from here to there and are very pragmatic. they know the participation matters to the future and so that is kind of an important point but again that's why your book is laying this out in an important way.
>> host: >> guest: i also think the stakes cannot be higher than they are in this election. every remaining republican candidate for president has taken a very extreme position on women's health and women's rights so that's not only that we are going backward, going forward and it would be good to have someone who really prioritizes and speeds this up. there's also a big danger of falling backward. voting rights for millions of african-american women who have the highest turnout of any group in the country. latinas to questionable by the supreme court allow obama's immigration orders to go through or are millions of people going to be deported? will women continue to have
reproductive rights to the right to access abortion and birth control packs these are all essential to whether women can participate anywhere near equal levels in our society. >> host: but what about the lower levels? is that ghost of historic and what can we do or what should be doing differently to get that on the senate or this tenet or the state and local level packs >> guest: you have different levels in the states that has to do with the size of the legislature. for some the california senate district has 1 million people in it. the state of alaska has two senators and 600,000 people. so again expected that there are very few spots open so there are ways we could change the legislature increasing the
numbers but there are things parties can become a voluntary level. in california for example where i live it's a very democratic state and the state democratic party is quite powerful when it decides who to endorse and who not to endorse. and in many countries that had quotas they started them adopting the parties so parties can make a commitment to a general diversity and use the little power that they have to increase women's representation in the think there's a problem with women not running but people say there is an ambition gap but i don't think that is the case i think that women are rational actors and they are looking at the odds and high expense of winning the race as a nonincumbent saying that isn't a
rational decision for me to run for that spot -- >> host: also it seems the way women are depicted in the media as going out and taking positions of power creates a backlash in some ways so you will think what is this going to do to my family or my wife and is it worth it. do you see that playing out? >> guest: i think it does. when i talk to the women involved in politics they all said you have to be tough. that's part of the game. i think that it's keeping a lot of good people out of politics. and i do think that there is -- we still have a problem with women in power. we like how they are when they are in power that we don't like women asking for power. imagine hillary clinton talking about her numbers the way donald
trump does. it would be ludicrous. it's inconceivable. >> host: so how do we change that? you talked about how maybe it's not as hard for women to run as they think it is a and we see that in the field where there's a stereotype threat that's so bad it's creating a sort of negative effect of women wanting to go into that. i think it's important to understand what can we do and how please let women know that it's okay to run and they have a greater great chance of winning? >> guest: one of the most important things is when we have the opportunity to elect a woman to elect a nobleman and when you see her in that role if it's real and it's not hypothetical and so one night i was watching
the town hall and my 17-year-old daughter while she was walking by the tv when hillary clinton is on she says i want to be secretary of state. it's my daughter, i'm happy. everyone can have the same ambitions but you have to see it to be able to imagine and then put yourself on the path to do it. i also think that this message that yes, it is disgusting and awful but it's in the political world probably not going to affect whether you win or not. and if i'm willing to put up with it i'm going to have an equal chance at that spot. then she can get reelected over and over again. it's getting into that first spot. >> host: we only have a few
minutes left private like to ask is there anything you want the viewers to come away with? why is this book important in this particular moment and what should viewers be thinking about as they are looking at this election? >> guest: we need to be thinking about what it represents the interests and values and who has the temperament and character to be president. a person has to have all of those qualities to be an effective president. what i did said and what is it really doesn't matter -- it does matter to have more women in power. it's not politics to have that desire, it is rational self-interest and the common good to want more women in power. >> host: thank you for the buck. i really loved it and it lays out so much research. of course it is very probable that it's about why do we need
women in the political office and the evidence-based case for why it's important for men and women so thank you for that contribution. >> guest: it was great talking to you. >> host: great talking to you as well. >> it's the best television for serious readers. >> they can have a longer conversation and delve into their subject. >> booktv weekends. it's the work of fascinating people. >> i love booktv and i may c-span fan.
had a booming decades in the 80s and 90s overall the growth rate since we went off the system the old gold standard in 1971 the u.s. average growth rates are less than they were before 1971 and if we maintain the growth rates that we had for 180 years up to 1971 if we maintain those after 1971 on average, the u.s. economy today would be 50% larger than it is now. .. >> wow. y