Independent Women's Forum - Michelle D. Bernard

Family Unfriendly Family and Medical Leave

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:31:00 EDT

The Washington Examiner

Often, the worst policies come packaged in the most appealing labels. So it is with the "Family and Medical Leave Act." Family and medical leave is good. But government-mandated family and medical leave is bad for families and everyone else.

Anyone who gets sick or has a child understandably likes being able to take leave time. Most employers do their best to accommodate workers attempting to balance work and family. But there is no "right" benefit for every employee at every company across America.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires large companies to provide unpaid leave to workers. Today, many Democrats, backed by organized labor, want to apply the law to small businesses and even mandate paid leave.

Government cannot add to employment terms; it can only redistribute them. Unfortunately, companies do not have unlimited resources. Firms tailor compensation based upon employee productivity.

Increase one part of the compensation package and there is less money available for other benefits. If Congress forces firms to spend more money on family leave, there will be less money for salaries and health insurance.

Federal mandates also redistribute benefits among employees. Single employees and married employees without children lose out when employers are forced to shift compensation dollars to family leave.

Even unpaid leave hurts those without children, since they have to pick up the slack when others take time off: reassigning work is how two-thirds of companies deal with employees who take FMLA leave.

FMLA mandates up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave within every 12 month period for purposes of personal or family illness or child birth or adoption. The U.S. Department of Labor reports that most employers do their best to comply with the law. But, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Companies also tell the Labor Department that the law causes "job disruptions" and "adverse effects on the workforce." Unfortunately, reports the Labor Department, "employees take frequent, unscheduled, intermittent leave from work with little or no advance notice to the employer."

Verizon Communications, named one of the 100 best companies for working mothers, found that the number of absent days per employee tripled after FMLA's passage.

Indeed, 42 percent of human resource professionals say that the potential for abuse causes "extreme difficulty" in administering the law. Although most employees are honest, a sizable number have misused the law.

Many medical and family leave days coincidentally occur on Monday and Friday. Maxing out intermittent family leave-as many as 60 out of 260 normal work days-allows calculating employees to receive full-time benefits (such as health insurance) for a part-time schedule.

Some business owners refer to the FMLA as the "Far More Leave than Anyone Intended Act" and the "Slacker's Protection Act." For this reason, firms strategize to limit "intermittent leave abuse" and a growing number of them even use surveillance and private investigators to monitor employees.

Nearly half of Americans said they could cite at least one time when they suspected a co-worker "who claimed to be taking time off for family or medical reasons was really using it for something else."

One-third said intermittent leave-taking by fellow employees made them less productive. Some workers who tire of carrying an extra burden eventually take advantage of the law in the same way.

One problem is that the Department of Labor changed the definition of "serious health condition," from what lawmakers intended. Originally, the Department of Labor said that conditions such as a cold or upset stomach were not "serious."

But then Labor bureaucrats decided that if such conditions lasted three days-hardly unusual for someone who gets the flu, for instance-then the law applies.

Regulations also require that federally-mandated leave must be accounted for based on the shortest leave increment used by the company, creating a substantial administrative burden.

Employees also have up to two days after taking leave to inform their employers about their problem, making it nearly impossible for employers to plan for absences, enforce attendance, and properly account for leave.

Ironically, this tendency towards abuse has deterred companies from expanding their own leave programs. According to the Society for Human Resource Management: "FMLA misapplications have penalized employers with the most generous leave policies and had a chilling effect on the expansion of paid leave."

Mandatory unpaid leave is problem enough. Far worse would be mandatory paid leave. Clearly these more generous terms would encourage more workers to use, and abuse, the benefit. Mandated paid leave would also hurt employees unlikely to take advantage of family leave.

Benefits already make up nearly one-third of compensation packages. Paid family leave would punish workers who prefer higher wages or other fringe benefits. Paid leave also would discourage companies from hiring women of child-bearing age.

Since women are more likely to use family leave, government mandated leave increases the cost of hiring women. The resulting discrimination might be unstated, but no less real.

FMLA supporters complain that the U.S. is one of the few countries not to mandate paid family leave. But more than eighty percent of American workers receive paid leave in some form.

Moreover, in today's more competitive world, companies increasingly emphasize work flexibility. Rather than add to business burdens, Congress should relax federal controls and encourage companies to craft more creative benefit packages that better meet the needs of their workers. A freer workplace would benefit individual workers and the overall economy.

Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women's Voice and an MSNBC political analyst.

Iranian Justice: The stoning of Soraya M

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:33:00 EDT

Originally published in The Examiner

Independent Women's Forum | 9/5/08 5:05 PM

Those who want to know the truth about Iranian justice must see Cyrus Nowrasteh's gripping new feature film "The Stoning of Soraya M."

The film - based on the book written by Friedounce Sahebjam and debuting today at the Toronto International Film Festival - depicts the true life story of Soraya M, an Iranian woman falsely accused of adultery.

She was then sentenced to death by stoning so that her husband would be free to marry a 14-year old. Partially buried in the ground, she was savagely stoned to death by a mob of men that included her own father, husband, and two of her sons.

Her story continues to haunt all of us who have already seen the film. Anyone who questions the danger that is Iran must see this film and witness the barbaric nature of radical, fundamentalist Islamic "justice."

Islamists target those who question their extreme agenda and they close their societies to dissent. Freedom House, a nonprofit group dedicated to advancing liberty worldwide, reports that since 2000, the Iranian judiciary "closed more than 100 reformist newspapers and jailed hundreds of liberal journalists and activists, while security forces cracked down on the ensuing student protests."

The so-called Council of Guardians blocked any attempts at liberalization. Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who won the presidency in 2005, may be best known to Americans for his incendiary rhetoric and threats against Israel, but Iranians know him for appointing as top ministers "hard-liners who have been implicated directly in the extrajudicial killings of dissidents and other egregious human rights abuses," adds Freedom House.

Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Department of State, last year "The government's poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. The government severely limited citizens' right to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections.

There were reports of unjust executions after unfair trials. Security forces committed acts of politically motivated abductions; torture and severe officially sanctioned punishments, including death by stoning; amputation; flogging; and excessive use of force against and imprisonment of demonstrators."

There is no religious freedom in Iran. The State Department reports that "Government rhetoric and actions created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi'a religious groups, most notably for Baha'is, as well as Sufi Muslims, evangelical Christians, and members of the Jewish community."

Although more widely educated than men, women's professional opportunities are limited: They are barred from serving as judges, discouraged from seeking elected office, and face rampant discrimination.

Under Shariah, or Islamic, law, which Ahmadinejad's has more strictly enforced, women are segregated and forced to conform to a strict dress code. They also do not have equal rights in the laws pertaining to divorce, inheritance and child custody.

A presidential adviser on women's issues, Zahra Shojaie, once said the stoning of adulterers was permissible "to defend the inviolability of the family." This chilling policy is displayed in the movie "The Stoning of Soraya M." Thankfully, Iran's judiciary recently suspended several stoning sentences and submitted legislation to parliament to end stoning.

Just as women fought for the vote in America, women are fighting for their rights as citizens and human beings in Iran. But they take far greater risks and face far greater punishments. "Dozens of women's rights advocates were arrested in 2007 for endangering national security and sentenced to prison terms," according to Freedom House.

Obviously, the U.S. government's influence over Iran is limited. Washington's overriding concern at present is ending Tehran's nuclear program. But U.S. officials can help expose Iran's flagrant violations of human rights.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated at an Independent Women's Forum event in 2006, "When we talk about respect for women, we are referring to a moral truth. Women are free by nature, equal in dignity and entitled to the same rights, the same protections and the same opportunities as men." And that includes in Iran.

But promoting freedom is not just the responsibility of our government. It is our responsibility too. Films like "The Stoning of Sorya M" play a critical role in educating and enraging people about women's human rights. We have to turn that knowledge and anger into action.

A year ago, IWF held a conference with pro-democracy Iranian women living in Iran to assist them with their self-described goal of supporting democratic governance and reform in Iran, particularly women's human rights.

All of the participants in the IWF conference were part of a grassroots movement called the "One Million Signatures" campaign gathering signatures of one million Iranians demanding the end of legal discrimination against women.

The government has harassed and jailed many of the activists involved, but they continue to press for their basic rights as human beings. They ask for America's support in publicizing their efforts, posting their articles on the Web, writing Iranian officials to request fair and equal treatment for women - especially arrested activists - and sharing the experiences of women's movements in other nations.

Scripture tells us that to whom much is given, much is expected. Certainly that is true when it comes to liberty. America has given us much. Let us do whatever we can to share the same bountiful freedoms and opportunities with others.

As Secretary Rice observed at IWF's Woman of Valor Award dinner two years ago: "You don't have to impose democracy; you have to impose tyranny. Democracy lives and breathes, liberty lives and breathes, in the heart of every human being."

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and chief executive officer of the Independent Women's Forum and an MSNBC policy analyst

Sarah Palin: An Everywoman Qualified by What She's Done

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:10:00 EDT

Originally published on Townhall.com

The 2008 primary was definitely a time of firsts. An African-American squared off against a woman in the race for the Democratic Party nomination, and a little known Republican woman nabs the vice-presidential slot shocking the establishment and energizing the conservative base.

Just as the primary was a time for firsts, the general election will be history making as no other has been. Vote Democratic and America elects an African-American president. Vote Republican and the vice president will be a woman-who likely would end up running for the top job in four or eight years. It says something about America that we will make history irrespective of who we vote for. Political barriers continue to fall in what truly is the land of opportunity.

The fact that Sarah Palin is a woman was an important factor in Senator John McCain's decision, but her story is far more compelling than her sex. Her accomplishments make her qualified. She has accumulated more interesting life experiences than have many politicians twice her age.

She is governor of Alaska today not because she sought a career in politics. Rather, she is governor because she wanted to change the state. And she has done so while sustaining a loving marriage and raising five children. In fact, what makes her achievements so unique is the fact that she is everywoman, an average homemaker who cared enough to get involved in local politics and deal with everyday problems affecting everyday people.

True, it's not the same as meeting foreign dignitaries, but it's far more relevant to the lives of most Americans. In fact, we'd probably be a lot better off if more of our national politicians did more nuts and bolts political work at the local level.

Still, Sarah Palin's vision did not stop with the town of Wasilla. She looked at her state government and didn't like what she saw. Rather than wait for someone else to act, she challenged the incumbent governor. Some dismiss her accomplishments because of Alaska's small population, but it often is most difficult to break into a small, insular, corrupt political system, like in Alaska.

Yes, her time as governor has been short. But she has already made a difference by taking on the state's entrenched elites, battling corruption, and reducing the legislature's bloated capital appropriations. It is no wonder that the vast majority of Alaskans approve of her performance. It's a record that gives Americans a sense of her possibilities in Washington. As Lisa Schiffren put it, Palin "brings real reform credentials, authentic Reaganite conservatism, small-government values, and the pragmatic ethos of a middle-class mother of five."

Obviously, many people don't like her positions on the issues. That's why we hold elections. But our debate should be on the issues, not on identity politics. The era of identity politics is now firmly behind us.

Madeleine Kunin, former governor of Vermont, sneers about Alaska being so far "from the center of gravity of American politics" and approvingly quotes those who denounce Palin's nomination as an "insult to women." It brings to mind Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau's use of the term "Brown Sugar," which goes back to slave times, to refer to then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. The unsubtle implication was that she had slept her way to the White House. The reference was outrageous and should have been vigorously denounced by feminists, but groups such as the National Organization for Women remained silent. Their assumption is that "real" women are liberals who believe in using government to transform society. Conservative women just aren't really women. Thus, professional gender activists are now attacking Governor Palin, but this personal destruction isn't likely to work.

Sarah Palin might not win the votes of left-wing feminists, but she appeals to average women and men across the country. Like the rest of us, she wants to make a difference. Let's listen to, and debate her hopes and dreams for America.

Americans should be proud of what both campaigns have delivered. On one side is an eloquent African-American preaching change, backed by a seasoned veteran of Capitol Hill. On the other, is an unconventional maverick veteran of Republican politics known for "straight talk," backed by a reformist understudy-who happens to be a woman. The choice is clear. Let's have an issues-oriented campaign in which all four candidates explain their vision for America, and how they hope to accomplish it.

The Shattered Glass Ceiling: Women Voters after Hillary Clinton's Run

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:08:00 EDT

Originally published on Townhall.com

The Democratic National Convention is upon us, and much of the press commentary revolves around "her." Hillary Clinton, that is, and whether she and her supporters will unite behind Barack Obama. Both campaigns are now developing strategies to attract the votes of women. The best way to do this is not to play gender politics, but to craft sensible solutions to the problems that affect women, men, families, and children.

The Democratic race was unusually hard-fought, and the antagonism of women of a certain era to Senator Obama remains strong. Disgruntled Clinton supporters have created a "Just Say No Deal" coalition including 250 internet groups to oppose his nomination. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 21 percent of Democrats plan to vote for Senator McCain. That is likely to change by November 4th, but even a small number of Democratic defectors could cost Senator Obama victory in a tight race.

Senator Clinton's supporters are rightly proud of her candidacy. Set aside the controversies of her husband's presidency, she has become one of her party's most important figures. In the presidential race she vanquished several distinguished opponents, including Senator Joe Biden, who is now Senator Obama's running mate. And Clinton lost the nomination by the narrowest of margins.

Rather than blame Senator Obama, the media, or misogynists for her loss, Clinton supporters should celebrate her accomplishments. The glass ceiling doesn't just have 18 million cracks, as she has said. It has been shattered. The next woman to run for president, in either party, will be doing nothing out of the ordinary.

How then should Senators Obama and McCain appeal to former Clinton supporters and women voters in general? The answer is not, and never was, to put a woman on the ticket. The candidates need to talk to women about issues. And not just "women's issues"-whatever that means. As we say at the Independent Women's Forum, all issues are women's issues. Women are affected by questions of war and peace, economic turmoil, education, and more. Indeed, that's why Senator Obama carried a majority of the votes of Democratic women in more than a dozen states. Most women want the best candidate, not the best female candidate.

When the fall campaign begins in earnest in September, both candidates need to explain what they will do to encourage economic growth, reduce consumer uncertainty, and revive confidence in the financial system. Should government get out of the way or play a bigger role? What financial institutions, if any, should be bailed out by government? What, if anything, should be done about the housing market?

Thankfully energy prices have begun to dip. But the burden on families, especially those of modest means, remains enormous. How do we increase the supply of energy? And how do we do that while protecting the environment?

What of America's defense? We still have troops in Iraq, the fighting in Afghanistan is getting worse, al-Qaeda has been weakened but not destroyed, and the Russian bear has woken. These issues matter for women as citizens as well as for women as mothers, daughters, and wives. What kind of judgment and experience would the candidates bring to the presidency?

Education is another critical issue. Our children are not being prepared morally to preserve our democratic republic. Nor are they learning the skills necessary to compete in a global economy. How do we fix schools which are failing our children-and, equally important, transform schools to meet the changing needs of the future?

There is so much more. We are the wealthiest nation in the world, but there are still poor among us. How do we help them become self-supporting and full participants in our abundant civic life? Our health care system provides extraordinary medical treatment to many but leaves others behind. And on it goes.

There is no women's position on any of these issues. My bias is towards the private sector and away from heavy-handed government programs. Other women will disagree with me. But all of us want to hear the candidates talk about the important issues.

I disagree with Senator Clinton on many issues, but nevertheless admire her intelligence and her tenacious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. The best way to honor her, however, is not for the candidates to make special appeals to women. Instead, they should appeal to the American people, more than half of whom happen to be women.

Saving the planet while letting children starve

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:43:00 EDT

The Examiner

WASHINGTON -

A certain moral vanity infuses the environmental movement. It demands drastic action to prevent possible warming a century away, but offers little or no hope to those starving or dying of AIDS today.

Protecting the planet is important. However, we must never forget that humankind is at the center of God's creation.

Climate change is horribly complicated. There has been warming over the last century, but not the last decade. New studies suggest that temperatures may actually cool through 2015. Knowledgeable scientists disagree over how much warming is due to human action and how much is due to natural factors.

Most important, we really don't know how much warming is likely to occur in the future. Imagine trying in 1900 to predict the world of 2000. We can do no better today looking ahead to 2100. Even small changes in assumptions could invalidate predictions of warming in coming years, let alone decades.

If it were easy to do, then we could dramatically cut CO2 emissions just to be sure. But carbon-based fuels - coal, natural gas, and oil - make up 85 percent of America's energy supplies.

Never mind years of research and billions spent on alternative fuels. Renewable sources of energy accounted for just 7 percent of America's total energy consumption last year. The share due to wind, solar and geothermal power barely registers. That's not going to change anytime soon.

Energy is what makes our economy run. It's how we fuel our cars and planes, heat and cool our homes, run our factories and produce the goods and services that turned a life of misery into one of plenty. Slashing CO2 emissions means slashing energy use, and slashing energy use means slashing economic growth.

One of the so-called "cap and trade" measures recently advanced in the Senate called for a 70 percent cut in emissions by 2050. The result of this sort of legislation would be dramatically higher energy prices. Forget $4 per gallon gasoline. Think twice that and more.

Looking at it another way, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that this approach could raise an average household's annual energy costs by $1,300. That's the same as the government imposing a $1 trillion tax on the economy.

The economic consequences of such a price shock would be huge. Manufacturing would be hurt the most. Analysts predict job losses in the hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Today's gross domestic product runs about $14 trillion, but the Environmental Protection Agency figures the legislation debated by the Senate could cut our economy's output up to $1 trillion in 2030 and $2.8 trillion in 2050. The accumulated losses would be staggering.

Incurring this kind of cost could be justified if it was the only means to save the Earth from disaster. But estimates suggest these economy-wrecking efforts would ultimately only prevent .013 degrees (Celsius) in warming. In other words, it would have no meaningful effect on our climate.

The poor would suffer the most. If we drain trillions of dollars out of the economy, it is the poor who find it hard, if not impossible, to buy a home, educate their kids, buy gas, put food on the table, get needed health care and more. Any money spent to try to prevent temperatures from rising generates an "opportunity cost," that is, we are missing out on putting that money to another use.

Think of America's great needs. Poverty still exists, even amid plenty. Our educational system is abysmal, failing to educate many children morally to be good citizens and economically to participate in the global economy. There is infrastructure to be built and investment to be made.

Every dollar spent to preclude a temperature increase that might never occur is a dollar not available to help a needy person today. And opportunity costs run global.

Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg organized the Copenhagen Consensus, which brought together experts to debate how best to spend $75 billion to help the world's poor. Top of the list were vitamin supplements for children. Second was freer trade. Third were mineral supplements for kids. Fourth was expanded immunization for the young.

And so it went - food and education aid, women's programs and health care. The first global warming initiative checked in at only number 14: Research and development spending on low-carbon energy technologies. Mitigation, that is, cutting energy use to reduce temperatures, came in at 29 (when supplemented with R&D) and 30 (when considered alone).

That is, there are 13 better ways to save lives and improve people's standard of living than to do anything about global warming. The latter might be a problem, but it isn't the most important problem facing us. It isn't even among the top dozen.

Of course, if temperatures rise significantly, there will be consequences, but the most cost-effective way of dealing with them will be to adapt. That's what we did in past centuries as the Earth warmed and cooled. It's what we should do in the future in similar circumstances.

The Nobel laureate Milton Friedman told us there is no such thing as a free lunch; he was right. Politics is about trade-offs, and spending ourselves poor in an attempt to deal with uncertain climate problems in the future will cost our society, and particularly its most vulnerable members, far too much today. Protecting the environment requires that we first protect the people in it.

Michelle D. Bernard is author of "Women's Progress, How Women are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before," president and chief executive officer of the Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women's Voice and an MSNBC political analyst.

Examiner

Another Glorious Fourth: What Would the Founders Think?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:23:00 EDT

First appeared on Townhall.com

Independence Day is the most significant of our political holidays. Without the 4th, there would be no President's Day or Memorial Day. As we enjoy comfortable lives in the world's dominant power, it is hard to imagine the circumstances facing Americans in 1776. The colonists represented a string of settlements along the Atlantic coast, hemmed in between the ocean and an inhospitable wilderness inhabited by often hostile Indians.

As fighting broke out between the colonists and British troops, the early Americans faced a stark choice: submit to London and sacrifice their liberty, or rebel against the mightiest empire on Earth and face prison or death if they failed. We all celebrate the Founders for making the first choice, but how many of us would have pledged our own "lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor," as did the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

Frankly, we have it easy today. And we owe many of our advantages as Americans to the courage and fortitude of those who stood up for liberty on that July 4th many years ago. Of course, the fact that we are better off than the Founders does not mean that we don't face any challenges. Just pick up a newspaper.

The economy has slowed and times are uncertain. People are losing their homes and the stock market is falling. America is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, while terrorist groups like al-Qaeda remain a threat.

Congress continues to spend wildly, and the impending retirement of the baby boomers will create a financial tsunami from Social Security and Medicare. Our educational system is failing to teach our children reading, morality, or citizenship. Energy prices are racing out of sight.

Yet partisanship reigns supreme. For the last 20 years the Bushes and the Clintons have dominated American politics. While they all can be-and deserve to be-criticized for many things, they all also genuinely believed that their policies would benefit the nation. But vitriol and hatred have replaced civility and comity in the public square.

Indeed, for many people politics is but a game- red team versus blue team. Policies don't matter. Only victory counts. As a result, whether its Iraq, energy prices, or budget deficits, there is no hint of bipartisan cooperation.

It's a sad picture.

But the Founders would understand. After all, politics in the early republic was not for the faint-hearted. It often was rowdy, nasty, and personal. And creating a new government isn't the easiest of tasks.

The Declaration's signers also likely would be hopeful. Americans have spent more than two centuries overcoming big challenges. There's no reason they would believe we weren't up to the job today.

Despite the fact many people are dissatisfied with the two major presidential contenders, I believe the Founders would have been impressed with both of them.

There's John McCain, who would be the oldest man ever elected president. He was a rowdy young man, served heroically in the military, survived years as a prisoner of war, overcame political setbacks, and won his party's nomination despite opposing many of his party's policy positions. He might not be your cup of tea, but surely he's an impressive politician.

Then there's Barack Obama. Even many Republicans find themselves attracted to his rhetoric of change and unity. More important still is his race.

The Founders recognized that they were making a pact with the devil when they sanctioned slavery. But they believed the necessity of a union that included the southern colonies outweighed the moral and practical horrors of slavery. Leaders like Thomas Jefferson understood the potential for disunion that lurked beneath the infamous slave clauses of the Constitution.

So I believe those who signed the Declaration would be pleased that the American nation that came through the searing experience of the Civil War and reunited, eventually-after much hardship and pain-came to welcome black as well as white as part of our political union. They would recognize that Barack Obama's candidacy helps heal two centuries of racism and demonstrates America's uniqueness to the world.

In short, the men who signed the Declaration 232 years ago would be impressed with the nation they helped create. "Well done," I believe they would say, while enjoining us not to rest on their-and our-laurels. For truly we have much yet to do. But as Americans, we should never doubt our ability to prevail, whatever the challenge.

This is America with Dennis Wholey: Race in America

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:51:00 EDT

This is America host Dennis Wholey mediates two roundtable conversations about race in America with civil rights leader Roger Wilkins, Deborah Simmons of the Washington Times, Jabari Asim of the NAACP's Crisis magazine, Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women's Forum, Rev. Dr. Morris L. Shearin Sr. of the Israel Baptist Church, and Fath Davis Ruffins of the Smithsonian Institution.

C-Span: Q&A with Michelle D. Bernard

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:00 EDT

On Friday, June 15, 2008, IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joined C-Span's Q&A for a conversation with host Brian Lamb. Michelle discusses her background, IWF's mission, and her latest role as MSNBC Political Analyst.

The McLaughlin Group: Election Coverage

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:27:00 EDT

IWF President and CEO joined the discussion group on The McLauglin Group.

Candidate Clinton: Sexism, Racism, and Electoral Politics

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:35:00 EDT

Townhall.com

The Democratic presidential race is coming to a close. The Democratic National Committee has attempted to resolve the controversy over the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries by giving both state delegations half votes. That diminished Barack Obama's edge over Hillary Clinton, but he is still likely to win enough delegates to be named the Democratic nominee. In fact, it appears that it is mathematically impossible for Senator Hillary Clinton to reach the magical delegate threshold of 2,118. The question now is whether Senator Clinton exits the race and if so, will she do so with grace?

Hillary Clinton's candidacy is an historic milestone. She created a massive organization, raised millions of dollars, and plowed over all but one of her male rivals. In a different year, she would have won the nomination. But not this time.

The reasons are many. Her campaign made obvious strategic miscalculations. She was not prepared for vigorous competition, only rallying after losing eleven straight contests and falling significantly behind in the delegate count. Her husband's presidency was a mixed blessing. Unfortunate comments after the South Carolina primary created a whiff of race baiting, alienating thousands of African Americans who had, until then, strongly supported her candidacy. Finally, she faced another politician nonpareil-the seemingly effortless eloquence, grace, and unparalleled ability of Barack Obama to evoke hope in millions of Americans. Moreover, the symbolism of his candidacy-which dramatically repudiates centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and horrific acts of overt racism-overshadowed the uniqueness of her run.

The result does no discredit to her. Unfortunately, blaming sexism and misogyny for the state of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations threatens to diminish her legacy.

She has complained about the "sexism that has gone on in this campaign" and the fact that "so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist." Some of her supporters voice similar sentiments. "She's been treated pretty shabby," one claimed. Another complained of "pervasive and insidious sexism." Yet another stated that "latent sexism has been a part of this campaign." Therese Murray, president of the Massachusetts Senate, unapologetically claimed that "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media." Geraldine Ferraro lamented that racism is unacceptable, but sexism seems to be permissible.

These claims are nonsense.

Does sexism still exist in America and are some voters unlikely to choose a woman for president? Of course. But racism also still exists, and undoubtedly has cost Senator Obama as many votes as sexism has cost Senator Clinton. Indeed, both Clintons have played the race card. To Senator Obama's credit, he has not wasted his time whining about this ugly historical legacy, but has worked to create a new reality.

Consider the membership of the U.S. Senate. There are fifteen women and one African-American. Is sex or race the bigger barrier to winning high office? Moreover, Senator Clinton has emphasized her sex during the campaign and has won support from many women because of her gender. Yet even though Senator Clinton has enthusiastically played the gender card, Senator Obama won the votes of a majority of women in 13 states and split the votes in another one. Surely, not all of his female supporters are anti-feminist, inauthentic, self-hating women.

Blaming sexism for her loss in the Democratic delegate count will set back the cause of women in politics. A new Brookings Institution study finds that the "fundamental reason for women's under representation is that they do not run for office." The most effective way to make that gap permanent is to convince women that they have no chance to win.

Senator Clinton should take pride in what she has accomplished. Equally important, though, her campaign should accept responsibility for its failings. A combination of her mistakes on strategy and Obama's gifts, not discrimination, doomed her candidacy.

FOX's America's Newsroom: Teachers Unions Exposed

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:27:00 EDT

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joined FOX Newsroom to discuss the campaign against teachers unions launched by Center for Union Facts (CUF).

PBS' To the Contrary: Various Topics

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:34:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard on PBS' To the Contrary.

Topics include:

Americans leaving organized religion;
Did the media's gender bias doom the Clinton campaign?; and,
A new book by Dee Dee Myers, Why Women Should Rule the World.

Measurable Progress

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:53:00 EST

Washington Times

In the mid-1960s, inner cities around the country exploded in violence. Americans were shocked and scared. In 1968, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders issued the Kerner Commission Report, which ominously warned that America was "moving toward two societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal." We have come far since then, but still have far to go. Our goal must remain to be one nation with equal opportunity for all. That objective is achievable, but requires more hard work by all of us.

Forty years ago, the civil-rights movement was struggling against institutionalized discrimination throughout the South. Lynchings, white-only restrooms, segregated schools and lunch counters were a plague upon the nation. Crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy and dependency were spreading throughout black neighborhoods. Poverty was the inner-city norm, with declining hope for the future.

Since that time, in some areas we have come far. In others, our progress has been disappointing. We have learned to live and work together. As the recent Iowa Democratic caucus demonstrated, Americans increasingly look past color. Racism still exists, but no longer can be considered the primary cause of many serious problems facing the African-American community.

Black Americans are making important economic gains. A vibrant professional and entrepreneurial class helps lead all of the cities that once suffered urban unrest. Middle- and upper-income African-Americans have moved out of the inner-city into suburbs across the nation. Blacks have taken an even greater leadership role in politics. Forty years ago African-Americans had to fight to exercise the right to vote. Today, the Democratic frontrunner for president is a black man. America's 65th secretary of state was an African American man, and the 66th secretary of state is an African American woman. Blacks now routinely serve in Congress and the cabinet, on the U.S. Supreme Court and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as governors and mayors across the country. While we once would have been surprised to see a black face at an important political gathering, we now are surprised if there isn't one.

We should be proud of our progress. As columnist Eugene Robinson observed: "This successful black America gets very little coverage, for the obvious reason that good news isn't really news in the traditional sense."

Nevertheless, there is much more to do. Residential segregation remains distressingly common. In many areas it still looks like there are two Americas. Moreover, the dramatic economic improvement for many blacks cannot hide the persistence of poverty in what we once called "the ghetto." Illegitimacy rates for young girls and incarceration rates for young men have hit staggering levels. Our public education system continues to fail children throughout the nation. Too many African American kids determined to succeed find themselves ill-prepared for the competition in top universities and an increasingly globalized workplace.

There's no simple answer.

The Kerner Commission recommended new welfare programs, and the federal government has spent more to fight poverty than it spent to win World War II. Unfortunately, bigger social programs backfired, encouraging family and community break-up, discouraging education and employment, and creating pervasive dependency. We know more government social engineering will not work.

The 1996 welfare reform, agreed to by a Republican Congress and Democratic president, freed many of the nation's poor from the fetters of dependency and encourages self-sufficiency. Today, we must improve education and generate economic opportunity for those still stuck in poverty. To do so we must empower people rather than bureaucracies. For instance, pouring more money into failing public schools won't improve student achievement. Giving parents improved options and forcing public institutions to compete will help kids learn. Poor people are poor, not stupid, which is why so many black Baptists work so hard to place their children in parochial schools.

Similarly, policies like the minimum wage may sound "progressive," but actually destroy jobs. We need to clear away regulations that make it hard to start a small business and enter a profession. Entrepreneurs, not politicians, create real jobs with the potential for advancement.

Although people are focused on the subprime lending crisis, and its negative impact on minority homeownership, building codes, rent controls and zoning restrictions do far more to limit good housing. Better policing is also necessary to provide safe neighborhoods for poor as well as rich.

Forty years ago the Kerner Commission provided us with an important warning. However, unlike the conventional wisdom of the 1960s, what we know today is that blacks haven't been so crippled by past discrimination that we cannot compete with whites. We can, and will continue to do so, if government will let us.

Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier and More Independent Than Ever Before."

NPR's News & Notes: Potomac Primary Results

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:45:00 EST

From NPR.org:

News & Notes , February 13, 2008 · We take a look at the issues behind yesterday's primary results with Michelle Bernard - head of the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. - and Todd Shaw, an assistant professor of political science and African-American studies at the University of South Carolina.

Independent Women's Voice (IWV) MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews: GOP Presidential Debate

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:15:00 EST

Michelle D. Bernard President and CEO of Independent Women's Voice (IWV) discusses the GOP Presidential Debate held in Florida.

The Path to Democracy and Stability in Pakistan

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:57:00 EST

Townhall.com

Who are we fighting in this War on Terror? For many Americans, the War on Terror remains a confusing concept. We are used to wars against countries, not against a group of people brought together by an ideology and hatred of the West. Our enemy is most easily defined by their acts: the attacks of September 11th exemplify the threat they pose. Now, with news that the CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda, in concert with allies of Baitullah Mehud, a Pakistani tribal leader, were responsible for the murder Benazir Bhutto, we are reminded that this War on Terror isn't just about the safety of the United States, but the fate of the world.

Another foreign nation is in crisis. Americans should appreciate yet again how fortunate we are to live in a country that is both free and stable. We do not worry about one killer turning our political system upside down.

The contrast today with Pakistan could not be greater. The murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was a tragedy on many levels. Her family has lost a wife and mother. Her party has lost its soul and inspiration. Her country has lost an intelligent, courageous woman prepared to lead in difficult times. The rest of us have lost one of the world's leading female politicians-living proof that a woman can run the government of an Islamic nation. Bhutto could have helped turn Pakistanis and Muslims elsewhere away from the failed politics of extremism and terrorism and towards the positive approach of global engagement and leadership.

Bhutto's death was a blow against people of goodwill all over the world. But we must not grow discouraged. To the contrary, the U.S. and its allies must redouble their efforts in the War on Terror and aid Pakistanis as they attempt to advance democracy in their nation.

All people are entitled to self-government. Throughout history, all people have sought self-government. Unfortunately, however, not all people are ready to build stable and free political systems. This is the ugly truth that we have learned in the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, and other Muslim states have suffered under autocracy. All have taken some moves toward democracy but still face enormous barriers to the practice of liberal democracy in their nations.

For democracy to work, government must be built on respect for the life and dignity of its citizens. People must be willing to work peacefully with other groups and accept defeat in elections. Private mediating institutions are necessary to link individuals and families to communities and the nation.

Washington has long worked with various governments in Islamabad. Since September 11th, the U.S. has provided the Musharraf regime with some $10 billion. For that money, America has won at times reluctant cooperation in the fight against both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, all of Pakistan has not been fully in the fight.

Many residents of the provinces bordering Afghanistan have welcomed America's enemies as guests. The Pakistani military has been unable--or unwilling--to clear out these safe havens. Even many secular Pakistanis are hostile to America, which they blame for supporting military dictatorships at home. Thus, we should consider a new strategy in Pakistan.

It is critical to win the allegiance of the Pakistani people. The U.S. government must be more careful to ensure that the Pakistani people understand that it supports them, and not any particular government or politician. America cannot dictate the form of Pakistan's government or the speed with which it returns to democracy, but Washington should unequivocally support the right of the Pakistani people to choose their own leaders.

We also must ensure that our aid actually goes to help people in need. Military assistance will remain vital so long as the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain threats, but the U.S.-Pakistan relationship must not focus on security alone. Non-governmental organizations, including those which promote the full economic, political, and social advancement of Pakistani women, should take on a greater role, bypassing the Pakistani government and establishing a direct relationship with community and tribal leaders. As some Middle Eastern suffragettes have remarked, half a democracy is not a democracy. Finally, Washington must demonstrate that it has learned humility and is willing to listen to the Pakistani people even as it encourages them to remain on a democratic path.

Benazir Bhutto won renown as one of the world's most noted female politicians. But, more important, she earned respect as one of her nation's most important leaders, irrespective of sex. The best way to honor her legacy and advance our interests in this War on Terror is for the American people to become true partners of the Pakistani people in order to encourage both democracy and prosperity in their nation. This approach will make us more secure. This commitment also represents America at its generous and democratic best.

Michelle D. Bernard, a lawyer by training, is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of the soon to be released Women's Progress, How Women are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before.

If I were running for president, this is what I would say

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:46:00 EST

Nashua Telegraph

If I were running for president, one of the many questions I would ask is, "What do women want?"

Women, after all, are the majority of voters in the United States.

The answer is quite simple: Women want policies that improve the lives of our families and increase the safety of our nation. Women want an America that is, as Abraham Lincoln stated, "the last, best hope of Earth."

Earlier this month, women from around the country met in Manchester to participate in Lifetime Television's "If I Were President" Forum. This nonpartisan coalition of women sought answers from the candidates about how they would handle many of the domestic and foreign-policy issues of particular concern to women.

Candidates who listen to women find that women aren't that different than men: Women want policies that generate the stability and security necessary for women to successfully balance family and professional life.

Women want a prosperous economy with low interest rates and stable prices. Jimmy Carter's era of "stagflation" demonstrated how important it is to get the essentials right. That means not letting the subprime loan mess turn into an excuse for government to wreck the credit market, and promoting a marketplace that rewards entrepreneurship and hard work.

A big tax hike would strike hardest at businesswomen, particularly those starting their own businesses. The burden of federal regulation remains far too high - at more than $1 trillion, it exceeds the total amount collected in federal income taxes.

The looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security also concerns women, especially those who rely on these programs. These programs' $90 trillion unfunded liabilities will eventually have to be paid if we are to keep faith with our elderly. We need reform now to protect those currently collecting benefits while providing better options for younger workers.

Health care is also a critical issue for women. The U.S. medical system offers unparalleled quality, but leaves some people behind. Women want a system that builds on the strengths of American medicine, emphasizing the role of patients as consumers. Women want an end to the bias for employer-provided health insurance, which hurts women who are more likely to move in and out of the workforce and don't want to risk losing insurance or changing doctors with each job change.

Women care deeply about education. We want our daughters and sons to be taught to be good citizens. We also want our children prepared to succeed in an increasingly global economy.

Real reform requires more than throwing money at poorly performing schools. Real reform is holding schools accountable for their performance. Real reform is ending the public school monopoly and giving parents a genuine choice as to where their children attend school.

Although women are thought to be more interested than men about the home front, it is for this reason that national security is also a women's issue. Any woman who grieved after Sept. 11, 2001, or who watched 186 children killed at the Beslan school siege in Russia cares not only about domestic policy, but about national security and terrorism.

Yes, we want our husbands, sons and daughters home from Iraq. But we also want a peaceful, democratic Iraq that improves the lives of the Iraqi people and the security of the American people. We want responsible leaders to balance the freedoms that make America great with the policies necessary to prevent new attacks on the United States.

Women insist on policies to deal with a potentially dangerous world. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Russia is growing more antagonistic. The brightest hope for democracy in Pakistan has been assassinated. Women don't want war, but we do want to be ready if conflict is forced upon us.

There is one other issue. Elections in America always have been competitive; campaigning always has been vigorous. But women, again like most Americans, are tired of the vicious bickering in Washington that makes it harder to meet the serious challenges facing our nation.

Throughout our history, we Americans have consistently overcome obstacles in our way and surprised our enemies. We will continue to do so. But first, we need to remember that we are Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats.

If I were running for president, I would recognize that women want what all Americans want: a better life for ourselves and our countrymen.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before."

Black Enterprise: Our World with Black Enterprise

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:49:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joins Ed Gordon on Our World with Black Enterprise for a roundtable discussion including such topics as Barack Obama, the woman's vote, the African American vote, and new African American leadership.

Leading the Majority: Martin Luther King Jr.

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:25:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joins RightTalk radio as a guest on Leading the Majority discussing Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and the importance of King's work.

FOX's The O'Reilly Factor: Media coverage on Obama

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:33:00 EST

...

CNN Newsroom: America Votes 2008

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:07:00 EST

IWF President & CEO, Michelle D. Bernard discusses and gives reaction to Tuesday's New Hampshire primary.

PBS' To the Contrary: Iowa caucus, women business owners, and sex-segregated sports

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:04:00 EST

...

A Free Trade Agenda for American Women

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:29:00 EST

Originally published by The Examiner on December 28, 2007.

"Three centuries ago Thomas Hobbes proclaimed life ‘nasty, brutish and short.' Today, we have Lou Dobbs presenting life as unfair, isolationist and doomed. For people who subscribe to this view, all the ills of protectionism can be cured with more protectionism" said U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab at an event held by the Independent Women's Forum.

Surveying the challenges the U.S. faces in our increasingly global economy, Ambassador Schwab offered a simple, persuasive prescription: We must "engage and not retreat." We must "seize opportunities to open markets to U.S. goods and services as we stay open to the products of other countries."

Americans always have been a trading people. The early colonists vigorously resisted British import duties. The United States has long led the world in promoting free trade, and U.S. products and services (many of which are provided by women-owned and operated businesses) now dominate the globe. Unfortunately, the bipartisan consensus in favor of an open international economy is breaking down.

Despite fears of lost jobs due to globalization, America employs 16.5 million more people today than a decade ago. Europe has barely treaded water while America has sped ahead.

True, the U.S. has fewer manufacturing jobs - because these industries are more productive and produce more with less. While 3.3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared over the last 10 years, our nation has enjoyed a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in higher-wage industries. Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute reports that real compensation for American workers is up 22 percent since 1997.

Although the U.S. is the world's economic powerhouse, 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders. Selling to them creates at least 12 million jobs in America today. As they grow wealthier, these billions will have even more money to spend on U.S. goods and services.

An open economy is particularly important for women, who continue to increase their role as business executives and entrepreneurs. A policy of free trade spreads that openness to other lands. Because of numerous bilateral free trade pacts and decades of increasing liberalization abroad, American women enjoy far greater economic opportunities today than even a few years ago.

Yet all of these advantages are at risk today. Interest groups and politicians are undermining America's traditional free trade agenda, treating the international economy as a threat.

First, multilateral negotiations, termed the "Doha round," have stalled over issues such as farm subsidies. Although Europe is the biggest stumbling block, the U.S., too, has sacrificed the interests of consumers to maintain outmoded farm export subsidies. An increasing number of Republicans embrace a protectionist agenda, while the new Democratic majority is even more hostile to free trade. While Congress passed the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, it has failed to renew the president's "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements (FTAs), with Congress providing an up or down vote to approve any deal.

Previously negotiated FTAs with Columbia, Panama and South Korea remain stalled on Capitol Hill. All of these agreements offer the U.S. political as well as economic benefits.

American economic predominance cannot be taken for granted. U.S. economic success is threatened not only by a turn away from economic engagement, but also by legislators who are failing to push the domestic reforms necessary to maintain America's competitive advantage abroad.

Corporate taxes are too high. Burdensome federal regulations plague U.S. companies. The public schools fail to prepare many students for a career in a high-tech, global economy. Our health and retirement systems are a costly mess.

America's women need what America needs, an administration and Congress committed to working together to ensure that the U.S. remains second to none economically. Free trade must again be a priority. Congress should reauthorize presidential fast-track authority and ratify the three pending FTAs. Then, the president should negotiate FTAs with other interested nations.

The administration should attempt to restart the Doha negotiations by exhibiting greater flexibility in reforming our agriculture policy. Washington also should accelerate discussions with Europe over economic harmonization. The global community will benefit from removing unnecessary barriers to trade and investment.

Finally, Congress and the president should pursue a concerted policy to further free up the U.S. economy, including lower capital gains and corporate taxes that match economic competitors, and more sophisticated, less costly regulation.

America became a global leader by embracing economic liberty at home and abroad. The American public would be wise to remember that legacy when voting next year.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier and More Independent Than Ever Before"

New York Post: Writing Her Off

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:48:00 EST

New York Post

December 16, 2007 -- At an address before the Independent Women's Forum in 2006, Condoleezza Rice made a spine-tingling statement: "[T]he fact is that our Founding Fathers, trying to create a perfect union of ‘We the People,' couldn't quite find a way to deal with slavery. So instead, they left my ancestors to be three-fifths of a man. But some hundred plus years later, I stand before you as a descendant of those people who were three-fifths of a man and I ask, ‘Would anybody have thought it possible?' "
As the first black female Secretary of State, Rice should by rights be a heroine to establishment journalists such as New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, author of "Condoleezza Rice: An American Life." But it doesn't quite work that way.

Throughout her life and throughout this book, there are those who question Rice's "blackness," her pro-women bona fides and her gradual move from the Democratic to Republican Party; many refuse to recognize the reasons for the idealism of her outlook.

The portions of the book that discuss Rice's family background, early childhood and early career path are the most fascinating. Rice's grandfather, Albert Robinson Ray III, more likely than not worked as a laborer in Alabama's cotton fields. According to family legend, in 1904, a white man assaulted Ray's sister. Albert risked being lynched and avenged the attack. Four years later, he moved to Birmingham and married Mattie Lula Parham, a classically trained pianist. They had five children, all of whom graduated from historically black colleges in the South. One of their children, Angelena, Rice's beloved mother, was a refined, proud teacher.

Early in his life, Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, Jr., was a part-time minister, taught gym, and was head basketball coach at a local high school. The son of a former slave who could read and write, John preached at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Birmingham. After working on a master's degree in student personnel administration, he accepted a position as assistant director of admissions at the University of Denver where he focused on recruiting minority students.

By age three, through the sheer will of her parents, Rice had learned how to read and she gave her first piano recital at age four. At five, her mother tried to enroll her in first grade, presumably because the young Condoleezza did not need to bother with kindergarten. When the school disagreed, she took a year off from work and home schooled her daughter.

Bumiller tries to suggest some of the challenges that led Rice to become the most powerful women in the world. So we are told about a school guidance counselor who steered the very talented young woman toward junior college despite her grades and musical talent; we learn that her father registered as Republican because Democrats would not allow him to vote, imposing poll tests that no one could possibly pass (i.e., "How many jelly beans are in that jar?"), and we are told that her father favored Catholic schools over public schools for his daughter because the Catholic schools were "very rigorous, very traditional, lots of languages, Latin, lots of mathematics." Bumiller also tells us about how young Condoleezza had a college professor who spoke positively about a physicist who was promoting a theory that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites; and we see her as the only black member of a presidential delegation waiting to see President Gorbachev off at San Francisco International Airport (the Secret Service ordered Rice to leave the tarmac and stay behind the security gate).

Bumiller conducted numerous interviews, and the book has some fascinating moments, but she misses the mark in trying to capture Rice's wonderful story of American achievement. Indeed, many of those interviewed do not believe that Rice authentically represents the American dream, and they are seemingly incapable of understanding what fuels Rice's self-made potpourri of idealism, pragmatism and determination to succeed. I couldn't help wondering whether veteran members of the feminist movement and self-described progressives can be fair to a woman whose political views do not match their own.

Bumiller and many of those she quotes in her book are unable to fairly consider a black woman who embraces individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and the free market. She mistakenly concludes that Rice's "real ideology was not idealism or realism," but "succeeding." In analyzing Rice's evolution from concert pianist to political scientist, Democrat to Republican and political realist to idealist, Bumiller concludes that "shedding so many skins raises the question of what she really stands for . . . she is a pragmatist who for four overwhelming years got swept away by her devotion to the president." Isn't it possible that Rice has simply evolved rather than "reinvented" herself as Bumiller suggests?

One black Birmingham civil rights activist says that despite spending her early childhood in Birmingham and losing one of her friends in the 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, "[M]ost black people understand that Condoleezza Rice's politics and our politics are not the same. I'm not sure she ever had the real black experience, I'm not sure of that at all."

In a 2006 address, Rice spoke of the "unfolding of moral progress," "optimism" and a "sense of historical perspective." She told the audience that she believed that "with enough moral courage, with enough optimism and with enough human agency . . . there will come a day when we will look back on Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and the troubled spots of the world, and we will ask, "Who could have ever doubted that liberal democracy would take hold there?" Given all that has happened in her life and the lives of her forbearers, isn't it possible that this is her real ideology?

Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum.

Condoleezza Rice: An American Life

by Elizabeth Bumiller

Random House

Summer Newsletter 2006

CNN's The Situation Room:Don Imus' return to the airwaves

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:26:00 EST

...