Background Check

Joe Nocera’s column in Saturday’s New York Times focused on FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, formerly staffer to ex-Senator Bob Dole and more recently a professor at UMass. See the whole story here.

This aside stopped me in my tracks:

“The person the administration had hoped to nominate as chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the nation’s primary bank regulator, was suddenly proving unacceptable. (According to the Washington rumor mill, that choice, Diana L. Taylor, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s companion and, at the time, New York’s superintendent of banking, was nixed by the National Rifle Association, presumably because of Mayor Bloomberg’s antigun stance.)”

But a bit of research and reflection suggests that the story isn’t the grim tale of suffering-because-of-spousal assocations (or, non-spouse) it first seemed. The Times’ lengthy 2006 profile of Ms. Taylor when her FDIC nomination stalled also hinted at the possibility of an NRA veto. See the earlier story here.

 

But the FDIC Chairmanship is subject to Senate confirmation, and the Senate was evenly divided between Rs and Ds back in early 2006. It is easy to imagine a scenario in which the White House congressional liaison advised Bush that no one with anything to do with Bloomberg had a prayer of Senate confirmation. The NRA held tight rein in that chamber, and the White House probably lacked the votes, or the interest in the arm-twisting it would take to counter NRA opposition. Bair, the final pick, had Senate ties, presumably a plus for the 50 Republicans (and several pro-gun Dems) whose votes were key.

Yes, it’s annoying that Ms. Taylor’s nomination was withdrawn because of the actions of her friend Bloomberg, and nothing to do with her views, personal or public. There was no suggestion she ever personally lobbied for or advocated for or in any way spoke out about gun control. She’s no Sarah Brady or Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. Taylor’s passionate policy pronouncements seem to have run the gamut from denouncing excess banking fees to urging greater access to banking services for immigrants. No, she was the victim of NRA payback to Bloomberg, pure and simple.

But the Bush Administration will happily name persons to influential policy posts irrespective of the politics or alliances of the person’s spouse, or “companion.” Mary Matalin, counsel to Vice President Cheney, and wife of notorious Democratic Consultant and pundit James Carville comes to mind. Josh Bolten, White House chief of staff is another example.  Libby Copeland reported in an Aug 29, 2006 Washington Post story last year that  Bolten’s live-in girlfriend Dede McClure was a Democrat. Neither Matalin nor Bolten’s appointment was subject to Senate confirmation. And there was no suggestion in either of these cases that either appointee was tainted by her husband or “companion.”

A quick Google search revealed that Ms. Taylor rebounded pretty well from the FDIC mess. She took a job in the private sector, and this June was been named to serve on the FDIC advisory board. Her skills, knowledge, banking experience and formidable talent are already put to good use in helping regulate America’s banks. Maybe the next president, a Democrat, will find a way to keep using her talents, despite her association with a notorious Republican.

Watch those Wives

The other day I attended an afternoon tea sponsored by the Women’s Bar Association. (No fancy hats or white gloves–it’s winter!) The guest speaker was New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court correspondent for more than 25 years. I took the opportunity to ask her what she thought of the recent practice of the press to give extensive news feature coverage to spouses of Supreme Court nominees, and whether she thought this was a change from her earlier years covering the Court, in the ’70s. I named the particular focus on Jane Sullivan Roberts, an attorney, and  Martha-Ann Bomgardner Alito, a law librarian-turned-at-home-mom. Ms. Greenhouse’s initial, somewhat dismissive response was that “well, back in the old days, the wives weren’t lawyers. And besides, it’s interesting!”

Knowing how carefully the Bush Administration stage-managed the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, I doubt the Times or other papers had to do much digging to reach friends and family members who were quoted extensively in the many stories leading up to the nomination hearings. Astonishingly detailed profiles emerged in each case. Seemingly everything was offered for scrutiny, from Ms. Sullivan Roberts’ quirky choice of car to her working class roots in the Outer Boroughs. Times pundits opined that Ms. Sullivan Roberts’ activities in Feminists for Life (or a similarly named group–forgive my memory) were being offered as a wink and nudge to the pro-life lobby. Mrs. Alito’s career arc merited a bit less ink, but her devotion to her children’s sports activities and her active, supporting role as a substitute staffer in their schools were duly noted and analyzed.

So the reading public was treated to this coverage of the ladies solely because it’s “interesting?” Greenhouse was a bit too coy, and her first response was more telling. The wives of yore didn’t merit the same coverage, because they “weren’t lawyers.” Oh, really? If the mere fact of being a lawyer-spouse was the reason for the coverage, then one might expect the analysts to focus on areas of potential case conflicts or sources of recusals. Anyone who covers the law as closely as Greenhouse must know of  attorney’s and judge’s ironclad oaths of confidentiality. Presumably Chief Justice and Mrs. Roberts were scrupulous to honor their oaths during their years of law practice at separate firms, and presumably would remain as scrupulous during Justice Roberts’ tenure on the bench. But, as I recall, aside from brief descriptions of Ms. Sullivan Roberts’s communications law practice and her somewhat reduced work schedule following the adoption of their two children, the tenor of the stories followed the usual tone adopted by any standard personality profile.

What I hoped for from Greenhouse was the acknowledgment that, while the press feeds the reading public’s insatiable appetite for gossipy profiles of wife and family, those features weren’t particularly relevant to substantive, important issue at hand, whether Judges Roberts and Alito were the right picks for the U.S. Supreme Court. And, if there is an argument to be made that the work, courtship, and family history of a potential Justice’s wife is relevant, then we need to know why. In that case, the Times and its fellow newspapers of record dropped the ball.

My next post will examine a recent instance where the Bush administration allegedly slapped down a potential appointee because of spousal politics. Sometimes it matters, but for the absolutely wrong reasons.

Nothing

Maira Kalman’s (http://www.mairakalman.com/) wonderful picture book, Hey Willy, See the Pyramids (http://www.mairakalman.com/children/heywilly.html) includes this poignant exchange between little Alexander and his sister Lulu:

“What is nothing?” Her insightful reply: “Nothing is when you are given a very small portion of ice cream by an adult, and you look at the plate and at the adult and you ask for more and the adult says you have a huge portion and you say ‘That’s it? That’s nothing.’ “And that is nothing,” says Lulu.

My friend Sara tells the story of a school reunion she attended in Israel in the late 90s. The reunion goers were Polish Jews, who, like Sara and her family, had been expelled from Poland in the late 1960s or early 1970s in one of the last late 20th century pogroms. Sara landed in Chicago a teenager, speaking absolutely no English. But she duly enrolled in the Chicago Public Schools–Von Steuben High–learned English, graduated, eventually married an accountant, moved to the North Shore suburb of Highland Park, and raised and nurtured three beautiful, successful children. Sara developed a passion for portrait photography, and with her husband supported the arts–theater and architecture in particular. This, while also caring for an aging mother and mother-in-law. In the several years after her youngest left for college Sara built her photography avocation into a small business, and now runs a specialty portrait studio out of her condo. For most of the time since her first child was born 37 some years ago, however, Sara did not have paid work outside the home.

Sara’s Polish diaspora cohort were returning to Israel from all over the world. Her old schoolmates had taken the divergent life paths available to determined immigrants, including gaining professional degrees. Sara noticed a particular name on the list of attendees: a female schoolmate who became a doctor. The doctor was amazingly accomplished and successful , although she never married or had a family, and boasted multiple awards, fellowships, and prestigious appointments. And boast she did. As soon as Sara greeted this classmate, the woman regaled Sara with three decades’ worth of achievements in university and medical school and medical practice and research and more. Finally, the doctor exhausted her supply of fabulous successes to relate. “So, Sara,” she asked, “what have you been doing the last 30 years?” Sara took a long look at her former friend before she replied.

“Oh, nothing.”

Experience

United States Senator and former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton touts herself as one of the most “experienced” candidates in the Democratic field. Dana Milbank’s quote in today’s Washington Post profile of her campaign is typical: “Her ‘35 years of experience’ make her ‘the best-qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running.’” Here’’s the link to the full story:href=”http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801442.html”>

In addition to her own formidable accomplishments–Yale Law, Watergate Committee, children’s advocacy with Marian Wright Edelman, partner at Rose Law Firm, ABA committee work–Senator Clinton heavily underscores the “experience” she gained through opportunites created by her marriage to an elected official–the Governor of a small southern state turned two-term President. More practiced pundits have tried to puncture that balloon by noting that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson wins the resume sweepstakes, and that Senators Dodd and Biden both have logged far more years in Congress than Senator Clinton.

Well, of course she’s no Lurleen Wallace, pushed stumbling into the Alabama governorship her term-limited husband could no longer fill, and widely viewed a pawn or puppet of George Wallace’s political machine. Nor is Senator Clinton comparable to Missouri’s Jean Carnahan, who also touted experience from her long marriage and active political partnership with her late husband, Governor Mel Carnahan, but was also pushed forward to fill in for a husband tragically killed before he could complete his own Senate campaign. No one doubts Senator Clinton’s very own and very real drive, ability, policy smarts, ambition, and discipline. No one drafted her on short notice to fill someone else’s shoes.

So why does it stick in my craw that she claims credit for, and “experience” based on the happenstance of being (or, perhaps more accurately, staying) married to Bill Clinton? I finally put my finger on the source of my unease as I revised my own resume in connection with recent job hunting.

I’ve been married nearly 20 years to a finance professional. For nearly 18 of the 20 years he has advised and educated pension fund trustees. More recently he has worked with pension funds on the “sell” side, setting up a US office for an overseas company that makes investments on behalf of its union-owned pension funds. I’ve read my husband’s speeches, met his colleagues, attended conferences, edited his research papers, followed pension fund stories in the business press and popular press, and developed a pretty good, albeit not particularly sophisticated, understanding of some of the issues, strategies, and concerns facing Taft-Hartley jointly trusteed pension funds, public employee pension funds, and other similar institutional investors.

And, if I tried to apply for work in the pension fund industry, based on my so-called “experience,” I guarantee you I’d be hooted out of the room. I might have been by his side, but I wasn’t the one hired for those jobs. And while Hillary Rodham Clinton sat through cabinet meetings, set up shop in the East Wing, and traveled on taxpayer-funded trips all over the world, no one “hired” her for or “elected” her to the job.

And herein lies the feminst’s dilemma. On one hand, a major part of the feminist struggle was to put a stop to derivative status and identity. Calling oneself “Mrs. John Smith” went out with Black and White TV. We middle class, Seven Sister college-educated professionals marched forth to create our own identities, build our own resumes, take credit for our own achievements, and not rely on “some man” for any of that. Senator Clinton has plenty of achievements, for many of which she deserves full–and sole–credit.

Yet another component of feminism was to assign value and meaning and worth to the very real, but also often invisible, unpaid “work” of being the supportive spouse. Years ago the wife of the former president of the University of Massachusetts created quite a stir when she refused to take on the formerly unpaid duties of the president’s wife unless given a title, a salary, and the ability to limit the hours she was expected to be on call as hostess, fund-raiser, and all around assistant to the President.

Our First Lady drew no salary for her very real work in that role, but she wouldn’t have been in that position but for being “Mrs. Bill Clinton.” I have a friend from law school who is married to a six-term member of Congress, but my friend is also a partner in a major U.S. law firm. Under the Hillary Clinton model, my friend could run for Congress when the spouse retires, claiming “experience” from 20 years of marriage to the Member. Somehow I don’t think the voting public in their district would buy it. Regarding Mrs. Bill Clinton, I’m not ready to buy it, either.