Paving the Way: An Oral History of Women Pioneers in Politics
Interviewer: Jillian Kaufman Interviewee: Diane Dewhirst February 13, 2013
Kaufman 2
Table of Contents
Interviewee Release Form 3
Interviewer Release Form 4
Statement of Purpose 5
Biography 6
Paving the Way: An Oral History of Women Pioneers in Politics 8
Interview Transcription 17
Analysis Paper 31
Works Consulted 35
Kaufman 3
Kaufman 4
Kaufman 5
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of the American Century Oral History Project is to collect and preserve the how and why of history. While textbooks cover the who, what, when, and where of a historical event, only the account of an eyewitness can give one an insight into the how and why. From this one learns insider information and the real life emotions and effects an event had on everyday people. As a witness to the rise of Nancy Pelosi as the first Madam Speaker, Diane Dewhirst is a source of knowledge on the topic of politics, and as a woman, Diane is able to recount her feelings and treatment of women in the grueling world of government.
Kaufman 6
Biography of Diane Dewhirst
Diane Dewhirst was born on May 28, 1957 in Framingham, Massachusetts. Her family lived in Boston until she was three, and from there they moved to Bluebell,
Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. She attended Gwynedd Mercy Academy- a small, all girls’ Catholic school run by the Sisters of Mercy- for seventh through twelfth grade.
After high school, Diane went to Ohio University and Northwestern University where she studied journalism and political science. Her first involvement in politics was in a gubernatorial race where she campaigned for a Republican, but during her time at Ohio
University she began campaigning more seriously for Jimmy Carter in 1976. After transferring to Northwestern, Diane got an internship at Common Cause in Washington,
DC. Upon graduating, she received another internship, this time at the Democratic
National Committee. She then worked for Senator George Mitchell (D- ME) on his press staff and became his communications director. From there she did consulting work for Kaufman 7
Clinton and Gore and worked on the ’96 and 2000 Democratic Conventions. Diane came on to Nancy Pelosi’s staff in 2004 and in 2007 witnessed Pelosi become the first woman
Speaker of the House. She worked closely with Pelosi on energy policy and- something they are both very proud of- healthcare reform. Diane Dewhirst is still currently Leader
Pelosi’s senior policy advisor. She currently lives in Washington, DC with her family.
Kaufman 8
Paving the Way: An Oral History of Women Pioneers in Politics
Representative Florence Dwyer of New Jersey once said, “A Congresswoman must look like a girl, act like a lady, think like a man, speak on any given subject with authority and most of all work like a dog” (“Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling”).
Representative Dwyer was absolutely correct; women, especially in the field of politics, have to “work like a dog” in order to gain the rights, respect, and representation men enjoy. Women have been fighting for their place in politics from the very beginning of the formation of the United States. While writing the Declaration of Independence in the
Continental Congress in 1776, John Adams’ wife, Abigail, wrote the future president many letters voicing the opinions of women. This was the first push in America for women to be represented in government, and the second push did not come for 72 years with the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. The Seneca Falls Convention started the fight for women’s rights that lasted another 72 years and beyond. To understand women’s achievements in government, one must examine the events and pioneers that made places for women in politics as well as gain a first-hand perspective from someone who has found a place in the field.
Since the birth of the country, women have been fighting for their place along side men in the government. The letters between Abigail Adams and her husband John
Adams during the American Revolution give great insight into this early struggle. On
March 31, 1776, Abigail wrote to John in hopes of hearing news of America’s independence. The future First Lady also asked her husband to, “remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors” in writing “the new code of laws” necessary for a new country (“Letters of Abigail Adams”). This request Kaufman 9 unfortunately fell onto deaf ears, as reflected in the famous line of the Declaration of
Independence, “All men are created equal.” However, 72 years later, 300 people met in
Seneca Falls, New York to change this statement. Quaker women organized the Seneca
Falls Convention on July 19-20, 1848 for a visit from Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth
Stanton, two pioneering women of the time (“Seneca Falls Convention”). At the convention, the women prepared a Declaration of Sentiments, in which they rewrote the
Declaration of Independence to include women. The Declaration of Sentiments, which was signed by 68 women and 32 men, affirmed, “that all men and women are created equal,” as well as listed the many grievances of women (Stanton 70). This document and the convention were the first of their kind in the United States1 and became the starting point for women fighting for their rights.
The Declaration of Sentiments became the foundational document of the women’s suffrage movement. The women’s suffrage movement sought to give women the right to vote and the right to hold office (“Women’s Suffrage”). However, some women differed on how these rights would be achieved. In 1869, the 15th Amendment was proposed to give black men the right to vote. Women like Elizabeth Stanton opposed the amendment because it did not give women the right to vote; while others felt that if blacks received this right, women would be next. From this disagreement two organizations were formed: the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage
Association. Stanton created the National Woman Suffrage Association to create laws through the federal government for women’s suffrage. The American Woman Suffrage
1 Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1792 book, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, is thought by many to have started the women’s rights fight in the English-speaking world (“History of Women’s Suffrage”). Kaufman 10
Association worked on getting women the vote through state legislature (“History of
Women’s Suffrage”). These early days of women’s fight for suffrage were laying down the groundwork for achieving the goal for women to vote and to hold office. Nancy
Woloch, a historian, described these early endeavors as, “a crusade in political education by women and for women, and for most of its existence, a crusade in search of a constituency” (“I’m No Lady; I’m a Member of Congress”). This time in history is also known as the reform era because of the exodus of educated women from the home, out into public life (Barker-Benfield Clinton 309). These new educated, middle-class women came out into the world and took on the overwhelming task of fixing social issues, such as education and healthcare, as a result of unregulated capitalism.
The women’s suffrage movement ended in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th
Amendment. The amendment stated that, “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”. This was the first time women were allowed to vote on the federal level, although some states, like Montana, allowed women to vote on the state level before hand. Alice
Paul, a leading lady in the suffrage movement, once said, “I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. Most reforms, most problems are complicated. But to me there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality” (qtd. in Johnson Lewis). The fight for this right was based upon the simple statement that the founding fathers wrote, and that was later edited at the Seneca Falls convention, that “all men and women are created equal.”
Women were in Congress even before they received the right to vote at the federal level. The first woman elected to the Congress was Jeannette Rankin of Montana Kaufman 11 in 1916. Just like her fellow suffragists, Rankin ran her campaign on the words of
America’s founding fathers: “No Taxation Without Representation.” Seeing that women were totally unrepresented in government, Rankin believed, “We’re half the people; we should be half the Congress” (“The First U.S. Congresswoman”). Dr. Louis Levine wrote in the New York Times, describing Rankin as the best representation of American women because of her hard working parents and her work with poor children. The article also touched on Rankin’s achievement of winning the seat as a Republican in a Democratic state, but as Levine put it, “she represents truly and fully but one party and one cause— the party and cause of woman” (Levine). Rankin’s 1916 election was also Montana women’s first time voting in a federal election, a right Rankin lobbied long and hard for in her state. In addition, as congresswoman, Rankin worked towards voting rights for all women and achieved those rights with the 19th Amendment. Besides being the United
States’ first congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin was also the only representative to vote against both World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945). Rankin told
Congress upon voting, “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war”
(“Jeannette Rankin”). Some women believed this statement gave a bad reputation for women suffragists because it suggested that women were weak, while others stood by
Rankin in her decision. Those that defended Rankin showed that women could have strong opinions that differed from men. However in the end, Rankin’s stance on the war cost her her seat in Congress; but this proved that women could be strong forces in government and not get consumed in the politics of it all. After her election in 1916,
Rankin said, “I may be the first woman member of Congress, but I won’t be the last”
(“Jeannette Rankin”). Kaufman 12
In 1968, the first African American woman was elected to Congress, Shirley
Chisholm of Brooklyn, New York. “Fighting Shirley” nicknamed for her forthright personality, certainly had to fight for her place in government, for she was of two minorities. But of the two, Chisholm found it more difficult to be a woman in Congress than an African American in Congress. Chisholm once said, “Of my two handicaps, being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black” (“Shirley Chisholm
Quotes”). In her 1968 election, Democrat Chisholm faced Republican James Farmer in stiff battle. Chisholm and Farmer held the same stance on many different issues, including the Vietnam War, which they both opposed. However, Farmer claimed that for too long “women have been in the driver’s seat” in black neighborhoods and that the area needed “a man’s voice in Washington” (“Shirley Anita Chisholm”). “Fighting Shirley” fired back at this remark when she told The Wall Street Journal, “There were Negro men in office here before I came in five years ago, but they didn’t deliver” (Zimmerman).
Chisholm’s race never worked against her as she was from a very diverse community, and in fact, her diversity and people skills won her the vote. Chisholm told The New York
Times, “I am the people’s politician” (“Shirley Anita Chisholm”). Representative
Chisholm was always more about being a barrier-breaking and pioneering politician than a politician of legislature, and she even said, “I think my role is to break new ground in
Congress” (“Shirley Anita Chisholm”).
Although Florence Dwyer was not a first in her field, she certainly showed that women were a force to be reckoned with in government. Florence Dwyer ran in the 1956 election for a seat in Congress representing a district near Newark, New Jersey. Even though Dwyer described herself as a “progressive” Republican, she did not hesitate to Kaufman 13 cross party lines. Dwyer told the party leader at the time, “When you see me walk on the floor wearing pink, you’ll know I’m going to step to the left and vote with the Democrats.
But if I’m wearing black or white, you’ll know I’m with the Republicans” (“Florence P.
Dwyer”). Maybe not always sticking with her party, throughout her career as a congresswoman, Dwyer did stand by women’s issues. Dwyer advocated for women to be treated just the same as men in all aspects of life, especially focusing on equal-pay in the work force. In addition, when President Nixon took office in 1969, Dwyer and other
Republican women insisted he appoint more women to federal office saying, “Our sole purpose is to suggest ways and means by which women’s rights as citizens and human beings may be better protected, discrimination against women be eliminated and women’s ability to contribute to the economic, social and political life of the Nation be recognized” (“Florence P. Dwyer). Even with all of her promotion of women’s issues,
Representative Dwyer never played the “woman card” in her campaigns. Florence Dwyer showed that strong-minded, opinionated women could run against men and still hold their own without using the sympathy of voters.
One of the greatest “rags to riches” stories of women in government would have to be that of Geraldine Ferraro. Born of Italian immigrants, Ferraro grew up with her mother and two siblings in New York. Her mother worked very hard to get Ferraro into
Marymount Catholic School in Tarrytown, where she shined in academics, skipping 6th through 8th grade. Ferraro attended Marymount College on a full scholarship and graduated with a B.A. in English. After college, Ferraro taught English in public schools in Queens while going to law school at night. Following a few years of practicing law and jobs at the Investigations Bureau and Special Victims Bureau, Ferraro ran for Kaufman 14
Representative of New York’s Ninth Congressional District in 1978 and won. Ferraro’s year of pioneering firsts was in 1984. She was appointed as the chair of the Democratic platform committee, no woman had ever before held the position. Also in 1984, Walter
Mondale chose Representative Ferraro as his running mate in his presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan. Although Mondale in the end was not elected president, this was the first time a woman had been chosen as a potential vice president for a major party. As the first woman vice presidential nominee, Ferraro said, “People are no longer hiding behind their hands and giggling when they talk about a woman for national office, and I think that’s wonderful” (“Geraldine Anne Ferraro”).
On January 4, 2007, for the first time in the United States, the words “Madam
Speaker” were ringing through the Capitol building. Nancy Pelosi had been sworn in as the first woman Speaker of the House—making her the highest-ranking female in the presidential line of succession. In her first speech to Congress as Madam Speaker, Pelosi said,
It's a historic moment for the Congress, it's a historic moment for the women of
America. It is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years. Never losing
faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But
women weren't just waiting, women were working, never losing faith we worked
to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal.
(qtd. in Johnson Lewis)
Nancy Pelosi was born into a very politically active family; her father was the mayor of Baltimore for 12 years and served in Congress, and her brother was the mayor of Baltimore as well. After marrying her husband, Paul, the Pelosi's started a family in Kaufman 15
San Francisco. Pelosi first got into politics as an adult by volunteering for the Democratic
Party, where she hosted fundraisers and helped with campaigns. She later became a representative to the Democratic National Committee and served there from 1976 to
1996. In 1987, Pelosi was elected as a representative of California's Eighth District, which includes the city of San Francisco. In Congress, Pelosi advocated for increased funding for health research, healthcare, and housing programs. By 2002 Pelosi was one of the top Democrats in Congress, and she was chosen as the Democratic Leader of the
House of Representatives--making her the first women to ever hold the position. Pelosi's second groundbreaking moment came in 2006 when she was selected as the Speaker of the House. On covering this selection, a report for The New York Times wrote, "Ms.
Pelosi, as speaker of the House, will be the most powerful woman ever to sit in
Congress." The writer went on to say that while this first for women is quite important, what it more important is that "it is starting to seem normal to have ethnic minorities and women holding--or seriously contending for--the highest offices in the land" (Herbert).
The United States strives to represent their people in government, and with more women in those positions, the more voices of women across the country are heard. This principle was most simply put by Pelosi's own granddaughter, Madeleine, "My Mimi is going to be the first woman Speaker of the House. Because Mimi got this job, I think more women will get jobs like hers, which is great" (Pelosi 167).
Of becoming the first "Madam Speaker,” Pelosi wrote in her book, "Becoming the
Speaker is a significant accomplishment, but I have never felt it was a personal victory.
Rather, I see it as a pivotal moment for all women" (Pelosi 1). Nancy Pelosi saw her triumph not only as a victory for American women, but also as a win for future Kaufman 16 generations. Because of Pelosi and other pioneering women before her, women have become a force in the field of government and politics. However, there is still more work to do. In an interview Lynn Cutler, a former staffer of President Clinton said, “We’ve moved the ball down the field, but it’s still a struggle” (Cutler 27). Women like Pelosi,
Rankin, Chisholm, Dwyer, Ferraro have paved the way for future generations of women to continue their greatness and achieve more in the field of government.
Kaufman 17
Interview Transcription Interviewee: Diane Dewhirst Interviewer: Jillian Kaufman Location: The Pound on Capitol Hill Date: January 5, 2013 Jillian Kaufman: This is Jillian Kaufman and I am interviewing Diane Dewhirst on the topic of women in politics as part of the American Century Oral History Project. The interview took place on January 5, 2013 at the Pound in DC. This interview was recorded using a phone and computer. Let me just get this going, ok. So what was it like growing up in America in the 1950s and 60s? Diane Dewhirst: I grew up in, I was in, outside of Boston until I was 3 or 4 so I don't really remember that. But I grew up in suburban Philadelphia and in Montgomery County in a town called Bluebell, which now is a corporate headquarters of a lot of places but then was a typical suburban community. I lived on Midway Lane. I knew all my neighbors. My best girlfriend, who was a year ahead of me, was Judy, lived right next door. We compared notes everyday. I walked to school. We belonged to a swim club. My brothers played baseball, football, basketball. I rode my bike. I was very blessed, very blessed. JK: What were your fondest childhood memories? DD: Probably my family activities in my neighborhood. Swim club during the summer, holidays and Christmas caroling and gathering at the neighbors for hot chocolate. I had a great high school experience I went to Gwynedd Mercy Academy in Gwynedd Valley, which is in that general vicinity, it was an all girls school, I’m still friends with some of the girls that went there, and I was blessed to have a wonderful family. Two brothers and while I lived there I got a sister, who’s nine years younger than I am and between my high school experience, my neighborhood experiences, and my family experiences those are probably my fondest memories. JK: Were the areas you grew up in more Democratic or Republican? DD: You know, at the time I didn’t know. Probably they were Republican and my father thinks that I became a Democrat because the woman who drove us in the carpool in the morning was a staunch Democrat. She was probably one of the only working moms that I knew. She was an attorney, an established attorney, her name was Rosemary Flannery. Her husband was the football coach of the big local catholic boys school, Tex Flannery, and she was a staunch Democrat. He feels that, my father felt that her guidance led me to being a Democrat. I’m not sure if that’s true or not but it may have had something to do with it. JK: Who were some of your biggest role models or influences in your life as you were growing up? Kaufman 18
DD: In high school, I would say my mother, my mother worked in the home but was very active in absolutely everything in our lives, whether it was volunteering at the library, or the church, or with the swim club, or the boys’, filling in as the baseball coach for my father when my father would be late getting to practices. She was very hands on and could multitask. Mrs. Flannery, the woman who was the Democrat who took me in the carpool. I had several teachers, several of whom were nuns, Sister Margaret Donahue was one, she was my social studies teacher who then went on to be the principal at Gwyneed Mercy Academy, where I graduated from. She was probably the first one that told me, taught me and told me, about the role of government in 7th grade through some classes. And probably a woman across the street, who’s several years older than I am, Who’s name is Mary Flannery, the carpool driver’s daughter, who was very successful in high school and several years above me and I thought she was pretty cool and it would be interesting to follow her footsteps. She ended up being a journalist, a very well known journalist in the Philadelphia area, which is the path I wanted to take at one point, just in general I thought she was cool and is influential. JK: What was your schooling like? DD: Went to an all girls Catholic school, run by the sisters of mercy, very small, through 7th through 12th grade, graduated with 39 girls. And there may have been some social aspects that I missed, but I had a very good grounding, very good education. And, as I said, I’m still friends with some of those girlfriends today. JK: Why did you end up choosing to attend Northwestern University for college? [5:10 track 2] DD: When I was a senior in high school, I applied to a number of schools and I think I was waitlisted at about five of them. And I ended up not getting into the schools that I really wanted to get into. So I went to Ohio University for a year and I went there, had a wonderful experience, but I became ill in my freshman year so I had to drop out of school and finish up some of my early schooling in the first two years. At the same time I also did the Carter campaign in 1976 as a volunteer. And so by the time I had done a year and a half there, being in school, technically two years but had only been in school for a year and a half because I was sick, I kind of felt like I had conquered Athens, Ohio. It’s a beautiful community, it’s a wonderful school, but I wanted something a little different. I thought I wanted something more urban. So in the middle of my sophomore year I began applying to schools and because I thought I wanted to go into journalism I thought being near a city and being in an established journalism program, which Northwestern has a fine one called Medill. I chose Northwestern. JK: How did you get involved in politics? DD: My first political memory was doing literature and lawn signs for a gubernatorial race, and I think it was for a Republican, I can’t even remember, in the early 70’s. Maybe it wasn’t, I don’t remember exactly, I should find that out. Then when I was at Ohio, I got in with a group of friends who were working for Jimmy Carter and I ended up, somehow I had a car, I can’t believe I had a car, but anyway I had a car in the fall of ’76 so I was constantly going with friends, throwing literature in the back of the trunk, going to the Kaufman 19 pumpkin festivals, parades and whatever, distributing literature and going to campaign meetings, and it was like a club. I thought the idea of Jimmy Carter was cool. I thought he was a fresh face, something interesting. It was somewhat driven by a political belief but more driven by a social comradery of the campaign. Then when I was at Northwestern I had the chance to come to Washington to work in an internship and I worked for Common Cause, which is a public interest group that works on reform issues. And one of the heroes of political reform, meaning campaign reform and political process reform, is Ab Mikva. Ab Mikva was the congressman from Northwestern, Evanston, Illinois, so when I returned to school little did I know I had been signed up by someone for the Mikva campaign. And so in the fall of ’78 I spent an awful lot of time on the Mikva campaign for his successful election to the House. That was a great experience, the best field experience I’ve had up until this past fall. JK: Can you describe the process of becoming a volunteer for Jimmy Carter’s campaign? DD: There was no process. It was a group of friends who were already involved and it was as simple as word of mouth and a poster that said, “Come on Friday night at 3 o’clock. We’re going to go to Circleville” I think that’s the real name, “for the pumpkin festival and we’re going to distribute literature at the football game and at the parade.” It was that kind of grass roots distribution of literature. And then from then on I worked on it throughout the fall but that’s how I initially got involved. JK: Why do you think Carter, a virtual outsider, was able to win the presidency? DD: I think that insiders were, that the voters felt skeptical about insiders because what had happened about Watergate and President Nixon, and they wanted a change. And here was a fresh face, who had been an executive as the governor of Georgia and people wanted a change. JK: Why do you think Carter was unable to be reelected in 1980? [10:01 track 2] DD: The economy and the Iran hostage situation. I think the combination of a domestic and a foreign policy that had been drilled into the American peoples’ heads, it was tragic. And Governor Reagan was a very attractive, articulate candidate, who has able to communicate extremely effectively with the American people. It was a combination of the three. JK: What did you do next, after the campaign? DD: Well I had done the Carter campaign in ’76, I did the Mikva campaign in ’78, I finished school and then I went to Washington as an internship for the Democratic National committee in ’79, worked on the ’80 convention and the ’80 campaign and then I stayed in Washington at the Democratic National Committee in ’81, ’82 and ’83. Then I was a press assistant and it was a lot of attempts to rebuild the state parties, work closely with the congressional Democrats and others throughout the country to try to rebuild the party in the face of a President Reagan administration. JK: How would you characterize the role of women when you first entered politics? Kaufman 20
DD: That’s a good question. I worked at the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic National Committee was ahead of its time, in that they had set some internal rules for governing the party affairs. Every state has a state party, which runs voter registration, candidate training, fundraising, delegate selection for the conventions and whatnot and they had a rule that if you were a member of the Democratic National Committee and there were numbers of people from each state. It was something called equal division. So you had to have an equal number of men and women and that was a reform that went in I think in the ‘70s. And that was pretty revolutionary. So we had a lot of women that were around us, our comptroller at the DNC was a woman, in ’81 the political director who is a woman by the name of Anne Lewis who has since worked a lot with First Lady Hillary Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, Candidate Hillary Clinton, she (Anne Lewis) was a role model and very strong. So there were some women around but the hierarchy, largely, the two chairmen I worked for were men, the executive directors were men. While it was male driven there were women who were involved in politics that I think probably was more progressive than in other areas because the DNC had this equal division rule that is still in effect today is that the chair of the convention, which nominates the Democratic President and Vice President must switch every year. So this year it was a male in Charlotte, Mayor Villaraigosa from LA, in ’08 in Denver it was Nancy Pelosi when President Obama was first nominated. And so next time in 2016 it will be a woman again. So that’s kind of a progressive nature of Democratic politics that makes certain that you have equal division. JK: Yeah. Do you think that the Democratic Party’s more focused on women issues than the Republican Party? DD: Yes. And I think this past election is one example to show you that it is. And legislatively that translates into things like the Violence Against Women’s Act, which was supported in a bipartisan way in the Senate, just expired because the Congress expired and was not passed and was not reauthorized. I mean that’s just one small example. JK: Have you seen the perception of women in government change over the years? [15:00] DD: Absolutely. I think that the increased number of women, with women advancing on both sides of the aisle, with the likes of Condoleezza Rice being Secretary of State, followed by Madeline Albright, followed by Hillary Clinton, with now twenty women in the Senate, 81 women in the House- 61 of them being Democrat, with Nancy Pelosi being Speaker. I think women not only truly are making gains but they’re making visible gains. And by making visible gains its makes other people believe they can succeed in the same way. JK: Have you ever been treated differently at work because you’re a woman? DD: I have been very fortunate to work for progressive men and many women, who recognize the important role of women in the work place. When I worked for George Mitchell in the Senate for ten years, two at the Senate Campaign Committee and eight in the Senate, and he had a chief of staff who was a woman, he had the secretary of Senate Kaufman 21 who was a woman, he had his director of communications- me- as a woman, he had some of his top- he had his state director in DC as a woman. So he was extremely enlightened (laughs) as far as women were concerned. I would say that there are times when I have felt that it would have been more effective to have more women in the room discussing certain issues. And there are many of us who are still fighting for that today. JK: What was it like working for George Mitchell? DD: I owe a lot to George Mitchell. When I was very young and had some experience, he took a chance on me to be the director of communications for the Senate Campaign Committee in ’85 and ’86 when we were fighting against the likes of the Republicans when President Reagan was in his second term and seen as very strong. And he let me run a department and be part of a senior management of a group that helped win back the Senate for the Democrats in 1986. And then he took me over to the Senate when I had no experience legislatively, no experience in the Senate, and no experience with the state of Maine and had me be his press secretary. And then worked in the Capitol for six years as his director of communications. I am extremely blessed to have worked for George Mitchell and to have seen Supreme Court nominations, presidents been inaugurated, very fortunate. He is decent, smart, skilled. And let me not kid you it was a lot of work and it was a lot of long hours but I am extremely proud to have worked for George Mitchell and the folks around him. It was a great experience. JK: How would you describe the presidency of Ronald Reagan? DD: Well he was reelected and that says a lot. That, you know, that in and of itself is a success and that he must have been in tune with the majority of the American people. He was an extremely gifted communicator. His philosophy of government and his approach to solving problems was not one that I share or the people that I work for share. He dismantled a lot of the what they call safety net programs for those who are less fortunate that other presidents have since built back up and I think that was unfortunate. So from a philosophical standpoint there was a lot that I did not agree with. From a political standpoint, he changed politics in a lot ways because as media expanded, he learned how to use media in a way that made him a more effective communicator and that’s to be applauded. JK: Can you share with me the consulting work you did for Clinton and Gore? [20:13 track 2] DD: Let’s see. I did the 1996 convention in Chicago, I did the 2000 convention in LA, and I did Hillary’s (Clinton) desk in ’96 for the campaign. So for the conventions it was a combination of putting together press operations, and kind of an outgrowth of the campaigns operation for the convention specifically. For her (Hillary Clinton) desk in ’96 it was coordinating her schedule, political briefings, travel, what she was going to be doing out on the road and I was kind of her desk at the campaign. JK: Yeah. What is your evaluation of Clinton’s presidency? DD: Again, he was reelected so from a political standpoint that was huge. And if you just read, recently in the newspaper what has happened with regard to the economy and how Kaufman 22 he left the economy versus what we’re dealing with now, I think you have to say on so many fronts he was hugely successful. I mean if you just use that as a measure of success. The fact that we had a budget surplus, the fact that we largely protected many of the safety programs, the fact that there was job growth. President Clinton is a huge success. He also was a wonderful communicator. He was able to communicate in a way that really tapped into many, many different populations and a lot of the diversity of the country at the time. Let’s take a pause. Can we pause for a minute? JK: Yeah. Ok. What issues interest you the most? Like environment, women’s issues… DD: I’d have to say that at first it was environmental issues. I think that that was for two reasons: one because when I worked for George Mitchell some of the major pieces of legislation we worked on had to do with water and clean air and the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act which was a huge piece of legislation that was done with the first George Bush. And I think that we were successful in being able to convey that this was not only an environmental issue, but a health issue. So I remember the first time we had a hearing, leading up to trying to get the bill passed, one the experts who testified was the American Lung Association and the American Association of Pediatrics and trying to see how air pollution not only effected buildings and trees and the ecosystems, but also individuals. And that was kind of a different take, maybe it wasn’t the first time but it was the first time it got a lot of attention. And so that was a great interest to me. I think as we moved along, maybe because of my kids, maybe because of my awakening, nutrition issues and children’s healthcare issues. So when I did some consulting I worked on- after Mitchell but before Pelosi- I worked on something called SCHIP which is the state health implementation plans and it was a program that was administrated at the state level that was for working families to help get healthcare. And it was a wonderful- it was in the late ‘90s and it was a tremendously successful program that allowed families to sign up for healthcare for kids and it was a bipartisan program, it was done on a state-by-state basis which is what a lot of people wanted, they didn’t want it to be administered by the federal government, it something that was done bipartisan. I worked with the Children’s Defense Fund and we worked closely with Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy. And it made me more attuned to what was going on as far as American children who are less fortunate. From that I also worked a lot on children’s issues as far as nutrition was concerned. So it was probably in those issues that I developed most of my interest in. And then of late, certainly healthcare given that we just passed a historic healthcare reform. So it’s in those worlds. JK: How did you end up becoming senior policy advisor for Nancy Pelosi? DD: I met Nancy Pelosi in the early ‘80s, before she was a congresswoman and when she was part of the Democratic National Committee. So when I was talking about that equal division that was happening at the- she was one of them. And she was very much involved in the 1984 convention in San Francisco. It was hosted in San Francisco where Gerry Ferraro was nominated as Vice President. And she (Nancy Pelosi) basically put that convention together as the host committee, host city committee. So I knew her somewhat from there. Then she was the finance chair- again, this was all before she came to Congress- she was the finance chair at the Senate campaign committee for George Mitchell. So I knew her through that a little bit. When she came to Congress in ’87, I Kaufman 23 knew of her, I mean its not like we were in the same social circles or anything, but I would run into her and see her. Just kept in touch very, not daily but regularly over the years. When George Mitchell left the Senate, I left and did consulting for about ten years, had three kids and there were a couple of times when she would call to talk about staff or to see or to look for staff and whatever. So when she became Whip, I helped her out with a few things and looking into people to hire. And then when she became Leader, she asked me to come in, I came in as a consultant and then I came in on staff in ’04 and I’ve been there ever since. JK: Was it different working for a woman than a man in Congress? [5:13 track 3] DD: It’s hard for me to answer that because I was older and I just had more experience. I think in some ways I relate more. I had worked for women not in Congress, so I had worked for Hillary (Clinton) and I’d worked for Marian Wright Edelman and I’d worked, distantly but a little bit, for Madeline Albright so I had worked for women before. And I admired working for strong women who could multitask, who were very smart, who did their homework. And I’d say the biggest success was that of all of these women, was that they were very focused, very skilled and really did their homework, really, truly did their homework. And if that meant being tremendously prepared, being able to multitask, studying the issues, working the coalitions and working with other members. So by the time I got to work for Nancy Pelosi close up, I had worked with other women and had seen the traits. So yes, it was different but in some ways a lot of the traits that George Mitchell and Nancy Pelosi had were similar: tough, skillful legislatively, quick studies, diverse, issues that they were able to conquer quickly. But working for a woman you do have a way of relating to them, you know just its human nature, you just have a way of relating to them that is special. JK: At the time that you started working for Nancy Pelosi, what were the most critical policies facing the country? DD: Well there’s the Iraq War, that was one. There was the need to begin to change and shape energy policy. There was a need for healthcare that took a long time. But probably the one that sticks out the most was probably the Iraq War, we also had an Afghanistan War that happened, the Iraq War was more controversial obviously. There was an assault that was going on with regard to social security that dominated a lot of the debate. Energy policy that the Democratic Congress and the second George Bush were able to put together that established CAFE standards for the first time and other pretty progressive, considering it was a Republican president, pretty progressive energy policy pieces. I’m sure there were others but those were the ones that come to mind. JK: What was the process for Congresswoman Pelosi to become Speaker of the House? [9:10 track 3] DD: Well she had worked in Democratic politics for a long time and had been involved with the campaign committees and had worked at the state level in California on a state- wide basis trying to increase the numbers of representatives from California. And so every ten years there’s something called redistricting that happens and that changes the district borders for where members of the House are going to be elected. And in 2000 she Kaufman 24 was very closely associated with the effort that went on in California and was highly successful. And when, she talks about this a lot in her book so you get this- JK: I read the book. It’s very good. DD: Yeah. It’s easy. It’s a fun- JK: I liked reading it. DD: Yeah it’s fun. It’s not really an autobiography; it’s more like little vignettes that kind of capture each thing. But it’s very much in her voice. JK: Yeah, yeah. I liked that about the book. DD: And so what she says in that book and says is that she knew how to win. And so she thought as she looked around and saw other people who were running that she thought, “I can do that.” And when Mr. Gephardt became Leader, she ran for Whip, was successful. When Mr. Gephardt left to run for President, there was a vacancy, she ran for Leader, became successful. Was very successful, in both in the minority and in the majority, of listening to her caucus, which I think is something that women do extremely well. Not that all men don’t do it but women do it very well. And developing consensus, representing the caucus overall even though she was seen, and is seen, and is proudly a progressive liberal. She does spend hours and hours and hours meeting and listening and trying to develop consensus among her members. So I think the process was skill, a lot of hard work, and working in a collegial fashion with members to put forward the best policies that represent the Democratic caucus. JK: What was going through your mind when Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House in January of 2007? DD: I was very proud, very proud of her. I had a friend of mine who doesn’t live too far from here (Capitol Hill), who’s a Republican, who called me and said- her daughter’s name is Shelby, she’s in eighth grade now- and she said, “You know we come from different political parties” she said, “but I wanted to make sure Shelby was watching television when Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker.” That says a lot. And so the Leader also talks a lot about how there are fathers, women, young women, older women, all shades and types of women come up to her, fathers though come up to her also and say, “I wanted my daughter to see that.” And it’s quite something, quite something. JK: What was the feeling in the room as she was being sworn in? DD: Pride, some tears, it was both a little electric but also a little bit overwhelming. The House chamber is not that big, even though it can seat all those people at the State of the Union and its packed when the President comes in, but it’s really not that big. And so to have her up there and to realize that this is the first woman, on the one hand you’re thinking, “Wow this is fabulous”, on the other hand you’re thinking, “It’s about time.” So it was great. I get a little bit of chills thinking about it. JK: What was the mood on Capitol Hill after this historic moment? Kaufman 25
DD: People were real- I mean and this wasn’t just Democratic- people were really excited. I mean it was an accomplishment that was recognized on both sides of the aisle. And the other thing that goes less noticed but that was notable was when President Bush - so this is now, she was elected in ’06, so this is now ’07- and President Bush came up to give his State of the Union and he- are we okay with this? (the recording) JK: Yeah. DD: Okay. President Bush came up and he gave his State of the Union and before he began his speech, he turned around and said how proud Mayor D’Alesandro, her father who had been mayor of Baltimore, would have been to recognize Nancy Pelosi as the first woman Speaker. And that was quite something. Such a tribute for the President of the United States to take a moment out of his State of the Union speech to recognize, I mean it was appropriate but it was also quite- a Republican president to take a moment out of his speech to recognize, as I said totally appropriate but really a lovely, lovely gesture that President Bush made. The day she was elected it was young women, old women, Democrats, Republicans, international, national, it was pretty awesome. A great source of pride as someone who I know well, who I’m proud to work for, and also symbolically. Symbols matter, you know symbols do matter. And I’m also a big believer personally in rituals. I’m Catholic and one of the things I’ve learned and been taught by certain priests and whatnot is that our sacraments are rituals and that they’re important. And that rituals of your family are important and they’re the things that you’re going to remember, whether it’s setting the table with paper napkins or lighting candles, whatever it is those rituals are important. So the ritual of that being sworn in, in and of itself is important, and the idea that it was the first woman made it, kind of off the charts. JK: Do you think Congresswoman Pelosi faced challenges as Speaker because she was a woman? [16:39 track 3] DD: Absolutely, absolutely. But you can even go back and look at the press coverage, you know I mean there is endless discussion about what she wore, and when she got her hair cut and all that kind of stuff that a man never has to- JK: Yeah there’s always more focus on what they’re (women) wearing. I’ve always noticed that. DD: Exactly. So that was one piece of it. But as she was progressing in her leadership, I think there were times when being the only woman in the room made her have to assert herself. But by and large, I think that she was given the respect that the office deserved. I’m not sure it was always across the board or with regard to media attention or with regard to some other aspects but because she conducted herself in such a cohesive and representative way of the caucus, she certainly had the respect of her caucus. And just if you look at the success of when she was Speaker versus what’s going on now, hands down you see how much success. But yeah, being a woman is hard, you’re under a lot more scrutiny and something that a man would do that would be seen as being tough, a woman would do and it was seen as otherwise. We don’t need to get into name-calling or whatever but it would be seen as otherwise. Kaufman 26
JK: What should be the legacy of Congresswoman Pelosi’s time as Speaker of the House? DD: Healthcare reform. There were a lot of things that she did. There was Wall Street reform, there was healthcare reform, there was some measures that were taken with regard to women as in the Lilly Ledbetter Act. But healthcare reform, as its fully implemented which will come about in these next several years, will change the way that the American people are able to proceed with regard to job security and changing jobs and young people being able to stay on their parents’ healthcare till they’re 26 so that they can have some flexibility in figuring out what they want to do after college, women’s healthcare, Medicare being strengthened. I mean there’s just a whole host of things that for some people haven’t gone far enough, for some people are too far so we’re probably about right. If the left isn’t happy and the right isn’t happy, maybe this bill is perfect because it’s right in the middle and nobody is completely happy with it. And so I think she would say healthcare reform. There’s a lot she did as far as human rights were concerned, both in terms of civil rights here in the country and human rights throughout the world, that she advocated for. But I think as far as her term of what she accomplished legislatively it would be healthcare reform. JK: Is there a piece of legislation that you have worked with Pelosi on that you are particularly proud of? [20:03 track 3] DD: Healthcare reform. JK: Does working with a very powerful woman give you a feeling of empowerment or importance knowing that you are part the team of women that are leading the way for women in politics? DD: You know, I’m staff. I’m proud to be staff. I like being staff. Do I feel powerful? Not particularly. I mean I feel fortunate that I am able to take part in her team and I’ve seen her be able to go forward and there are certain things that have happened that I think “Oh I helped with that. I feel good about that.” But powerful? I don’t…Sidebar, I may have told you this earlier, there’s a number of us in town, probably 30, that have worked on and off for different women who are kind of in my generation of political communicators, so to speak, and with a couple of the girlfriends we’ve had discussions- there’s probably some men in there too but I’ll just speak to the girlfriends- where we’ve had this discussion about: are you a queen or are you a hand maiden? The queens being those who have gone forward to put themselves out there and been elected officials. Or are you in the court, a handmaiden. JK: That’s a really good metaphor. DD: Yeah. That’s always how I’ve seen it. Because you’ve got to really decide that you’re going to put yourself out there to be queen. I had never wanted to do that. I like being a handmaiden. I like being a person behind the scenes that is able to help with things and nurture things and put things forward and be of assistance and be somewhat quiet and being somewhat behind the scenes and perhaps taking some secrets with you that you’ll never reveal because you’re a member of the court and a handmaiden would Kaufman 27 never reveal, that you don’t always explain how things are put together and things work, that you work as a team to try to figure out different things. So I am a happy, proud handmaiden to currently Nancy Pelosi right now and she probably would not like this analogy but that’s kind of how my girlfriends and I have seen it. And there are some girlfriends that have moved on, who have said, “You know what, I’m done being a handmaiden. I want to be a queen or a princess.” I’m very happy in the role that I’ve been able to pursue. JK: Are there certain political figures who you look up to and admire? DD: I like our President. I like our First Lady. I think she has done a remarkable job of showing how to put forward your interest and your family at the same time. Obviously Nancy Pelosi and George Mitchell, who I’ve spoken about. Hillary Clinton, who I’ve spoken about. I love Marian Wright Edelman. I think that the idea that she went on a poverty tour with Bobby Kennedy in the early ‘60s and turned it into a children’s lobby that has made its imprint on many, many pieces of legislation and programs, is going to be hard for anyone else to replicate, has been important. There are a number of members of Congress, Nita Lowey who just became the ranking member on appropriations who’s from New York, she’s a grandmother and she does it all as well. There are a number of the women Senators that I admire. I, frankly, admire a lot of the women whose names you wouldn’t know but who are figuring out everyday how to balance the work and family thing, which is a big deal- it’s a big deal. And I was just saying to your mom, there is no formula for it, there are many formulas for it and you’ve got to figure out what the formula is that works for you. I’ll give you two examples of women who are not well known. There’s a woman, the wife of a colleague of mine, who runs St. Coletta’s, which is a school right over here by RFK for special needs and she is making a huge difference in the lives of families and she’s raised kids of her own. And she’s somebody who’s figured out how to make a difference and put her family first. There’s another woman who just got the job of a lifetime that she wanted in New York City and so she’s picked up and moved to New York City while her husband is staying back to have her child finish high school. And they’re figuring it out. So there is no one formula. I know I’ve gotten off the question but there’s all kinds of formulas and women have to figure out with their families what best works. And the formula changes because you never know how you’re going to feel. But there are many women who I respect who are just everyday women who are figuring it out. I have a girlfriend who just moved from Baltimore to Alabama to work for the Southern Poverty Institute because it was an opportunity she couldn’t turn down. Anyway, I have many folks that I admire and some of them are just the folks who are doing it everyday. Is that ok? Did I answer it? JK: Yeah, yeah. That’s a great answer. DD: Okay. JK: What do you think about the word “feminist”? It has gotten a bad reputation for connoting that women hate men. Do you consider yourself a feminist? [27:10 track 2] DD: You know, I’m not a big one for labels. And so because I’m, believe it or not, a little bit younger than what the feminist movement was. I’m just not a big one for labels. So Kaufman 28 am I a feminist? Yeah I guess I am. I don’t say that good, bad or indifferent but the thing is, is if you use a label you’re then subscribing to your audiences’ interpretation of that label. So if I’m saying I’m a progressive, you know some people think of that as a whacked out liberal who wants government to take over the world. Well I’m a progressive, that’s not what I think so why would I use that term. So I’m hesitant to go with labels but do I believe that there have been some who have labeled themselves as feminists who have made great contributions and allowed me to have the flexibility that I have in my life right now and the opportunities? Yeah and I applaud them. JK: Do you think the fight for equality between women and men is over? DD: No. And all you have to do is look around boardrooms and election results. It’s made great progress. JK: Do you think it will ever be over? DD: I think it will get better. I think it’ll get better. And I think its made tremendous progress. I mean just look at what men are doing now that they are taking more of a greater role in their family and women having many more opportunities. So I think it’s trending in the right direction but we have a ways to go. JK: What is the next step for women in the world of politics? DD: Presidency. JK: Yeah. Who do you think would be fit for that? DD: Hillary (Clinton). JK: Yeah. DD: But there will be others too. Hillary and others but I think that… JK: That’s the only woman I could see right now being President. DD: Yeah. That’s the only woman I can see right now too but politics has…
JK: It’ll change. DD: It changes. I mean at this point in ’04 before ’08, you and I wouldn’t be sitting here and say Barack Obama. JK: Yeah. DD: But Hillary. She would be sensational. JK: What is your reaction to the following quote from Congresswoman Pelosi- [30:20 track 3] DD: Uh-oh (laughs) Kaufman 29
JK: This is from her book, “I had decided, long before, that I didn’t some to Congress to change the attitudes of men. I came to change the policies of our country.” DD: It’s very consistent. She is many different things, she is a mom and a grandmom, she loves politics, loves politics, could be on any of those talk shows doing political analysis’s, in fact at times we kind of have to tease her about that “Okay enough with the polls. We don’t need to be miss political strategist up there or whatever.” But she’s also a policy wonk. She really is a policy wonk. And she loves it. Oh my God she loves it, she loves it, she loves it. So that’s very consistent. And she doesn’t seek to change- she doesn’t come at you to change your mind to say, “I really want you to go with me on this policy.” She will go at you talking about the policy and why you should do it. And so she will make kind of a bank shot as opposed to saying, “I’m going to change your mind.” She will want to educate you as to her point of view with regard to the policy in hopes of changing your mind, which is consistent with that quote. JK: Well is there anything I forgot to ask that would help me better understand the role of women in politics? DD: I think there are everyday things that I can do better and all of us can do better to make it easier for other women. I have a girlfriend who I used to work with who calls it the sisterhood. And whether it’s the sisterhood- in fact the other night someone said to me, “And I’m telling you this in the sisterhood.” And whether it is taking time to do this type of thing so that others can see what happened before and learn from it, whether it is making certain that your colleagues- whether they’re women or men frankly- are introduced in a room, just little gestures. Whether it’s an example of how you behave and how you react in certain instances that you are emulated by others. Whether it is listening- listening. Sometimes in the hubbub of politics we- and in anything it’s not just politics- in life now because of this thing (points to phone) and cable television and the pace of everything, and instant food and microwaves and everything. Taking a moment to sit back and listen and let people be heard. I’ll give you an example. There’s a girlfriend- a colleague of mine and I who were meeting on Tuesday and we brought in many, but not all, the women in the office and said, “You know we’ve got all of these issues that are in front of us. Let’s sit down and just brainstorm for an hour about them. Let’s listen.” You know some of them will never be involved in those policy fights or those policy issues, but they have opinions. They’re a broad spectrum of women: one of them does national security, another one does tax policy, another one does the web, another one does TV booking, another one does foreign policy, and another one does legislative correspondents or whatever. But let’s bring them together and sit down and think about…So I think it’s a combination of small gestures, which can be I guess repeated by others, replicated, and big gestures. The Leader talks about, and I’ve seen it myself, that just by being some place you open other peoples’ eyes. So for instance, it’s not just the fact that somebody took the time to run for office, but somebody sees someone else run for office and they’re thinking, “Wait a minute, I could do that.” And not only could you do that as she said this week, “You’re seated at the table, and maybe even at the head of the table.” And so by seeing someone else- the greatest gift of communication I think is other people being able to see themselves in you. And if you’re able to do that- if you’re sitting there and thinking, “You know what? Someday I could work on the Hill and have Kaufman 30 three kids and be able to figure out the balance between all those things.” That’s the greatest gift that I think can be passed on, that someone else can see themselves in that person and I have a tendency to do that I think more than on a personal basis. Men I think do it too to some extent but in some ways that’s, I don’t know maybe it’s because of my own two boys, but they see Kevin Durant at the free throw line and want to be him. Which is good, that’s a good thing, that’s a good thing. But I think women do it more on a personal basis. So I think listening, setting an example, and looking out for one another cannot be overstated.
Kaufman 31
Interview Analysis
When asked “what is history?” many people may just shrug off the “easy” question responding, “Well anything that happened in the past.” Is what you had for breakfast this morning history? Probably not. However, what history is can be different for different people. In answering this daunting question, E.H. Carr says history “reflects our own position in time, and forms part of our answer to the broader question what view we take of the society in which we live” (Carr). For example, a child in America may think the Declaration of Independence is history for him, while a child in Hungary may regard their Declaration of Independence as history. Both documents have shaped the way the children view the world: the American child believes it is right for America to separate from an oppressive ruler and likewise the Hungarian child feels it is right to be a separate nation from Austria. History is different for everyone, but one aspect of history is common for all: history affects the way one thinks, lives, and views themselves and the world around them. But how does one learn history? Books, school, museums, and, as oral historian Studs Terkel sees it, storytelling can teach an individual history. Terkel explains that “storytelling is a form of history” (“Studs Terkel Quotes”). There is no better way to learn history than from a storyteller who has experienced a certain event in history firsthand. As the senior policy advisor to current Leader and former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Diane Dewhirst is a great storyteller on the topic of women in politics as she witnessed the rise of the first woman
Speaker of the House. Although one might think the main theme of Dewhirst’s story is the struggle for women to get a foot in the Capitol door, the message she shared was a much more subtle one, a message one may not hear in learning history through other Kaufman 32 means. Diane Dewhirst’s story spoke to the people behind the scenes, the people not written about in textbooks; her story spoke to the importance of listening to one another; and most importantly, her story emphasized that each one of these “little people” has a story to tell and their stories need to be heard.
In more sophisticated terms, the “storytelling” Studs Terkel speaks of is really oral history. Donald Ritchie says, “oral history collects memories and personal commentaries of historical significance” (Ritchie). Many criticize oral history for being unreliable because memory is the basis for this historical methodology. Human memory, as fallible as it is, produces every answer to every question asked in an oral history interview, and cannot always be trusted. However, Ritchie argues, “Oral history is as reliable or unreliable as other research sources” (Ritchie). Any material used for understanding history can be flawed and fallacious; and a great deal of deep examination is needed to weed out the bad sources from the good sources. It is not fair though to completely wipe out oral history simply because “memory is risky business” (Ritchie).
Any other sources can “provide the who, what, when and where” Ritchie claims, but only
“interviews can offer better insights into the how and why” of an event (Ritchie). In addition, oral history can reach the people that will never be written about in textbooks, like Diane Dewhirst, and oral history can access the true emotions and thoughts from an event.
Diane Dewhirst’s interview, or story, centered on the election of Nancy Pelosi to
Speaker of the House and the trials and tribulations that came with the first “Madam
Speaker”. This event was a huge milestone for women in government, and all put their political party aside for a moment to witness this monumentous event. Dewhirst shared a Kaufman 33 phone call with a Republican friend the day of Pelosi’s swearing in where her friend told her, “We come from different political parties, but I wanted to make sure [my daughter] was watching television when Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker” (Dewhirst 24). A gesture as small as that during this day and age, where social and fiscal issues have created an even wider gap between parties, is huge. Dewhirst shared another story similar to this phone call with her friend in the interview. During his State of the Union speech,
President Bush took a moment to acknowledge the new Speaker and said, “how proud
Mayor D’Alesandro, her father who had been mayor of Baltimore, would have been to recognize Nancy Pelosi as the first woman Speaker. And that was quite something”
(Dewhirst 25). Moments like these show the greatness and strength in America even during crazy and hectic times; people from opposing parties are still able to recognize and appreciate one another in historic moments.
One strength of oral history is that anyone can be interviewed, be it famous people or an average Joe; and everyone’s story is just as important as the next. Diane
Dewhirst hit exactly on that point when she said, “I, frankly, admire a lot of the women whose names you wouldn’t know” (Dewhirst 27). Dewhirst also described these women as “handmaidens,” the women behind the scenes that may never be written about in textbooks. However, Dewhirst argued that the handmaidens were just as important as the
“queens” or the women in the spotlight. These queens would not be in their places without the handmaidens; it’s really a team effort and each piece to the puzzle is just as important. Listening to each person is also of importance to Dewhirst. “Taking a moment to sit back and listen and let people be heard” (Dewhirst 29), she said in the interview.
She followed this statement up with an example of a meeting she held with a lot of the Kaufman 34 women in her office. Dewhirst told the women, “we’ve got all of these issues that are in front of us. Let’s sit down and just brainstorm for an hour about them. Let’s listen”
(Dewhirst 29). Dewhirst said even though “some of them will never be involved in those policy fights” they still have opinions and thoughts on those subjects (Dewhirst 29).
Taking the time to simply listen to others is of the utmost importance in a time where everything is fast paced with the internet and cell phones; and that also translates into doing oral history interviews, it’s a time to sit down and listen.
This process of interviewing a really inspirational woman taught me so much. I was particularly interested in doing a project about women in government because I enjoy politics and I had never really learned about or explored the struggle of women to get into politics. Through my context paper I learned a lot about the events and steps that gave people like Nancy Pelosi the seat she now has. But through my interview, I learned a very important life lesson. At the end of the interview when I asked Diane Dewhirst, “if there was anything else that would help me understand my topic?” she completely through me for a loop. She went beyond answering that question and really in the end answered a question much more important. Mrs. Dewhirst really taught me that everyone has a story and all of those stories are important- even the stories of the handmaidens.
Handmaidens, queens, and each and every person is an important part of the world and what they do is valuable and admirable.
Kaufman 35
Works Consulted
Barker-Benfield, G.J., and Catherine Clinton. Portraits of American Women. Vol. 2. New
York: St. Martin's, 1991. Print.
"Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling." SMU News. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
Carr, E. H. "What is History?" Universal History Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
history.pdf>. Cutler, Lynn. Personal Interview conducted by Emily Kleinman. 2001. "The First U.S. Congresswoman: Jeannette Rankin." Legacy.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. "Florence P. Dwyer." Women in Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. "Geraldine A. Ferraro." Britannica. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print. "Geraldine Anne Ferraro." Women in Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2012. Herbert, Bob. "Ms. Speaker and Other Trends." New York Times 9 Nov. 2006: n. pag. Print. "History of Women's Suffrage." Scholastic. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. "I'm No Lady; I'm a Member of Congress." Women in Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. "Jeannette Rankin." Women in Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. Johnson Lewis, Jone. "Alice Paul Quotes." About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. - - -. "Nancy Pelosi Quotes." About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2012. "Letters of Abigail Adams." The Liz Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. Levine, Louis. "First Woman Member of Congress Well Versed in Politics." New York Times 19 Nov. 1916: n. pag. Print. "Nancy Pelosi Biography." Bio. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2012. Pelosi, Nancy, and Amy Hill Hearth. Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. New York: Doubleday, 2008. Print. Ritchie, Donald A. Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. N.p.: Oxford University, 2003. Print. "Seneca Falls Convention." Wikipedia. Wikimedia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. "Shirley Anita Chisholm." Women in Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. "Shirley Chisholm Quotes." Brainy Quote. BookRags Media Network, n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. A History of Women Suffurage. Vol. 1. Rochester, NY: Fowler and Wells, 1889. Print. "Studs Terkel Quotes." Good Reads. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2013. US Const. amend. XIX, sec. 1 (amended 1920). Print. "Women's Suffrage." Wikipedia. Wikimedia, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. Zimmerman, Fred L. "Negroes in Congress." Wall Street Journal 22 Oct. 1968: n. pag. Print.