former congressman jc watts will talk about the guiding principles he follows in his professional and personal life. also coming up, ellen welcome will recall her creation of emily's list, a political action committee which works to elect pro-choice democratic women to office. this weekend, nancy cohen weekend, nancy cohen will discuss the challenges women face in politics and the potential of a female president. >> there something really surprising and it surprised me as much as anyone when i was doing the research. voters are not making their decisions based on gender bias. there thinking about ideology and political party and issues and questions of temperament when they decide who to vote for. they care much more about those things than they care about gender. although we still have a lot of sexism in the general culture, it's not impacting the final

count of the elections. >> "after words" airs on book tv every saturday at 10:00 p.m. and sunday at nine pm eastern. you can watch all previous "after words" programs on our website, book tv.org. >> nancy cohen is next on book tv. in her book breakthrough, she addresses the political climate shift that would make it possible for a woman to be elected president and why it's important to have female leaders in government, business and more. >> talk about timely. in the middle of this election, breakthrough just came out. tell us, will we ever have a woman elected as president in the u.s.? we will talk a little bit about if so, when and why does it really matter? >> let's just start with the beginning which is we have 50 nations who have a woman elected

leader. how come the u.s. doesn't have one? >> good question. americans like to think of ourselves as exceptional and a model of democracy for the world but in this case were backwards. as you say, 50 nations have elected a woman to lead them from germany to taiwan to the philippines. the list goes on. we are behind kosovo and pakistan. so as a woman who's written about politics for a couple decades and the mother two daughters, i wanted to to know why america had never elected a woman president. so what is holding us back? >> so what did you find question it's been almost 100 years since women have had the right to vote. hopefully, why is it that we don't have a woman as president? >> will get to the history as you said, but i think the

obvious place people go for this is the double standard and sexism. we have seen a lot of outrage in this election about hillary clinton and against carly fiorina when she was still the race. outrageous, but in many ways laughable. people get called out as soon as they do this. it's a little bit shocking that we have what i would call and a bowed misogynist as the front leader of the republican party. donald trump has made outrageous comments about women. women know, we experience sexism in every field, in business, in education and that's real. yet there's something really surprising and it surprised me as much of anyone when i was doing the research and that is that voters are not making their decisions based on gender bias.

there thinking about ideology and political party and issues and question of temperament when they decide who to vote for. >> they care much more about those things than they do about feminism. i like to say it's like a paper tiger. >> yet i think in the book you talk about the fact that a candidate used to be warm and strong. are there other things that are impacting the way men and women think about candidates that you might tie to their gender question. >> yes, well, so a lot of the way we perceive candidates is gender. the research shows that there's a difference between how people perceive politicians, women in politics and women in business

because there's a different relationship between voters and political leaders. the research shows that there's a so-called double bind that if women are too warm there week and if they're too strong well we know what they're considered. it doesn't look like that still pertains in politics. people want a leader, man or woman who is relatable, who they feel understands them and this whole empathy pulling, but they also want somebody who is going to stand up to them. so when women are that tough and warm, they they actually get a boost in their favorability rating with voters. now voters do not like candidates who are angry and i

think when we get to the general election we will see how this plays out because there's so much anger in the electorate being expressed by certain candidates at the moment. >> civil go through history and how it's affected, but if it's not sexism, why haven't we seen a woman president? >> so obviously 430 years of our history, more like 200 years of our history, it was sexism of our history, it was sexism. it was legal gender discrimination. america's elections are pretty unique in comparison to the world. the real problem is incumbency. there's so few offices open in any election at any level that it's hard, even when women win elections and they win at the same rate men do, it's hard to change the ratio. another part of it, which i think is really important is

what political science is called the gatekeepers. in some ways what we saw with the oscars this past week. there's a group of people who have been in power for a very long time. they are predominantly men and they are predominantly white. congress, in 1960 was 95% white male. in the history of the united states, about 12000 men have served in congress and 308 have. we have a resistance at the gatekeeper level which has partly to do with gender but also to do with people wanting to hold positions of power that they have had before. >> it's a legacy. >> exactly, it's a a legacy. >> so were disadvantaged because there has been this gender way

of viewing politics for hundreds of years. what can we do? how can we get out of that conundrum. it seems like we will have a very long way to go. >> as you know, countries around the world, they've decided they need to take positive action to get a more diverse government. many of the things they do internationally are really off the table. i guess this is going to the recent history. what we have is the women behind the women. we've had women looking at this wall, keeping the white men cozy and comfortable inside congress

and inside the white house saying how are we going to chip away at this solid foundation. they start fundraising groups that are dedicated to getting money to the women candidates. whether it's the gmail gop will wish lists or emily's list. they create interest groups that push women's issues onto the agenda. whether it's now or back in the second wave feminism or planned parenthood now. it we wouldn't be where we are today if we hadn't had these women in the past. we have to play the particle game the way the men play it. we have to be effective to show that we deserved to be there. i interviewed close to 100 people for this book.

many of a more this new generation of leadership. they kind of created this new establishment in the democratic party. so we really can't forget that in 19 system 60 there were no women and so were kind of at this point, we take for granted that we've come so far so fast but i think think your point is well taken, if we have to fight history, we know were stuck at 18%, 17% all over the world in almost every governing body. why do you think quotas are off the table? >> i think it has to do with our racial history. in the 60s and 70s, quota became a code word for not

letting african-americans into institutions that they had been excluded from for close to 400 years. i think the way the race drove our politics in the 60s and and 70s and into the early '80s has a lot to do with why were stuck not being able to do things to increase diversity, whether it's immigrants or ethnic groups or other women. >> so we see were in this incredible race right now. is the importance of women overstated or understated? >> in some ways it's understated. if you look at the 2012 election, roughly 10 million

women than men voted. women also tend not to vote in off year elections. we have this almost seesaw of women absolutely making the difference and then making the difference by staying out. research shows women are concerned about party and ideology but the reason they are pro- democratic is that the democratic party has become a feminist party.

you can't advance opportunity for women and succeed as a democrat on a national level and in those states as well. >> you look at women from both parties and the progress they were making. if you really want to advance the party you need to create bipartisan relationships. it comes about women helping other women. can you tell us about those relationships and how they work together when they are elected into office. how can we possibly be governing nations the way we are currently operating. it seems like women have done things a little bit different lee in the. can you talk about that? >> there are about 20 women in the senate right now.

about 23rd democrat and one third republican. going back to when there were essentially no women in the senate, in, 30 years ago, no democratic woman had ever been elected to the senate in her own right. so the women that came in in the year of the women in 1992, they were outsiders. they reached out to each other not because of some chromosomal determination but they were senators and wanted to get something done. so the first democrat elected, barbara mikulski and a democrat from texas, one of the second or third was hutchinson. they reached out to each other

to improve women's retirement security. they work together on the bill and they went out together to make this bill happen when nothing was happening in congress because of partisanship. they realize that they had such a good relationship that they created these bipartisan dinners. it was like a new girls club. the rules were no staff, gnome memos. this is a tradition that has gone on since 1993 or 1994. it's out of the trust that they've developed that things like ending the government shutdown came out. >> just a minor thing. >> right. just minor. our life experience leads us to

wanting to be pragmatic and get things done and figure out how you break through barriers to get an adequate compromise for people. that is the way our government needs to work if we are going to have a functioning government. >> so it reminds me of sandra day o'connor who was the first woman on the supreme court, and she talks about that ability to compromise and understand each other's position. that is so critical to a functioning government and we tend to lose that. that's great that these women have had such an impact. how often do women and governing positions make a difference? really the question is, do they make a difference difference? if it doesn't make a difference then of course it's nice to have representation, but what is the impact? >> that is the heart of it.

so what does it matter if we have women in office? is it just nice? i would say there are three key reasons. we talk about a more collaborative style that women have and there is symbolism of it. i know we tend to say well maybe that is an important, but think about it. pick about flipping a coin. forty-four times it comes up heads. that's by chance. so our girls look at this and say why hasn't there been a woman. part of their aspiration about what's possible in their life has to do with seeing women as ceos, women presidents, all the top leadership positions. as you said, women are nowhere near equal at all the tables of power in our society. there's also the symbolism and message that it sends to the world.

it said by extremism, we are the common denominator. for women to be at the head of the most powerful country in the world when one of our key allies doesn't allow women to drive and are most significant enemy at this time, isis is literally executing women and girls simply for being women and girls. i think this sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for. the more's important reason is that women do different things when they are in government and they make women and girls opportunity, equality and advancement a priority. >> you had a great example in

the book about if there wasn't a woman in the room, and might not occur to them to keep that provision that was really important. i thought that was a great example. >> seventy talked about that a little little bit. there's an expression in d.c., if you're not at the table, you are on the menu. the affordable care act is a really good example of this. as things got to for the democrat it appeared they may not be able to pass the full bill. leadership when him and started cutting things out of the bill. they were entirely male. one of the things they cut was the women's health amendment. so again, senator mikulski who was the author of bad amendments got wind of this and in the democratic caucus meeting for this, where there's now a significant amount of women, she stood up and had talked to the

other women and said no, this is is not a compromise that is acceptable to us. long story short, they made it happen. it was allowed to be the first in one of the only admin mince when they finally passed health care reform. it's the reason women aren't charged more for insurance in the institute of medicine is deciding whether essential health care needs of women and it's because of that moment that the women set up and said no, not to us, you can't do this. >> it's about perspective. when things are designed from one perspective you end up with the flaw. we talk about that in our book too. we see this cork correlation between participation and growth in women.

it's a great report that says we could drive growth if women had equal opportunity to participate in economies around the world. we are at our own peril, losing a huge opportunity. >> let's take how we can support women's economic participation to the policy. the united states used to have one of the highest rates of women's participation in the labor force. we are now something like, 16 or 19, i can never quite remember my exact statistics. we went from two or three to 16th or 19th or 19th in the world in women's economic participation. everybody agrees the reason for that is that we do not have the same policy around paid family

leave, maternity leave and child care and pre-k. we are one of three countries in the world, not even the developing world, the entire world that does not guarantee paid maternity leave. >> it's fighting. it's kind of a walk of shame. not to have paid family leave is holding us back. we know it's costing us five points of gdp. full participation means better life for everyone because they will reinvest their earnings into the community. it's a positive cycle. why are we seeing this? why don't policymakers say this is in the best interest of everybody? >> i absolutely agree with you. they should see it's not a women's issue, it's an an american issue. it's a family issue. i think we have a representative government and people bring their experiences and we cannot

avoid the fact that people bring particular experiences. women, because of of the history of sexism in gender discrimination have a perspective that's different. let me compare the democratic candidates for president. hillary clinton and bernie sanders. sanders talks about being pro-choice and supporting paid maternity leave. he forgets to call it paid family leave. he talks about supporting childcare and pre-k. he has something like 14 trillion-dollar budget to pay for free college and all the other things on his agenda. he hasn't budgeted for child care or paid family leave or pre-k. hillary clinton has a 100% hundred% pro-choice voting record too, but she talks about

the problem of a hyde amendment that access to reproductive care is essentially unavailable to poor women because of policy. she talks about the level of women's workforce participation. she is funding childcare. she is funding paid child leave. she talks about finding subsidies for parents to pay for child care. i think whichever candidate you support, if you're a a democrat, it's an example of priority. women, because of our experience, have figured out a way to integrate this perspective into, whether it's national security or economics or healthcare. it's not just the discrete women's issue. >> is so interesting because i think it's great perspective that you bring. i know women judges may not rule

differently but on issues of sexual discrimination, you do see different voting. justice o'connor hasriy?y a gret quote and it says the key to peace is the rule of law and the key to law is -- i'm really struck by what you said earlier. it's really about incumbency and the weight or the lack of women participation, since women have the right to vote and participate, were really fighting a physical battle. one of my most cherished historical events was in 1920

when women's suffrage was passed to the united states. you talk about this as being a lost opportunity. can you talk about that? >> i think think the fact that it took 70 years shows how much resistance to women exercising fundamental rights of citizenship and vote. there were hysterical predictions about what would happen to the country if women have the right to vote. we only got there because of a social movement involving literally millions of women when the population of the united states was more like 30 million not 300 some million.

>> they were organized. they were lobbying legislatures. they were writing petitions. they were marching and doing hunger strikes. they were electing and removing politicians. they were doing public speaking. they were strategizing. >> basically, about 2 million women in the country had the experience around 1920 that you need to run a successful campaign for a political office. what happens is cool, the top suffrage organization said we are going to stay at a partisan politics. we need to educate women about their vote. so here are too hundred women. at that moment the parties were

scared of women. they were ready to give them top leadership post in the top parties and run women candidates and putting forward women centric policy and then women stepped off of a main stage of politics and the men said okay, we don't have to worry about them. so we really lost several decades of gradual building and it was a moment, back to this about the gatekeepers. they were going to tell certain men you cannot run for this post because we need women. >> that's super interesting that those decisions in 1920 could be affecting today's elections are on the country. then it begs the question, why can't clinical gatekeepers today make an effort? >> i think we see some of it.

we see the republicans, back in 2012 a rotary part about what the party needed to do. it it had recommendations to bring more women into leadership. it didn't work so great but they won a few new sonnet entry and seats in 2014. democratic party, the or including women. the parties have very little control of who runs for office. this election is a perfect example of that. trump, who knows what party he was ever a member of before decides that he's running for the republican nomination. sanders, who has been on principle and independence, caucusing with democrats for 30 some years runs the democratic

party. there is a little bit of a strange comparison here. in argentina where you have typical parties, the president now is like trim. he was a billionaire and owned a big soccer football team. :

>> >> the great granddaughter of herbert hoover for the

political action committee is pretty much appalled as it how extreme religious right has taken over the party but on the democratic side is generational tension and the older generation really faced barrier in their personal life to know the history it took with enacting together to get as far as we have gotten and we have not gone far enough. they know how american politics works and if you don't have those institutional mechanisms to have with the neck at the head as president does a lot to shift the culture and ideas. yogurt women that i saw

interviewing is that there was a lot of enthusiasm for hillary clinton so i think those white millennial women it is a that they don't want or don't look for work but they are balancing to candidates that they see as good in different ways. it is a case where they will lose sacrifice women's equality but there are other issues they want to see every be a better'' -- a better vehicle for that. >> is they had different experiences they go through life.

so to go with those the minister deals. but also the matter is what is different. i had that personal experience myself and i was in college participating. not one person from the feminist movement talk about child care and how would i be a niche children in having a career? is to put the debate for word if they end up dead end different place and then to be enthusiastic but with those questions into the

conversation not second-tier or back burner as essential to how happy you are in your life and career and your children thrive is good for everyone. >> in your book that parallels why women go into politics. that they often edison to power. and it is interesting that women run because it wants to solve problems.

but millenials rand women are older and she -- they don't want to sacrifice family in it don't think there should be an environment littlefield that they should suffer that way. so that generational shift why do women run for different reasons? mac is among the millenials to reshape the business world. they want to do good. in this is a great shift for america in general.

absolutely but i think because women perceive never by to see the message get out. it is hard for everybody so the sacrifice that it takes to run for office where you don't have the ready-made in network to feel that there is it is a purpose or a mission. event the more decision

making. but it seems like we always have that reasonable million standard. and after they are instituted that caliber of politicians or ways that our better qualified. with that bill curve to the side of excellence. >> talking about that 17 percent leadership gap with every governing body it

has been cleaned and the founders of the 17 percent of women who'd could be conditioned to see their representation as ronald. ha. >> absolutely that is brilliant. in looking into this question of the five elected president will make a difference? , of course, not. so this gets to the edge into state politics so latrobe in event sanders can appeal to the working-class white men but if they

identified to women is identity politics? it may have something to do if we get beyond 17% that is too much that is strange. >> maybe we are not comfortable as a culture but no matter how they are picked but this great story from madeleine albright his said and never thought of secretary of state because i never saw one wearing a dress. then fast for dendrogram daughter was there.

and how quickly that changes the expectations just when you break the barrier. that is the important concept. >> and there is great research that relates to this in the united states that when an adolescent girls stay viable women running for office to jump-start their political ambition. they talk about to run for office in to be politically active. that symbolic stuff isn't just nice to change a 17% in the earlier point not just

young women and girls so with media isn't helping someone came up to her and said to her help us. she said no private actress i just do research they said you have to stop exporting the television that we get is changing the standards of our country for the role of women. so they take that leadership to the rest of the world

with that a jet economic summit that she works and she talks in the next year in the year after suddenly japan as the centerpiece to get the country had of this terrible long-term economic decline. >> one of the biggest ships of the last five years is when the prime minister went to dominoes -- to be competitive. it is based on evidence based. it empirically is the smartest thing to do.

>> i do think it is transformation all. with those under 45 and most of the men are chasing a under these models that i can be involved in my family. that leadership at the top particularly in the american system of government is so important to set the table and set the agenda and using that plea pulpit we will

focus upon in advance the gender ecology to the 21st century ceramic that is such an important point because the world is getting so much faster a unit competitive to redesign the way the systems work with that convergence of technology and with the evidence based case what you need to do to stay competitive. and we need women as policy makers. we can work from home and do what we need to do.

>> absolutely my first book was on the progressive era. and one of the things about policy for businesses there are a lot of businesses out there with their workers who have children whether men or women. to be competitive with germany. zero with the business down the street. so whether minimum-wage or social security and then to harness the women's economic potential it cannot all be done by business.

lead is the balance of mandate and sentence. there could be some middle ground reached it had been women in the house makes it more likely what do you think is holding back and that is why we are grateful that your book came now. why isn't this the type of mind? >> so that leaves 83 percent is driven by men.

end historically and culturally and to make these family issues a priority for them. to go about their business and chief positions of power. and not worry about this a child at home. to express very forthright the importance of gender equality as the conversation starts to change and they become important come to us if we take care of the military for the economy or the federal reserve.

this is a girl stuff. part of it is changing to this is american stuff. >> talk about changing the culture. end it is said to a women's issue. but nobody benefits. long stall door dash installed. but some of these it a much more creative way so why not were betty can benefit?

>> and i am very optimistic. i know of the sexes is a barrier. i don't think it is a barrier to us not adopting these policies. i feel like history created a playing field is not level yet. history shapes the playing field and we have to make a conscious effort to level it is to spread the idea among younger men. >> we see the ceos of large paybacks to say the gender equality is more economic.

that they're the largest economic force in the world today. it is very pragmatic so that is the important point. >> rand the stakes could not be higher than they are with the selection. every leading republican candidate not only the we were going backward to have someone who really prioritizes there is a big danger with what is a risk with voting rights for

african-americans. so now will the supreme court allow the emigration orders to go through or will they be deported? we'll win and continue to have reproductive rights? or access to abortion and birth control? it is essential. stated that is another great way. is that still historic?

end metastasize of legislatures. if you have 1 billion people. but there are things that they can do a voluntary level. it is a very democratic state in the democratic party in for lou to endorse them with those our adopted by parties.

and with that little power that they have to increase the representation. so to say there is the ambition gap in the with rainier in the race as the non in content and. >> ted arnold you find this to be true but it did take those positions of power if you're a rational actor will this do to my family in my life? uc that playing out? >> i think it does that you have to be tough.

and but we still have a problem with women in power. we like how they are. it is unseemly. talking about those poll numbers it would be ludicrous he is inconceivable. but we also see that in the stems field that it is so hard to is a few minutes left but it is important to a understand it is o.k. to run and had great chances of

winning? >> one of the most important is having the opportunity you see a person in that role it is really not hypothetical. so it helps them the other reminder to say i want to be secretary of state. but you have to see it to put yourself on the path. with the message that sex is and it is disgusting and offal and laughable but in the political world not

going to affect if you win or not if i am willing to put up with it i will have an equal chance. and then with that first spot. >> anything to come away with. and the people need to be thinking who represents end the character the most important job in the world.

>> but what i would end with it doesn't matter. it is its identity politics it is rational self-interest and us sense of the common good. >> i really love this book this is very topical but with that evidence based for men and women. >> thank you so much.

at the end if you can help us out to fold up your chairs that gives you a little more space for the book signing. canso once again i am one of the events managers here. to find 600 events per year to have everything there is going on with other programming. and so now why you are actually here professor of pu p