Talking Politics With Marlene Johnson, Minnesota’s First Woman Lieutenant Governor (part 1)

 

 

Marlene Johnson was Minnesota’s first woman lieutenant governor, from 1983 to 1991, alongside Governor Rudy Perpich. Now living in Washington D.C., the 78-year-old reflects on her life in the book Rise to the Challenge: A Memoir of Politics, Leadership, and Love. We talked with her about the children’s agenda she led, the values of adaptability and diversity in leadership, and how times have and have not changed for seeing women as capable leaders.

The book indicates the importance to your life of adaptability. Could you speak on that a little?

I used to say that one of the job requirements for being a lieutenant governor was being flexible, because even though we planned my schedule, if the governor had a different idea for what I needed to do that day, that’s what I did — that was the job. One of those serendipitous moments gave me an opportunity to meet the man I married; that was positive reinforcement for the understanding that there are always good things around the corner, even when you don’t see them when you open the door. That attitude has served me well.

I think sometimes it feels to others that I don’t feel strongly enough about something if I can adapt quickly, but I generally know what the difference is. If the need arises to adapt quickly, often it gives me a new opportunity or perspective. We have a choice about whether to get upset about the fact that something happened that we didn’t expect, or simply saying, ‘okay, I guess that’s how I’m going to spend the day.’

Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan and Gov. Tim Walz likely were not expecting to be in the positions they are in right now.

There was a point in my first term when I met Martha Griffiths, the former congresswoman from Michigan (1955-1974), who became Lieutenant Governor alongside Jim Blanchard. She mentored me immediately. One of the things she said to me was, “Every day, you take notes about how you would do this day if it was you in the governor’s office. Your job is to be prepared to be governor tomorrow.”

In my case, and in Peggy Flanagan’s case, we have had a very good relationship with the governor. Governor Walz selected her. He includes her all the time. She has specific opportunities and leadership assignments. She is involved beyond knowing what’s going on. She’s a very well-prepared person, as was I.

I was the first lieutenant governor who had that kind of access and engagement and specific policy assignments for the administration. Since then, not everybody has had that. Peggy’s role and relationship is very similar to what mine was.

I took Martha Griffith’s advice and took notes for myself. I wasn’t sharing them with anybody. I was involved in many policy discussions, and all the budget meetings over those eight years. So I knew what the governor’s thinking was. Most of the time I agreed with him, but once in a while I was aware that I might have approached it a little differently. Martha’s point to me, which I share in the book, is that it was not our job to pass judgment on the governor. He’s doing his job, and you will agree with him and not agree with him sometimes. You can share your point of view with him if you want to, but not publicly.

But you should be prepared that if you are the governor tomorrow, you know who in the cabinet stays with you and which positions you might want [to put] someone else in the frame. I’m sure that if Peggy Flanagan steps into the role after the November election, she will be very well prepared. I think very highly of her and am happy she’s in that job.

Children and family issues were a big focus throughout your political career. Could you talk about how that was part of your role?

The decision to bring focus to establish a children’s agenda for the administration came to me as a proposal from the head of the Children’s Defense Fund in Minnesota at the time. As I write in the book, my initial response to her was that I agreed with the desire to have a children’s agenda, but I wasn’t sure I was the best person to lead it because I didn’t have children. I wondered if I would be credible. Her perspective was that whether or not I had children had nothing to do with leading on that issue.

We had several conversations about it. I discussed it with Nan Skelton, who was a number three person in our Department of Education and an old friend of mine. I discussed it with my sister, who was a child and family development [specialist]. I was persuaded that I could make a difference, so I discussed it with the governor.

He liked the idea of a children’s agenda, but was unconvinced initially that I should do it, because he believed it would be perceived in the public as a women’s issue and that might disadvantage me in terms of making a case for my own leadership in the future. At that point, he wanted me to succeed him as the governor. He was a very pro-women governor.

I told him I thought people could see me in a leadership role if I made a difference, whatever issue it was. I said I felt this issue was the one I should do, because there wasn’t anybody else to do it — that I was uniquely in a position to make a difference at that moment in time. On the environment, for instance, there were legislative leaders who were already years ahead of me in showing leadership on those issues. To me, this was the one that would set me apart, because nobody else wanted to do it. And I felt we could do some really good things. He agreed, and from then on I was the administration’s point person for any questions on children.

We made inroads. It is still a long journey, but in 1983, we were the first state in the country to create a children’s agenda. There were a few other states, including Arkansas where the Clintons were, that were doing innovative things on children. But the State of the Children’s speech I delivered was the first time in the country that it had been presented in that way.

What were the children’s needs and agenda items you were promoting?

It was the beginning of having work-based childcare. There were several companies in Minnesota who created on-site childcare. Eventually, there was a recognition that it wasn’t the only solution. One of the companies I know created an on-site childcare center that was great for five years, but they didn’t have many new people coming, so then the workers didn’t need childcare anymore. They had made this very large investment in a childcare center that had no children in it.

Parents needs are related to location. In this country, we still haven’t figured that out in a way that’s working for families. It’s very disjointed. Part of it has to do with having so much for-profit involved in child care, as we do for elder care. The motivations for meeting needs are not always as focused on where the families are, as much as they are on the profit.

There are serious gaps that have always existed in our society, which are different than some European societies — where childcare is like public education and it exists in neighborhoods, where people are living.

In a conversation Minnesota Women’s Press had with you in 1986, the conversation was about what women’s leadership looks like. You talked about power and control. What do those words mean to you now, especially related to where women are at in politics right now?

I think leadership means being able to engage with teams, being comfortable with differences, being comfortable listening to other points of view, being comfortable with being wrong, being comfortable with nurturing other people to do their best to contribute to an organization or problem solving.

One of the things that became clearer to me as I wrote the book is that leadership is not always about being in charge. I’ve been in charge a lot in my life, but before I got to the NAFSA (Association for International Educators) position, I was often in leadership roles where I didn’t have any authority. I had leadership potential, and a position of leadership, but I didn’t have authority. When I was lieutenant governor, I wasn’t the governor. When I was at a furniture company, I was hired to be a change agent, but I didn’t have any authority. My leadership was persuasion.

When I was at NAFSA, I was the boss, but I had to make a lot of change there; I could never have done that by being directive. It only worked because I engaged with everybody. My first month at the job, I talked to every employee one on one. I knew what their ideas were.

When my husband Peter ended up in the nursing home those last nine years, I had no power there. It was a bureaucracy. A caregiving system. I was so grateful that he was in Sweden and in that system. He had no verbal capabilities. It was impossible to know how much cognitive capacity he had, but when things weren’t right and he was upset, I knew. So, I was always having to learn how to figure that out, and how to advocate for him. I had to learn leadership in a way that worked.

I learned over time in my life that one can lead from wherever one sits. You don’t have to have a position of authority to lead. You have to be clear what what you are trying to do, and then figure out how to influence. There are plenty of opportunities for that.

We know from our conversations around Greater Minnesota that it is harder for women, who are creating vision and solutions for community issues, to be elected to office. Do you have any thoughts about how to help people see women as capable leaders in cultures and communities that are slow to turn? We have talked with Rachel Bowman and Jen Schultz, who are running for U.S. representative against anti-choice incumbents in their communities.

I come from one of those small communities. The daughter of a good friend of mine had been the deputy sheriff for nine years, and was supported by the outgoing sheriff, and she lost her run to become the sheriff. I think some of the resources to support women in developing their communication is slower to get to women in rural areas.

Rachel Bowman and Jen Schultz are both running in districts that are heavily Republican. So, it’s not only that they are female candidates; men have been losing those districts for a long time.

In my years, the Republicans were more likely, if it was a swing district, to recruit women candidates. But I think the situation is different now. The political shift has occurred; there are more deeply conservative districts, fewer swing districts, and more hardcore conservative partisan districts that make it much more difficult for candidates like Jen Schultz. She’s an excellent candidate and it is a very challenging district. Some of it is just the political times we’re living through.

Can you describe what you think a more balanced leadership of men and women might bring?

Different points of view are very important. In general, when more perspectives are at the table, whether it’s women and men, African Americans or Native Americans, or other ethnic backgrounds, the conversation is richer and will be less likely to miss important needs in society. It is so easy for all of us to have blinders on and not see it from other people’s point of view; women are can be just as guilty of that as men.

White people have a really difficult time understanding what it’s like for Black people and Native American people. Our life experience does not inform our thinking beyond our own experience. Things change because we have a more diverse base of conversation, otherwise they don’t change. So, we just have to keep working to make sure that range is at the table. It’s not so much whether there are four men and six women, or six men and four women. That is less important than all of us acknowledging that we have something unique to bring to the conversation.

 

Related Stories