August 3, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Matt Zeitlin objects to the notion that first ladies should be seen and not heard:
So it’s OK for a president to hire White House staff and political and policy advisers, like, say Karl Rove, but Bill had his accomplished, competent, engaged, intelligent wife serve in an advisory position, it’s some sort of impropriety? I don’t know, maybe the president has some sort of special relationship with his spouse that allows for greater trust, confidence and forthright communication between the two of them. But I guess Noonan just wants first ladies to spend their days smoking cigarettes and reading novels. My blog persona may be harsh on Hillary, but the way she manages to drive right wingers absolutely nuts is rather satisfying.
Why are voters so uncomfortable with forward first spouses? I don't think it's pure sexism; the ones who hate Hilary mostly liked Condi all right, and frankly, if we do elect Hillary, I'm not sure I think Bill should be wandering around the White House making policy.
No, it seems to me that there's an obvious set of differences between spouses and policy advisors: spouses aren't picked for their policy expertise, and if they screw up, they can't be fired. Moreover, one might rightly fear that their ideas would get extra weight because the president doesn't want to sleep on the couch for the next three and a half years.
First ladies have obviously always had some sort of advisory role, because people talk to their spouses. But I don't think it's crazy to want to keep them at arm's length from the administration's major policy initiatives.
Posted by Jane Galt at August 3, 2007 11:38 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI believe Mrs. Woodrow Wilson was running the country when her husband became seriously ill. She seemed to do a decent job.
Also, how do you say "Mr. President, your wife is wrong." without damaging your career/job/health. I don't imagine that you heard that phrase all that much in the Clinton White House.
Weren't those Vince Foster's last words?
I kid, I kid. :)
Also, how do you say "Mr. President, your wife is wrong." without damaging your career/job/health.
The same way you say "Mr. President, you're wrong" I imagine.
In an ideal world a person is elected into office because they embody the qualities that voters desire. And part of that is being able to appoint competent and qualified individuals in staff positions. It does not follow that the spouse shares any of those qualities, or would be qualified to hold any relevant appointed position in the administration (opposites attract?).
In any case, while we all know the real world is full of charlatans and the white man's version of affirmative action (nepotism), people still hold to the dream of what should be. Which is probably why they think voting for a politician should not entail voting for the spouse as well.
I used to get a lot of accusations of sexism when I suggested that Rosalyn Carter should not have been invited to attend cabinet meetings, and Hillary Rodham Clinton should not have been put in charge of healthcare reform. I found it quite easy to repel those charges by pointing to Dennis Thatcher. So far as I can tell, any advice he gave his wife was confined to what dress to wear and what to serve at state dinners, if he even gave that much. He stayed strictly out of politics, as any spouse of either gender ought to, and there's nothing whatsoever sexist about saying so.
The undesirability of nepotism in government used to be too obvious to need explaining. What changed?
Partly it's about nepotism, and partly it's that there's something monarchical about giving power to Presidential relatives.
FWIW, this is a big part of the reason why I opposed George W. Bush in 2000, even before he had a chance to show what an awful President he would be. And it's a big part of the reason why I oppose Hillary Clinton's Presidential run (plus the fact that she's very authoritarian).
If I wanted that sort of nonsense, I'd move to England and become a subject of the Queen.
Interesting fact about Presidential relatives: Although many Presidents have been distant relatives of other Presidents (e.g. the Roosevelts), only 3 Presidents have been close relatives (John Adams and John Q. Adams, William Henry and Benjamin Harrison, George H. W. and George W. Bush), and all 3 heirs lost the popular vote in their first run.
I predict that Hillary will lose the popular vote if she's the nominee, but win the electoral vote.
The problem with any spouse serving in an official advisory position is that the candidate and spouse inevitably want to have it both ways. The advisor/spouse is off limits for attack and criticism, because that's their personal life. Yet they should nevertheless be accorded the same authority and policy influence as any other, more accountable official. That's not a good way to run a republic.
I'm not sure I think Bill should be wandering around the White House making policy.'
Better Bill than Hillary.
We already have mechanisms in place to bring people into the executive branch of government (election or appointment and approval). A wife taking a role in government and policy would be akin to, say, the sibling or child of a president doing so. Nobody elected Roger or Chelsea Clinton, we should be appalled if they tried to use their relation to the President at the time to try to influence government policy, I don't see why it should be terribly different for a wife.
The same way you say "Mr. President, you're wrong" I imagine.
Many people are more willing to hear personal attacks than they are to hear attacks on their spouse or children.
My feelings echo Jane's. A spouse isn't an employee, and has influence beyond that which employees should have. Heck, even simple *friendship* can be a problem. Look at Alberto Gonzales, who owes his job to the fact that he's Bush's friend. Well, he stinks at his job. Democrats never liked him, Republicans never liked him, but we're stuck with him because BUSH likes him. I imagine that love would be an even bigger problem.
Dr. Weevil, great minds and all that. I've made exactly the same point on numerous occasions. Even in photos Denis Thatcher was generally just barely visible in the back row.
Here's a good follow-up to the Thatcher point: "if Bill had been elected sheriff of Honker's Corners, AR, would you be OK with Hillary writing speeding tickets?" Or "if he'd become an MD, would you mind if she performed surgery?"
Either of those usually elicits a long silence.
Pillow talk is one thing, but the spouse taking on an official role (e.g., Rosalyn as quasi-ambassador, Hillary as health care czar) is wholly inappropriate. Not elected by the people, nor confirmed by the Senate.
Yet another thing we can blame Carter for - starting this trend. In his case, his wife was clearly more competent than he was, but her participation set a bad precedent.
Personally, I'm so very, very weary of First Ladies that thought they had to "do something" (Nancy Reagan with her ill-thought-out anti-drug crusade, Hillary with her idiotic health care extravaganza) that I'd probably vote for Stalin if he were a bachelor or widower.
The Constitution does not mention a First Lady, and that should settle that.
We don't need any more pols who can't get fired, thank you.
What if a president named his brother attorney general? Would that be bad?
I'm not sure I think Bill should be wandering around the White House making policy.
There's a euphemism I hadn't heard, 'making policy'.
"Hey babe, let's you and me make a little policy."
"I believe Mrs. Woodrow Wilson was running the country when her husband became seriously ill. She seemed to do a decent job."
Other than her husband was unable to perform the function of the president of the United States and it was grossly inappropriate to take over his duties.
It's pretty much acknowledged that a the first lady will be one of The Presidents closest advisers so I don't see a problem with sitting in on a meeting. However, they are unelected so I have a big problem with them running the meeting. Or tasked to reform health care. What sort of check is on them? How does the President "fire" a spouse? It would be better if the spouse stayed out of things, but how realistic is that?
Not just the health care spendalooza, Hillary is also believed to have been responsible for the frame-up of the Travel Office employees. Unaccountable power in government always causes corruption.
Comments are Closed.