With the next presidential election a little over a year and a half away I thought that this topic would be appropriate to discuss, seeing as how the candidates who are running appear in the news everyday. This article doesn't touch upon the presidential candidates, but it does bring up the topic I want to discuss. And as much as I normally dislike Virginia Buckingham's columns, I find myself agreeing with her on this one.Duty is hers to take: Mrs. Patrick should pick own role as first lady
Incase anyone doesn't know, Diane Patrick is the wife of Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA). What I'm trying to get to is...the job of the first lady.
Whether it be as a governor's wife, or wife of the president. The position of first lady does allow one to have some social power, but it's constructed so that she must follow what society considers the traditional gender role for women. She needs to be nurturing, caring, and compassionate. She is expected to participate in charitable and humanitarian work. Usually, a first lady chooses a specific social cause to support (not one that has any political implications of course). And never ever (not always but a majority of the time - some MA first ladies continued to work) do they continue their career that they previously had outside of office...if they had one at all.
The role of first lady, to me, seems pretty oppressive. There is no rule or law that says you cannot have a career outside of the role as first lady, but it is looked down upon if you do. Not so much in state government as in the White House. One of the most identifiable first ladies is Jackie Kennedy. But why does everyone know and love her? Because she had great style. She fit the traditional first lady role. She was the subordinate to her husband. She supported him and stood by him the way a good wife should. Sure, she was also the first lady during the beginning of the 1960s. But people in the present still admire her. I can't name one single social cause she supported or what her political stances were, but I could describe what she used to wear.
Where Diane Patrick comes into this is that she isn't the typical first lady. And while I am not totally satisfied with her husand's administration thus far, I am pleased that she has chosen to continue her law practice full-time as well as fulfill the duties of first lady.
The reason this topic interests me is that increasingly as more and more candidates are entering the presidential race I've noticed there is a lot of emphasis on their spouses. There have been a few reports that say it will be their wives (husband...ha!) that will make or break their campaign. This is especially noted in the GOP candidate pool. The only republican candidate to have been married once is Mitt Romney. It seems as though his wife Ann is the perfect embodiment of a first lady. Even in the present day, where divorce isn't an unusual act, many voters may base their votes on the candidates relationship with their spouse in addition to their views on issues.
4 comments:
Thank you for this great topic.
In response to your last paragraph, I think this has a lot to do with Americans voting on personality and appearance--we vote in our politicians based on their likability, not on how well we think they can do the job--we want to think they are nice to their spouses and that we would like to have dinner with them. While this would perhaps be ideal, it has proven to not be the best way to choose our representatives in government.
This whole discussion points out the entrenched heterosexism within our culture and consequently our political system. We assume that politicians must be heterosexual, married, have families (especially wives) to support them and keep them in check (on moral high ground), and mostly, we assume they will be male. There are a few single men who skate by in generous districts, and even a few gay men. But can you imagine an unmarried woman running for president, let alone a homosexual unmarried woman? gasp!
I agree. Everything in politics comes down to image. When a politician says they're not about photo ops and sound bites, they really are. For example, it's not just about who's for the war in Iraq or against it...it's about who can make their media image look the best while stating their opinion.
At first I thought that maybe political spouses could hold some power since they do aid in controlling the candidate's image. But when it comes to a politician's wife, the power is subverted because really, the wife is giving into the traditional female role of standing by your man. So technically, they don't have power.
I would imagine it will be a VERY long time before either a single man or woman no matter their sexual preferance runs for office. I think it's happened before...I'm not positive, however, I do know in the recent gubernatorial MA election an unmarried homosexual woman ran for governor...Grace Ross.
I agree that politics comes down to image. The president has to look good because everyone sees him on TV; someone like former president Taft, who was over 300 pounds, would certainly never get elected today.
It's sad that political elections are more like popularity contests...and what's popular is already partially determined by the history of our culture; people just can't seem to escape the idea that a white man will be a better president than a black man, or a woman (regardless of skin color or sexual orientation).
One can only hope that our culture will eventually evolve to the point that popularity is determined by competence and integrity, with no physical prerequisites...but perhaps that's too idealistic.
I think that as long as we rely on the media and people's images that are created by the image we will always base everything on appearance. With the advancements of technology like the photograph, television, and internet we can never escape judging people by the way the news media shows us.
Post a Comment