Who is the First Lady?
Currently, Michelle Obama has been hard at work campaigning around the country for the upcoming elections, visiting states such as Iowa, Maine and Wisconsin to rally the voters in favor of the democratic Senators and governors running in each of these states. Thus far she has participated in 26 events this year and is far from over, as her current fall calendar filled with campaigning events will show. Put accurately by DNC spokesman Michael Czin, “The First Lady has -and will continue to be- a tremendous asset for the Democrats on the November ballot.” With this series of events, highlighting her speech at the Democratic National Committee, it marks a new time for Michelle Obama. A new time of advocacy and strong campaigning to strengthen the Democratic party, and less on ratings of the public as she was so accustomed to in her husband's first term pressing issues such as child obesity.
With Michelle's role in social issues as well as political issues changing we must call into question what truly is the role of the First Lady? Is she a trailblazer for social reforms, a support for her husbands role and position in government, a key campaigner for her party’s control in congress or merely a figure to give us a false sense of security. Looking back most recently to Laura Bush, her role of First Lady took that of one focused on social changes such as: literacy, education, gender equality, and after the event of 9/11 most notably took the role of comforting and aiding the country through a hard time. While not a strong example of a politically active First Lady, she is a perfect example for an advocate of social reform. A bit further back, one of the most powerful First Ladies this country has ever known, Hillary Clinton, was known for her strong influence in politics taking on ambitious tasks such as the National Health Reform as well as a hefty background in politics far before her husband’s presidency. Even After her husbands Terms she took the position of senator of New York and now is seeking a presidency of her own.
Conclusion Questions:
What do you think the role of the first lady is?
Do you believe the First Lady should be politically active, and if so do you feel she should voice her opinion even if it is in disagreement with her husband?
If Hillary Clinton were to be the next president, what would the role of her husband be?
5 comments:
Well, I think that your questions break down into two things: who the first lady IS, and who the first lady SHOULD be. I think that, as of now, the role of the first lady is primarily to support her husband's actions in office--whether or not she actually supports them. I think there are two examples we should look at this with: The first is when Bill Clinton passed NAFTA in the 90's. His wife Hillary actually was very unenthusiastic about the agreement in private, but supported it publicly. Now, do I think this is the way the first lady should act? No, of course not - I don't like the idea of sacrificing someone's ideals for political expediency, but I think that it is unreasonable to expect otherwise (Laura Bush -- who married a very socially conservative president -- might have been pro-choice and a same sex marriage supporter . this is just another example). Now onto the next question- I think that Bill could be both a huge asset and a huge issue for Hillary 2016. He is an excellent speaker, and is well known for being able to connect with voters at town hall-style debates. He employ these skills both on the campaign trail and during a Hillary presidency. But we have to remember that he could bring a lot of baggage with him from the Clinton years, possibly relating to the Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals. The Hillary 2008 campaign had to dispatch a special staffer just to "keep an eye" on Bill. -Jordan Kranzler (for some reason, my last name isn't appearing)
I accidentally put in the wrong hyperlink on my comment about Laura Bush. Here is the right link
I agree with Jordan in the current role of the First Lady. No matter what the case, some degree of support must be either practiced or at least feigned in order to maintain sort of a healthy balance while the president is in office. However, all the while she may be supporting her husband, the president, the First Lady truly must be politically active to a degree. Having a passive First Lady is bad for two reasons. First, it looks bad for the current president, as his wife isn't really doing anything, something that can be exploited against him. Second, a passive First Lady is sort of not really taking advantage of her position. As wife to the president, she should be able to enact some sort of influence on society (without abusing her power of course), and that opportunity should spur action. I believe that it is generally unfavorable for both the first lady and the president to be in disagreement, unless the first lady perceives something to be gravely incorrect or wrong, in the case some degree of disagreement would be rather appropriate. If Hillary Clinton were to be president, I believe Bill Clinton should act exactly as a First Husband would, in the same vein as a First Lady. The position doesn't really change, rather it's just a swapping of marital nomenclature given the circumstances. I believe there is a sort of assumption of applying traditional gender roles to the positions of both president and First Lady, seeing as we've had only heterosexual, male presidents from the beginnings of our nation's history. I believe that gender roles are inappropriate in trying to fit a job to especially the First Lady or Husband, because the duty and inherent responsibility as spouse to the president should not change at all. No matter what, the president is president and the First Lady/Husband is the First Lady/Husband. Nothing can change that, and nothing should.
I, naturally, greatly agree with Christian's comment on the fact that just because we've had heterosexual male presidents thus far, doesn't mean that will always be the case in the future (at least I hope it won't) and so no one role should be designated to the first spouse. I think that Michelle obamas steps towards a more active role as First Lady is wonderful in that not only is she using her influence to pull support for the Democratic Party but she is also showing that, unlike other First Ladies, she isn't merely concerned on social issues but instead politics. Social issues are of course wildly important and are often tackled by First Ladies but this can be because some view First Ladies in politics as them over stepping their bounds which is of course ridiculous. No one would question a first husband who dabbles in politics to be overstepping his bounds. In terms of bill clintons possible role as the first first husband were Hillary to win the election, I think that there shiu,d be the same expectation of him to support his wife publicly, even if he disagrees privately. The first spouse is an influential position, and no matter who it is, they should take advantage of that position to enact change in the country for things that may not be as blatantly urgent like what the president has to deal with.
I don't think that we should differentiate when it comes to the role of First Lady/Husband; the gender shouldn't matter, only their title as spouse to the president should. I believe that they should be as politically active as they feel necessary, and there isn't some sort of political minimum/maximum when it comes to how active they are, because different people are into different issues with varying degrees of passion. However, I do agree with my previous classmates that it is important that they at least feign support for their spouse even if they do not agree, because it's bad for public image otherwise. (We all know how much politicians are into public image!)
Post a Comment