Hillary Rodham Clinton is under fire again because we don’t yet have a new model for the president and his (or her) spouse that is in synch with modern realities. And old mythologies are preventing the formation of a new mold.
Hillary and Bill Clinton would seem to be a workable model of the new presidential couple. Unlike the Reagans, where Nancy played the adoring helpmate in public but was an influential player behind the scenes, the Clintons presented themselves as what they are: two bright, credentialed people who would both be active in policy issues.
This is more in line with reality than the old model of the strong president and the meek wife who only wanted to rearrange the china. The fact is that political careers always involve both partners. Mrs. Marvin Mandell, the wife of a former Maryland governor, made this point when she refused to vacate the governor’s mansion when her husband wanted to leave her for a younger woman. She said that his success was due to at least 50 percent of her efforts and she wasn’t budging.
Our society has problems with female power–especially when a strong woman is allied with a man who holds office. We don’t seem able to visualize a man who can acknowledge a woman’s strength, but not be subsumed by it. Not surprising. Our images of female power are overloaded with dread. Ulysses resisted the sirens’ call only because he was lashed to the mast; Samson lost his power when Delilah cut his hair; Macbeth was led to murder by Lady Macbeth, and so on. The idea is that when sex and power reside in a woman, the man who is wed to her must be powerless.
There is another myth–the one that says to be masculine, men must control women. The minute a man cedes one iota of authority, he is a wimp and a weakling. This bears no relation to marriages in today’s world where most women work, where marriages are true partnerships in which decisions are shared and cooperation in both earning and parenting is the order of the day.
In the future, the model the Clintons offer will be more common as high-achiever, two-earner couples become the norm for politics. Hillary Clinton’s salary as a corporate lawyer made it possible for Bill to take the low-salaried job ($35,000) of governor of Arkansas and still do the entertaining and politicking a successful governor must do. Unless we want only wealthy people to hold office–or those who aren’t rich to be supported by special interests–we will see more and more two-career couples. If Bob Dole gets the Republican nomination, he too will face the issue of a high-powered wife. Perhaps, due to the pounding Hillary is taking, Libby Dole plans to keep her non-White House job. Will this protect her? Probably not. She may be attacked just as fiercely, because her “pillow talk” will be as feared as Hillary’s up-front influence.
If we want a model that works for the president and a spouse, we must clear away old myths and realize that there is nothing dreadful about the power of a presidential wife. “Who elected her?” People ask. Nobody. But who elected Ed Meese, John Mitchell, Bobby Baker, Sherman Adams and other male buddies who got presidents in big trouble? Sexual thrall is not the only connection that leads men astray. Old navy-buddyship or corporate-lawyer-palship may be even more likely to make a president run amok. In fact, a spouse might be more careful to steer clear of trouble, since she is so closely tied to her mate’s fate. The careerist motives of the president’s men can mean that they will do anything to stay near the throne–no matter how much trouble it ultimately causes for their boss.
As to the idea that men are unable to resist powerful women, look at the record. The men who run for president have colossal egos and iron wills. FDR may have listened to Eleanor, but history shows that he often did not accede to her wishes. Bill Clinton is hardly a shy flower; he’s so smart and so much of a wonk that he practically has to be physically restrained from micro-managing everything right down to the oil deliveries to the White House. Testy combat veteran Bob Dole will hardly let Libby make all the decisions.
What we need is a realistic picture of a modern marriage in the White House. Future first ladies (or first men) will probably be educated professionals who have spent years helping create a spouse’s career. We should let them be open about this, not pretend they are some version of Ozzie and Harriet. A first lady’s activities should be open to fair scrutiny, not the hysterical coverage that has greeted Hillary. She’s called a phony when she talks about kids, a liar when she tries to explain her corporate billing and a Lady Macbeth (more than 50 media references in Nexis) when she talks about policy. It’s fair to criticize her failure on health care and to examine her legal career. It’s not fair to present her as a modern day embodiment of the female monsters of history. Much of this is created by the constant drumbeat of the right wing, which only likes women barefoot and pregnant. (The right has also been calling for the resignation of Bob Dole’s chief aide as being too feminist.)
Unless we want to drive everyone out of politics but rich men who have homemaker wives, we had better start to accept some new models in the White House. After all, less than 5 percent of American families today are composed of male breadwinners and at-home wives. A new model that reflect the realities of today’s marriage is badly needed.
