First ladies in the United States have no constitutional role. The first lady has no official duties. For all we know, she should stick to the household and being nice to visitors. The word "hostess" is perfectly tailored for the real duties of the first lady. Nowhere in the books do we find anything that would allow the first lady to mix in politics, deliver political speeches, and take extra-congressional initiatives that aim at passing legislation.
Practice though has been different. "Liberation" politics has allowed first ladies to storm into the public forum and become "figures" in their own right.
The fact is pregnant with complications. Little tiffs with the husband as they sit, alone, for dinner the night before can explode into administration crises. First ladies with demanding character, a penchant for interference, and a sense of personal mission (a disastrous trait to strike ANY second fiddle) come to believe that they are entitled to real political and executive power.
This is a scandal, to put it lightly. In theory, we vote for president. We do not/do not vote for his/her spouse. We get saddled with the spouse by virtue of the family connection. The fact in no way entitles the spouse to meddle and stir and act behind the scenes.
Food for thought as we approach November.
I imagine that- should the first lady's role ne that of hostess, that should we have a first man after this crazy election, that his role should be that of grill master. Ha.
Perfect! I'd love to see a "grill master" in charge--although, keeping in mind who might that be in November, I shudder at the thought of what else he will be grilling, almost certainly... I would personally send him to a nice resort for borderline dementia patients.... and be done with him.
Politcal agendas completely aside, I can see Bill Clinton rockin the grill. Trump on the other hand- I doubt he could cook a hotdog without paying someone else to do it, let alone anything of quality.
Haha!!! How true!!!
He went vegetarian after his heart operation(s)
ok, if you think that focusing on the welfare of ostensibly the most important leader in government is to be denigrated by applying the term household duties, then you are welcome to. however there is something to the idea of behind every successful man there is a strong woman. they are supposed to have each others backs. take a situation where the roles are reversed, as may soon well be the case. would madam president want the first man running all over the place usurping the role that she worked her ass off for? no, i think she would want his support in what she was trying to accomplish. i'm almost certain that george washington could not have accomplished what he did if he didn't have martha watching his back.
i, personally, wouldn't want bill clinton watching my back. i think he'd be looking for where to stab me.
"i, personally, wouldn't want bill clinton watching my back. i think he'd be looking for where to stab me."
I agree wholeheartedly.
"ok, if you think that focusing on the welfare of ostensibly the most important leader in government is to be denigrated by applying the term household duties, then you are welcome to. "
I am not sure what you mean by that... The most important leader in government should not be "denigrated"--I hardly propose this. The SPOUSE should be kept on a leash... Simple.
the spouse of the president is like the spotter to the sniper. integral. partners. not less than, but different from. i didn't mean the president shouldn't be denigrated, but that the functions that the presidential spouse engages in are, or should be, vital to the function of the president. the spouse of the president is their most intimate connection. i don't believe, under such stress that one person can stand alone. i cannot let it be brought to the level of what most people think of as menial chores.
I do understand now -- and I agree. The spotter part we can't control. That's their private affair and it might or might not work. And, yes, the pressure is such that it's imperative that the president has an anchor. But the anchor has no constitutional standing. He/ she should not be permitted to undertake jobs for which congress and government departments have sole authority to conduct. Of course, history teaches us that spouses with a grudge or ambition can CHANGE history... and that is, more often than not, on the unpleasant side. So, spot all you want and let the sniper do the job.... I'm all for it.
i will have to think some more about it. i wouldn't have a problem if they jointly, publicly ran for the office., but, as you imply, there might be covert or competing agendas. i think whomever the people vote for, singly or otherwise should fulfill the duties of the office. i do also think that a spouse fills the role of confidant better than a vice president. however, the duties are still significantly different.
@lifeworship I am in agreement. A question of reform...
there are lots of angry people on social media. i am glad to find someone not so inclined. i thank you for your candor and thoughtful consideration.
Same here...