First Lady Problems

If the highest office in the land is President, the First Lady is the highest office, and most prominent role, for women, as no women as of this writing has been elected President. The role of First Lady within the administration, and standards of acceptable performance on the part of First Lady, perpetuate the constraints of the housewife in the social imaginary. The First Lady is not only an unpaid position within the administration, but she is also legally prohibited from continuing her career, or earning a salary, while her husband is in office. Politically, the role of First Lady is primarily one of American hostess, and these women are expected to play the part of the happy White House-wife.

The housewife of the social imaginary has become a politically ideological question, evidenced in mediated discussions as to the proper role of the First Lady. The question over paying the First Lady a salary pits Michelle Obama against Laura Bush in the conservative press. Obama, while campaigning for her husband in 2012, complained “numerous times” that the First Lady is an unsalaried position. She and her husband both articulated the numerous

responsibilities and hectic schedule of the First Lady as she works with the administration. The Obamas argued that Michelle’s contributions to the administration should earn her

compensation. This debate mirrors the problem of domestic labor, as domestic work, understood through the lens of the housewife of the social imaginary as feminine, is unpaid, and therefore undervalued in a capitalist society which equates value and money.

In response to the Obamas, Laura Bush, when asked in a C-Span interview if the First Lady should receive a salary, answered: “I don’t think so. There are plenty of perks, believe me. A chef, that was really great. I really miss the chef” (C-Span, 2014). The conservative mediated response to this “feud,” in which Bush goes on to question the legitimacy of legislation which

prohibits the First Lady from earning a salary from any career, found Bush’s articulation of the “perks” insufficient, and added “taxpayer funded vacations around the world, shopping sprees, private jets” to the list of benefits Obama receives as First Lady (Political Insider). While Bush’s “perk” relieves her of a domestic obligation, as she has someone to cook for her, these additional perks emphasize Obama’s “bad attitude” as she asks her contributions to the administration be recognized, and compensated, as work. Portraying diplomatic visits abroad as “vacation” undermines the importance of Obama’s presence, and popularity, abroad, as she travels both alone and with her husband. Providing Obama “shopping sprees” positions Obama as the happy Fifties housewife in a prosperous home, spending her husband’s money. Her ungratefulness in accepting these “perks” as compensation for the work of First Lady is in opposition to Bush’s “classy” response. For the conservative media, then, Obama’s attempts to define the role of First Lady as a job is tacky. Her husband makes plenty of money, and she receives numerous benefits from her husband’s position, so she should be grateful for what she has. The debate between salary and perks for the First Lady thus perpetuates the ideal of the housewife in the social imaginary by assuming that women with a husband who can provide “vacations and shopping sprees” not only don’t need to work, but shouldn’t.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s life in the public sphere is perhaps the clearest example of the ways society continues to judge and ridicule gender malfeasance. The question as to Clinton’s qualifications for the presidency, especially considering those of her opposition, reveals the extent to which those assumptions about women’s ability to perform in the public sphere continue to define and critique women’s suitability for public office. Clinton’s experience as a First Lady who played a vital role in her husband’s administration is never considered as a qualification for the presidency. The problem for Clinton is that political opposition judged her

throughout her husband’s presidency for presuming to have a hand in shaping policy, particularly on health care legislation, and now presumes that, as a wife, she had no significant contribution to her husband’s administration. She was therefore judged during her tenure at the White House for failing to accept the role of submissive wife that now retroactively defines her role in her husband’s administration. As such, a candidate’s eight years of experience dealing with a hostile Congress is silenced by her gender. Clinton’s tenure at the White House demonstrates social response to women who fail to accept society’s parameters as to the performance of wife. Additionally, Clinton is socially judged by those standards which she publically refused and contested, regardless of her personal performance. Therefore the role of wife silences the

qualifications she earned as First Lady. Clinton thus also demonstrates how the social imaginary responds to those who publically defy it; it defines her performance regardless, and silences her protest, by eliminating her presence in public memory.

As such, the housewife continues to be the arbiter of women’s acceptability. Hillary’s public life, and the public judgment of her private life, provide insight into the ways society continues to use the parameters of housewife, primarily in regards to marital relations and a commitment to domestic duties, to evaluate a woman’s character and integrity. Women’s appearance in public debate, particularly on the Republican side, permit women’s public presence so long as they continue to accept and excel at their domestic duties. Romney can accept his chief of staff’s “flexible schedule” because she prioritizes her children, and

accommodating women in the workforce means accepting that their family comes before their career. Does this necessarily imply that, for men, career comes before family? Kasich’s army of housewives helping him earn his seat in the Ohio State Senate are permitted to leave their kitchens to go door to door campaigning for the young candidate, yet for their presence in his

campaign, the political is personal, as their role is based on reaching others “door-to-door.” As such, women’s participation in Kasich politics reaches other women, as in leaving their kitchens to go door-to-door, these women would reach other women, apparently in their own kitchens, as women are the ones who are home. Women’s outreach is acceptable, so long as their audience is other women.