how is getting kids to eat better political as everyone has pointed out this is a traditional role, for the first lady to take up a cause. DARE, you've heard of it right?
I know what you are saying, but I'm arguing that our political institutions and media work in such a way that the first lady's role will always be inevitably steered towards doing something good and widely agreed upon. I think we might as well relish in the opportunity we get to have someone fill such a role.
I think what Michelle Obama is doing is great. I thought what Nancy Reagan did was great. Raising awareness of social problems is a very noble thing, and being First Lady gives the ability to bring the problems into the limelight. As long as they stay out of politics, I'm fine with what they do. Hilary tried to engage politics too much. The problem I have with that is the U.S. elects the President based on their political qualifications...not their wives.
If the celebrity has the ear of the President or a Senator, then they certainly can get legislation pushed through that route. The FLOTUS just has more influence than the celebrity - but the role is basically the same. She has no legal ability to enact legislation. All she can do is lobby her husband.. How is that any different from all the political advisors and legislative staff members? All of those people are unelected but play a huge role in affecting and driving legislation and policy. These people only have as much influence as the elected person allows them to have. In FLOTUS' case, she only has as much influence as POTUS gives her. Since you elect him, you're impliciting giving him that authority, just as you do with all the advisors he chooses.
I think getting kids to eat better is just as political as environmental awareness, disease awareness, or drug prevention. I think the disconnect is that you take political to mean something that has to generate disagreement; I'm saying that there's a real-world impact to the policies and campaigns they bring about, and as unelected spouses there should be a scope for their responsibilities that precludes them from using their office to receive government funding or getting appointed by her husband for official positions. Yes, I've heard of DARE, and the argument I'm making would apply to Nancy Raegan the same way it would to Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, or anyone else. I dont mind if they care about an issue and volunteer to advocate for policies on behalf of a nonprofit, or work on a grassroots effort. The problem is when the president is authorizing activities and appropriating government funds, which is what happened in all of the aforementioned cases (DARE, literacy, let's move, etc.).
Senators would have to sponsor a bill, get congressional support and get legislation passed through a series of votes. Political advisers and staff are selected by the president based on qualifications (well, for the most part...there are obviously many cases of nepotism). The key difference again being that they arent related to the president.
Yes - FLOTUS would have to get a Senator to sponsor a bill to pass legislation. Same as a celebrity would do. Many staff are financial contributors and friends. How is it any different or better to let a friend or a contributor influence policy than a wife?
What you are asking is a very worthwhile question, but it seems like you feel as though the first ladies are able to do more than a normal citizen can do for their cause, but this isn't fair or just because they are a non-elected figurehead. Is that right?
No, FLOTUS initiatives are generally sponsored through executive orders (like Let's Move and DARE). Yes, staff members are often contributors and friends, but they are not family. There are federal laws against the president appointing family members to federal positions.
Not only do more, but play a major political role through executive orders and leading major initiatives. To me, this is not only unfair, but a somewhat odd 'perk' given that their only qualification is being married to the president and the obvious conflict of interest.
dude this is what i mean yeah understand that but you're saying this we still don't know what your problem is other than this effort is head by michelle consider the right's hatred of michelle i take any criticism of her with a grain of salt. i read the original link and it looks like the president has vaguely asked heads of different deparatments to help. it hasn't established any legislation
I'm pretty sure that if you ask pretty much every single first lady in history if they could have a normal life of anyomity for 4-8 years while trying to raise their kids vs. life they have + this glorious power they'd pick the former 100x out of 100.
I don't know if even that really applies; that's certainly not what she has said, and she had her own successful career beforehand.
Hillary said she would have rather not been first lady? She would have zero shot at the Senate or of SoS. She is by far the most attacked first lady but she went political. I totally disagree that many of them would pick their former life. Lifetime secret service, countless honors, book deals etc. Barbara Bush took shots for personal appearance, michelle obama gets a little grief for spending her money but outside of that they are well thought of celebrities.
Pretty much every first lady int h post war era has expressed reluctace at some point. This isn't surprising, pretty much every rational human being on the planet, other than somebody with severe psychological problems woudl have rservations about the enormous distractions involved, particularly for raising your kids.
I would be interested if you know of specific examples and reasons they gave. To me it doesn't seem reasonable with the massive upside. What mom doesn't want their children the experience of meeting so many important people, traveling the world and getting VIP treatment money cannot buy? If that doesn't sell you what mom would say no to worldwide lifetime personal security for their kids for free. The Obama's are pretty well off but they could never afford that. The only downside is public exposure and outside of Chelsea, kids seem to be pretty much off limits unless they are often drunk in the public eye like the Bush daughters. I think after Chelsea, morons kinda figured out to not involve the kids. Malia Obama is 13, I had to google her name.
The times did an infographic about it a few weeks ago with excerpts from various autobiographies in the sunday review...anyway I believe that's enough estrogen for now.
I think you underestimate this side of things. First wives have to give up all their interests and their own lives and careers. Unlike their husbands, they don't always crave exposure or publicity or have thick skins (politicians naturally do, but not always the wives). You permanently give up your privacy - everything you, your husband, or your kids do from that day on is for public consumption and criticism. Everything you do forever forward, you have to take secret service along with you. It's got to be quite a change - and a very sudden one - that would be very hard on any "normal" family. It would be different if you grew up in that environment, but if you had a normal middle class lifestyle (like the Obamas), it's a huge culture shock.
