Having recently read about Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign against childhood obesity, it got me thinking about the role of the FLOTUS and what it should be. Personally, I've never had an issue with the FLOTUS performing ceremonial duties or serving as a public figurehead and appearing with the President during events and campaign stops. Is it wrong/hypercritical to think that the FLOTUS is nothing more than the wife of an elected official and should hold no role in the politics of the nation? In the case of Michelle Obama (and other First Lady's before her), she's been a political activist, and although the case she champions is laudable, there's no question that as a regular citizen and political activist, she would not have been able to persuade the president to authorize a memorandum establishing a task force on childhood obesity. Whats even stranger is how publicized the role is- from the memorandum: Again, its not that I object to anything the task force is doing or think childhood obesity isnt a problem, because it clearly is. My only question/concern is in regards to the FLOTUS and her ability to persuade/influence politics and policy for causes she deems worthwhile.
I'm not sure the concern here? Every FLOTUS tends to pick a pet issue or two and make it their focus. I don't see how what they do is any different than any other private citizen that ends up in the spotlight and now has a platform, voice, and access to decision makers. Authors, actors/actresses, wealthy people, reality TV stars, children of famous people, etc all use their fame and the attention given to them to do things, good or bad. It seems like a common tradition for FLOTUSs to do the same, except they generally focus on something for the national good instead of their own interests. Remember also that, because of security concerns and the like, FLOTUSs are required to give up their previous job. It seems unfair to ask them to just become housewives (especially in a house where everything is taken care of).
I think it's idealistic to think a person with close ties to the POTUS will not have greater influence than the average Joe about what they want government to do. It's just watered down nepotism. A good friend of mine was given a police escort home after coming home late because her husband was a huge donor, and he wanted extra protection for her. One time, her husband also got a warning only for speeding when the officer found out who he was. His privileges reminds me of this man from the TV show, Breaking Bad.
I have no problem with the roles Michele Obama plays with her healthy eating/exercise/support of military families initiatives. Or the role Laura Bush played is supporting reading. However, I have a big problem with the role Hillary Clinton played in leading healthcare reform during the Clinton administration. Presidents should not pick family members to play significant legislative/operational roles. In this vein, John Kennedy also should not have selected his brother as AG.
did you have a problem with nacy reagan and DARE. this is a traditional role of the first lady, i don't know how you are but anyone over 25 should know this. that being said i had a problem with hilary and her screwing up univeral healthcare the first go round
I enjoy bluebonnets. Thanks Lady Bird! I like the Head Start program. Thanks for supporting it Lady Bird! I like the Civil Rights Act. Thanks for touring the South and promoting it Lady Bird!
The FLOTUS is actually a fantastically useful political role. As has been mentioned it is tradition that the FLOTUS use her fame and resources to champion a couple of issues. Being that everything gets so politicized, the issues chosen have to be issues that the vast majority of the nation agrees on, and that there is consensus that not enough is being done about the issue. So the FLOTUS fills the very valuable role of tackling issues that are both very popular and very needed.
You seriously dont see how what the FLOTUS does differs from what a private citizen can do??? Celebrities use their celebrity to shed light on causes and galvanize support. Their popularity alone doesnt get legislation sponsored by the president of the united states and doesnt grant them the same political clout the FLOTUS has. It is a common tradition, and again, although my critique focused on Michelle Obama, she was merely a demonstration of my concern which extends to the entire position. Just because something is 'common tradition' doesnt make it correct. Take for example Clarence Thomas. His wife, Virginia Thomas, was working for the Heritage Foundation at the same time the Supreme Court was legislating Gore v. Bush, and the vote ended up being 5 to 4 in favor of Bush. In the immediate aftermath and prior to the vote, there was lots of criticism directed his way (and rightfully so) for the apparent conflict of interests apparent in his role as a judge and the work his wife was doing. Many excoriated Thomas for not recusing himself from the vote. I understand this example is far more controversial than Michelle Obama's campaign against childhood obesity, but the larger point- conflict of interesting resulting from a wife's direct involving in a particular political arena- applies to both. And I dont buy the argument that her role is appropriate because the legislation she works on is for the 'national good'. There are many organizations lobbying for legislation to get passed, and all can be argued as being for the national good. For example, today is Scleroderma Call-in Day; Scleroderma is an autoimmune disease which is debilitating, often fatal. As part of the day, people are encouraged to contact their congressional representatives and encourage them to vote for the Scleroderma Research and Awareness act, a bill which has been shot down multiple times and grants funds to advance research on Scleroderma. I contacted my local officials today and sent them emails. I have little hope it will get passed and am fairly certain it will get shot down. When the president authorizes a memorandum appropriating government funding for a national campaign that has been the subject of his own wife's lobbying, there's a direct conflict of interest. As to your last point of them having to give up their jobs, then I would argue that its a choice that they made. Barack Obama was not forced to run for president, and I'm sure it was a decision he made after consulting his wife. Again, I'm not saying that they should be forced to be housewives, and in fairness, there are many alternatives between being a housewife and political advocacy.
I like labor laws. Thanks for supporting them Eleanor! I like Marian Anderson. Thanks for standing by her Eleanor! I like the Tuskeegee Airmen. Thanks for visiting them Eleanor! I like civil defense. Thanks for co-chairing a committee Eleanor! I like the UN. Thanks for serving Eleanor!
I like the White House. Thanks for restoring it Jackie! I like to have good foreign relations. Thanks for touring India and Pakistan Jackie!
dude you are a long winded poster. nobody's reading all that homeboy just some advice, something i've always noticed about you besides your ridiuclously obtuse arguments
I'm not taking issue with the specific policies or advocacy areas they're selecting, but that they have a disproportionately larger influence than a regular citizen and a recognized political role despite never being elected. Many have cited the role that Laura Bush played in advancing childhood literacy. There have been private organizations advocating for the same cause years before she became FLOTUS, and we have an entire Department of Education setup to promote student acheivement. Yet she was able to launch a campaign from the 'office of the first lady' to recruit better teachers across public schools in the US. No private citizen could have that type of impact, and in fact, most politicians could not have authorized a comparable campaign without significant congressional support and getting their bills passed throughout the house and senate, yet every member of congress had to run campaigns and get elected....which obviously the FLOTUS did not.
lol, its a fairly simple argument- the FLOTUS is an unelected position which has a significant political role. My question is simply should it be that way, and if so, why?
