Lynne Cheney, wife of the current vice president, raised eyebrows last week by publicly taking a different stance on gay marriage than her prominent husband.
What is interesting about the spotlight Mrs. Cheney found herself in is not that she dare differ; instead, it is that some circles find it odd she would disagree. If Dick Cheney opposes gay marriage or any other hot-button issue, the assumption appears to be that his wife should toe the same line. The looming election only serves to underscore this outdated notion.
The families - particularly spouses - have typically been viewed as an extension of the politician to which they are related. In many ways, voters elected these units rather than just an individual candidate. Few leaders are single or appear to live in a bubble; instead there is the smiling wife, the obedient children, the doting parents. Those that don't have the familial trappings are suspect.
Take Howard Dean's wife, if you even know anything about her. When the Vermont governor ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, his wife was nonexistent on the campaign trail. She was content to run her medical practice and leave the politicking to her husband. Seems logical. She wasn't the one running for office, after all.
Similarly, Lynne Cheney married the man who would be vice president; that doesn't mean she secretly yearns for the position herself. So why is it expected she accept the party doctrine? Marriage and genes don't ensure the same platform. If they did, Dick Cheney might mimic his lesbian daughter's viewpoint about marriage instead.
Embracing the spouse is a tough line. We want the other half to support the person we elect, most likely by agreeing with them. Attend the rally, wave the flag, write the occasional article providing a softer edge to the hard-line policies proposed for a vote.
However, we aren't particularly comfortable with the idea that the spouse might be used as a sounding board or an intimate think tank. Agree with an idea, but don't help shape them.
When former president Bill Clinton ran for office, and when he began his ill-fated push for universal health care, his wife also took center stage. A vote for Bill was a vote for "Billary." Hillary refused to adhere to stereotypical standards, she claimed - although her steadfast obedience to him in the wake of numerous affair scandals would later belie that claim. Unlike Lynne Cheney, Hillary Clinton faced wrath for possibly offering her husband counsel rather than veering from his policies.
In either cases, spouses - specifically female - are still meant to be seen and not heard. National magazines aren't asking Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz Kerry to square off over Middle East policy; instead, they had a bake-off.
The outspoken Mrs. Kerry has so far eschewed the typical mold of a political wife, although she has admittedly toned down her act after interviews about Botox and pre-nups. If those softball issues can raise red flags with political advisors and supporters, imagine what happens when she goes all out about Iraq, gay marriage, abortion or any other off-limits subject - particularly if it is not what people hear from her husband.
All of these women have proven themselves to be strong, willful, opinionated and independent. In fact, these are probably some of the qualities that first attracted their spouses. Shouldn't they also be qualities that attract the rest of us?
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.