Melissa Clouthier’s latest Pajamas Media column is up, and it is about the bizarre and “unenviable” position of political wife. God bless Blogsister Melissa — she really makes you think.
Can you think of a worse job? Married to type A personalities with more than a little bit of a narcissistic streak, these women — often educated and accomplished in their own right — must present a subservient demeanor and a sunny picture of their spouses or risk their spouses’ success. In addition, they often play a big part in their husbands’ careers by campaigning or crafting strategy. It is a rare politician whose wife operates outside the inner political circle.
:
Many political wives aren’t just known for their contributions to the political sphere. Many endured having their private lives made public. Hillary Clinton isn’t only known for her politics and ambition. She is also known as the woman who stood by her husband’s side despite his infidelity and abuse of power. A staunch feminist, she demonized the women who were victims of her husband’s advances and infamously decried “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Those of us who aren’t women should sit up and take note of what’s going on here. It is ironic, surreal, topsy-turvy. This is about the men we elect to lead us — ostensibly, the best out of all of us men. Now listen up, fellas. What is it, exactly, that causes us to look down with such disdain and contempt, upon those among our brethren who are poorly endowed? I shall not dwell upon my meaning here, for I’m pressing the envelope of vulgarity already. But think on it awhile. What makes a man with half a package, half a man? What makes him unworthy of standing side-by-side with the rest of us…let alone leading us?
It seems a petty, juvenile question. But there is some grown-up tradition here, and once you think on that, you realize things are changing and not for the better.
We have, traditionally, thought of ourselves as fit to be led by men who are chosen from the best among us. And that means men who can please their women. As in, make women happy. Happy…as in…not looking like Ms. Spitzer during that horrible press conference.
How will America survive if good people don’t run for office? When decent people forgo politics because they see how public servants are personally destroyed, there seems little incentive to jump into the shark-infested waters. Conservatives, especially, must worry about this. Over the last decade the press has shed any objective pretense and made it its mission to destroy conservative politicians, especially those who are most outspoken and idealistic. It gives rational people pause.
And so the political world may end up being inhabited by guys like Arlen Specter and Bill Clinton, self-serving miscreants who abuse their calling. They are bought and paid for by interests and are far removed from those who vote them into office. And behind these men stand women who facilitate their journey.
Only three possibilities are in effect here.
One: Electing the very finest among us to the most potent occupations, has become passe. We have become burdened by a thirst for mediocrity. Mediocrity and oiliness.
Two: Excellence has somehow become disconnected from the time-honored art form of making a woman feel cherished, fulfilled, important and worthy.
Three, and I think this factor has had the greatest effect: We have become unmoored from the truth. We have fallen in love with electing the opposite of whatever it is we say-out-loud we are electing. Ted Kennedy was “The Conscience of the Senate,” Jimmy Carter was “a good man,” Bill Clinton was “honest,” Barack Obama is “thoughtful.” In all cases there is an irony present, which the dull, vague concept of “everyone” refuses to admit is there. We pretend everything is consistent with everything else. We pretend that the content is the same as the appearance. Deep down, though, nobody who studies the situation to an extent beyond the most casual, thinks of Present Obama as a thoughtful man.
Now look what’s going on here.
We all still like to chuckle at the fella with a tiny pecker.
But we elect to our very loftiest positions, the so-called “men” who’ve shown a proclivity for making their life-mates profoundly unhappy. I mean, miserable to such an extent that most of us will never truly understand it. The so-called “man” who can’t, won’t, or doesn’t know how, to make a woman happy…and doesn’t care to learn how. That’s today’s definition of manhood. It shows up in what kind of men we choose to lead us. Time and time and time again.
Trouble ahead? Gee, you tell me. When’s the last time we twisted the concept of manhood itself all around like this, and things worked out just swell for us. And how far are we twisting it? For how long has the idea of male potential…male goodness…male worthiness…been inextricably intertwined with the idea of men making women happy? Answer: It has been synonymous, for untold centuries. Since King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, female fulfillment has been the reason we are here at all, let alone leading anybody.
In a sane world, an unhappy wife would almost be grounds for impeachment. In ours, it has become a pre-qualification criteria for the candidacy in the first place.
