Bio
The short version: Jill Miller Zimon writes the topical blog, Writes Like She Talks (www.writeslikeshetalks.com) and often highlights the paucity of...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Media Declares Open Season on Political Spouses

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 11
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

The media may say that they're just reporting the news, but what signs of restraint or maturity have you seen in the coverage given to the numerous and varied "truth is stranger than fiction" tales of people married to politicians?

Not much, given the recent Newsweek cover with the title "The Good Wife 2012."

Inside the issue, we find an article titled "The Real Running Mates."

The idea that The Wife controls the decision-making of The Men Who Would Be Leaders has been particularly strong this year. I think my all-time favorite headline is this one, from Outside the Beltway: Haley Barbour’s Wife Is “Horrified” at the Thought of a Presidential Run. Take a look at the URL and note the choice of browser title for "Wives With White House Veto Power," a post by Michelle Cottle for the Daily Beast. It reads, "Mitch Daniels' Wife Helps Nix Run: The Rise of the Political Spouse 2012." Where are all the articles that talk about how supportive the spouses can be?

One of the few times that a wife herself has spoken up in the media was Cindy McCain's "Spouses Get a Bad Rap" at The Daily Beast:

Everything you do is scrutinized, which is a hard thing for me to swallow. And the difference between 2000 and 2008 was the level of scrutiny: blogging was not around in 2000. I did read some of it for a very brief period, and then I stopped. When I met Laura Bush after John got the nomination, her advice was don’t read your own stuff. I was surprised. I assumed she read everything. She said, “I never read any of it—it’s just too awful!”

Which then begs the question: How should politicians' spouses respond to media coverage of them, if at all? (All we've heard from Maria Shriver on her recent separation from politician-husband Arnold Schwarznegger was a brief statement that her experience has been "painful and heartbreaking.".)

Lest we think that higher minds might not go there, the reality is that even NPR's Talk of the Nation devoted an hour to "The Evolving Roles of Political Spouses" -- and the show also covered the "what is fair game with politicians and their wives" angle earlier in May.

It's easy to see that the topic of political spouses is not a partisan issue nor one confined to lurid intimacies (depending on how you feel about shopping proclivities, in Calista Gingrich's case). But are these stories news, or no? What should the parameters be for reporting on politicians' spouses? Are we media literate enough ourselves to consume all the coverage and still cast an uncompromised vote?

If you're thinking that your vote can't be compromised by all the gossip and innuendo, read Nordette's 2007 post, "How Many Presidential Votes Can the Right Spouse Get You?," in which she looks at the 2008 candidates and the influence their spouses were perceived to have on the vote. A search for "political spouses" at BlogHer.com includes a wide variety of takes on similar issues -- and just notice how regularly they've come up over the years! (I know that makes me groan in a major way -- just that it's so darn evergreen. Sigh.)

Constance at Soul Wisdom wrote of the influence of politicians' personal lives on her own vote in "How Schwarzenegger-Love-Child Scandal Changed my Voting Behavior."

If the person running for office is a married man, I will ignore platitudes about how much he respects women. Instead I will gauge my support based on the degree to which he puts such principles to practice within his own family. This will be a difficult position to maintain, given the growing ideological divide between Democrats and the GOP. And yet judging people by deeds rather words has always been the shorter path to wisdom.

At least the British media, like The Independent in 2005, makes transparent the double standard applied to coverage of female spouses of men in politics versus male spouses of women in politics:

Yet where are the politicians' husbands in this domestic idyll? There are 116 female MPs at Westminster, of whom 94 represent Labour. But we don't see Ruth Kelly, Oona King or Margaret Beckett parading their husbands for all to see, and neither do we see the media clamouring to be allowed access to them.

Jezebel broached a similar angle in its 2009 post, "Where are the female philanderers?"

No matter how you answer these

  • 11
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
danmulhern 6 pts

I just stumbled across this. As a political spouse (married to Michigan's former Governor Jennifer Granholm), I'd offer a couple quick thoughts:

1. Male spouses have their own liabilities and neither opposition nor press are the least bit hesitant about attacking them. Your business is brutally suspect, and no one will ever tell a GOOD story. (I quit my business after campaign experiences that were certainly libelous but for the fact that I was a "public figure" and did not want a media side show.)

2. There is an extraordinary lingering sexism that was at play in our state where for the longest time people thought that my Phi Beta Kappa, nearly perfect record federal prosecutor wife, was being controlled by me. Absurd to anyone who watched her for 2 minutes, yet it persisted.

3. I believe that spouses can be covered - and where they are public, as I chose to be and Maria Shriver and others chose to be - we SHOULD be covered.

4. I have no problem at all with people looking at the big picture. If they think marital fidelity matters - I do, although I wouldn't make it my sole voting issue - they are fully entitled to that opinion.

For what it's worth....

Dan Mulhern

Jennifer and I have tried to share an authentic look at governing the toughest state in the country in our book which comes out on 9/20 called A Governor's Story: The Fight for Jobs and America's Economic Future.

Jill Miller Zimon 7 pts

danmulhern Thanks very much for reading and reflecting on this post. I see you have a book coming out that sounds very interesting and unique - good luck with it. For those interested, it is by Dan and his wife, former MI governor Jennifer Granholme (who, by the way, has always impressed me). I hope you'll both keep in touch with BlogHer as women and families in politics, including the marriage or partner part of it when the elected or candidate is in a relationship, is also part of that. For readers, here's a link to more about the book - which I didn't know anything about until I googled "dan mulhern." Long-time blogger here - have to check out everyone!! :) Thanks again for your time. I must say, I don't imagine my husband ever writing about being married to a city councilwoman, but he does go to the BlogHer conferences with me!

http://www.danmulhern.com/about-dan/

kghlkh 5 pts

http://www.edshoe.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes,
like the nike,jordan,prada,****, also including the jeans,shirts,
bags,hat and the decorations.
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive

kghlkh 5 pts

http://www.edshoe.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes,
like the nike,jordan,prada,****, also including the jeans,shirts,
bags,hat and the decorations.
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive

Jill Miller Zimon 7 pts

And instead examine not just the information being fronted but examine who is behind the provision of the information in the first place: what is the motivation. With the media, it's often though not always money. With some, it's an issues-based agenda. With others, it's an excuse for political campaigning and still others it's personal. Media literacy - it does a body good.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

nellewrites 14 pts

I've maintained for some time that Barbara Jordan, had she been healthy, would have been a huge success as president.

Had she run, we would have faced down three historical US issues all in one package - race, gender, and homosexuality. As we've seen over the last several years, these issues still exist. We've done a good job of removing them from the mainstream, in effect our overlying veneer of clear water, but when bottom mud gets stirred, it muddies the water above it, too.

A single woman as president? A black gay single woman as president, even if she is in a relationship? Why do I have the uncomfortable feeling that Barbara might have had a better shot at running for president in 1976 than she might today? It must be my imagination, right?

nellewrites ( http://nellewrites.wordpress.com/ )

nellewrites 14 pts

When I try to direct the comment to Adrienne, just placing my cursor in the title line redirects me to her site. Little glitch there!

Anyway, Adrienne...I agree that there was a lot of nastiness in the 19th century, but precedent does not mean we have to accept nastiness or attacks on the spouses of candidates going forward.

That said, it will only change if enough people refuse to accept such tactics. I'm not holding my breath.

nellewrites ( http://nellewrites.wordpress.com/ )

Jill Miller Zimon 7 pts

Who is included and who is excluded, the relative absence of covering husbands when women are the candidates and the topics to which the media attaches varies enormously from couple to couple. That's what has caught my attention over the years and this year as well.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

AdrienneRoyer 6 pts

There's a strong historical precedence to attack the spouse of the POTUS candidate or use him/her as a litmus test.

Dolly Madison was viewed as "oversexed" because she had 2 children from a previous marriage while she had none with Madison. Madison's opponents used his childlessness to claim that he was impotent.

Mary Todd Lincoln caused endless scandals with her shopping habits. She was in constant debt to merchants and was widely unpopular. She was actually one of Lincoln's biggest liabilities.

Even the beloved Jackie Kennedy ran into trouble by not wearing enough American designers. This spurred her partnership with Oleg Cassini.

We've also elected three single presidents -- Cleveland, Tyler and Wilson all married after getting elected.

I found the Newsweek article offensive. (It's obvious which GOP contender's wife they modeled the photo after), but this is the sad part of American politics: it's dirty. It's always been dirty and always will. That's part of democracy.

Every time someone bemoans the lack of civility in politics today, there's an example from American history that shows it was far worse in the 19th century.

The only difference today is that we're exposed so much more to it.

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )and ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )Adrienne Loves. ( http://www.adrienneloves.com )

Jill Miller Zimon 7 pts

That's a good way to put it, for sure. Because there are so many different vantage points from which to consider the issue. And then there's the less common but increasingly more frequent male political spouse, as opposed to it always being the woman. And of course, there's the issue of whether a candidate, at a certain level of office seeking, even HAS to have a spouse - and what about those who are in homosexual relationships - either marriages, civil unions or partnerships?

We talk about there not having ever been a female president, but there's also never been a single male or female.

And then - sometimes, I don't even know WHAT that reflects about us, or our system or both!

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

nellewrites 14 pts

packed with the complexity of how we humans evaluate other humans.

As an example, if the candidate is male (and hetero) we likely evaluate his spouse by one set of criteria, probably how affable she is. If she exhibits what the populace perceives as butch tendencies, most probably would not react well. If she is an activist and outspoken, we won't react well.

Does it surprise anyone that a spouse has a say in whether someone decides to run for office? I would imagine most all of us would make a decision more or less jointly, or at least we would give their outlook great weight. Colin Powell cited family as the reason when people prodded him to run, and I admire that he respected the impact a campaign would have on his family.

Do we actually have license to critique candidate's spouses? Only to the extent they place themselves into the electoral or policy mix, and then only for that involvement, not appearance.

nellewrites ( http://nellewrites.wordpress.com/ )