For those of you who wonder about the likelihood of a woman president in the coming years (and I’m NOT talking about Hillary; I’m talking about the country’s ability to conceive of one, period), the following article may be of some interest. The article is something of a book review that focuses on the current First Lady, Laura Bush. The BBC reports that Mrs. Bush has and has maintained the highest approval ratings of any First Lady since pollsters started asking the question. (They hover around 85%.) They talk about the fact that she has been kept generally in the background, though she has had a significant influence in the background. For example, according to Mrs. Rice, it was Mrs. Bush’s idea “to really fully and completely expose what the Taleban regime was doing to women.”

The BBC also looks at previous First Ladies, and their reception by the public. They mention that Nancy Reagan “was often criticized for being domineering.” And no one needs to hear about the vitriolic attitude of the American public to other strong partners like Hillary or Kerry’s wife Heinz. Indeed, apparently Barbara Bush “famously warned her daughter-in-law not to criticize George W Bush’s speeches after she once upset the future president so much he accidentally crashed his car.”

One other note of interest: apparently “the most-reported sections of the book” have to do with Mrs. Bush’s being “quietly dismayed” by “the state of the residence” (i.e., the White House) when they took office. “The Bushes were appalled by the shabby condition of the West Wing… Not only were the carpets and furnishings fraying and in disrepair in the West Wing and public areas, the Oval Office was done in loud colours – red, blue and gold.” It goes on and on.

Believe it or not, I like Mrs. Bush. But I have to ask: What does this tell us about the nation’s opinions of the proper role of the First Lady, or of women in general? Given the significance in the public mind of the disarray of the White House, it would appear that the country is very interested in the First Lady’s role as a homemaker. Personally, I understand that the White House needs to look nice. However, my reading of the description is that the Clinton’s turned the place into an office building, concerning themselves less with keeping it stylish than with worrying about doing their jobs. (I say this because my place is always a shambles when I have a lot of work to do…) As for the First Lady’s approval ratings in general, it would seem that we are trapped in the 50’s: we want a quiet wife who remains in the background, who is not too assertive, who doesn’t speak her mind in public except to support her husband (cf. Hillary or Nancy), who is interesting in keeping the house tidy, who has a more traditionally-female career like school teacher or librarian (as opposed to successful business woman or lawyer), and who is pretty. If this all sounds too cynical, let me ask you: if we did have a woman president, do you think the country would expect or even want the First Gentleman to act in all the ways described above? Do you think her chances at the candidacy would increase or decrease if her husband was a happy homemaker? Would the press continue their tradition of asking the First Gentleman about what he is making for Thanksgiving dinner, or of comparing his recipe for chocolate chip cookies with his wife’s opponents’ spouses’ recipes?

It is a strange world when America simultaneously wants to claim democratic, progressive superiority, yet we aren’t sure if we are ready yet for a female president – even though countries from Great Britain to the Philippines to Liberia are or have been led by a woman.

-W.