Ruminations, July 5, 2009

A nation of husbands and wives

When a couple marries, they are often told that they are a team and will need to work together. Sometimes, the couple works together not only in their home lives but in their chosen occupations as well. If their chosen occupation is politics it can be interesting. Here are some examples:

When Miriam A. (affectionately known as Ma) Ferguson’s husband, Texas Governor James Ferguson was impeached and, according to Texas law, could no longer run for office, Ma decided that she would keep the family business going. She ran for governor, won and served from 1925-1927. Her campaign slogan was, "two governors for the price of one.” Although Ma held the title of Governor, it was really her husband James that ran Texas.

In the mid 1960s, popular Alabama Governor George Wallace found himself forbidden by the state of Alabama’s constitution to run for another term. Wallace then asked his wife Lurleen to run for governor and she won. Her campaign slogan was that her husband George would be her “number one assistant” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Later, George was able to convince Alabamans to change the state constitution and he was able to serve three more terms later. But while his wife had the title, he actually ran the state.

In Argentina, President Néstor Kirchner served from 2003 to 2007. When the Argentine constitution prohibited him from running for another term, his wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ran and was elected president and serves today. Unlike other wives who have succeeded their husbands to executive posts, Cristina Kirchner had served as a legislator and senator before her husband became president and then performed ambassadorial functions during his term. Although she actually runs Argentina to the extent allowed by law, there is no doubt that she confers with her husband on matters of state.

In 1992, Bill Clinton running for President presented his wife Hillary Clinton as his equal and told voters that if he were to be elected, the American public would get "two for the price of one.” Since Bill Clinton left office, Hillary’s fame as the President’s wife gave her an advantage in her race for senator. After serving in the Senate, running for president and now serving as Secretary of State. She has accrued experience that, combined with her innate abilities, make her as qualified to serve as president as anyone who has held the office previously.

Lately Michelle Obama has taken a more active role in the Barack Obama Administration. Last week she participated in the administration’s healthcare initiatives, announcing the government grant of $851 million to support community health centers.  According to the Washington Post, Michelle wants a bigger role in setting policy. If she succeeds in increasing her political profile, will she consider running for president in 2016?

In what seems like aeons ago, when monarchs reigned, royal dynastic families had lines of succession and kept the business of ruling in the family. In their wisdom, founders of republics (including this one) got rid of dynasties and prohibited chief executives from succeeding themselves forever. That seemed to work for a while and then the ruling class discovered marital succession.

Is this an evolving pattern? Is it good? Does the incumbent’s spouse have an insider advantage? Ignoring the abilities of people like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, is it good public policy to have the spouse of a chief executive succeed him/her? There is no doubt that should either Hillary or Michelle succeed in capturing the presidency in their own right, their husbands would still wield enormous power behind the scenes. On the other hand, if a spouse is truly gifted, should there be a prohibition on succession? And even if we agreed that there should be a prohibition on succession, could you exclude “soul mates” or “significant others?”

It almost seems if we are coming full circle and going back to royal dynasties. It doesn’t have a good feel to it.

One-party governmental monsters

Monsters could be created, according to the French, by ingesting hormone enhanced American food that was being exported to France. There were mass demonstrations in Paris and U.S. exports were labeled “Franken-food.”

Similarly, looking at one-party rule in the United States government with the filibuster-proof 60 vote Democratic Senate as well as Democratic control of the House and Presidency, have we also created a monster? In fact, as a result of Al Franken’s election victory, we may have a Franken-State.

Michael Jackson’s will

The will of pop star Michael Jackson has been found and it is very revealing. What it says, in part, is, “after I die, I want television news programs to cover my life non-stop for six months.”

Television news has complied.

Robert J. Kulak

Wset Hartford, Connecticut