WhatFinger


Eliminating unnecessary government functions. One function that could be eliminated without any negative consequences is the Office of the First Lady

Should the Office of the First Lady be eliminated



Should the Office of the First Lady be eliminated
Unrestrained government spending and a mushrooming federal deficit have reached such a level that even entrenched bureaucrats should be concerned about the stability of their jobs. Indeed, there is a lot of talk coming out of Washington about cost-cutting and requiring departments to operate with less expense.
But, based on past experience, many wonder if the concerns being expressed are real or feigned. Americans have learned to regard pronouncements by politicians cynically and probably suspect that this cost-cutting talk is just more spurious govenmentese calculated to pacify the public. But, if officials in our nation's capital are truly interested in reducing expenses, there are numerous ways it can be done without lessening governmental effectiveness. Economists have identified billions of dollars that could be saved by eliminating unnecessary government functions. One function that could be eliminated without any negative consequences is the Office of the First Lady. The first 22 wives of our 44 presidents did not have assistants. In fact, it wasn't until 1890 that Caroline Harrison, wife of Benjamin Harrison, began using her niece as her social secretary, primarily because of the debilitating effects of the disease that would kill Mrs. Harrison while her husband was still in office. In the years following the Harrison administration, first ladies managed with either no assistants or possibly one or two. Even one of our most active first ladies, Eleanor Roosevelt, had only two assistants. But when Hillary Clinton became First Lady, she created a full-time staff of 22, plus 15 interns and volunteers. It has now become de rigueur for first ladies to not only have large staffs, but to pay six figure salaries for their assistants.

Support Canada Free Press


Eliminating the First Lady's staff, or replacing it with interns and volunteers, is a cost-saving concept that has been around for some time. I thought about this idea recently when I came across a poll to determine our best first ladies. I still lend some credence to poll results when the general public is surveyed, but I am skeptical when the opinions of erudite groups are sought. The backgrounds of the participants surveyed determine the results, and this poll was no different. To determine our best first ladies Siena College and C-Span consulted members of academia. As most of today's academics share a Left-of-center political persuasion, their selections for best first ladies were predictable. Of the top ten in the poll, seven were in the 20th-21st century – six of these were spouses of liberal Democrats. If I had not been alive during the careers of most of the first ladies ranked high in the poll, I might have been gullible enough to accept the opinions of these academics. But there were few real accomplishments by these so-called “Best First Ladies.” This was just another one-sided poll that told us more about the participants being surveyed than the subject being polled. Although I don't take this poll seriously, I will review it briefly, and I admit that my views conflict with the poll results. Eleanor Roosevelt was ranked first in the overall poll. She was first in the category of “advancing women's issues” and also in the categories of “greatest political asset”; “strongest public communicator” and “performed greatest service to the country after leaving office.” Mrs. Roosevelt is credited with redefining the role of the first lady. Constantly in the public eye, she pontificated on contemporary political issues, wrote newspaper columns, gave radio interviews and traveled throughout the country. Mrs. Roosevelt was tireless in her efforts to mold the nation to reflect her idealistic view of how it should become, and she had very little tolerance for those who took issue with her views. She would not accept even mild dissent. Her placement at the top of the poll was no surprise, as scholars usually claim that her husband, Franklin, was our best president. But for those of us who dwell outside the walls of academia, where results count more than rhetoric, Franklin and Eleanor are not viewed so reverently. In sixth place in the poll was Hillary Clinton, who was ranked higher than all others in the category of “capable of running the country.” Hillary also scored high in “performed greatest service to country after leaving office”. (Some of us think Hillary's greatest service to the country was leaving office.) Hillary Clinton was ranked below fifth-place Michelle Obama, who also graded high in “capable of running the country.” ( I tremble to think what would happen to our country if either Hillary or Michelle managed to get elected president.) Michelle also received high marks for having outstanding “communicating” skills and “balancing family life” with political responsibilities. (I guess having 26 assistants makes her responsibilities a little easier to handle.) Whereas Eleanor Roosevelt had only radio and newspapers at her disposal, Hillary and Michelle benefit from television which they both milk to the fullest. They always get instant media coverage and are favorites of TV show hosts and performers. In fact, with Michelle Obama, first lady duties have become a very real form of “show business. ” Mrs. Obama is frequently featured in comedy skits. Although Jacqueline Kennedy was ranked third overall, she didn't score highly in “advancing women's issues.” (If there had been a category “advancing her own issues”, Jackie would have won first place.) The academics held Jackie in high esteem for “creating a lasting legacy.” (Her “legacy” actually was established after she left office, but it wasn't a legacy that would serve as a role model for young women.) Only one Republican first lady made it into the top ten. Betty Ford was ranked in eighth place. She scored well in “advancing women's issues”; “creating a lasting legacy” and “performed greatest service to the country after leaving office.” As first lady, Betty's outspoken advocacy of liberal causes often clashed with her husband Gerald's conservatism. She was especially supportive of issues highly promoted by the National Organization of Women, primarily the Equal Rights Amendment and legalized abortion. After leaving office, Mrs. Ford continued to work with NOW, eagerly promoting feminist issues and even taking part in protest marches alongside Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and assorted Hollywood celebrities. Three Republican first ladies, who were not included in the top ten: – Laura Bush, Pat Nixon, and Mamie Eisenhower - took the top three spots in the category”could have done more while in office.” (It's unfortunate that there wasn't a category “should have done less while in office.” This would have been an appropriate category for most Democratic first ladies.) Although this poll does address regular first lady functions, it places more emphasis on how active these women were in “increasing public awareness” of issues important to academics. Those first ladies who dealt with mundane White House matters are considered “outdated.”. Even those who used their prestige to help Americans with drug and alcohol addiction and other mental health problems were not overly esteemed. The highest rankings were accorded to first ladies who attempted to sway public opinion in favor of trendy political issues, including social justice, legalized abortion, gay rights, and diversity issues. In other words, this poll does not identify the “best” first ladies, but rather those who were the most “politically correct.” Afterword: I have a special feeling for the first lady who was ranked last in this poll: Jane Pierce, wife of our 14th President, Franklin Pierce. Fate prevented Jane Pierce from being awarded positive ratings in this poll. The criteria used was ill-suited for her era and the poll did not consider individual attributes and circumstances. Frail, shy and weakened from recurring bouts of tuberculosis, Jane Pierce suffered through the deaths of all three of her young sons, even tragically witnessing the accidental death of her last son shortly before her husband's inauguration. Mrs. Pierce's aunt represented her when she was unable to attend White House social functions, but gradually Jane forced herself to fulfill her first lady duties. She did so with class and quiet dignity, despite deteriorating health and lingering grief. She was relieved when the one term Pierce administration came to a close but only survived another nine years. It is important to note that until recently, Jane Pierce has been unfairly stereotyped by historians, but she is finally being treated more evenhandedly. Mrs. Pierce deserves our respect.

Recommended by Canada Free Press



View Comments

Gail Jarvis -- Bio and Archives

Gail Jarvis is a Coastal Georgia based freelance writer. Following a career as a CPA/business consultant, Mr. Jarvis now critiques the establishment’s selective and misleading reporting of current events and history. Gail can be reached at: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


Sponsored