ARTS

America's own 'princess'

by Rumaan Alam

What do you call a successful, well-educated, upper middle-class attorney who happens to be one of the more revered women in the public sphere? Whether you hate her or you love her, you call her the first lady. Whenever she's held up as a feminist icon, do those who support the beleaguered Hillary Rodham Clinton not realize the irony? After all of her accomplishments, she is merely a "lady," merely the "first wife."

In the private sphere, one would think that there could be no better example of the post-sexual revolution success of women. Rodham Clinton (one hesitates to reduce her to simply Mrs. Clinton as she always is in the press) is the prototypical feminist icon. She's smart (say what you will about Wellesley and Yale, they're tough schools), she's successful (perhaps her evasion of any convictions in the Whitewater land deal demonstrates even more than her long law career that she can take care of herself), and she hasn't sacrificed her own femininity to succeed. True, being a working mother who happens to work as an attorney might not be comparable to being a working mother who is employed as a maid, but even so, it's a quality which most people respect. And you know she loved wearing that dress at the Inaugural Ball in 1993.

Oh yes, and most importantly, she's a liberal. This is very important to most feminists, perhaps because political liberalism is so entangled in the pro-choice movement. Few establishment feminists rallied to support Elizabeth Dole in the 1996 elections, though she too is an accomplished and educated woman, who, as head of the American Red Cross, is arguably as powerful as Rodham Clinton. In the 1992 campaign, feminists led women in rallying around the young governor from Arkansas, and his exciting wife. Many middle-class women found she was so much like them, a far cry from Nancy Reagan or Jackie Kennedy in their Chanel suits, or even Barbara Bush, who was more in touch with the AARP set.

But apparently it has never occurred to Rodham Clinton's legions of supporters that she is, as wife to the most powerful man in the world, reduced to little more than a princess in a castle. Americans desperately want royalty, and in their quest for the glamour and majesty of monarchy, have consistently made their presidents' wives into little more than accessories.

When Bill Clinton entered office, so did Hillary, poised to reform the crumbling health care system in America. The legislation to reform health care was almost immediately destroyed in the House. Whatever other factors played into this turn of events, obviously Rodham Clinton's participation in her husband's work was as destructive a force as the private lobby. Few legislators, conservative or otherwise, are going to let the first lady actually do anything. It was more than acceptable to have Mrs. Kennedy re-decorate the White House, but no one would have stood for her negotiating with Cuba, or attempting to work with the space program.

Despite the public desire to see both a strong and interesting candidate backed by a similarly strong and interesting wife, there is a great reluctance to actually allow that wife to do anything. What's more surprising is that many don't seem to realize how powerless the first wife really is. Does the irony of the term "first lady" simply fly over the heads of feminists? She might as well be called the imperial consort-it seems that degrading.

The qualities enumerated above, which seem to point to Rodham Clinton's status as feminist icon, don't get the first lady very far. And to quote yet another meaningless statistic, the first lady's approval rating among conservative women shot up after the president's acknowledgment of his extra-marital dalliance. Pundits suggested that women who vote more conservatively didn't approve of Rodham Clinton before, unable to identify with her, but they can identify with a woman dealing with a philandering husband. What do establishment feminists make of all this?

And feminists have rushed to either support Monica Lewinsky (the President took advantage of her) or condemn her (she's a slut). There's been little, if any, sympathy for the first lady, who has demonstrated to some that she is the most liberated of any presidential wife in American history. Democratic candidates in this most recent election Bill was hard to find at rallies and fundraisers for democratic candidates. It was Hillary who came out in such support of Charles Schummer, who defeated Al D'Amato in New York last week. Health care or no health care, Rodham Clinton is doing her damnedest to make her presence felt in American politics, and is succeeding.

But of course, the saddest thing about all this is that she can never leave that damn Bill. She's stuck with him for life, she has to be, in order to retain the support of the more moderate family values feminist sector. Hillary Rodham Clinton is, after all is said and done, the first wife. In order to retain any significance as the cultural icon she has become, in order to remain a powerful citizen of America, she must always remain a wife and a lady first and foremost, despite the lessons feminism has tried to offer us.

And around a year from now, look for feminists to rush to the aid of the first-amendment hating, insipid and simpering Tipper Gore. She's the Martha Stewart of the Clinton Administration, which makes her a shoo-in for first lady. Now if she could just do something about that husband of hers.

Back // Arts Contents \\ Next

T H E   O B E R L I N   R E V I E W

Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 9, November 13, 1998

Contact us with your comments and suggestions.