Pink diplomacy and first spouses
AS THE presidential campaign unfolds, with the real possibility of Bill Clinton, a man with his own separate international reputation, becoming the first spouse, the questions get more interesting. Should the president's spouse act as the country's emissary? What kinds of messages should the first spouse carry and with whom does that individual meet? In the post-Sept. 11 era, can a spouse's diplomatic efforts be entirely separate from the administration's positions on war and global terrorism?
To some extent, these questions arise because of our ideas about the role of the first lady. Few Americans can clearly define it, but in the past we seemed fixated on what she did as a White House hostess. As first lady, Hillary Clinton tried to change our thinking about the role by trying to overhaul healthcare. It's hard to know exactly how that failed effort shaped our thinking about presidential spouses, but in 2004, many voters seemed much more comfortable with Laura Bush's quiet reserve than Teresa Heinz Kerry's outspokenness.
If the first lady of California, Maria Shriver, continues to host forums for the candidates' wives, spouses will continue to subtly or overtly audition for the first lady role. I doubt that our attitude about the presidential spouses will ever be like that of the French. Last week when their newly elected president, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced his divorce, 79 percent of his constituents said it didn't matter.
Americans seem content with first ladies of the past who focused their efforts on domestic causes as long as the cause did not involve major policy changes. Throughout both of her husband's administrations, Laura Bush has focused on women's health issues, particularly heart disease and breast cancer. As the mother of two daughters, whose own mother and grandmother survived breast cancer, Bush's sincerity is apparent.
For the first time, just this month, she interjected herself into foreign policy, when she criticized the military government of Burma.
With her current trip in the Middle East, according to the White House, the first lady has been attempting to bolster American public diplomacy by promoting the work Americans are doing in breast cancer detection and prevention. Bush, like no one else in the White House, could capitalize on her popularity, which has remained high despite her husband's low approval ratings and lame duck status.
While meeting with two heads of state, Bush said she had no political agenda. Yet, during her stop in Kuwait she gave a speech to 700 US troops who were on their way to or from Iraq. What's more, who could doubt that, as President Bush's term comes to an end, his wife's unspoken political agenda is to help shape her husband's legacy.
In some ways Laura Bush faces the same kind of questions that any American who travels abroad considers. Even as private citizens we represent the face of America. Outside our borders, whether deliberately or not, we engage in civic diplomacy. Where we travel and what we say and do all matter.
However, as private citizens, we're not expected to reconcile our concern for women's health in the Middle East with deaths of civilians in military conflict. We can engage in conversations about basic survival issues, including health, food, and safety, without any promises of aid relief or human rights protections that might alleviate some of those concerns.
As an educator, I can teach about how we address the issues in this country and engage with individuals to learn what might work for them without anyone fearing that my solutions carry a political price tag. Yet, armed conflict, public aid, human rights, and political concessions are undeniably compelling topics that public diplomacy necessarily raises.
By all the news accounts, Bush's "pink diplomacy" was warmly received by her hosts. She joined the voices of women in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Jordan with those in America and together they may have saved lives.
But as first lady, Mrs. Bush is hard pressed to separate a message of hope and generosity from the political issues her presence necessarily raises. Whether presidential spouses engaged in diplomacy should even try to separate them is a critical question for this and for future administrations.
Anita F. Hill, a guest columnist, is professor of law, social policy and women's studies at the Heller School of Policy and Management at Brandeis University and a visiting scholar at Wellesley College, the Newhouse Center for the Humanities, and Wellesley Center for Women.
