OPINION:
First ladies are usually, but not always, eager to establish themselves as separate but equal personalities. Some of them are content to be the “wife of,” but nearly all of them leave their mark on a presidency, even if only their husbands know the details of how and when the mark was applied.
Bess Truman was content to stay out of the spotlight, if not the limelight, but Harry referred to her as “the Boss” (which she did not like) and she imparted a sense of dignity and appreciation of tradition, which every White House needs. When one of Mrs. Truman’s friends complained to her that she should urge the president to avoid public vulgarisms like “horse manure,” the first lady replied, “My dear, you don’t know how hard it was to get him to say ’manure.’”
Staying in the background came easily to Mamie Eisenhower, after long years as “an Army wife.” Jackie Kennedy, with her style and fluency in several languages, moved easily out of the domestic shadows and established new cultural expectations for a first lady. First ladies since have copied the example of choosing something to lend her name to, such as mental health, or preventing bullying or improving child nutrition. No more mere “wife of.”
Michelle Obama spent her years in the White House promoting government oversight of school cafeterias, ultimately changing menus at many public-school cafeterias across the country. The government as nanny knew best; parents should learn from the feds. Nobody’s against healthy food, but mostly the kids wouldn’t touch the new stuff, which ran to the likes of spinach and carrots.
Melania Trump, our first immigrant first lady, harks to the traditions and verities that were the strength of an earlier time. She wants to promote good and effective family life, and a recognition of the effect good families have on the nation’s comfort and security. “Show me the loving bonds between your families today and I will show you the patriotism and moral clarity of your nation tomorrow,” she told the General Assembly of the United Nations this week. “Our choices on how we raise and educate our children in fact provide the blueprint for the next generation. If we do not advocate a love of country to our children and generations to come, then why would our children grow up to fight for their countries?”
An immigrant first lady demonstrates how newcomers have always shown their love and gratitude for America, and her remarks underscored something that’s been sadly lacking from government of late, the acknowledgment that families are truly the building blocks of a good society, and that parents have the responsibility to impart this to their children.
Cynical politicians among us agree that families can be building blocks, but only to further the goals of the government, often in support of harmful causes. These cynics, for one prominent example, have used children to sell the mischievous notion that sex, or “gender” as they call it, is optional, telling toddlers they don’t have to be, say, boys simply because they were born boys.
The new first lady has a different message, one so old that it’s new. “Together,” she told the U.N., ” we must acknowledge that all too often it is the weakest, most innocent and vulnerable among us, our children, who ultimately suffer the most from the challenges that plague our societies. [Parents should be] loving, educating and bringing up our next generation to be happy, productive and morally responsible adults.”
Mrs. Trump deserves a thank-you for recognizing what was once the conventional wisdom. It’s still conventional, and it’s still wise. Parents, not government agents, are the rightful raisers of children. The government’s role is to get out of the way.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.