Question of the Day: The Role of the Next First Lady

The first in a new series analyzing questions raised by various articles. Photo by Flickr user Barack Obama.

Every so often I come across an article that begs one or more larger questions that the author doesn’t mention. Today in this article in the Washington Post, staff writer Robin Givhan dissected Michelle Obama’s choice of a dress for her husband’s Nov. 4 speech and used the occasion to define what Obama’s role will be as First Lady:

...the eye lingers on Michelle Obama. As the next first lady, she will have no prescribed duties and responsibilities. Instead, she will step into the role of national symbol. She can support a cause and address certain issues. But the essence of a first lady's job is to cheerlead by her presence or to admonish by her absence. She is not required to look especially powerful or intellectual. She is our public face of graciousness, sophistication and nurture.

And, of course, we'd like her to look pretty.

....The White House will have to solve the big problems, but it also must champion American culture, from literature to music to cuisine. The first lady is uniquely suited to celebrate its fashion industry. She is more substantial than a starlet and more pragmatic than a socialite. And with her proven attention to aesthetics -- and a few less cardigans -- her photographs can deliver an articulate and powerful message.

Laying aside the idea that a future First Lady would make a good impression by wearing a sleeveless, low-cut black dress without some sort of a cover-up on a cold November Chicago night (see the photos), this article imposes some hefty cultural dictates on the proper place of a president’s wife.

While Michelle Obama dresses fashionably, she is also an attorney with an impressive resume in public service and academia. She graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School and mentored our future president at Sidley Austin when he was just a summer associate. After Sidley Austin she worked in City Hall; became the founding executive director for Public Allies, a nonprofit AmeriCorps program; worked as an associate dean at the University of Chicago; and went on to become a vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center. On the campaign trail she has shown herself to be a powerful force, a spitfire who can rally a crowd of supporters as easily as she charms them. Charles Ogletree, a former professor for both Michelle and Barack Obama, stated on election night that he had thought Michelle would be the one to run for office instead of her husband.

Michelle Obama is no meek former librarian or flashy former Debutante of the Year.

While the roles of women outside the White House have changed over the last several decades, in some ways it seems that the role of the First Lady inside has remained as steady as the marble exterior. The “public face of graciousness, sophistication and nurture” could also be called the personification of 1950s upper-class femininity, a very “traditional” role of a wife supporting her husband and family.

Senator Hillary Clinton bucked these expectations and eventually ran for president partly on her political experience as First Lady, but her successor Laura Bush seemed to slip quietly back into the conventional mold of gracious hostess and charity dinner-speaker. Some of their disparity in roles is certainly due to their own personalities and ambitions. Some of it is also probably due to the expectations of their spouses, their political teams, their supporters, the press, and the general public.

Have our expectations changed after Clinton’s “eighteen million cracks” in the glass ceiling? Do you think the majority of U.S. citizens still want our female “national symbol” to primarily be the hostess of the White House, a cultural touchstone and visual figurehead with no political agenda or power of her own? If not, what do we want Michelle Obama to be?

What do you want her to be?

Please leave your responses in the comments.