Opinion
Why do political wives stand by?
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Andy Granias:
- Which right is right on drugs? (April 24, 2008)
- McCain relies on old fiscal failures (April 17, 2008)
- High court election could be worse (April 3, 2008)
- Oh, look how they've grown! (March 27, 2008)
- Why do political wives stand by? (March 13, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Enough about Elliot Spitzer.
The New York governor — who resigned from his post yesterday after reports alleged he was involved in a high-end prostitution ring for over nine years — does not deserve a second more of your attention.
Instead, consider the common reaction that many, including myself, had when watching his press conference: “What the hell is his wife doing up there?”
Indeed, the sight of Silda Wall Spitzer standing at her cheating husband’s side as he made nugatory apologies to his family and the public was as troubling as it was heart-wrenching. And since then, the press and the public alike have been asking: Why would she do such a thing? How could she do such a thing? How can she live with herself?
It’s an act we’ve seen before, many times before. The charade of the despondent wife standing next to her politician husband while he apologizes to the public, his family and yes, his wife (he rarely turns from the cameras while he does this, by the way). It has all become commonplace. It is the expected reaction to a recurrent scandal.
In recent memory, we have seen Dina Matos McGreevey stand by her husband, the former New Jersey governor, while he told the media he was “a gay American,” and that he had had an affair with a male aide. In 2007, we saw Suzanne Craig, wearing oversized sunglasses, stand with her husband, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, as he admitted to soliciting sex at an airport bathroom stall. Earlier this year, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick brought his wife beside him as he tried to explain suggestive text messages he had sent to his chief of staff. And most notably, then-first lady Hillary Clinton stood by her husband’s side as he denied sexual relations with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, later leading to his impeachment. The list goes on… and on.
But the drill seems only to apply to women standing next to their husbands. In fact, among the multitude of sex scandals that have been made public in the last 100 years only one — yes, one — involved a woman guilty of sexual indiscretion. In 1995, Helen Chenoweth, a Republican congresswoman from Idaho, admitted to having a six-year affair with a married associate. But she was single at the time, and we were not afforded the spectacle of what her hypothetical husband would have done. Would he have slouched beside her, holding her hand as they walked out? Would he have held his own rage-filled press conference? And would the media have reacted in kind, understanding his vehemence in such a trying time?
Furthermore, there is only one prominent account of a political wife not standing next to her husband after he engaged in sexual impropriety. In 2007, Corina Villaraigosa did not appear in public until after she had filed for divorce from her husband, the former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was caught having an affair with a local news reporter. But even Ms. Villaraigosa’s tranquil behavior frustrated women who have been in a similar position.
The troubling American tradition dates all the way back to Eliza Hamilton — wife of American founding father Alexander Hamilton — who stood by her man after his infidelity was exposed in what is considered the first American sex scandal.
So the question becomes, what should Silda Wall Spitzer have done?
Amy Ephron of the Huffington Post fantasized about a reaction in these situations: “I just want one of them — Hillary, Silda — to stand on the steps of the White House, the governor’s mansion, and stamp their foot and say, ‘And another thing, I’m keeping the house.’”
It may seem as if the most just reaction would be public vengeance. Why let a political consultant advise your best course of action in saving face for a man who has so publicly humiliated you? Why should any form of personal closure be relegated to the private sphere for the sake of a dishonest man?
Well, there are a number of reasons. Many women put in these situations have sons and daughters, and it may appear that the best course of damage control is to appear together in public as a family unit. There may also be a sense of behavioral duty and public dignity, desiring for a personal matter to be dealt with in private.
In reaction to the Spitzer scandal, Kathleen B. Jones, a professor emeritus of women’s studies at San Diego State University, commented to the Los Angeles Times, “‘I am woman. Hear me rage.’ That’s easy to write on a blog. … But if I’m in that situation, do I really want to add to my humiliation in that very public moment? What choice does she have?”
There is no correct reaction on the part of women who befall such situations, only incorrect action on the part of their husbands. But if it is an American norm to expect solidarity, to expect unity, then our public conscience needs refining.
Two weeks ago I wrote a column claiming Hillary Clinton’s success in the presidential race should not be prematurely proclaimed a symbol of true feminist progress. And it shouldn’t. There’s simply too far to go until substantive equality is realized for women in our country to simply rest on the laurels of one former first lady.
But maybe Hillary’s success deserves to be seen in a different light. Maybe Hillary’s is a story not just of female progress (as misleading as it may be), but of public resilience. Yes, Hillary was another in the regrettable history of wives standing beside mendacious politicians. But she is also the first to step out from behind the shadow of such humiliation to seek her own public success. In the truest sense, a unique and contemporary version of the American dream.
Silda Wall Spitzer is a Harvard-educated lawyer who, before giving up her professional life for her husband’s political career, was an extremely successful corporate lawyer. What a sight it would be to see Ms. Spitzer again behind a podium, but this time discussing her own candidacy, and this time, decidedly alone.
Andy Granias (agranias@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and philosophy.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
This is a real cheap editorial. You have no idea why they do this. You’re just endlessly speculating, the process you are criticising!
Bad week for you.
Why do we feel a need to tell these women who they can and cannot be with? Mrs. Spritzer is an autonomous human who can make her own decisions, so let her. If you discovered your Dad slept with a hooker, would you write an editorial begging for them to get a divorce?
Also, it’s not just “political” wives who stand by their man…I’m sure there’s a crapload of Badgers who’s parents cheat but stay together “for the kids.”
Despite what the first two comments say, I think this article raises a good point: if you’re with a man for money, you’re a whore. If you’re with a man for political power, you’re a…
Well, ask Hillary Clinton, she knows.
Probably the same reasons non-political wives stand by.
Am I the only one who has wondered if Hilary’s candidacy is Bill’s mea culpa: sorry I cheated on you and humiliated you in front of the entire country, do you want to be president?
I agree, if I were any of these women, whatever I decided to do personally about the marriage be it “working it out,” or leaving, no way in hell would I appear in public with him. It’s a political ploy designed to lessen the blow to the politician: if she’s sticking by him then we as his constituency can too.
So funny you wrote this, the other day in my french history class my professor, who is French/New Yorker discussed how this phenomenon is unique to American politics. European politicians have affairs all the time, but if they ever have to confront the story (which they usually don’t) they don’t bring their spouses along in an attempt to legitimize their “family man image”.
Nicholas Sarkozy just divorced his wife and married a young model. However, she hasn’t become the new first lady in the sense that we imagine it…she’s just that woman that Sarkozy sees when he goes home at night. Why can’t we do the same thing here?
I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that a GUY wrote this…and seemed to actually think about what he was saying, despite the fact that his OPINION piece, GASP, reflects his opinion and speculations! God forbid he question the status quo but saying anything about this, but I think all women, upon seeing a scene like Spitzer with Silda by his side at the press conference, ask themselves how she could stand there and take that silent abuse of her own being. Cuz that’s what it is: an abuse. There are unspoken social rules and yes, NORMS, dictating how women react in these situations. I think the first couple comments are ridiculous and probably written by men or rather, boys, who need to grow a pair and admit that men are NOT the angels they imagine themselves to be. grow up. cuz us women are tired of waiting til you guys are 70 to do so.
I’m a UW-Wisconsin graduate. I agree with the author, but want to add that Eliza Hamilton didn’t literally stand by Alexander at a press conference. That’s the most embarrassing part, and I don’t understand why scorned wives do it.
Also, as I have recently read in a 1982 biography, the Mrs. Reynolds Affair, as it is known, may have been instigated by Aaron Burr, who was the attorney for Mrs. Reynolds’s husband James and who represented her in her divorce. The biographer, Robert Hendrickson, further speculates that Burr was encouraged to do so by Madison and Jefferson, who wanted to ruin Hamilton’s career. Unlike contemporary politicians, Hamilton not only admitted to the affair but published a long pamphlet describing the whole business and even including the notes he exchanged with the Reynolds after they began blackmailing him.
husbands would probably “stand by their woman” too in these political situations as well, it’s just overwelmingly men who are caught up in the scandals, hence it is the wives that “stand by their man”)
the question should be why to “spouses” stand by the politician, not women
hey 6:34, its not just overwhelmingly men, it literally is only men. the only woman ever involved in such a scandal was single. read the column.
I wanted more ranting and raving from a personal point of view. After reading this I am not quite sure what your opinion is on this issue. You state the facts, inject a slight opinion through other sources. Heck, thats what regular reporters do. At the same time, it was well written and I am completely impressed.
to 8:01 I know, that’s why I said overwhelmingly men. It’s not only men. Granted it was only 1 woman, but that’s not “only men.”
I think it’s shitty to label this as something only wives would do. Fact is, only wives get the opportunity (not quite an opportunity, but you know what I mean) to make this choice since A.) Most politicians are men, hence they are more likely to be the ones embroiled in sex scandals. B.) They are men, hence more likely to be embroiled in sex scandals. ;)
maybe she put up with the public humiliation, just so she could put him through his own hell, and make his “home” life an absolute torture. We don’t know what is happening behind their closed doors.