(no subject)

[deckardcanine]

Just now, I was thinking about how it's too bad that the Obama kids are so young, because their father will have less time for them than ever before.

I then reflected once more on the fact that only two U.S. presidents have ever been elected unmarried, one of whom eventually married in office, and I think the other was the only one with no children. It suggests that voters may take a candidate's lack of a spouse and kids into account as a negative. Certainly modern candidates like to emphasize their status as loving family members, possibly to evoke an idyllic image, and possibly to minimize the chance of getting labeled gay. (I did see "Dubya is a f****t" graffiti in 2000, but that was it.)

But now I'm wondering if a president with no immediate family wouldn't be a good change of pace. At the very least, it should mean more time to deal with other things without missing someone or feeling guilty about too little time.

Comments

[dhlawrence.livejournal.com]

Not to mention no tabloid scandals when the kids do something stupid *coughBushtwinscoughTedKennedycoughcough*

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

It's pretty well established that politicians have to prove they're "family" people and therefore "understand" the needs of American families. Nobody needs to "understand" what people without children might want, because we're not really considered active members of society.

[ken-redtail.livejournal.com]

This is why we prefer the older guys sometimes because at least their kids are grown and self-sufficient.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that other qualifications and personal strengths/weaknesses would be far more significant than a presidential candidate's family status.

===|==============/ Level Head

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Certainly. It still means there's no good reason for every president to be married with children.