We Must Cultivate Our Gardens -- With Help, Of Course

Another easy one.  A friend (who I know knows better) shared this today, from the National Women's History Museum wishing Martha Custis Washington a happy 283rd birthday.  She doesn't look a day over 273, does she?

I commented that I can never read well-to-do white people saying this sort of thing without gagging a little. (Or uber-wealthy African-Americans, for that matter.)  Yes, it's a truism; I can even agree with it to a point, having known numerous people who were materially comfortable and were surrounded by people who cared about them, but still were melancholic.  Yes, even rich people have problems.  Martha Dandridge Custis was already a widow when she married the slightly younger George Washington, two of her four children by her first husband died in childhood, and one of the survivors was killed during the Revolutionary War; her life had its share of misery.  (She and George had no children together.)

But she was privileged and lived comfortably, especially compared to the 100 "dower slaves" she brought with her to Mount Vernon.  "Martha was less ambivalent [about slavery] than her husband and never seems to have questioned the system ... [M]ost of the slaves on Mount Vernon were dower slaves, in whom Martha Custis's descendants had a financial interest." I'm sure she'd have held that her slaves' happiness depended on their dispositions, not on their circumstances. Or the greater part of their happiness, anyway.

With more time to think about it, I thought: Really, Martha Washington as a significant figure in Women's History?  As the first FLOTUS?  Forty years ago Gore Vidal remarked that "there was no phrase in our language which so sets the teeth on edge as 'First Lady.'"'  "FLOTUS" wasn't in use at the time; I'd say it's even more annoying.  As a role model for young women, being a President's wife is right down there with Disney princesses: all of its glamour comes from being attached to a man.  Yes, I know that some presidents' wives carved out their own careers, most notably Hillary Rodham Clinton, but 1) they're the exceptions and 2) they were reacting to the limitations of the role.  I have a lot of sympathy for Presidents' families, as for all politicians' families, thrust under a scorching spotlight of publicity because of somebody's political ambitions.  But those who fetishize First Ladies seem to like having them in that uncomfortable spot.  I've expressed before my sympathy for Michelle Obama, but living in the White House seems not to have improved her character.  (To be fair, it doesn't seem to improve anyone's.)

In Martha Washington's case, the Museum of Women's History sees her significance purely in terms of being satellite to her husband, and the only thing they could attribute to her on her own was this awful platitude.  The comments under the original post are fascinating, too.  A few people wrote the same kind of things I've written here, and the responses to them are predictable. "Just because she wasn't a slave doesn't mean she didn't endure difficult trials." "But, Martha Washington was a product of her times...and I think that attitude definitely makes a difference on how the rest of us handle what life throws at us. So, quit pointing your finger when you know 3 more are pointing back at you." "I'm pretty sure this quote must have come from a private letter or something because she's not known for speeches so lighten up! The fact remains that there is some truth to this quote regardless of who said it." "Instead of ragging on Martha - not here to defend herself - take the sentiment and apply it without baggage. Wake up, smile that you're here, your children (families) are with you, put a smile on your face and Choose to be positive in your daily interactions. Don't be a victim, be proactive and do everything you can to have a great day / life. Random acts of kindness help others but do a great deal to uplift the doer - give it a whirl!"

But the prize must go to this one:

Good grief. Why does EVERYTHING have to be politicized and turned into an argument? Just take the quote for what it is. As a person with a degree in history, it's never fair to judge historial figures by modern norms. In every era, there were a few extraordinary, forward-thinking people. But then, as now, the majority just went with the flow and lived their lives. I think everyone here agrees that slavery is one of the most evil institutions ever established and was a harrowing experience for the enslaved. But you have to put people and their lifestyles in context. I'm sure 250 years from now, there will be people judging our society, too. Just let it be and take the quote for what it is - a personal thought likely meant to comfort someone. Why was the slavery issue even injected into this to begin with? The only goal in doing that was to create a controversy and put a negative spin on things. Why? Should the history be ignored? No. But it also doesn't have to be exploited in order to spark tangential arguments and spread negativity and discord.

First of all, putting Custis's picture on a women's history page, reducing her to her derivative status as a wife, politicizes the matter from the start.  Adding this quotation, stripped from its original personal and social context, also politicizes it.   She was a First Lady!  (She did nothing on her own!  Her status depended entirely on the man she married!)  She uttered this platitude!  (She was a nice good-hearted inoffensive lady, like First Ladies should be!)

Second, the commenter pretends that she only objects because this isn't the time or place to "inject" the slavery issue into this.  But there never seems to be a correct time or place for such discussions.  I don't see how the history is being "exploited" by bringing it up -- on a history page, of all places, how dare we!   Clearly the commenter would prefer that it be "ignored" altogether.  But then, so would most white Americans.

The (Tea?) Kettle Calling the POTUS Black

This probably isn't a new thing, but I've been noticing it more often lately: fans of President Obama referring to him online as POTUS when defending him against his critics. For example, this comment today on Facebook on Obama's current troubles with the American Catholic hierarchy:

POTUS is safe on this one.

It's easier to type the five letters than the full title, I suppose, though "Obama" also has just five letters. Maybe referring to him by his surname feels disrespectful, but calling him "Barack" is too familiar, and POTUS is like "Commander-in-Chief," suitably pompous and grandiose. What really bothers me about the practice is the tendency to make Obama, or any other person, disappear into the office he holds, so that criticism of Obama becomes an insult to the Presidency itself. (A good example of this was the National Citizens Committee for Fairness to the Presidency, founded in the depths of the Watergate Scandal by Rabbi Baruch Korff, who'd taken it into his head to defend Richard Nixon. I recall seeing Korff saying during a TV interview that he didn't believe The President had committed an impeachable offense: he hadn't committed adultery, for example. I always thought that it was Nixon and his defenders who were being unfair to the Presidency if anyone was.)

As usual, this concern is purely partisan. People who called George W. Bush "the Chimp" or worse are suddenly very punctilious about the dignity of the Office of the President. And vice versa, of course: people who think Dubya's likeness belongs on Mount Rushmore refuse to recognize the Kenyan Usurper as the country's Executive. In that sense, both sides agree about the sanctity of the presidency, and that this or that incumbent profanes the sacred seat of Washington. As Glenn Greenwald has written, this doesn't even rise to the level of ideology: it's an authoritarian cult.

After I wrote about that snapshot of the Obamas* on Sunday, I got e-mail from a reader who agreed with me about the cult of personality that surrounds the presidency and infects American politics. Not only has that cult always been with us -- it followed George Washington into office -- but I think it's intrinsic to politics, much more than a concern with issues ever is. The Leader, the Big Man and his entourage, his largesse, the justice he dispenses, have always been part of American politics. People talk about separating the man from the office, but the man was there first. Not, as some pundits would have it, that we want a President we would want to have dinner with (though we would surely want to, with much bowing and scraping and consciousness of how honored we were to have him under our roof, and of course we'd have our photo taken with him to display on the wall forever); we want a President we can look up to and adore, partly a regular guy because this is America and we're all the same here, but a guy who's more regular than others, and for whose good name we'll challenge any smart alecks to put up their dukes. This isn't limited to politics: the same mentality pervaded the popular defense of Joe Paterno, for example.

With all this symbolism attached to the President, it's not surprising that his opponents demonize him: it's as natural as idolizing him. Criticizing him rationally would be irrelevant, even anti-relevant. Instead he must be depicted with horns and tail or ridiculed, merged with Alfred E. Neuman (and it's convenient that both Bush and Obama can be assimilated to Neuman's image so easily), burned in effigy, and vilified with projection so transparent that it almost has to be deliberate. The President, like the Monarch, is the Nation, and criticizing him is spitting on America according to his devotees; to his opponents, the Dirty President spits on America by his unfitness to occupy the office. (Remember all the Democrats who were so vocally glad in January 2009 to finally have a president they weren't embarrassed by?) These feelings can be rationalized by the fact that our Presidents are more or less elected, and so do represent us in a way that an unelected monarch doesn't; but the baggage attached to our presidents, the cult of personality, looks like something a good deal more ... primitive. Certainly nothing rational.

*In connection with that photo, I saw several references to Michelle Obama as FLOTUS, which clarified the way people are using POTUS. "First Lady of the United States" is not a title, not a political office, though it is part of the baggage of monarchy that we proudly republican Americans have always tried to pin onto the President and those around him. As Gore Vidal wrote, "Martha Washington contented herself with the unofficial (thus seldom omitted) title 'Lady' Washington." But the President's wife is a private citizen (COTUS?), albeit a private citizen stuck in one of the most blinding and uncomfortable public spotlights on the planet. As Jacqueline Kennedy complained, the "operators at the White House ... just love saying 'First Lady.'"