Stand by your man?—Ségolé¨ne Royal, Hillary, and political wives
The French legislative elections were a victory for Sarkozy and his party, but not the sort of landslide that was predicted. PJ’s correspondent in Paris, Nidra Poller, reports that the Socialist Party is far from moribund.
Ségolé¨ne Royal, failed Socialist candidate for President, took the opportunity to drop what was not much of a bombshell, since rumors had been swirling for months: the news that she and her—er—partner Francois Hollande are separating (they can’t be divorcing because they were never married, despite having been together for longer than most marriages these days—about thirty years—and having four children).
In classic French fashion, she announced that he was having an affair. In classic American fashion, she announced that she is releasing a book about her campaign in which she tells, if not all, then at least quite a bit about her marital woes.
Royal’s situation points out some of the pressures of the political marriage (or marriage equivalent), especially one in which the personal merges with the public. Royal and Hollande were not just quasi-spouses, they were colleagues, both leaders in the Socialist Party and rivals for the top position. That gives them a slight resemblance to another highly political couple whose sailing has been far from smooth, Bill and Hillary Clinton. The difference (aside from the fact that the Clintons are married, and remain so) is that the Clintons’ political ascendances worked in sequence, not simultaneously, and so they were probably able to avoid being rivals in the same way as Royal and Hollande.
Even without such overt rivalries, politics can be very hard on marriages, quasi or otherwise. In the olden days of my youth, when divorce was the kiss of death for an aspirant to high office, couples made various sorts of practical and emotional compromises to stay together despite affairs and incompatibilities, and the fact that they might have separated but for the political ambitions of one of their members (back then, it was almost always the man). Politicians, being attracted to power (among other things), were also fairly notorious for their attraction to one of the perks of power, sex (none other than the not-so-telegenic Henry Kissinger was referring to this when he said, in those pre-Viagra days, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac”).
Political wives have traditionally had to put up with quite a bit of carryings-on, and to keep a stiff upper lip as they did so (think Jackie Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Eleanor Roosevelt). Their husbands’ affairs might not have been common knowledge, at least, so they were spared the public humiliation of Hillary Clinton, but privately it must have been hard. As this piece on Lady Bird says, however, she didn’t consider herself a martyr:
[Texas governor] Connally wrote, “[Lady Bird] handled the affair, I suppose, as well as such things can be handled: by behaving as if there were nothing to handle.” Lady Bird has always refused to play the role of the wronged wife. “I am not a saint,” sighed Lady Bird during an interview, implying that she bears some responsibility for the problems in her marriage. “All I can say is I had a great love affair. No matter what, I knew he loved me best.”
That’s one way to look at it, I suppose, although not the way most women today would see it. But it’s the way most old-fashioned political wives navigated through a difficult situation.
And in deed, if not in her heart (and who knows, despite constant public and press speculation, what is actually in her heart?), Hillary Clinton has followed in their footsteps and in the footsteps of other political wives, repairing—perhaps for the sake of ambition, in this case hers—a relationship that could have been irretrievably broken.
Royal has left her man, it seems—or perhaps she had no choice in the matter, and he left her. But in a touch of irony, Hillary actually has “stood by her man,” as in the Tammy Wynette song she famously (and sarcastically) quoted in a “60 Minutes” interview during her husband’s 1992 Presidential campaign. One thing is for sure, however: she hasn’t “stayed home and baked cookies and had teas,” another Hillary quote from that era—although many of her enemies probably wish she had.
[NOTE: By the way the linked article on the Johnson courtship, wedding, and marriage makes fascinating reading.]
Pingback:Hillary Clinton ‘08 » Stand by your man?—Ségolène Royal, Hillary, and political wives
Lady Bird strikes me as a super-classic enabler to LBJ’s powerfully alcoholic personality, and there’s nothing praiseworthy about that. Hillary and Bill had, and have, an entirely different arrangement, about which nothing good can be said either, though ‘sociopathic’ comes to mind.
As opposed to the Raise the Red State Lantern harems of the Republican presidential candidates, Tom?
As opposed to the Raise the Red State Lantern harems of the Republican presidential candidates, Tom?
I love how the Left thinks the best defense is a good offense; when they simultaneously lambast Bush’s pre-emption stuff.
I’m not sure it’s an attack, Ymar.
I’ll prolly vote for Rudy over Hillary, though she’ll get my vote over any of the other Republican munchkins.
It just seems to me that ol’ Bill should have to answer for his behavior, not Hillary. She’s a politicain now, not a politician’s wife.
Allegedly, Royal warned Hollande, “Cheri, if we don’t separate, France will erupt in flames!”
And so Hollande, ever the patriot,….
Thanks for linking the Lady Bird biography chapter. It is outstanding.
Lady Bird’s choice – to stay with LBJ – was made with open eyes. Lady Bird had private wealth, and was personable and charming. She could’ve divorced and remarried. She undoubtably felt she was contributing to LBJ’s greatness – as she obviously was. Her choice to stay was a choice to contribute to something big and important and exciting, and to stay with the man she loved.
Lady Bird never asked victimhood status for herself. She knew she was no victim, and she was too classy to hypocritically play that card. This is why she is so admired, even now. She was tough, smart, classy, and she loved her husband.
I admire Hillary for contributing to Bill’s greatness. The sum of Hillary and Bill is greater than the parts. I believe Hillary and Bill’s marriage has been a business arrangement for about 25 years. I have no problem with that. Every situation is unique. Their marriage/business arrangement has served them well.
I do not admire that Hillary has hypocritically played the victim card. What a joke that is. Hillary and Bill consistently demonstrate an astounding lack of class – right down to attempting to steal the White House furniture away to Chappaqua. And to shamelessly REGISTERING – in order to blackmail their rich friends into purchasing furniture and flatware and china for their Chappaqua home.
Did the Clinton’s rich friends purchase these gifts out of the goodness of their hearts? NO. These gifts were purchased as payback for favors the Clintons had done them, and as downpayments for future favors. The Clintons did do and will do all these favors WHILE SERVING AS PUBLIC SERVANTS. The Clintons did do and will do all these favors using your and my tax money. The Clintons are crooks. REGISTERING for gifts, upon their move to Chappaqua, is just one piece of evidence.
Pure politics. It’s a dirty game, played best by dirty people…exemplified in extremis by the Clintons.
I find quite apt the definition of politics wherein “poli” stands for many, whereas “tics” are blood-sucking creatures…
I wish I understood why Democrats love the idea of politicians that have affairs and sneer at marriage without them. Think of all the Republican presidents that have apparently been faithfully married. Dems just seem to like guys that publicly humiliate their wives.
Salut,
Did you see this about Sego Royal?
http://desahogoboricua.blogspot.com/
http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2008/02/sgo-at-kennedy-school.html
(other persons’ recomended sites included above)
Have you commented on it already?
PP
As opposed to the Raise the Red State Lantern harems of the Republican presidential candidates, Tom?