Wednesday, September 19, 2007

"Love in the White House"?   [Jonah Goldberg]

Look maybe I'm just bitter that everybody but me is getting invited to the White House for presidential chats (would it help if I took back my "I blame Bush" line? ). And, I think my credentials on harshly judging Bill Clinton's White House behavior are beyond sterling, platinum in fact. But is that really the chief qualification for President of the United States?

“Be comfortable with your family. Work hard to make sure there is love in the White House.”

I've worked from home alongside my wife for years now, and it's produced nary an argument. I work very hard at bringing love to my home and if President I think I would continue to do so. But I hardly think that makes me more qualified than Rudy Giuliani to be president of the United States. I'd make a far better choice for President for entirely different reasons!

Seriously: I'm with Bush on the principles-are-important stuff. But this "love" stuff is an awfully gooey standard for people to run too far down field with.

Update: In fact, the more I think about this, the more annoyed I'm getting. Ronald Reagan loved Nancy beyond all reckoning, we know that from his diaries and other  testimonials. But his relationship with his kids was not off the charts in the "fill the White House with love" department. And I think even a rudimentary glance at the historical record would show that other "great" presidents were similarly disadvantaged. Lincoln and Mary Todd? Hardly a Lifetime romantic movie of the week. FDR? Well except for the affair, the aloof wife and the public mocking of his own kid. JFK?*  Stop laughing.

The real problem with statements like this — when released to the public — is they make conservatives sound otherworldly and almost bizarre in their priorities. Character matters, a lot. But come on. 

* Maybe not great by many rigorous standards but don't say  that in mixed company.

09/19 04:03 PMShare