Advertisement Including this one: Can a woman with a special needs infant and an unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter fit the vice presidency into her schedule?
It prompts a further question in my mind: If Palin — or the presidential candidates, for that matter — had no family at all, would that make them more or less fit to govern?
Historically, candidates for president do not advance without a wedding band. We’ve elected one commander-in-chief, James Buchanan in 1857, who wasn’t hitched.
Does a president have to be married?
Not necessarily, was the answer I took away from an absorbing chat with University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Political Science/Public Administration Department Chairwoman Dr. Cecilia Manrique.
“I don’t think so,” Manrique said about the matrimonial status of the leader of the free world. “Not in terms of an outright barrier.”
While it’s true that voters may want what Manrique describes as a “the total package — a JFK kind of family,” she pointed out the issue doesn’t come up all that often.
“We’ve never really tested it in a way that could be a disqualifier,” she said.
She’s right. The political arena is vastly different from Buchanan’s day. The process, as it’s become established in elections, might weed out those without kids and a spouse before they ever reach the top of the list.
Beyond the vetting, selection and election process, Manrique said, voters don’t tend to vote on a single issue — such as a candidate being married or unmarried.
On the other side of the coin, those who do move up in the process and assume political power often attract a great number of people to them — including a spouse. And, as history has proven, sometimes a whole lot of other mates.
But even though we may be used to seeing a married man — or now woman — run for president or vice president, does a marriage make a person more qualified to do the job?
“I don’t think so,” Manrique said. “It might be better not to be — because of all the trappings of the office.”
Ah, yes, there’s where my own thoughts had gone when I first asked myself the question. As president, or vice president, wouldn’t someone without any concern for a spouse or children be more likely to effectively concentrate on his or her duties?
Perhaps. But not necessarily.
I would only offer this example: Buchanan’s term as president is remembered largely for one thing — his inability to do anything at a time when slavery was tearing the country apart. His inaction in many ways is blamed for leading to the Civil War.
That’s a bigger stain on his legacy than not being married — at least in my book.
