Salazar 1 Brae Salazar Mr.

Hackney English 101: Rhetoric 25 November 2013 Til Policy Do Us Part The partnership between man and wife is nationally agreed upon to be a relationship propelled by trust and respect. These virtues are sworn to not only be sustained throughout marriage, but to continuously develop til death do us part. With these seemingly natural and innate laws of true partnership deeply engrained within American society, the controversy is, at what point, if any at all, does one publicly abandon the counsel and influence of their spouse, when holding a political position. Some argue that allowing spouses, in anyway, to shape public policy is inappropriate, due to their lack of legislative and voter consent. Therefore, if policy by the spouse were to greet failure, this unaccountability to the public voids the inevitable blame game and consequential action. On the other hand, many argue that like the officials circle of appointees, spouses have the right to advise and offer collaboration. Author, Marysa Navarro, reasons that if a political candidate has a spouse who loves him (or her), knows him better than most of his close collaborators, and is perhaps the only one in his circle of advisors and friends capable of speaking truth to power the candidate should consider himself very lucky. Along these lines, not only should the candidate feel lucky, but the population being represented, as well. An active spouse acts as a one-person sounding board who confirms or challenges potential policies, without wagering personal gain or loss; by means of the spouse, true input is given in order to produce the most optimal

Salazar 2 effect for all. With this in mind, there are still limits to be fixed within the issue. For instance, although the best resolution can be reached through open discussion between man and wife, by no means should payment or veto power be involved and solely displaced. Having drawn these simple perimeters, it is my standing that speaking truth to power is ultimately achieved when a spouse (equipped with the true virtue of partnership) stands in as an advisor, thereby creating a balanced official with a physical conscious. Although a spouses role in politics is a current issue, the controversy has commonly made an appearance throughout American history. First lady, Ida McKinley, would knit within the room adjacent to her husband and his cabinet members. If her husband were to glance over and see her using yellow yarn, it meant that she did not approve of the candidate. Had the yarn been purple, President McKinley would know that his wife thought the candidate to be loyal and honest. In this instance, the official and his spouse visibly withdrew their system of advisory before public opinion and fear, yet the bonds of partnership were retained in translucence. Therefore, to condemn a spouse holding a formal advisory seat, by no means, has a resisting effect on the advising component informal or not. As Donna Brazile, political strategist, puts it, The truth is spouses of elected officials do shape policy, unofficially and indirectly. This means that as long as the spouses are on speaking terms, it matters not that the spouse holds a formal position; influence will accompany communication, which is always present in a healthy relationship. Professor of surgery, Joseph Stothert, agrees, stating that a good relationship involves give and take, pros and cons, and hashing out issues to determine the end result. Policy-making does not fall far from this model; in fact, it should be

Salazar 3 regarded within its terms. Good public policy requires input in order to properly adjust and amend for a clean output, and a spouse, very fluently and truthfully, will provide just that. While, the division between elected and spouse can become indistinct when viewed as a single relationship unit, many argue that we elected X, not Xs spouse. If that is said, then the same should apply to any appointed advisor, regardless of the relationship. Navarro observes, Politicians frequently surround themselves with close friends, advisors, allies, individuals who have a specific expertise, people they trust often without official titles. To criticize a spouse with any sort of influence, one would have to criticize experts and allies that offer contribution. In rebuttal of unelected assistance, one would rather leave an official to his or her original and unrevised doings, deeming the official as the ultimate, single-perspective policy-maker. Demonstrated regard like such and the resulting and inadequate outcome have previously served as a base for our constitution which Carl Anthony, historian and author, recalls, does not require elected officials to be single, divorced, or widowed. When feedback is offered, regardless of the source, it is a part of the officials responsibility to attend, for the greater well being of the people. Despite any public interest or experience an officials spouse may hold, author, Meena Bose, poses the popular questions, In what situations is it appropriate for a spouse to be involved in an elected officials policy deliberations? And how should officials ensure that they are not seen as being unduly influenced by an unelected spouse? In the case of a true relationship, an involved spouse should not influence in such a way to complicate duties. Lines must be publicly clarified and restrictions drawn,

Salazar 4 so as to clarify the chain of command in an office. I concede that a poorly explained relationship between official and spouse can be cause for the occasion of troubled communication for the public and official, or as Brazile puts it, public uncertainty about whos got the power. But so long as a resolution is made through collaboration and not total veto power, and more importantly, the spouse receives no imbursement, then partner involvement should not generate public alarm only abused command can be cause for a pitfall. With the degree of a spouses involvement increasingly difficult to define and more so increasingly evident in todays politics, many must decide whether the policy to which they abide can be appropriately trusted within the hands of not only the elected, but his or her spouse, as well. To most, a policy-making partnership, where one side is free of consequential responsibility, independently defines itself as a risky gamble to the represented. But the rightfully employed virtues of marriage and policy (so long as they are dually and equally intact) combat any foreseen threat, and together, they stand as a testament of love and politics.

Salazar 5 Works Cited Anthony, Carl Sferrazza. "At Least They're Honest." Ny Times. The New York Times Co, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Bose, Meena. "Be Clear About Everyone's Role." NY Times. The New York Times Co, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Brazile, Donna. "Proceed With Caution." NY Times. The New York Times Co, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Navarro, Marysa. "Consider Eva Perns Influence." NY Times. The New York Times Co, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. Stothert, Joseph. "This is How a Partnership Works." NY Times. The New York Times Co, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.