Unlike most fathers celebrated this Father’s Day, our nation’s father, President Obama, gets to step down from his role after eight years. If Obama needs any help coming up with “three weaknesses” for his slew of post-White House job interviews, he’ll have someone to talk to. Joshua Kendall’s thinly disguised hagiography, First Dads: Parenting and Politics From George Washington to Barack Obama, comes at a good time not only for the soon-to-be former president, but also for Hillary Clinton, who rides on his legacy.
Kendall’s “book starts from the premise that character, as traditionally defined, both counts and is worth resuscitating as a critical variable in political analysis.” Kendall makes this statement after dismissing marital fidelity as a good test of character. Bill Clinton, who’s running for the office of “In Charge of the Economy” in 2016, will be glad to hear this. The more important test of character considered by Kendall’s book is “fathering,” which Kendall uses to explain who to vote for in 2016.
Why, Kendall asks, was Obama able to achieve such tremendous accomplishments as the Affordable Care Act? Because he is a flawless father. “Like Obama, Hayes and Truman were not among the most effective Presidents, but they provided leadership that was as steady as their paternal affection.”
Why was Obama not as effective as the great Lyndon B. Johnson? Because he was too attentive a father, too unwilling to “schmooze” with fellow politicians, too innocent in the face of the polarizing, Republican-owned Congress. Is there anything to add to Kendall’s exhaustive criticisms? Other than the IRS scandal, which Kendall covers in one quick and apologetic sentence, No. That about sums it up.
In one glowing passage, Kendall explains how Obama, as father and administrator, “sought to lead by being consistent and dependable.” Kendall must have missed all the flip-flops—on Hillary Clinton, Gay Marriage, Guantanamo, deployment in Iraq, the “red line” in Syria, the release date of the ACA, the entailments of the ACA, et cetera.
Obama’s policies, he goes on to say, “emphasized the importance of ‘an ethics of care’ … Stressing the interdependence of Americans upon one another, these three presidents [i.e., Hayes, Truman, and Obama] advocated policies that addressed the broad social needs of all the members of the American family. Inclusiveness reigned in their administrations.” That must be why racial tensions have improved so much under Obama.
Blind to irony, Kendall says Obama’s presidency has embraced the same spirit as Hayes’ speech, which called for color-blind politics. In his own words, Hayes vowed “to put forward” his “best efforts in behalf of a civil policy that will forever wipe out in our political affairs the color line and the distinction between North and South.” With such admirable sentiments, Hayes certainly stands apart from Obama’s “typical white” grandma.
Kendall’s glorification of Obama—complete with one too many cringe-worthy anecdotes about his children’s profound remarks in private and Michelle’s gentle disciplinary methods—falls seamlessly on the back of Kendall’s not-so-subtle criticism of Bush Jr. Bush was nice to his kids, yes; but he was a partier and a clown. This clownishness, Kendall observes, played out in his foreign policy.
To console his mother after the death of his sister, Kendall narrates, “George developed his clownish and playful side. He and his mother also formed an intense bond. ‘Some close to the Bushes do see the death of his sister as a singular event in George W.’s childhood, helping to define him and how he would deal with the world.’”
When George H.W. Bush didn’t spend much time with his children it was because he was overly ambitious. Being so “hardworking,” he “was constantly on the go. After settling in Texas in 1948, the budding oil man and his wife, Barbara, kept shuttling back east, entrusting the care of their children to family friends for long stretches of time.” Kendall later describes the Bushes as “farming” out their children to others.
When Bill Clinton or Obama did the same, it was because they were victims of circumstance, of greatness thrust upon them. In 1987, after one candidate was exposed for extra-marital affairs, Clinton “surprised” supporters by choosing not to run for president. Kendall cites the fact that Clinton’s critics claimed he dropped out because of his own philandering. However, Kendall seems to give more credence to Clinton’s own account. “Whatever the true reason for the Arkansas Governor’s about-face that summer, his deep affection for his daughter cannot be questioned.” Kendall might as well have said that “his extra-marital affairs cannot be questioned.”
When Kendall briefly observes that Clinton spent little time with Chelsea growing up, Kendall cloaks the failing he has criticized in the likes of Bush Sr. with the language of external pressure. Clinton “emerged” as a national figure “after becoming head of the National Governors Association.” He didn’t “get to dote on Chelsea.” Did Clinton just wake up one day and find out, much to his fatherly chagrin, that he was head of the National Governors Association?
When Obama chose to run for senate and then the White House—leaving his children largely to the care of his wife—Kendall once again resorts to the language of passivity, which was absent in the parallel discussion of Bush Sr.
Having explained the successes of Obama and explained away the failings of Bill Clinton, Kendall ends First Dads with the aspiring First Mom, Hillary Clinton. Kendall explains that “Our first First Mom will have to work even harder than here male predecessors to prove that she can hold her own.”
With propaganda of First Dads’ caliber, Kendall may be correct that, “In the decades to come, America will no doubt elect its first First Mom,” and her name will be Hillary.
