Since there’s another book out this month about Jackie Kennedy Onassis there’s been some talk about her on the morning shows, and other shows, and I keep hearing people describe her as “one of our most distinguished First Ladys” or “one of the most important First Ladys” etc.
No offense, but I don’t remember ANYTHING important or distinguished that she did.
Sure, she was a great lady of fashion, and her husband slept around on her while she dutifully stood beside him, and he was shot…
But why all the hoopla? Please tell me this Jackie O. ga-ga isn’t just because she was fashionable!
“First Lady” isn’t a paid office with defined duties. Some women whove had the role have been strong activists for causes (Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton), some have been reclusively private (Bess Truman), and some have split the difference (Rosalyn Carter, Laura Bush). Willingly or not, many of them have served as de facto Secretary of Women’s Affairs.
Jacqueline Kennedy wasn’t an activist for a particular cause. Glamour is most of what she brought to the table, and she brought an awful lot of that. She talked rich and powerful men into donating antiquities to the White House, when they would ordinarily have been inclined not to (She convinced Walter Annenberg, no JFK fan, to part with an historicalllly-significant painting, as it would enshrine his name forever in White House history as an art donor and a prominent Philadelphia citizen). European dignitaries with nothing to gain by backing a Kennedy initiative abroad could advance their careers immeasurably at home by being photogrsaphed at a stat function with Jackie Kennedy.
She didn’t get National Health Care reform enacted, but then, who has? Dismissing her as arm candy diminishes the very real goodwill she generated for her husband’s administration. She made a drug-addled philanderer with colitis and mob ties look like a stable, athletic, youthful, responsible family man whom decent Americans could vote for with a clear conscience. And dammit, that’s an achievement!
It’s nothing more than the fact that she was young and glamorous, and that she got the nation’s sympathy after having been very publicly widowed with two fatherless children to raise.
The fact that she always managed to put up a well-poised face in public added strength to this public image.
And, of course, the Kennedys are Baby Boomer generation icons, which are always more important than anything that ever came before or after…
Well, Jackie did do a bang-up job of decorating the White House and looting—I mean, borrowing—important furniture and artwork from donors. And she and JFK really did bring culture back to the White House: she was very much into the arts, and she made friends worldwide by being a multilingual, cultured woman.
So, no, she never accomplished anything “important” till she’d been out of the White House for years (her work in architectural preservation came in the 1970s). But, as has been said, damn few First Ladies do get to do anything “important.”
Before she met with public tragedy, many of us found her to be annoying. She had an irritating, simpering “little-girly” voice, for one. After she met with public tragedy, we just shut up about her. Time has a way of distorting the truth, even for the best of us.
Frankly, I liked Lady Bird Johnson better because of her wildflowers and highway beautification projects, even though I was very irritated at the necessity that everyone in that family had to have “LBJ” initials. Some time when you drive on an interstate and see wildflowers instead of billboards, think of Mrs. Johnson.
Since I was born way after the Kennedy presidency, I mainly think of her as a celebrity, “famous for being famous”. Sort of like Elizabeth Taylor or George Hamilton.
Personally I think Rosalynn Carter was more attractive, charming, gracious, and socially aware (along with her husband) than any other first lady. But she didn’t have the society connections Jackie BKO did.
Personally, I don’t want them to do anyting “important,” other than what they did before they were First Ladies. We don’t elect them, they don’t campaign as candidates for FL, they don’t debate, and we don’t replace them if they die. They have no constitutional standing. They are, in my view, a sexist holdover on the one hand and a monarchist holdover (the king’s consort) on the other.
This all goes double for “Second Ladies,” Mrs. Cheney.
Well, she managed to successfully raise two children in the Kennedy clan-and despite JFK jr’s untimely death, I’d say she helped them avoid the scandals and trouble that many of the other Kennedy kids were getting into.
Oh, I’m afraid I have to strongly disagree. She not only brought important artwork and antiques into the White House and set fashion and glamour standards the world over, but she was very popular with world leaders and their populations and was probably the best good-will ambassador this this country had ever had. Then, after her husband’s assassination, she set a standard for strength and dignity that amazed the world.
I admit that during the Onassis years and her New York years I really didn’t think all that highly of her, regarding her as something of a cold-hearted gold-digger who only truly loved her children. However, I grudgingly admitted that like **Guinistasia ** said, she did a great job of raising her children.
However, subsequent inside information about the fact that she truly loved her husband and suffered greatly over his infidelities, and that she also suffered greatly and even consulted with her priest about the consequences of suicide on her ability to go to heaven, have shown her to be a much more delicate and wounded person than I would have thought previously.
Also, my own passing years have given me experience and the ability to recognize character much more astutely than in my younger years, and I think that that’s what she had in abundance…character.
Well, she was no Eleanor Roosevelt, but after years of first ladies who were not exactly Glamour candidates, she was a refreshingly young, worldly woman who spoke several languages and participated in world politics. She was new, fresh, attractive and well-spoken, which was quite a change from Mamie, et. al.
Here in NYC, after her White House years, she applied her influence and fame to a number of high visibility preservation causes, most notably the crusade to save Grand Central Station. Other than that I agree she was mostly smoke but little fire.
