I have a problem with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy that has nothing to do with her character, past performance, or policies. It has to do with her husband and the political powers of the president and the persistent failure of American historical memory.

I teach history. The limits of historical memory among the young are stunning. Let’s say we have a tremendously popular president at the end of his or her eight years in office, years of unprecedented peace and prosperity.  With control over the national political party machinery, it would not be difficult for the president to engage the party in the active support of the candidacy of his or her spouse.

Past spouses have all been women, some more accomplished than others but none with a serious shot at the White House.  This is new age. Wives of presidents are more and more likely to be professionals, some may even be serious political activists. Senator Clinton has trumpeted her activities in this area as a fundamental element of her credentials.

If she is elected, people will remember that she earned it with her years in the Senate – for a time. That time, based on my study of the students who study history, may be extremely short. In twenty years, they may know she worked for a while at . . . something before running for president.  But subtle distinctions do not stand well in the adrenaline rush that fuels political partisans in the heat of the hunt. In thirty or forty years, it will fade, and all that will be left is the knowledge that she ran and won after her husband had the job.  

Americans have a justifiable aversion to the ascent of sons. Two have followed their fathers into office, but only after some years had passed. (John Quincy Adams served for four years in a bitter political climate remembered by the term, “Corrupt Bargain.” George W. Bush, using the power of his office and the machinery at his disposal, lasted for eight.)

            But wives or husbands would be trickier. What politician, especially from the same party, wants to appear to diminish the claim and capability of the spouse of a president? Who wants to take on women or men voters on that issue? Roselyn Carter was a very capable spouse. Had Jimmy Carter been a success at his job, she could have been a first. He was not. But Ronald Reagan was. Bill Clinton was. Is there any reason to believe that an administration by Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton would not be a continuation of their husband's policies and their political teams?
             Those policies are not the problem, however. What is the problem is the power that would evolve as result of such length of time in office. When President Washington set the two-term limit, the assumption was that he felt anything longer lent itself to dynastic abuse (I’m pretty sure Washington had no worries about presidential wives).

I have no problem with a woman president. I believe that women would bring a welcome balance to an office that has been exclusively male through forty-three administrations. However, a democracy needs the nourishment that comes from new blood, something George Washington understood intuitively.  A presidency in the hands of one couple – or one family – over whatever period of years is a threat to the nation’s political vitality.

One presidency per couple is enough. Which one of them actually runs we should leave up to them.