Where Did All the Boysin the White House Go?

At least in one aspect, U.S. President-elect Obama did not bring change to the White House. Like Presidents Bush, Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson—Obama will spend several years in a White House with no boys roughhousing inside. In the 80 years before Obama, only President Kennedy brought a boy to the White House.

The 19th Century White House Teemed with Boys

In some countries of the world, not having a son is still seen as almost a kind of deficiency, especially for leaders. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has two sons, as does Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi. French President Sarkozy has three sons. Even Letsie III, the king of Lesotho, a country in Southern Africa, has a son.

Evidently, in determining who is fit to be a national leader, American voters transcended this overly simplistic concept very early on, but in the past, it was not this way at all.

In the 19th century, White House rulers had lots of sons. President Lincoln had four sons. Ulysses S. Grant, the Civil War Union Army commander who later became America’s 18th president, had three sons and a daughter.

The 19th President, Rutherford B. Hayes, had seven sons and one daughter, while the 20th President James A. Garfield had seven children—of them, five were boys. These boys did not all have the good fortune of experiencing White House life—many of them died prematurely or were too old to live with their parents—but a good number of them did live in the White House.

When President Roosevelt moved into the White House, he brought two daughters and four sons with him. At that time, the White House said farewell to its past days of cold and cheerless solemnity and became extraordinarily lively. During hard times, the comic White House antics of these kids were actually a good thing.

Fortunately, Obama has a pair of kids like this. Maybe bringing kids along during an election campaign is not a good idea, but bringing them along as he manages the country promises to be very amusing.

What Experts Say

So why do modern American presidents rarely have sons? Through historical analysis, experts have discovered that if there is a male child, it is almost impossible to be elected U.S. President because this means that you must bring them to long, tedious, intense campaign events.

Sons Love “Risk” More

It is not difficult to discover that as far as modern American presidents go, participating in campaigns and having sons are mutually exclusive. Presidential campaign events mean a lot of traveling, being in the public eye for a long time, and a life in which it is necessary to be serious and patiently endure the unceasing chatter of the same people. It also requires being impeccably dressed. For candidates who are parents, having to be away from their children for a long time is a painful thing.

So, to their kids, following Daddy on the campaign trail is like missionary kids who often have to travel all around a country from church to church, but the difference is that these kids do it riding in a limo. Life often goes on like this for 11 months.

Experts Say that Having Sons in a Campaign is Worse than Having Daughters.

Pediatric education expert Dr. Margaret Meeker states, “Boys are usually more competitive, take more risks, and also have more of a challenge mentality. For example, if a boy feels what his father says is boring, it is usually because the boy feels that he is the father, and that similar words have been said many times, so it should be done with by now.”

The campaign is influenced negatively by the rigorous scrutiny imposed upon U.S. presidential candidates, as well as the modern media’s all-encompassing broadcasts that make every action involving the candidates that appears a little dangerous or provocative into a major public affair. Thus, having young sons nearby is clearly a “dangerous” thing.

Girls Improve the Image More

Take Obama’s campaign events for example. The coordination of these events displayed strong “discipline,” “rigor,” and a good “sense of control”. These three traits are ones which the majority of boys lack. Of course, Obama did not bring his two daughters, 10-year-old Maria and 7-year-old Sasha, to every city on the campaign trail.

Secondly, when fathers are absent from their children’s lives for a long time because of work or other reasons, it is more harmful to their sons than to their daughters, and has a greater negative effect on their sons’ development. “If fathers are away from their children for a long time because they are busy with a campaign, boys are more likely to develop aggressive tendencies and be impetuous,” says Meeker.

From another angle, girls often are able to improve the image of a candidate. Meeker comments, “A loving father with his cute little daughters—this kind of father-daughter relationship seems more natural in the public eye. Daughters have a subjective desire to please their parents, especially their fathers. After being assigned a place by their father, they can be brought along to work and usually they will not misbehave.”

Actually, even though there have been some modern American presidents who have brought their sons to live in the White House, not one has brought them on the campaign trail. During Kennedy’s campaign, his son was still in his mother’s womb. When Reagan and Bush entered the White House, their sons were already grown. Ford’s son, Jack, only moved into the White House after Nixon resigned, but when his father experienced a tough presidential election, he was not with his father.