Melania Trump smiled. And smiled. And smiled.
She appeared in Milwaukee at the Fiserv Forum on the final night of the Republican National Convention and didn’t utter a single public word. She wore a bright red Dior suit, tailored with precision. Her long hair was streaked with golden highlights. She glided down her makeshift runway and she offered the cheering crowd a wave. A perfectly calibrated smile spread across her face. That was enough for the crowd, for the moment and, perhaps, for the future.
Perhaps her refusal to step into the character of the eagerly supportive spouse, the one who takes to the microphones to tell warmhearted stories about the candidate’s home life, his foibles and his eccentricities, will let other political spouses reject the role if that is their preference. But more importantly, perhaps it will allow the public — the voters — to dispense with the notion that the relationship between the people who live and love (or not) inside a marriage has anything to do with the relationship between a candidate and their constituents, between a candidate and their ego, between a candidate and their ambition.
Advertisement
The former first lady chose not to speak at the convention. What could she possibly have told viewers about the man who has already served one term in the White House and is now in the midst of his third presidential campaign and who set a record for long-windedness with his 90-minute speech accepting this nomination? What could she say in the aftermath of an assassination attempt on her husband that she had not already put in a lengthy written statement on social media? What could she say to those who find Trump abrasive and narcissistic to convince them that they shouldn’t believe their eyes and ears and that knot in the pit of their stomach? And what more could she add to heighten his godlike status among his acolytes?
The candidate’s granddaughter told the convention crowd that he was the sort of grandpa who called her at school just to chat and who gave her candy despite her parents rules against it. But that personal warmth doesn’t change the fact that Donald J. Trump — as the convention speakers insisted on calling him — refers to migrants and refugees as murderers and escapees from insane asylums. Donald J. Trump is also a man who denigrates and sexually assaults women. All these things are simultaneously true.
Melania Trump has made it clear that she’s not the public’s conduit to understanding her husband’s aspirations and fears. She may well be intimately familiar with them, but she is no one’s interpreter or messenger.
Advertisement
Perhaps this is a bit of wisdom helpful to Usha Vance, who took on the task of introducing her husband, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), before he accepted the nomination as Trump’s running mate. An accomplished lawyer, she walked onstage dressed in a cobalt blue dress and block heels. Usha Vance was restrained. She spoke slowly and quietly. Her audible intakes of breath suggested she was a bit nervous.
She expressed her admiration for her husband and indicated that perhaps his beard was not her favorite characteristic. She recalled his curiosity and acceptance of their differences as they became friends. In her reminiscences of their time together at Yale Law School, J.D., as she called him, sounded like a genial, nonjudgmental man. Sen. Vance has characterized women seeking an abortion as murderers.
The relationship between individuals, as they describe it, may tell you something about what those people think of each other: that they respect each other’s independence, that they revel in their contradictions. It gives little guidance on how a candidate deals with voters who they neither know individually nor have to engage with intimately and daily.
Advertisement
Melania Trump has recused herself from litigating her husband’s case, as well as that of voters. She does not appear to be an unwilling participant in Trump’s political ambitions as much as a disinterested one. He rhapsodized about her in his speech: “I am deeply honored to be joined by my amazing wife, Melania. And, Melania, thank you very much. You also did something really beautiful, a letter to America calling for national unity. And it really took the Republican Party by surprise, I will tell you; it was beautiful.”
She had not rhapsodized about him in her letter. And that was fine. What would doing so have accomplished?
Trump voters who claim uneasiness with his rhetoric or have concern with just how far-right he will go or how much of a dictator he aspires to be — just for one day? or two? or four years? — aren’t looking to Melania Trump for answers or clues. When she is present, she is part of the tableau. She is flowers on a stage.
Historically, political wives have misled voters with words. They have actively prettied up dire circumstances. They've been enablers. Melania Trump is a reminder that voters are rarely deprived of vital information because a candidate’s spouse simply stands down, because they decline to speak on the office-seeker’s behalf. Jill Biden has told voters that the president is as sturdy and capable as he ever was. All the while, voters’ eyes and ears tell them just the opposite. Some argue that a candidate’s spouse is the person who knows them best. But often the vision of a spouse is clouded by time, familiarity and emotion. Sometimes, the best view is the fresh one. Sometimes, the most revealing picture is the one taken from a distance, one filled with context and the unruly and clarifying clutter of daily life.
It may be that the most eloquent and honest thing for a spouse to do is remain silent, and let a candidate’s words and images tell voters everything they need to know.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLuiwMiopWhqYGeBcHyWaGhyZ6Odsm6%2FzKKjnpxdqbWiwIywmKxllaO8trPHaA%3D%3D