When J.F.K. chose his brother Bobby to be attorney general, many were dismayed – or outraged. It turned out to be a great choice. Elected officials have often turned to family members for advice and support. We expect there to be trust between husband and wife. What kind of marriage is it if there isn’t?

Politicians’ wives are sent out as ambassadors. (For some reason, the husbands of many elected women stay in the background.) We expect that.

But “family time” advice and support or public ceremonial duties, on the one hand, and having a place at the policy table, on the other, are not the same. I remember when Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge of health care reform. Both were viciously attacked – even though Hillary had significant legal and policy experience.

Some argue that “we elected X, not X’s spouse.” That’s true, but the elected official still has a support team of appointees. Some require approval or confirmation. Others he or she just hires. A chief of staff does not need legislative consent.

The truth is spouses of elected officials do shape policy, unofficially and indirectly – that is, if the spouses are on speaking terms. The small talk and pillow talk and breakfast-dinner talk – and the “I know that expression” looks that don’t require talk – all help make policy, because policy is more than just a game plan devised in a sequestered room.

Policy is about proposed solutions and pathways, but it’s also about persuading people to buy into them. A spouse is the first, best audience: a one-person, micro-cosmic sounding board.

That said, an elected official should be careful how much and in what way his or her spouse is involved in policy making. There are, after all, many pitfalls – not least of which might be an in-family blame game. Public uncertainty about who’s got the power is another.

For the elected official, it’s a balancing act. My policy advice? Proceed, but with caution.