The sick presidents

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Most people on top state positions don't seem to have a habit of relinquishing their post voluntarily, much less due to health reasons. There's no lack of such examples in US history either. A classical example is Woodrow Wilson. In 1919 he suffered a massive stroke, after which he in principle should have remained in hospital. But his doc and his closest aides managed to conceal the fact that Wilson was rendered incapable of following his duties. And for more than a year, his wife Edith was the de facto head of state of the US.

Further, FDR was permanently sick from 1940 onwards. But the conspiracy of silence and the orders he gave the US censorship service, allowed him to win re-election in 1944. Later in Yalta, where Stalin and Churchill were bargaining about the post-war world order, the US president was already heavily marked by his impending death:

JFK was sick from a young age, and he took lots of meds: amphetamines, anabolic steroids, opiates, etc. That partly contributed to his extraordinarily energetic outlook and at times almost euphoric behavior, which was so appealing to the voters. Yet, most of the truth about his true health was learned only after his death.

Reagan suffered severe dementia before his term had expired. A TV appearance where he completely lost track of his train of thought, has become a remarkable episode that's still remembered today. Only the intervention of his wife Nancy saved him from complete embarrassment.

But not a single one of all these powerful men stepped down from power. Now we see Pope Benedict XVI announcing his voluntary retirement due to health reasons, and the first reactions were those of admiration for a wise decision. However, soon speculations started the true reasons for his decision, and those might have nothing to do with health.

But anyway. The proneness of humans to conceal the truth about their health might be traced as far back as prehistoric times, and some may like to explain them with our animal nature. The leader of the pack was compelled to hide any signs of weakness, lest they'd be exposed to the danger of becoming prey to their rivals for leadership.

The historians could argue until kingdom come about how right or wrong the political decisions of Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan might have been while under the pressure of pain and disease. If Wilson were healthy, would he have prevented America from turning its back to Europe? Would Roosevelt have relinquished half of Europe to Stalin? What if...? The "if"-s could be endless. But the fact is, those are questions we'll never be able to answer unambiguously. Perhaps it would be easier to ask another question: how could all of that have been prevented, or at least how to mitigate the risk of a leader's deteriorating health damaging the country?

Good thing, then, that the pragmatic Americans have formulated the answer in two separate Amendments to the US Constitution: the 22nd Amendment says that a president could only serve for two terms, and the 25th Amendment determines how a president could be temporarily (or permanently) removed from office in case they are no longer able to follow their duties. The post is more important than the person occupying it - that may not sound very nice, but nevertheless it's wise. Meanwhile, there are hardly any people who are ready to completely surrender their personal life to the needs of the post that they occupy. Because the leader of the pack seldom surrenders without a fight. That makes those rare occasions of leaders voluntarily stepping down all the more praiseworthy.

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Sounds so familiar. Our Orthodox Patriarch died last month, aged almost 100. He spent the last decade or so being a shadow of what he had previously been, barely able to do his duties. Various other bishops were serving in his stead. Instead of stepping down with dignity, the last years of his rule as head of the Church he spent being subject of mockery, questions how much longer people would have to endure him, etc.

Now a new election among the clergy picked up a new Patriarch, one who's almost 70 years old. He seems like a nice guy. But so what, if he repeats the same thing again?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is a good post that raises a lot of good points. The only thing with Ratzinger is he was already a jerk before he became Pope with a loud and vocal hatedom, so he would always take flack no matter what he did, whether it was a good or bad thing.Doing something that hasn't happened in over half a millennium was just fuel to that particular fire.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Is the health of Obama in question?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Maybe. Do they have health down there in Kenya?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

the Rhinos say "NO!"

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I say arm the rhinos (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/9525512/Rhinos-under-24-hour-armed-guard.html)!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

There are some who question his emotional integrity for selecting a predominantly white-male cabinet.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Really? Who?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Members of the PC posse, of course.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Got citations?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Nope.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Of course.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I thought it had more to do with surrounding himself with Chicago political machinists and a questionable pick for sec-def.

The fact that his "Science Czar" once suggested adding steralants to the public water supply as a way to curb overpopulation is neither here nor there.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Some people fixate on Chicago machine cronyism and others fixate on white-male cronyism.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Oh, that Glenn Beck and Alex Jones crap again.

That got a "pants on fire rating" by Politifact. Here ya go. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

He co-wrote "Population Bomb" with Erhlich did he not? Have you read it?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Everything you're asking about is in the link I provided.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So the authors' characterization of the West's current political and moral opposition to such measure as unfortunate doesn't constitute an endorsment of such measures in your, or the NYT's book?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The link clearly answers your questions.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I am not too clear on what exactly is the homosexual blackmail being suggested. It sounds like it might be something along the lines of: "If the Vatican does not support marriage equality, more sex assault revelations will be made."

Given the intensity of the problems that the Vatican faces, they need someone with more agility in the hot seat. Abdication is the logical thing to do.

My favorite political cartoon from the Reagan era concerned that administration's attempts to qualify ketchup as a vegetable for school lunches: