logo
It's not just Biden. There's a history of presidential health cover-ups

It's not just Biden. There's a history of presidential health cover-ups

Suddenly, it's 2024 all over again.
Once more we're litigating Joe Biden's catatonic debate performance, his lumbering gait, his moth-eaten memory and his selfish delusion he deserved a second term in the White House while shuffling through his ninth decade on earth.
Biden's abrupt announcement he faces an advanced form of prostate cancer has only served to increase speculation over what the president's inner circle knew, and when they knew it.
'Original Sin,' a book by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, published this week, is chock-full of anecdotes illustrating the lengths to which Biden's family and palace guard worked to shield his mental and physical lapses from voters.
John Robert Greene is not at all surprised.
'It's old news, hiding presidential illness,' said Greene, who's written a shelf full of books on presidents and the presidency. 'I can't think of too many … who've been the picture of health.'
Before we go further, let's state for the record this in no way condones the actions of Biden and his political enablers. To be clear, let's repeat it in capital letters: WHAT BIDEN AND HIS HANDLERS DID WAS WRONG.
But, as Greene states, it was not unprecedented or terribly unusual. History abounds with examples of presidential maladies being minimized, or kept secret.
Grover Cleveland underwent surgery for oral cancer on a yacht in New York Harbor to keep his condition from being widely known. Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke, a fact covered up by his wife and confidants, who exercised extraordinary power in his stead.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both suffered serious, chronic ailments that were kept well away from the public eye.
Those surrounding Ronald Reagan downplayed his injuries after a 1981 assassination attempt, and the Trump administration misled the public about the seriousness of the president's condition after he was diagnosed with COVID-19 a month before the 2020 election.
The capacity to misdirect, in Biden's case, or mislead, as happened under Trump, illustrates one of the magical features of the White House: the ability of a president to conceal himself in plain sight.
'When you're in the presidency, there is nothing that you can't hide for awhile,' Greene, an emeritus history professor at Cazenovia College, said from his home in upstate New York. 'You've got everything at your disposal to live a completely hidden double life, if you want. Everything from the Secret Service to the bubble of the White House.'
Greene likened the Neoclassical mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a giant fish bowl — one that is painted from the inside. It's highly visible, but you can't really see what's happening in the interior.
That deflates the notion there was some grand media conspiracy to prop Biden up. (Sorry, haters.)
Yes, detractors will say it was plain as the dawning day that Biden was demented, diminished and obviously not up to the job of the presidency. Today, Trump's critics say the same sort of thing about him; from their armchairs, they even deliver quite specific diagnoses: He suffers dementia, or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.
That doesn't make it so.
'It's a very politicized process. People see what they want to see,' said Jacob Appel, a professor of psychiatry and medical education at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York City, who's writing a book on presidential health.
'You can watch videotapes of Ronald Reagan in 1987,' Appel said, 'and, depending on your view of him. you can see him as sharp and funny as ever, or being on the cusp of dementia.' (Five years after leaving the White House, Reagan — then 83 — announced he was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease.)
To an uncomfortable degree, those covering the White House — and, by extension, the public they serve — are forced to rely on whatever the White House chooses to reveal.
'I don't have subpoena power,' Tapper told The Times' Stephen Battaglio, saying he would have eagerly published the details contained in his new book had sources been willing to come forth while Biden was still in power. 'We were just lied to over and over again.'
It hasn't always been that way.
In September 1955, during his first term, President Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a heart attack while on a golf vacation in Denver. ''It was sudden,' said Jim Newton, an Eisenhower biographer. 'One minute he's fine and the next minute he was flat on his back, quite literally.'
The details surrounding Eisenhower's immediate treatment remain a mystery, though Newton suggests that may have had more do with protecting his personal physician, who misdiagnosed the heart attack as a bout of indigestion, than a purposeful attempt to mislead the public.
From then on, the White House was forthcoming — offering daily reports on what Eisenhower ate, his blood pressure, the results of various tests — to a point that it embarrassed the president. (Among the information released was an accounting of Ike's bowel movements.)
'They were self-consciously transparent,' Newton said. 'The White House looked to the Wilson example as something not to emulate.'
Less than 14 months later, Eisenhower had sufficiently recovered — and voters had enough faith in his well-being — that he won his second term in a landslide.
But that 70-year-old example is a notable exception.
As long as there are White House staffers, campaign advisers, political strategists and family members, presidents will be surrounded by people with an incentive to downplay, minimize or obfuscate any physical or mental maladies they face while in office.
All we can do is wait — years, decades — for the truth to come out. And, in the meantime, hope for the best.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees
Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees

Bloomberg

time32 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees

President Donald Trump's administration is pushing Serbia and other Balkan nations to take in migrants deported from the US, according to people familiar with the matter. The requests to countries in the region are ongoing and part of a broader strategy to find foreign governments willing to receive migrants sent from the US, including some who originally entered under Biden-era protections, according to the people, who requested anonymity because the talks were private.

See the 19 countries Trump's travel ban affects
See the 19 countries Trump's travel ban affects

Washington Post

timean hour ago

  • Washington Post

See the 19 countries Trump's travel ban affects

The Trump Administration has ordered restrictions starting Monday on entry into the United States for citizens of 19 countries. In a document circulated Wednesday, authorities cited national security concerns and said the president made his decision after reviewing a State Department report. The order is expected to draw legal challenges, but it would ban citizens from 12 countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan, from traveling to the United States, with the remaining countries facing restrictions. There are, however, exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry is deemed to serve U.S. national interests. Shortly after starting his second term, Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and other agencies to come up with a list of countries that should face restrictions, citing national security. Countries included in the ban were deemed to have insufficient security vetting procedures for issuing passports or travel documents and had high rates of citizens who overstayed their visas in the United States, authorities said. Reinstating a travel ban has been a long-standing campaign promise for Trump. During his first term, he initially barred travel from seven Muslim-majority countries — under what became known as 'the Muslim ban.' After legal challenges, updated versions expanded the list to eight countries, including North Korea and Venezuela. President Joe Biden revoked the policy in 2021. Many of the countries listed in the new ban appeared in previous versions during Trump's first term, including Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. However, some, such as Afghanistan, Haiti and Myanmar, are new. Over half of the countries with travel bans are majority-Muslim, and all are majority non-White. Of the seven countries with partial travel restrictions, Turkmenistan and Sierra Leone are Muslim-majority, and all are majority non-White. All but three affected nations are classified by the World Bank as having low- to lower-middle-income economies.

Commentary: How big of a threat is China really?
Commentary: How big of a threat is China really?

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Commentary: How big of a threat is China really?

Last June, during an annual security conference in East Asia, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin underscored that the United States was not seeking conflict with China. Maintaining a consistent dialogue with Beijing, he hinted, was just as vital to effective deterrence as ensuring the U.S. military was fully equipped and prepared. Fast-forward a year later and the message from Washington is far different. Unlike his predecessor, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth name-dropped China in his speech to the same security conference multiple times, as if to shame the Asian superpower for running roughshod over the so-called rules-based international order. China, Hegseth warned, was trying to become a hegemon in Asia, where it could dominate its neighbors, exploit the South China Sea's vast natural resources and coerce other countries into accepting Beijing's demands. In Hegseth's words, 'It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.' An invasion of Taiwan, he added, could be 'imminent.' If this all sounds scary, that's because it is. His comments raise the rhetorical gamesmanship to a level U.S. officials weren't comfortable with in the past. The Biden administration was no slouch on China policy, but it still didn't want to inflame things unnecessarily. The Pentagon, for instance, repeatedly emphasized that while China's military drills around Taiwan were aggressive and designed to wear down the island's will to resist, a conflict in the Taiwan Strait was 'neither imminent nor inevitable.' In other words, there was still an opportunity to defuse any tensions before they exploded into a war that could drag the United States in, kill tens of thousands of people and throw a heavy wrench into the global economy. The Trump administration, however, has deployed noticeably sharper words during its first four months. Although the fundamentals of its wider policy in East Asia mimic the Biden administration's own — reinforcing U.S. alliances; engaging in regular freedom of navigation exercises with Japan and the Philippines; and stressing the utility of preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Strait — Trump's advisers aren't afraid of poking Beijing in the eye. If managing the systemic rivalry with Beijing was a core component of Washington's overall strategy throughout Biden's four years, it increasingly looks like the guardrails that were put in place to prevent miscalculations are now eroding. Even so, does the Trump administration have a point? Is a conflict over Taiwan imminent as Hegseth suggests? And how real is the risk of China becoming Asia's hegemon? First, we should acknowledge that China is a threat in certain respects, particularly to its neighbors who have competing jurisdictional claims. The People's Liberation Army, or PLA, is arguably the strongest military in the region today, a consequence of Chinese President Xi Jinping's long-standing policy of pouring money into its coffers to fund a large-scale modernization campaign. China spent $314 billion on defense in 2024, a 7% increase from the year prior and a whopping 59% increase from a decade ago. The PLA boasts the largest ballistic missile arsenal in Asia and continues to invest in hypersonic missiles, which are difficult for conventional air defenses to intercept. The PLA is also throwing out the old rulebook that used to govern affairs in East Asia. As I mentioned last week, the median line that once served as an unofficial boundary separating Chinese and Taiwanese airspace is now imaginary as the Chinese air force flies closer to the self-ruled island to test Taiwan's defenses and wear down morale. Yet the United States would be wise to refrain from overestimating China's military capability and underestimating the capability of its allies like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia — all of whom have an even greater interest in preventing Chinese hegemony in Asia than Washington does. China is its own worst enemy in this regard: The more it presses its territorial claims, the more incentive its neighbors have to balance Beijing. For the most part, this is exactly what China's neighbors are doing. Japan is the most obvious case study. Traditionally a pacifist country that kept to an artificially low defense budget relative to its wealth, Japan has spent the last three years adding resources to its so-called Self-Defense Forces and buying American weapons off the shelf. Tokyo's latest national security strategy, unveiled in 2022, was a sea-change in how Japan typically talks about its security environment. In that document, China was called out for challenging the international order, partnering with Russia in its war against Ukraine and trying to change the region's status quo by force. Japan's defense budget is set to double by 2027, and with more resources comes a greater capability to preserve the balance of power. The Philippines is another example. While the country can't possibly compete with China in conventional terms, the Philippine government under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has effectively given up on rapprochement with Beijing and thrown in its lot with Washington. China's incessant clashes with Philippine forces in the South China Sea have served as a wake-up call to a country whose previous administration under Rodrigo Duterte (who is now in custody at the Hague for war crimes) drifted into the Chinese camp and took a more suspicious view of U.S. intentions. Today, Manila is not only buttressing its navy and coast guard but also increasingly partnering with countries like Japan and Australia who have a similar threat perception about China. In short, Asia's middle-powers aren't standing still. Chinese coercion is bringing them together. And ultimately, this is more important for stability in this area of the world than whatever the United States chooses to do. ____ Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store