OPINION: RFK Jr.’s brainworm reignites this eternal debate

Editor’s note: CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author and editor of his 25 books, including the New York Times bestseller Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Lies and Legends About Our Past (Basic Books). Follow him on Twitter @julianzelizer. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.view more opinions On CNN.

CNN
—

This week’s news that third-party presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. has contracted a brain parasite sent everyone from shock to disbelief in what has been one of the most unusual presidential elections in recent history. It provoked a wide range of reactions. But more important than the details of the parasite were the conversations it caused about the president and his health. Kennedy, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump should all disclose their health records.

Some of Mr. Kennedy’s health problems were revealed in a 2012 deposition during his divorce proceedings with his second wife, and although his campaign refused to release his health records, the presidential candidate told The New York Times Details were revealed in the paper and in the podcast “Pushing the Limits.” This week it’s Brian Shapiro. President Kennedy said he had recovered from brain fog and memory loss brought on by the parasite, as well as a bout of mercury poisoning that occurred around the same time, and whether his health problems could compromise his health. A spokesperson evaded questions about the matter. Presidency.

The two leading candidates have not released detailed health records during this campaign, but a six-page summary released by the White House in February concluded that Biden is “fit for the job.” It is attached. Trump’s doctor issued a three-paragraph statement in November saying he was in “excellent health.”

Many critics argue that this is not enough. A majority of voters believe that both Biden and Trump are too old for another term, and the doctors who signed these statements are keen to protect Biden’s public image. There is always a concern that he may be more eager to share the full, unvarnished truth about how he is doing. That person is doing it.

The constitution does not require disclosure of candidates’ health records. There are also no other legal requirements for candidates running for the nation’s highest office to share this information. But in the second half of the 20th century, candidates gradually succumbed to pressure to set that precedent and provide more information to voters. This is a positive development, and 2024 presidential candidates should continue it.

Part of the pressure came from the realization that many past presidents had suffered serious illnesses without disclosing them to the public. President Chester A. Arthur never revealed during his campaign for the Republican nomination in 1884 that he had Bright’s disease, a kidney disease. President Woodrow Wilson famously suffered a debilitating stroke in 1919, which affected the rest of his presidential term. In 1944, after examining Franklin Roosevelt, internist Frank Lahey wrote a disastrous secret memo predicting that the president, who was suffering from severe heart disease, would not be able to complete another term. Belt died of a cerebral hemorrhage after only 11 weeks in office (4th term). In 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower downplayed the severity of heart attacks. And the list goes on.

At times, candidates have had to publicly battle their health issues, causing scandal and controversy. This was the case with Sen. Thomas Eagleton, Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern’s running mate against President Richard Nixon in 1972. It was discovered that Eagleton had been undergoing shock therapy for depression, but without telling McGovern, Eagleton withdrew from the campaign. Race.

By contrast, in 1976 nearly all candidates voluntarily provided summaries of their medical histories to reporters. Independent candidate Eugene McCarthy, who he believed should not be made public, was an exception. He argued that presidents should be chosen “not on the basis of their personal status, such as a patient, but on the basis of their work history, their thoughts on the issues and their plans to address them.”

So what has changed? Before the Eagleton story, the ratification of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1967 provided a clear path for succession should a president be removed from office or die in office. Concerns about the physical longevity of candidates were at the forefront of the debate surrounding the amendment, passed in the aftermath of President John Kennedy’s tragic assassination.

As scholar Michael Shadson writes, during the 1960s and 1970s, the concepts of disclosure and transparency became powerful norms throughout American society. The sentiment that the public was better informed was in part a reaction to the secrecy that dominated American politics during the early Cold War.

In 1992, Democratic candidate Paul Tsongas, a former senator from Massachusetts, pushed for transparency. He discovered a lump in his groin nearly 10 years ago and was eventually diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But by the time he ran for president in 1992, doctors had confirmed he was cancer-free. Tsongas emphasized his health during his primary campaign, and his campaign released a video of him swimming. In the end, he was unable to defeat Bill Clinton and withdrew from the race, announcing in December of the same year that he had a cancerous tumor in his abdomen. Many voters couldn’t help but wonder what would have happened if he had been elected president.

Health concerns have been a recurring issue among presidential candidates in recent decades. In 2008, questions arose about Republican candidate John McCain’s history of skin cancer, and in 2016 rumors swirled about Hillary Clinton’s health after she stumbled into a van (her doctor said… They had diagnosed her with pneumonia a few days earlier and said this incident was a complication of that illness (dehydration, overheating).

In the end, as Jacob Appel, a physician at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, argues, what matters is not whether a candidate has a health problem, but whether the condition determines whether the candidate is effective or not. The point is to consider whether it will impair governance ability.

The more honest politicians are about medical issues, the less likely others will feel biased about their issues. Almost everyone has some type of health problem, but this shouldn’t be a cause for embarrassment or shame. By being transparent, candidates have the opportunity to model a different kind of thinking.

Finally, in the age of disinformation, more accurate information is a good thing. Rumors and false information often fly on the Internet, so it is better to reveal the truth with a restrained and frank presentation.

Health issues are a universal phenomenon in times of polarization and division. Rich or poor, powerful or marginalized, white or black, we all struggle with our physical and mental health. Anyone who chooses to run for the highest office in this country should be open and honest about their medical history. Doing so will only strengthen the health of our democracy.