Health, Lies, and Presidents
Published in Le Devoir
(Canada) on 17 September 2016
by Élisabeth Vallet (link to original)
(Canada) on 17 September 2016
by Élisabeth Vallet (link to original)
Translated from
by Beth Holding.
Edited by Melanie Rehfuss.
Just one video was enough on Sept. 11 to allow Republican opinion-makers to hammer home the one thing they’ve been continually proclaiming since the beginning of the election year: Hillary Clinton is incapable of taking office, as much due to her poor health as to her lies. One bird, two stones. Theoretically, these two arguments shouldn’t count for much when the only opposing candidate is someone like Trump. And yet, the gap between both candidates continues to narrow.
Health
First, let’s tackle the health issue. Is it public knowledge?
Since her fainting episode, not only do we know more about Clinton’s state of health, but Trump’s as well – with one small difference. Clinton was ordered to undergo a complete public health check, having been accused of concealing vital information. Trump – whose own medical report resembled a shining example of health written in five minutes by a doctor who hadn’t even examined him – chose “The Dr. Oz Show” to disclose a (moderately) more substantial report, transforming his vague revelations into reality TV.
When it comes to health, transparency isn’t commonplace. And yet, the commander in chief of the United States’ Armed Forces has control of nuclear weapons and heads the world’s biggest army (representing 45 percent of military expenses worldwide) in a world where the slightest mishap is enough to instantly horrify global markets. Although the adoption of the 25th Amendment, implemented in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, guarantees the continuity of government, the fact remains that a president in his mid-seventies isn’t without risk. It’s not something to be overlooked.
Lies
When it comes to lies, Clinton (or “Crooked Hillary,” according to Trump) carries the liability of having spent 19 years in the public eye. According to Newt Gingrich’s right-wing “Contract with America,” Clinton’s name is evocative of the “events” of the 1990s – Whitewater, Vince Foster’s death, Monica Lewinski – which galvanized conservatives and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.
“HillaryLand,” Clinton’s group of core advisers whose loyalty has remained unwavering since her days as first lady, has somewhat contributed to her separation from the rest of the world, generating, often rightly so, the feeling that the Clintons have something to hide.
Equally, Trump may talk a lot, but he gives away very little. The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, recognizes that neither candidate is transparent (both Clinton and Trump are swimming in murky waters, maintaining limited contact with the press), but confirms that Trump pursues opacity in matters of both taxes and electoral financing.
And yet, Trump remains unscathed. Although Trump and Clinton belong to the same generation, we are left pondering the fragility and physical health of the latter without ever comparatively questioning the mental well-being of the former. The increase in conspiracy theories surrounding Clinton’s physical condition is therefore founded on considerations other than her age and her health.
A Question of Gender?
Research shows that 227 years of men occupying the White House has contributed to the growing perception of presidential machismo. So much so that according to the Pew Research Center, qualities such as serving in the army and working as a governor or a businessman are key criteria for voters when choosing their president.
Therefore, despite women gaining access to ministerial level posts in the 1930s, only five have since gone on to assume cabinet leadership roles (in defense, justice and social security). Although women are increasingly present in infraministerial positions, they have had to establish bureaucratic strategies at the White House in order to circumvent the dominance of their alter egos, as demonstrated this week in a survey by The Washington Post.
In an electoral context, women who do not fall within the traditional model of leadership are immediately perceived as vulnerable. A study by Tessa Ditonto, published in the journal Political Behavior, reveals that women will always be subject to greater degrees of questioning about their ability to govern. Statistically, the slightest weakness or the slightest error in judgment has a multiplying effect on election day.
Trump and Clinton are two of America’s least popular candidates in the history of presidential elections. Unlike her opponent, Clinton boasts significant federal experience; and yet, she leads with an advantage of only 1.5 points (according to Real Clear Politics). No doubt it’s this gap that explains why, over the course of the past 100 years, only third parties have taken the risk of naming a woman as their presidential candidate.
Health
First, let’s tackle the health issue. Is it public knowledge?
Since her fainting episode, not only do we know more about Clinton’s state of health, but Trump’s as well – with one small difference. Clinton was ordered to undergo a complete public health check, having been accused of concealing vital information. Trump – whose own medical report resembled a shining example of health written in five minutes by a doctor who hadn’t even examined him – chose “The Dr. Oz Show” to disclose a (moderately) more substantial report, transforming his vague revelations into reality TV.
When it comes to health, transparency isn’t commonplace. And yet, the commander in chief of the United States’ Armed Forces has control of nuclear weapons and heads the world’s biggest army (representing 45 percent of military expenses worldwide) in a world where the slightest mishap is enough to instantly horrify global markets. Although the adoption of the 25th Amendment, implemented in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, guarantees the continuity of government, the fact remains that a president in his mid-seventies isn’t without risk. It’s not something to be overlooked.
Lies
When it comes to lies, Clinton (or “Crooked Hillary,” according to Trump) carries the liability of having spent 19 years in the public eye. According to Newt Gingrich’s right-wing “Contract with America,” Clinton’s name is evocative of the “events” of the 1990s – Whitewater, Vince Foster’s death, Monica Lewinski – which galvanized conservatives and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.
“HillaryLand,” Clinton’s group of core advisers whose loyalty has remained unwavering since her days as first lady, has somewhat contributed to her separation from the rest of the world, generating, often rightly so, the feeling that the Clintons have something to hide.
Equally, Trump may talk a lot, but he gives away very little. The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, recognizes that neither candidate is transparent (both Clinton and Trump are swimming in murky waters, maintaining limited contact with the press), but confirms that Trump pursues opacity in matters of both taxes and electoral financing.
And yet, Trump remains unscathed. Although Trump and Clinton belong to the same generation, we are left pondering the fragility and physical health of the latter without ever comparatively questioning the mental well-being of the former. The increase in conspiracy theories surrounding Clinton’s physical condition is therefore founded on considerations other than her age and her health.
A Question of Gender?
Research shows that 227 years of men occupying the White House has contributed to the growing perception of presidential machismo. So much so that according to the Pew Research Center, qualities such as serving in the army and working as a governor or a businessman are key criteria for voters when choosing their president.
Therefore, despite women gaining access to ministerial level posts in the 1930s, only five have since gone on to assume cabinet leadership roles (in defense, justice and social security). Although women are increasingly present in infraministerial positions, they have had to establish bureaucratic strategies at the White House in order to circumvent the dominance of their alter egos, as demonstrated this week in a survey by The Washington Post.
In an electoral context, women who do not fall within the traditional model of leadership are immediately perceived as vulnerable. A study by Tessa Ditonto, published in the journal Political Behavior, reveals that women will always be subject to greater degrees of questioning about their ability to govern. Statistically, the slightest weakness or the slightest error in judgment has a multiplying effect on election day.
Trump and Clinton are two of America’s least popular candidates in the history of presidential elections. Unlike her opponent, Clinton boasts significant federal experience; and yet, she leads with an advantage of only 1.5 points (according to Real Clear Politics). No doubt it’s this gap that explains why, over the course of the past 100 years, only third parties have taken the risk of naming a woman as their presidential candidate.
Previous article![]( "Hillary Clinton’s Health Becomes a Campaign Issue")
Next article![]( "Put Up a 50-Foot Wall, Get a 51-Foot Ladder")
