Politicians' Privacy and the Right of the Public to Know

Woodrow Wilson in his first posed photograph following his series of strokes.
His wife Edith steadies the document for him, allowing Wilson to sign it. (Wikimedia)

In my podcast this week a listener mentioned that when someone runs for office, he or she loses all semblance of a private life. Their personal business is broadcast for all to see and nothing is kept sacred. One example I used during the episode was FDR's polio and the fact that it was kept a secret to the American public despite the media's knowledge of it.

Andrew from California wrote to me after the podcast to say that he agreed that someone in a wheelchair would probably not be elected these days because of the large role that image plays in politics, but he also pointed to two historical examples in which a president's ailments was kept from the American public to the public's detriment.

The first actually involved FDR. While he was running for a fourth term, he was in very poor health from decades of stress from his polio. Tests at Bethesda in March of 1944 showed him suffering from numerous ailments, including coronary artery disease and congestive heart disease.

So should the electorate been notified of this health report? Some reports out of Yalta portrayed Roosevelt as a sick and weak man who Stalin was able to manipulate to get more favorable terms as World War II was coming to a close. This is called the "sick man at Yalta" theory. If true, it certainly makes an argument for disclosing presidents' health to the public.

As Andrew also points out in his email, four presidents before FDR the American public were kept in the dark about the failing health of our nation's leader. Coincidentally, Woodrow Wilson's health issues began during major peace talks during World War I. During the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Wilson may have suffered from the Spanish Influenza, which in turn may have contributed to Wilson ceding some points of contention to French PM Clemenceau, who wanted to weaken the German state as much as possible as opposed to Wilson's more conciliatory approach and his Fourteen Points.

Wilson returned to the States to face further battles with the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, mainly from the Republican-controlled Senate and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. During these political battles, Wilson suffered a series of strokes that left him incapacitated, leaving his wife to essentially run the country in his stead. The treaty was rejected by Congress.

Now a conspiritorial-minded individual could try to connect dots here and say that Wilson's illness and subsequent inability to ratify the Treaty of Versailles in the US led to a harshly punished, and thus resentful, Germany contributing to the rise of Hitler and the National Socialist party and WWII. You could then further say that FDR's ailments led to an emboldened and stronger Soviet Union, whose post-war maneuverings led to the Cold War.

Obviously it would be ridiculous to say that the collective health of Wilson and Roosevelt led to both WWII and the Cold War. But to chalk up their health as non-factors in an historical context would be just as ridiculous.

Which brings us back to Andrew's point: does the public have a right to know? In my podcast I didn't take a stance, saying only that politicians open themselves up to this kind of scrutiny when they run for office and this could be a deterrent for some qualified candidates.

In my humble opinion, there's a line in what the public should know about politicians running for office. I don't want to elect a president whose heart is failing or who has suffered multiple strokes or has a terminal disease with a negative prognosis, because I have to assume as a voter that their ability to lead will be hamstrung by their disease and its treatments, not to mention the heightened risk of death in such an individual. Additionally, as a constituent, I feel this information is worthy of sharing when it comes to a powerful elected leader. I do not need to know, however, if a president's cholesterol is only slightly high or their prostate is a bit swollen and they have trouble urinating. Like I said, there's a line.

But I think that's the problem in today's media. While something like a past stroke ought to be reported on and would be, something like a gland problem that would make the president sweat more than the average individual should not be reported, but still would be. But with the 24 hour news cycle, there is no line that isn't crossed in order to bring in viewers, no matter how capricious the story. So while it would be nice to have responsible reporting on a candidate's health, it simply is not possible thanks to the media's overindulgence in every possible aspect of a candidate's life—no holds barred—to get viewer share.

Why Anthony Weiner Need Not Resign

On Monday I posted about the Anthony Weiner scandal and got a great comment from Travis Mushett asking me about Weiner through the lens of FDR and what we now know about the 32nd president:

Just curious: how do you feel about FDR? He, too, "violated the trust of one of the people who he is supposed to love the most in this world." He also "straight up lied to his constituents and the nation" about his deteriorating medical condition by going to lengths to hide it. But you're going to run into few people outside of the Randian right who claim he wasn't a top-notch president who led the country through some damn dark times.

Now while I like Weiner, I wouldn't put him in FDR's league. However, I'm also inclined to say his personal failings didn't make him less of a politician. People fuck around. People lie about fucking around. Politicians lie to save their own asses. This isn't news. And I'll take a passionate, intelligent, experienced, eloquent, and significantly flawed Anthony Weiner over an inoffensive milquetoast any day. What he did was sleazy, but if I want moral guidance, I'll go to church. If I want a talented advocate for progressive policies, I'll go to Weiner.

In terms of FDR's health: there is no doubt that his capacity in his fourth term was severely diminished and that he should not have held the position he did during such an important time in history. However, because of his diminished mental capacity and the conspiratorial actions of his physicians, many believe that FDR did not even know of his declining health and that it was his physicians who put up a facade of healthiness, not FDR. While I am not saying what happened with FDR was right in any way, I think the comparison between FDR and Weiner here is a stretch.

In terms of FDR cheating: there is evidence that both parties in the FDR-Eleanor marriage were disloyal and they may have had an unspoken agreement about their union.

But pretending that they did not, then it certainly stains FDR as a person. Were I alive and voting back then, I would certainly think twice about voting for him because of it. However, there is no evidence (as far as I have seen) that when confronted by a media body that FDR denied his relationship with any number of women.

Now many have been calling for Weiner to resign, which I think is a little overkill. I had called for Spitzer's resignation, but that's because he broke the law. Weiner did not break any laws that we know of and really has no reason to resign unless he wants to (which I would suggest, but not say is necessary, based on the fact that he has a lot of personal matters to deal with).

What I am more upset about is the fact that, as Travis said, Weiner is a passionate, intelligent, experienced and eloquent guy who could do a lot for the progressive cause in this country, but he has severely hampered his effectiveness in Washington over bullshit like this. So yes, I would take a Weiner over a Gillibrand - I would much rather have someone who knows what they're doing and knows how to get their message across rather than someone who just follows the pack. However, I would much rather have someone with Weiner's capabilities who has the common sense to not do what Weiner did, or at least the common sense not to get caught, or at the very least someone with the common sense to handle it better than Weiner.

Because, again as Travis says, rampant infidelity pervades national politics. There's a reason that lobbying is an industry with a lot of attractive females. Think about this: Anthony Weiner was cybering and sexting while being an effective progressive three weeks ago. The difference between now and then is that he got caught, and then lied about it. If Weiner had faced the media and said, "Yeah, that's my dick. I'm not perfect and my wife and I have some work to do on our marriage. That's it," then I'd have a lot more respect for him. Instead, he comes up with this ridiculous hacking story, sticks with it way too long, and through the process lent credibility to Andrew Breitbart.

So I could forgive Weiner for thinking with the wrong head (though depending on who ran against him, I don't know if I would vote for him). What I can't forgive him for is the way he handled it. He'll be a less effective legislator because of it and he empowered Breitbart. So while I don't see the need for him to resign, I don't think he'll fully recover politically from this. If you subpoenaed the phone/Facebook/email records of every Congressman, I'd be willing to bet a good amount of them would find themselves in Weiner's position. So again, it's not that he was doing it (though it would certainly be nice if he didn't), it's how he handled it after being exposed.

Photo - Anthony Weiner (Politico)