Age, Infirmity and the Presidency

This isn't the first time questions regarding the competence of a president have been raised, but it hasn't happened very often.  In 1919, Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke.  It was a serious one, and left him partially paralyzed, physically disabled in other respects as well, and it seems impacted his personality if not his intelligence.  His condition was kept secret, or as much so as it could be.  All communication with him passed through his wife and his doctor.  He died five years later at age 67.

I'm older now than he was when he died, so I'd rather not attribute his incapacity to his age.  In fact, it seems it was not, and may be more accurately thought of as the result of his general health, the pressure of the presidency and war, the failure of his hopes at Versailles and on his return to Washington, the disapproval of the treaty and the League of Nations.

The current president is older than Wilson was and older than I am.  I'm inclined to think he has suffered impairment due to age, though the extent of the impairment is unknown to me.  Unfortunately, it seems his impairment was kept hidden as well.  I didn't see the notorious debate, but from what I'm told his performance was shocking.  It's shocking as well that he was permitted to participate if those who know him well were aware of the problem.  If there is in fact such a problem, it would be irresponsible to ignore it.

It must be obvious that a president should be competent, if not proficient.  Neither of the present candidates appear to be, however.  Chances are better that the incumbent would be surrounded with competent people; competent people who served the former president during his administration fled from it after a time, and it isn't likely any will flock to a new one if he's elected.  He prefers willing, unquestioning followers in any case. 

The difficulty we face, though, is that while it is irresponsible to ignore significant cognitive decline, it may be even more irresponsible to improve the chances of someone who is irresponsibility incarnate; someone without scruples or principles.  If, then, a replacement is appropriate, that replacement should be one capable of winning the election.  The Democratic Party isn't teeming with stars.  Nor is the Republican Party, of course, but it doesn't want stars, having opted to submit to one person only.

Even so, under the circumstances I think that someone younger and aggressive would be preferable.  It pains me to say it, but old white men have had their day.  Age effects people differently, of course, but the presidency is taxing and our physical and mental fitness when it comes to the abilities required to lead a country by conduct rather than by the example of wisdom and virtue decline.

In our times, however, we must wonder whether the media, professional and social, has created this crisis of leadership.  The significance of the debate was hyped incessantly, nearly every moment leading up to the event.  Having treated it with such importance, the media has no choice but to tout its result, and make that of the greatest importance as well.  A good argument can be made that we are where we are due to the machinations of the media.