Biden’s cancer is at stage four. Those of us who have lost loved ones to cancer know stage four designation means the medical care offered will focus on pain mitigation and preserving quality of life for as long as possible.
The former president’s revelation has prompted fresh discussion about whether he was up to the demands of the job before he left office. Most of that conversation has focused on Biden’s cognitive abilities, but this latest news has given life to questions about whether he had the stamina to meet his responsibilities.
Biden’s critics in political and media circles have demanded a thorough investigation.
That would be wise, if for no other reason than the results of such an investigation might encourage Americans to look at the presidency with clearer vision.
Biden is the second-oldest person in U.S. history to take the presidential oath of office. The oldest is the current occupant of the White House, President Donald Trump.
There was plenty of evidence that both men had seen their best years go by before they moved into the Oval Office.
There is much fresh reporting on Biden’s lapses—his tendency to drift off during meetings, his inability to remember the names of even longtime aides and his incoherence—that suggests he spent much of his presidency fighting a losing battle with the forces of time and aging.
And anyone who has listened to one of Trump’s linguistic rambles—when he starts with word salad and descends rapidly to gibberish—knows the current president’s bulb doesn’t burn as bright as it once did.
What obligation did and do these two presidents—and their staffs—owe the public?
Here’s where the question grows more complicated than one might think.
Though Joe Biden might not have been the man he once was when he became president, by historical standards his presidency was remarkably, surprisingly, successful.
He and his staff built a legislative record that dwarfs those of other, more charismatic presidents such as Trump, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. The Biden team wrangled much of the free world into opposing Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, turning what Russian strongman Vladimir Putin thought would be a stroll in the garden into a three-year-long slog that has depleted his nation of both troops and treasure.
Biden and company also guided America successfully out of the COVID pandemic and managed the U.S. economy more skillfully than just about any other nation on earth.
Inflation, it is true, bedeviled his presidency, but even there he recorded some measure of success. Inflation was lower in the United States than it was in almost every other industrialized country on the planet.
None of this was easy.
Trump, for example, reclaimed the presidency by promising he would lower inflation immediately and bring the Russia-Ukraine War to an end with a snap of his fingers.
The price of eggs, though, has resisted Trump’s efforts to wish them back to their pre-pandemic costs—and the war in Ukraine continues despite his fulminations to the contrary.
All of this raises a question: If Biden built this record of accomplishment while he was so enfeebled, is our understanding of what being president is grounded in reality?
The fact is that the presidents of the modern age who have enjoyed the most success—Ronald Reagan comes to mind—were delegators who empowered allies and subordinates to pursue the administration’s broad policy goals.
The micromanagers such as Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover, on the other hand, found that the weight of the office crushed them.
The lesson here might be that, in addition to more closely tracking the health and acuity of a president, we also would do well to take note of the people the commander-in-chief chooses to bring along with him or her.
It’s tempting, even reassuring, to think of the presidency as an expression of individual will and any achievements emanating from the White House as singular ones, but the truth is more complex.
Successful presidencies are team efforts, their triumphs the product of a corps of dedicated human beings, not one lone man or woman. The good president attracts and assembles talented people, then gives them room to work.
The downside to this is that such teams tend to circle the wagons when the leader is imperiled.
The upside, though, is that such teams get things done.
