In ”The West Wing,” Alan Alda’s character Arnold Vinnick broke his hand, and he couldn’t let people know, or else he would appear weak on the campaign trail. When he was sick, he didn’t stop campaigning, because he didn’t want to appear weak in front of undecided voters.
I remembered seeing that scene and thinking it was one of the stupidest things I had ever seen on my favorite show. People have more intelligence than that, I thought. Everyone gets sick, and people who are moving at the pace of a campaign trail would too.
Then we got to the Hillary Clinton controversy of the week: her health issues and how she concealed them from the public. What it really reveals to me, though, is the need that all of us have to know personal details about every political candidate.
Let’s dispense with the Clinton email controversy. Clinton is being treated for pneumonia and dehydration.
This is an election that could determine future Supreme Court nominees, the deficit crisis and immigration issues, which is why it baffles me that the Washington Post is now saying that Clinton’s health has become a real issue for this election.
Clinton’s release of information about her diagnosis is an important act of transparency for a candidate who has become infamous for withholding information. However, why are we focusing so much on Clinton’s health?
Hillary Clinton is 68 years old. She is not young. However, Donald Trump is 70, Gary Johnson is 63 and Jill Stein is 66. This is not a race of young candidates.
If we are focusing on Clinton’s health, which countless articles do, then we need to do the same for other candidates as well.
Some Republicans, like Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, have made multiple comments on Clinton’s health and questioned why she hasn’t released medical records. However, neither of the candidates for the two major parties have released as vast of a medical history as their predecessors.
If it isn’t expected of all candidates, why should it be expected from one of them? For me, this shows an unstated desire to weaken Clinton in any shape or form. It’s just another subtle way of saying that she can’t possibly do the job because she is so weak.
While I don’t know if it is caused by sexism, I do think that the primary cause is a root in the pro-masculinity culture that exists in the United States.
Moreover, why do we need to know all of the private health details of all of our leaders? Franklin Delano Roosevelt had polio and John F. Kennedy had back problems, and people still elected them. According to the Atlantic, it is likely that Abraham Lincoln had depression.
When we stigmatize illnesses, we truly lose some great minds. While we may not all agree on Clinton, many would agree that Roosevelt, Kennedy and Lincoln were great presidents.
People should be allowed to be sick. Illness is not a sign of inefficiency, and Clinton has proven again and again that she can get the job done.
Until we give the same scrutiny to Donald Trump, I think that we should just go back to the real issues of the campaign.
npatwari@indiana.edu
