During the 2016 campaign season, questions have been asked about the health status of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The nominees for the Republican and the Democratic Party have responded in a variety of ways. The news and social media kerfuffle raises an interesting point. How healthy does the President of the United States need to be and what sorts of health problems should be disqualifying?
An American president works long hours, travels extensively, and carries the burden of being the chief executive of a nation of over 300 million people. The president is in a media spotlight nearly every hour of every day for his or her entire term. The person elected in 2016 faces physical, emotional and spiritual demands on a daily basis that few experience.
Deep in the health issues of the 2016 campaign are two, sometimes opposing voter mindsets: the expectations for a president’s health and the perceptions of their health.
A History of Presidential Health
Tom Eagleton was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1972. His candidacy lasted a mere 18 days. Then it was revealed that in the 1960s, the Senator had been a patient in a mental hospital on three occasions and had received electroshock therapy. The media and Democratic party stalwarts were in an uproar. The perception was that Eagleton could not be trusted to “have his finger on the button”, to potentially have command of America’s nuclear forces.
Had Eagleton been treated for cancer, he would have continued as the nominee. The perception that mental illness was different killed his run for office.
The Washington Post, on September 12, noted a number of past presidents with significant health issues. It describes the current debate as “the murky health status of Clinton and Trump.”
No one expects that the President should be a world class athlete. But health concerns matter. FDR concealed his poor health for the 1944 election and he died five months later. His cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, on the other hand, running as a third party candidate in 1912, was shot while giving a speech and finished the speech. He boasted that he was “as strong as a bull moose.”
Optics and actual health: A Shifting Barometer
The Post quotes Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor in presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “Candidates’ health matters more in terms of optics today than it used to, but less in terms of actual ability to hold the office”. The health of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton matters most with how it affects the perceptions of the voters.
Of interest, though, is the fact the the President is the only member of the United States military not required to meet fitness standards. KHOU covered a Pentagon report about the fitness of the American military. It seems presidential candidates aren’t the only ones battling a potential health crisis.
In 2001, 1.6 percent of the military was clinically overweight, based upon body mass index (BMI) standards. The latest number is 7.8 percent. Use of BMI to measure fitness is increasingly controversial but it serves as a measure with historical data.
The Pentagon notes that BMI data is from health exams and not annual fitness testing. Spokesmen for a number of military health agencies note that the use of BMI is “a blunt tool” when is comes to measuring fitness. Still, the KHOU report notes “Top military health plan to publish a new policy later this year that could have a sweeping effect on how the military defines and measures health and fitness.”
Just as presidential health comes down to a matter of perception, it seems military health standards may also be shifting to reflect new perceptions on what constitutes a ‘healthy’ weight.
