Perceptions of Presidents With Disabilities

Perceptions of Presidents With Disabilities

Bibliographical Essay

The perception of American presidents as healthy and able-bodied men has always been one that served to convey confidence and support of them by voters during their campaign bids for the office. For voters, this highest office of authority and operations has required a man who is on top of his game, physically and mentally fit, in order to bear the heavy burdens of the office and weighty-decisions that he must make on behalf of the American people. To this end, there exists an industry, an army, of image makers, men and women trained in the skillful art of public image making, and who work hard to ensure that the image in the public mind and eye of presidential candidates and presidents is one that is akin to the social norms, values, and morals of the American people. They ensure that the American people are able to in some way, preferably many ways, relate to the candidate or president on a personal level as a guarantee of the peoples' support, and continued support after election for the policies and goals of the president.

The question this study will attempt to answer is: If the American knew about the disabilities of past presidential candidates, would those disabilities have impacted the thinking and choice of the American voters in ways that would have changed the outcome of past presidential elections?

This study relies upon the existing body of research and scholarship in the areas of psychology, mass media, public relations, and history. For purposes of this study, and given the current social environment where infidelity is being treated as sexual addiction and perceived as a disability, this study will include the cases of former President Bill Clinton, and former presidential candidate John Edwards. In the more traditional sense of the term "disability," the study will include an examination of President John F. Kennedy, who suffered a severe back injury, and throughout the course of his presidency wore a back brace, took powerful pain medications, and was, unbeknownst to the public, sometimes incapacitated by his injury.

The Case of John Edwards

Barbara A. Bades, Mark C. Shelley and Steffen Schmidt (2008) say that the role of the professional political consultant is to build the candidate's image, and this is the most crucial element in their work (333). They say that scholars have invested much time and effort in understanding the nature of the American voter, and that understanding has translated itself into how the image of the political candidate is crafted (201). We can see that in this regard political image builders have been successful with more recent candidates like recent presidential hopeful John Edwards, of North Carolina. In the end, however, even the most talented and skillful public image consultant cannot save a public figure from his or her self, especially when that public figure conducts his self or herself in a manner that is contrary to the image being created of them.

In the case of John Edwards, a skillfully crafted public image unraveled when the presidential hopeful was unable to resist his physical urges and took a mistress. Edwards, for purposes of this study, must be considered to have suffered from a psychological disorder, because whether or not that disorder should be classified as megalomania, sexual addiction, or some other psychological disorder, he was psychologically impaired believing that he could be in the spotlight as a presidential contender who had been "packaged" to represent moral majority values and traditions, and yet carry on an extramarital affair. As news of the affair began filtering into the news media, Edwards admitted to the affair, and that he had lied "as presidential candidate (ABC News 2008, online)." Attempting to remain within the framework of the image that had been built around him, Edwards said:

"Two years ago I made a very serious mistake, a mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006, I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time (ABC News, online."

Then, in a bizarre set of twists and turns, it was later revealed that the affair had produced a child, which Edwards initially denied fathering, stating instead that the child produced by his mistress was not his, but was actually fathered by his campaign aide, Andrew Young (AARP Bulletin Today, 2010, online). It was two years before Edwards finally admitted that he not only had an affair, but that he was also the father of the child. He had convinced his former aide, Young, to accept responsibility for the child in an effort to save his political career -- which now is perhaps unredeemable as a result of not just Edwards' affair, but because of the pattern of pathological lying that has destroyed his credibility as a public figure. Edwards is also being investigated for campaign finance abuses since it has been alleged that he used campaign donations in an effort to cover the affair (AARP Bulletin Today).

So, we can see that Bade's, Shelley's, and Schmidt's position that image making is the most crucial aspect of the public consultant's work might be accurate, but that no amount of effort in that regard can sustain a political figure or public figure who has perhaps become so large and powerful in his or her own mind as to behave, or to conduct his or her self in a manner inconsistent with who they really are as a person. Fortunately, in the case of John Edwards, he did not win his party's nomination for the presidency. We can see, too, that the outcome of Edwards' story is that had the public been aware of Edwards' problems, his inability to live to up to the image that had been created around him because of his inability to resist his own physical desires, perhaps a sexual addiction; that he would not have gained the support or received the political contributions made to him by public supporters who believed he represented their traditions and values. If Edwards had early on in his bid for the presidency proclaimed himself to be seriously unhappy in his marriage, interested in a relationship, instead, with a campaign worker, and that he was a man willing to misdirect campaign donations made to him in order to hide his infidelities, then he would no doubt not have been taken very seriously and his political ambitions would have come to a conclusion much sooner than they did.

Today's intense media, the role of political candidates as celebrities, and technology that exists in every hand-held cell phone, camera, camcorder or other device to record and instantaneously send images and information makes it virtually impossible today for political figures, especially presidents, to hide their physical or mental impairments or disabilities from the public view. This has not always been the case, however, and as we go back in time, before the sensationalism of today's media journalists, and before the technology, we find that not only were journalists more forgiving of physical impairments suffered by former presidents, but that they actually worked with those presidents to lessen the harm that capturing such images might cause the president.

The Case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Robert E. Gilbert (1998) writes:

"Historians and political scientists often describe the office of the presidency of the United States as a stressful, burdensome, debilitating position. Dorothy James refers to the office as 'literally a killing job whose pressures continue to mount.' Milton Plesur argues that 'no responsible union would ever the President's hours for a 'hard hat.' Richard Pious points out that 'always there is the burden of office which takes its toll on the health and well-being of the incumbent.' And Thomas Cronin begins and ends his 1980 volume on the presidency by quoting John Steinbeck: 'We give the President more work than a man can do, more responsibility than a man can take, more pressure than a man can bear (1).'"

Gilbert is saying that the office of the president is one that is in and of itself debilitating. That a man who enters the office fit and physically able, could, as a result of that office, the pressures brought to bear by the responsibilities of the office, might ostensibly leave that office physically and, or, mentally impaired. Gilbert is suggesting that the office requires the candidate to be in the most physical and mentally fit condition possible in order to bear the pressure and rigors of the office.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered office in 1932, he had still not fully recovered from having contracted polio in 1921(Gilbert, 43). That Roosevelt suffered from polio at all was "a fact concealed from the public for many years lest it might be detrimental to his political career (43)." Yet Roosevelt served in office longer than any president before, or after him, and the public never lost confidence in him.

Prior to being elected president, Roosevelt worked hard to conceal the extent of his disability from the public. He would sometimes be wheel chaired to the door through which he would enter to make a public appearance, but once at the door, his leg braces would be put on him, and he would rely on his son's arm for support and balance (43-48). Later, with his son's support, he was able to use a cane, and the extent of his disability was successfully downplayed by the force of his political platform and the attention he commanded with powerful words and the presentation of himself in a dignified way with strong posture (43-48).

"Deeply concerned that the image of a 'permanently crippled man' seeking to lead a crippled nation out of the Depression would be damaging to his campaign, Roosevelt's aides every effort to portray the Democratic nominee as a man who had conquered polio and who could walk. As he traveled across the country, his leg braces, without which he could not stand, had to be put on and locked into place before each campaign appearance and then taken off again immediately thereafter because of the discomfort they caused him (48)."

Gilbert describes the various illnesses he suffered from birth, and, finally, the poliomyelitis, as taking a heavy toll on the future president's health. However, the photographs that we see of Roosevelt as president show a man who is contemplative, focused and reliable. The illnesses he suffered are not apparent, and cannot be detected as something about which the public should be concerned about. This is extraordinary given the extent of Roosevelt's disability and history of poor health. The physical exertion that Roosevelt had to put forth in order to downplay and to conceal the extent of his disability was tremendous, and Gilbert describes it as requiring great strength and endurance. In the photograph below, Roosevelt is addressing the press from his desk in the Oval Office.

Franklinroosevelt.com 2010

The photograph conceals the disability of legs, and his powerful and strong face conveys the wisdom and the strength of character that the American public would expect of their president. The photograph is that of a man that we could imagine standing tall, strong, and by way of his posture would be a protector of the American people.

Roosevelt obviously understood the need to maintain the confidence of the American. He worked just as hard after being elected president to continue to conceal his disability. Gilbert says:

"His leg braces were painted black so as to be indistinguishable from the black shoes and socks he wore. His wheelchairs were armless so that he could move more rapidly into and out of automobiles or onto other chairs. One of his Secret Service agents described the method he used for moving from wheelchair to car:

[H]e would turn his back to the car and allow an agent to lift him from his wheelchair to a standing posture. He would reach backward and would grab the car door with both hands and then he'd actually surge out of your arms first to the jump seat, then to the rear one. He did this with such speed and grace that literally thousands who saw him at ball games, rallies and inaugurations never suspected his condition (48)."

No photographs of Roosevelt were allowed to be taken of him by the press that depicted him as being handicapped, and Secret Service agents were not "averse to seizing camera of the offending party and exposing the film (49)." Today, of course, Roosevelt would not be so successful in concealing the extent of his disability. Modern technology and the psychological state of the public as regards technology, the right to know, freedom of the press (and public) in making and sending images would be far more detrimental to Roosevelt in attempting to prevent images of him in a disabled state than the disability itself.

More so perhaps it is less the contrast of time and place in history. Roosevelt was president during an era when the country was in great distress because of the Depression and World War II. Gilbert's assertion, however, that Roosevelt did not want the country to feel broken by a broken man because of the Depression or the War is perhaps coming from the author's own emotional perspective. Roosevelt demonstrated a long history of dealing with his disability by hiding it as much as possible from outsiders, those beyond his family and inner circle. Gilbert's assertion would suggest that from a very young age Roosevelt had political goals, and as true as that may have been, the more probable reason this great man worked so hard to conceal his disability is that he needed to do that from his own emotional place in order to rise above it. From the psychological perspective of individual disability, Quoting Gordon, 1993, Robert P. Marinelli (1999) says:

"Anger is the antithesis of inertia and death because it is an electrifying aliveness. It goes through the body like a jet of freezing water, it fills the veins with purpose; it alerts the lazy eye and ear; the torpid lungs grow rich with easy breath (Gordon, p. 3).

It is our ability to express anger which allows us to experience love, joy, and deep caring for life. Anger is the energy which promotes justice and pushes us toward growth. Anger is a fact of life, woven into the fabric of daily living (173)."

It is likely that Roosevelt felt great anger over his health problems, and as such gained a certain physical strength from it that allowed him, at least temporarily, to accomplish the acts of disguising and concealing his disability from public view as much as possible, and beginning early in his life. In the photo shown above, we can see the strength of character in his face, and it was perhaps this ability to show his strength, arising out of his angry determination to be greater than the illness, the disability, that compelled him to successfully overcome it. It was this trait that the American people saw in him, and it was perhaps this trait that the scores of journalists who followed him in his public life admired in him, generating a respect for what he was facing both in office and in his life, and as such few attempted to portray him in ways that would cause him to look weak in the public eye.

The relationship between Roosevelt and the Washington Press Correspondents was one that the journalists believed was special, and personal, says Betty Houchin Winfield (1990).

"Correspondents recounted it was easy to talk to Franklin D. Roosevelt because it was a 'personal relationship.' In fact, Roosevelt's access system may have been part of the secret to his excellent press relations. The journalists were so dependent on the White House for news that FDR's personal relations could influence the news stories, especially with the new journalistic demands for interpretation (53).

On this level of journalist-president relations, the White House press corps were able to first-hand observe what many in the public did not, and yet, unlike today, they did not use the angle of disability to discredit or to humiliate the president. The president's ability to be stronger than his disability, helped him to have control and command over the press corps. They looked at him as not just a national leader, but as a symbol of professional and personal accomplishment, and, as we look at the recount given by Winfield, they saw him as a leader amongst them, directing the stories and news that would be fed to the public by the press corps.

In their book, Image is Everything: Dilemmas in American Leadership, Richard W. Waterman, Gilbert K. St. Clair, and Robert Lee Wright (1999) quote Roosevelt saying this about himself, revealing a new dimension to the president:

"You know, I am a juggler . . . And I never let my right hand know what my left does . . . I may have one policy for Europe and one diametrically opposed for North and South America. I may be entirely inconsistent, and further I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help win the war (quoted in Kimball 1991:7).' This statement, and other evidence of his willingness to deceive, reveal a Machiavellian tendency in the master politician image (39)."

Let's consider this in terms of comparison to the ways in which the more recent candidate John Edwards deceived the public, and how the press responded. Certainly Roosevelt's statement of deception was revealing, but would today's press corps have taken that statement made by Roosevelt and created around it an image of Roosevelt as a dishonest man, not trustworthy of leadership of the American people? Probably not, because Roosevelt, unlike Edwards, overcame his physical weakness, used them to create a stronger mental framework for himself from which he did not lose confidence in his self, but gained it, and manifested it as strength of character. Edwards, on the other hand, manifested his physical weakness, in a way that made him seem even weaker as a man. Roosevelt's physical weakness made him appear even stronger a man, with an endurance to persevere the hardships and burdens of his office.

The Case of John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, holding office for little more than a thousand days, from 1961 to 1963, before being killed by an assassin's bullet, suffered a severe back injury prior to becoming president, and wore a back brace, but this was largely unknown by the American people until after Kennedy's death. Gilbert cites Kennedy's personal physician, who treated him before and during his presidency as saying this:

"Dr. Elmer Bartels . . . reports that JFK had been born with an 'unstable back.' Dr. Janet Travell, who began treating Kennedy for his bad back in May, 1955, and became White House physician in 1961, has since revealed that Kennedy 'was born with the left side of his body smaller than the right; the left side of his face was smaller, his left shoulder was lower . . . And left leg was appreciably shorter . . . This was true all his life.

Because of the malformation of his body, Kennedy was subject to back and spinal discomfort that was often intense. His 'disparity in leg length created an abnormal seesaw motion in sacroiliac and lumbarsacral regions with each step and was a potential source of low back pain.' Moreover, muscle spasms were not uncommon and occasionally so severe as to almost completely incapacitate Kennedy. The muscle spasms apparently were caused, in part, by thyroid insufficiency. Dr. Travell explained that Kennedy suffered from hypothyroidism, and that a vast portion of people who have underactive thyroid function 'are extremely subject to persistent and recurring attacks of skeletal muscle spasm -- painful and debilitating (146).'"

Kennedy's pain and condition were exacerbated when while at Harvard he suffered further injury to his back during a football game (146). In 1952, when he ran for the Senate, Kennedy was in such discomfort that he was described by associates as "tense and irritable (146)." He was forced to use crutches at times, which he left in the car when making public appearances (146). Gilbert says that Kennedy would exit the car, walk the distance to the hall where the many supporters and press would receive him (146). He entered these public engagements under his own muster, often times gritting his teeth, then appearing at the speaker's podium with smiles, generating warmth and cheer throughout the room (146).

Even with his history of medical problems and deformity, Kennedy commanded the respect and cooperation of the press. He not only successfully overcame what was then considered to be a political liability because he was Catholic, and the descendant of Irish immigrants, which were still at that time considered by many in the public to be foreign "invaders (Coates 2006)," but, like Roosevelt, he developed a personal and reciprocal relationship with the press who never photographed him on crutches, in a wheelchair, or on a stretcher being carried from ambulances to the White House. Rather, the images of Kennedy are usually of a tanned, smiling, physically fit man exuding the confidence and strength of a national leader. Family images of the young presidential family were often used to endear Kennedy to the American people as a doting father and husband. One of the images of Kennedy in this respect is the one of the President in the Oval Office with his then young toddling son, John Kennedy Jr., playing under the massive oak desk while Kennedy works.

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/John-Jr.-playing-under-John-F-Kennedy-s-Oval-Office-Desk-1963-Posters_i3912374_.htm, 2010.

In this photograph, we see the President relaxed, looking comfortable, reading what would be perceived as vital material on matters of world affairs while his young son is the focus of the photo-op, appeasing the appetites of journalists for personal insight into the life of the man and his young family.

Such images were tangential to success Kennedy gained in the support of the American people, and how they would remember him with an affection that stood up against revelations of Kennedy's infidelities to his wife, and his indecision in the face of national emergency and crisis like the Bay of Pigs (Schlesinger 2005, 249-253). Even in the aftermath of this debacle, Kennedy's image remained virtually untarnished, protected by the images of the man created in the press. For the most part, the American people were never aware of the lack of confidence that Kennedy had in his intelligence sources, or in his advisors that were largely of a political time and era past. Kennedy would go on to surround himself with new advisors, people, like his brother, Robert, in whom he could have greater confidence in and trust.

As we consider the cases of Roosevelt and Kennedy, and when we ask ourselves the question: Had the public been fully cognizant of the extent of the physical disabilities that both men suffered, would they have still achieved the success of being elected president? Ivana Markova and Robert Farr (1995) say that the well-being and the ways that well-being can be achieved are "highly variable (192)." This infers, of course, that there are opportunities for demonstrating a perception of well-being and achieving it that can be elusive to the public eye. Both Roosevelt and Kennedy presented appearances of mental and physical well being, thusly achieving that state in the mind of the public. The images of these great men were meticulously crafted to do that, and both men exhibited a determination to publicly convey their strength of character over their weakness of body. However, while the public might have overlooked the physical impairment of Roosevelt, Kennedy, as a Catholic and descendant of Irish immigrants, might have been perceived differently by the public were voters aware that he suffered severe physical disabilities to the extent that he was at times incapacitated by those disabilities. The extent to which either man's ability to make decisions on behalf of the country because of medications, pain, or stress of their disabilities may never be fully understood, yet one must presume that to some extent there must have been times, even critical moments, when these two former presidents were not of the mental acumen that people would expect them to be when making decisions on important matters of state and national emergency.

Conclusion

We have examined here the images of two former presidents, and one presidential hopeful, all having suffered severe physical disabilities, or mental defect, but whose public personas were far removed from the public mind. This was in no small part accomplished by the images that were created for us of the men, and how it was necessary for them to be perceived in the public mind in order for two of them to accomplish being elected to the office of the United States presidency. Robert M. Entman (1989) says that this:

"clashes with the belief long dominant in the scholarly community: that news messages have 'minimal consequences.' Many scholars still endorse something close to this view. Other scholars think media influence is significant but confined to shaping the problems the public considers most important -- their agendas. In some respects agenda research challenges the minimal consequences view, but the two approaches share a core postulate. Both assume the audience enjoys substantial autonomy (75)."

As voters, we are not autonomous in our actions of choosing a candidate when the candidate's image is a departure from the man's character, personality, and the impact of his mental or physical disability on his character. William C. Spragens (1988) helps put this into context when he provides further insight into the Kennedy campaign.

"Besides media contacts, Kennedy relied on the advice of a number of academic experts; despite the 'ivory tower' reputation of academics, one finds in these documents no lack of pragmatic interest in the campaign. Academic expertise was melded with practical campaign experience . . . The 1960 Kennedy campaign saw the American public through the eyes of public opinion analysts, but it also received many letters written with suggestions for strategy (438)."

Spragens says that data from the Kennedy campaign shows the success of the strategy employed: the public perception of Kennedy was one of a "young, virile, aggressive leader willing to tackle difficult problems (439)." In discussing the scandals and damage control of the Clinton presidency (Holloway 2003), Kate M. Kenski quotes Lippman (1922) as saying:

"Whether they themselves believe in their public character, or whether they merely permit the chamberlain to stage-manage it, there are at least two distinct selves, the public and regal self, the private and human (Lipmann 1922, p. 5)."

This is certainly true of the political candidate and, if successful, president, but the public character, the created character is not the character that the voter is looking to understand in making their decision to choose which candidate to vote for. They are looking for the private and human side of the candidate, the side that will give them not a false sense of confidence in the candidate's ability to withstand the rigors of the office and to make decisions that affect the millions of lives of the people on a social, economic, and world political level, but are looking to understand the character of the man who emanates from the inside, what he says and projects outside.

Would voters have elected Roosevelt if they had been more aware of his extensive physical disability; or Kennedy? Were these men, like Bill Clinton and John Edwards, merely products of packaged image making intended to deceive the American public to achieve personal ambitions at any cost? Very possibly so, but did we benefit from their leadership, their skills as decision makers, and especially from the sense of national pride, unity during times of crisis and emergency to the extent that that which we would expect of the man holding the office was successfully achieved? Would we have been deprived of the opportunity to be lead by skilled, trustworthy policy-makers and leaders who took us as a nation in a direction that has since these presidencies proven to be the best choice for the direction of the country? It would, at this time, appear so had the public held against these men their physical and mental weaknesses.