President Joe Biden was widely criticized for his lackluster performance in his first head-to-head debate with former President Donald Trump last month, slipping up, pausing mid-sentence and appearing to stare into space. In response, The Economist magazine ran an article featuring an image of the presidential seal attached to a walker, arguing that the president should drop out of the race.
Some reporting about the 2024 US elections has “sounded alarm bells among disability advocates.”
While the magazine says “Biden deserves to be remembered for his achievements and dignity, not his decline,” at least one prominent disability rights group is concerned that the magazine’s illustration suggests that being elderly or disabled means someone is unfit to run a country.
“People with disabilities are not the butt of jokes,” a spokesperson for the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) said in a statement about the magazine cover.
Given recent reports that Biden is seriously considering withdrawing from the 2024 election following his weak debate performances and subsequent lackluster poll numbers, the ongoing debate over ageism and ableism may literally be shaping the history of the American presidency. Rather than a landmark moment that inspires disabled and older Americans that they can achieve anything, Biden’s presidency appears to be a turning point that reaffirms that bias against these groups is still strong enough to determine the future of the presidency.
“Whatever the editors at The Economist were trying to do here, they have failed spectacularly,” NDRN said. “Disability is no joke. Mobility aids such as walkers, canes and wheelchairs are not prisons that imprison us or barriers that limit us. They are symbols of strength, not weakness.”
The Economist did not respond to Salon’s request for comment. Later, and after the interview for this article was conducted, New York magazine published a “Health Issue” cover featuring Biden and Trump in their underwear, standing on a scale, as if waiting to see a doctor. In a post on X, the magazine said the cover was planned before Biden revealed he had COVID this week.
To support its claim about disability discrimination, the NDRN compiled a list of politicians from both parties who have held high office in recent years despite having disabilities, including Republicans such as former President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was dyslexic) and current Texas Governor Greg Abbott (who uses a wheelchair), and Democrats such as former President Franklin D. Roosevelt (who also uses a wheelchair), former President John F. Kennedy (who lived with chronic pain), and current Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (who has diabetes).
These strong men and women are not alone. Millions of Americans are elderly, disabled, or both. Perhaps this is why some disability rights advocates give pause when the collective conversation about aging and disability uncritically labels those who slip up, stop mid-sentence, or stare blankly into space as “incompetent.”
Given that Biden is 81 years old and was born with a stutter, it’s possible that at least some of the criticism is rooted in societal biases about disability and age. Maria Towne, president and CEO of the Americans with Disabilities, told Salon that The Economist’s cover and the backlash against Biden fuel those biases without regard for historical accuracy.
“Abraham Lincoln had depression,” Towne says. “James Madison had epilepsy. Franklin Roosevelt was paralyzed. John F. Kennedy had Addison’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and chronic pain. George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, and Thomas Jefferson all famously had learning disabilities. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were hearing impaired. And Joe Biden stutters, a disability that affects his speech. I hope all of these examples will help change our country’s thinking that a disability alone disqualifies or should disqualify someone from being president.”
Town defined ableism as “discriminatory behavior against people with disabilities based on the value society assigns to their bodies and minds, based on perceptions about their health, ability, intelligence, etc. These perceptions are often erroneous and harmful to people with disabilities. Abilism is also harmful to people without disabilities.”
Economists aren’t the only ones worried about activists. Progressive outlets like The Mary Sue and politicians like Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus) expressed concern about the discussion of Biden that spread across the media after the debate. Ashley Greers, a chapter associate at The Arc, a nonprofit that supports people with disabilities, said the coverage in general “raises alarm bells among disability advocates, potentially unintentionally perpetuating harmful stereotypes about people with disabilities in politics. People should be aware of how they are reinforcing myths and stereotypes that impede meaningful inclusion for the 61 million Americans living with disabilities.”
The key to avoiding bias, Greers says, is to focus on a candidate’s policies and not assume characteristics related to age or disability are automatically disqualifying.
“Criticizing President Biden’s statements or actions could be considered ableism if they target issues of cognitive ability rather than policies,” Griers said. “Because ableism involves discriminating against people on the basis of disability, focusing on his intellectual ability could reinforce negative stereotypes about people with disabilities.”
But despite these concerns about the debate over Biden’s age and disability, Louise Aronson, a professor in the geriatrics department at the University of California, San Francisco, said the current debate about Biden remains “partly meritorious.”
“We need to have more discussion about aging and disability, regardless of age,” Aronson said, adding that the current discussion “is mostly harmful because it conflates old age with disability, and disability with incompetence.” Going forward, Aronson argued, the media should understand that “oldering increases the risk of disability, but some older people are quite capable, and most older people are, but capabilities change with age.”
Want more health and science news delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter, Lab Notes.
The current dialogue is “largely harmful because it conflates age with disability, disability with incapacity.”
Even the term “disabled” itself can be problematic, according to Dr. S. Jay Olshansky, a sociologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Olshansky, who specializes in demography and gerontology, warned that while many people view the term “disabled” as neutral, it still carries the risk of being unintentionally derogatory or stigmatizing.
Olshansky said Biden may not be impaired at all and may simply be experiencing normal, harmless signs of aging.
“This is not conclusive evidence of impaired judgment,” Olshansky said. “This is not conclusive evidence of dementia. The public cannot draw a definitive and accurate conclusion just by watching a videotape of an interview. They would have to have a doctor actually examine the patient and review the medical records. So neither I nor the public can make this determination.”
More broadly, experts worry that when members of the public see someone exhibiting frailty or a disability, they will reflexively accuse that person of being mentally incapacitated, perpetuating stereotypes that harm all disabled and older people.
“It would be unfair to disqualify someone from being president solely because of traits like stumbling over words or not being able to concentrate,” Greers said. “A person’s ability to be president should be judged on their overall record of performance – their policies, their experience and their decision-making – not on any individual trait.”
Discrimination against disabled and elderly people is often invisible but “extremely harmful,” Griers added. “Even if unintentional, the public can reinforce the false idea that there is only one ‘right’ way for the body and mind to function. I hope people will be mindful of the criticism they may make of disabled and elderly people as unfit simply because they have a disability.”
That doesn’t mean you can’t ask the right questions about a candidate’s mental and physical health. What’s important is figuring out whether a politician’s disability is like that of Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet premier who was literally incapacitated after suffering repeated strokes starting in 1922, or like that of John Fetterman, the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania who retained his mental capacity after suffering a stroke in 2022.
Olshansky argues that the way to eliminate bias and alleviate legitimate public concerns about competency is for candidates to be transparent about their medical history. Without that history, the public “will be hesitant to reach definitive conclusions. I would much prefer that those conclusions be made by experts who can make a direct evaluation.”
In fact, Aronson said, it is neither ethical nor legal to diagnose someone without examining them as a patient and performing the appropriate tests.
“I’m not qualified to judge someone’s ability to be president, which is why we have a democratic process,” Aronson said. Regarding Biden’s behavior during the debate, she said, “As a private citizen and as a physician trained in geriatrics, I am concerned by his behavior because the presidency is a high-stakes position, and this degree of variation in functioning poses risk in a position that frequently requires optimal communication and negotiation.”
At least one disability rights activist, Phyllis Vine, the historian and journalist who wrote the book Fighting for Recovery: A History of Activist Mental Health Reform, feels Biden’s character during the debate shouldn’t be criticized. Rather, Vine told Salon, Biden’s “track record, leadership and vision for the future are what we should judge him on.”
“What he presented was someone who was under attack as if he were on a battlefield,” Vine said, “and his performance would have been different if he had been speaking to a reasonable or competent person who was genuinely committed to learning, listening and governing for the American people.”
Regardless of what Biden decides about his political future, activists seem to agree that America has taken a step back in its overall understanding that age and disability are not inherently disqualifying.
“It’s long past time for a new national conversation about what we actually mean when we determine whether someone is ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ for office,” Towne said. “There are plenty of people with no motor or speech problems who would be terrible to be president of the United States. I’m not here to say whether Joe Biden is currently the right person for the presidency, but I can say with certainty that there are less ableist, more accurate and more meaningful ways to have this discussion.”
read more
About Mental Health