The widespread media condemnation of a Wall Street Journal front-page story about President Biden's aging and decline suggests we may have reached a tipping point in journalism.
The Wall Street Journal article relied almost entirely on the opinions of two highly partisan Republican lawmakers, House Speaker Mike Johnson and former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, to support its claim that Biden's approval rating was slipping. The overwhelmingly negative reaction from other journalists to a story that was essentially a promotion of a right-wing meme may lead to less irresponsible reporting like this as the election year progresses.
To be sure, the issue goes beyond being influenced by the MAGA narrative or failing to adequately investigate the mental and emotional state of felon and former president Donald Trump. (Though, given Trump's countless erratic rants, perhaps it's time to reconsider whether a candidate's mental state is beyond the bounds of journalism.)
If anything, the WSJ gaffe should lead to a larger conversation: how much and how age affects a CEO's performance, which frankly has nothing to do with the factors Biden's critics obsess over (such as verbal gaffes or speed of action).
Political journalists tend to cover politicians' jokes and responses, horse-race politics, and presidential “visuals.” This naturally leads them to think of the president as a media performer, interacting in debates, press conferences, and interviews. Will he slip up? Will he physically stumble? This focus on relatively superficial subjects has come to define political journalism.
Follow this authorJennifer Rubin's opinion
But let's stop for a moment. The way a president walks, the way he speaks, his little lapses in memory have very little to do with the job of the presidency. The occupant of the White House is not a Jeopardy! contestant, a stand-up comedian, a talk show host or guest. The president is the head of the executive branch and the commander in chief.
The president's job is business management, something political reporters (as opposed to business reporters) have little expertise in. We should be asking whether a candidate can grasp the necessary details, make good personnel decisions, reach sound conclusions, assess risks, and weigh the consequences of their actions. Can the president separate his personal interests from those of the nation, its allies, and even the planet? That's what presidents do every day.
And you don't need to be an armchair psychiatrist to assess his fitness to be president. As I've written, Trump's closest colleagues say he is willfully ignorant, unable to grasp basic concepts or absorb written material. When it comes to hiring decisions, by Trump's own admission, he has hired a lot of fools and incompetents. He clings to absurd and bogus theories and appropriates the ideas and rhetoric of America's enemies and historical villains.
Trump is incapable of keeping national secrets secret or understanding that they are not “his.” He lacks the ability to understand the value and spirit of military service. He is too susceptible to flattery and neurotic to distinguish friend from foe. As former National Security Advisor John Bolton put it, “Trump is only interested in retribution for himself. That will be the bulk of his second term.”
Impulse control is a vital part of good decision-making. If you can't restrain yourself from lashing out at an ally, leaking secrets to America's enemies, or making personal attacks and threats against fellow Americans (in defiance of court orders), then you cannot be trusted with the weighty responsibility of the presidency. (There may be something seriously wrong with you, but that's beside the point.)
Moreover, we all know how Trump's decision-making went: He downplayed the coronavirus, causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to die needlessly; he invented a “big lie” about the 2020 election, refused to admit defeat, incited a riot at the U.S. Capitol; and broke the law 34 times in New York state because he didn't want to disclose embarrassing sexual misconduct.
It doesn't take a medical diagnosis to see that Trump lacks all the essential aspects of the presidency: judgment, comprehension, discretion, altruistic decision-making, and gratitude for the sacrifices of the military.
At the most basic level, Biden, three years older, can tell friend from foe, respects the military, understands the value of alliances, generally hires skilled advisors, crafts complex legislative agreements, and shows boundless empathy for the suffering of others. He follows legal procedures (meeting with Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, for example), obeys Supreme Court decisions (and then seeks alternatives, as he did in the student loan case), and conducts successful international diplomacy. He talks policy in depth.
It's fair to conclude that as he's gotten older, Biden has gained vast amounts of experience, developed relationships, and absorbed data that informs his current decisions. Should we be concerned that he walks more awkwardly than he did 10 years ago? (Franklin Roosevelt served as president for 12 years in a wheelchair.)
In short, the standard for the presidency, regardless of the level of agility or eloquence of the person who holds the office, is the ability to perform the only job that matters: making the right decisions on behalf of others, consistent with the law and the nation's values. Based on all the available evidence, no reasonable person would conclude that Trump can do so, and no fair-minded person would conclude that Biden's age would prevent him from doing so.
