Biden's Cognitive Decline: Who Should Have Said What, When?

According to the WSJ, from the very outset of his presidency, Biden's mental decline was not just a whisper in the corridors of power but a managed, concealed reality by his aides and the media.

The catch here isn't merely the revelation of Biden's condition but rather the silent conspiracy of silence that this represents. It's akin to watching a grand performance where the audience is blissfully unaware that the lead actor is being directed from off-stage, his lines fed through an invisible earpiece. This scenario raises a poignant question: In a democracy, should the public be the last to know about the capabilities of their chosen leader?

This narrative isn't new in the annals of American politics. Presidents have always had their shortcomings, whether physical or mental, often veiled under the mantle of national interest or security. However, the extent to which Biden’s condition was managed suggests a systemic issue where the public's right to know is trumped by political expediency. The Wall Street Journal's piece details how Biden's schedule was meticulously crafted to fit his 'good days,' with critical meetings and public appearances strategically timed.

But what does this mean for the integrity of the office of the President, particularly with the incoming President Trump being 78 years old? On one hand, one could argue for compassion and understanding towards an aging leader, acknowledging that everyone, including those in the highest echelons of power, faces the natural degradation of time. Here, the narrative isn't just about Biden but about how society views aging and leadership. Should we expect our leaders to be superhuman, or should there be room for human vulnerability in governance?

On the other hand, the concealment of such vital information strikes at the heart of democratic principles. Transparency is not just a buzzword; it's the cornerstone of trust between the electorate and elected. When this trust is eroded by omissions or outright deception, what remains of the social contract? The public's ability to make informed decisions at the ballot box is compromised, not to mention the potential for misuse of power by those around the leader who might exploit his condition for their agendas.

The ethical implications extend further when we consider the 25th Amendment, which deals with presidential succession and disability. If the President's mental fitness is in question, and this is known but concealed, are we not skirting dangerously close to a constitutional crisis? The amendment provides for the transfer of power should the President be unable to discharge the duties of office, yet its effectiveness hinges on the willingness of those closest to the President to act. Here lies another layer of complexity: who decides when a President is no longer fit, and on what basis, especially when surrounded by an echo chamber of loyalty rather than objectivity?

Moreover, this situation casts a long shadow over the role of the media. For years, the press has been accused of being partisan, and this scenario only fuels that narrative. The media's role as the fourth estate is to inform, challenge, and hold power to account. Yet, in this case, it appears to have been complicit in creating a protective bubble around Biden, perhaps under the guise of not wanting to "age shame" or because of political alignment. This raises critical questions about journalistic integrity and the media's duty to the public versus its relationship with those in power.

In summary, the issues raised by the Wall Street Journal's exposé are multifaceted, touching on everything from the ethics of political management to the rights of voters in a democracy. It's a narrative that challenges us to reconsider how we view leadership, age, and the very mechanisms of our governance. Are we content with a system where the public might be the last to know about their leader's capabilities, or do we demand a more transparent, compassionate, yet rigorously accountable system? This isn't just about one president or one term; it's about the future of leadership in a country that prides itself on democratic ideals.