President Joe Biden was widely criticized for a lackluster debate performance in his first face-off with former President Donald Trump last month — he flubbed his words, trailed off mid-sentence and appeared to stare off into space. In response, The Economist argued that the president should withdraw from the electoral race with a story that used an image of the presidential seal attached to a walker.
While the magazine stated "Mr. Biden deserves to be remembered for his accomplishments and his decency rather than his decline," at least one prominent group of disability rights advocates feared the publication's illustration suggests that being old and/or disabled means that a person is unqualified to run a country.
"People with disabilities are not a punchline," a spokesperson for the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) said in a statement about the magazine's cover.
In light of recent reports that Biden is seriously considering dropping out of the 2024 election following his weak debate performance and subsequent discouraging poll numbers, the ongoing debate about ageism and ableism may be literally shaping the history of the American presidency. Instead of Biden's presidency being a landmark moment inspiring disabled and elderly Americans that they can achieve anything, it instead appears to be an inflection reinforcing that prejudices against those groups is still strong enough to determine a president's future.
"Whatever the editors of The Economist thought they were doing here, they failed spectacularly," the NDRN said. "People with disabilities are not a punchline. Mobility aids like walkers, canes and wheelchairs are not prisons that confine us or barriers that limit us. They are not a sign of weakness, but of strength."
The Economist did not respond to Salon's request for comment. Since then — and after interviews were conducted for this story — New York Magazine published a cover of their "Health issue" depicting Biden and Trump both standing on the scale in their underwear as if awaiting a doctor's checkup. In a post on X, the magazine said the issue was planned before Biden revealed that he had contracted COVID this week.
To demonstrate its point about ableism, the NDRN listed politicians from both parties who, in recent history, have risen to high office while being disabled: Republicans like former President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was dyslexic) and current Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (who is in a wheelchair) and Democrats such as former President Franklin Roosevelt (also in a wheelchair), former President John F. Kennedy (who lived with chronic pain) and sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (who has diabetes).
These powerful men and women are not alone. Millions of Americans are elderly, disabled or both. Perhaps this is why, when the collective conversation about aging and disability uncritically assumes that people who flub their words, trail off mid-sentence or stare off into space are "incompetent," some of those who support disability rights pause.
Given that Biden is 81-years-old and has a disability — he was born with a stutter — at least some of these criticisms may be rooted in social prejudices about disability and age. Maria Town, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities, told Salon that both The Economist's cover and the backlash against Biden fuel these prejudices without thinking about their historical accuracy.
"Abraham Lincoln had depression," Town said. "James Madison was epileptic. 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 were all known to have learning disabilities. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both had/have hearing impairments. And Joe Biden has a stutter, a disability that can affect his speech. I hope all of those examples can disabuse our nation of the idea that the presence of a disability alone can or should be disqualifying for a president."
Town defined ableism as "anything that is discriminatory towards people with disabilities based on societally-assigned value to a person's body and mind based on perceptions of their health, capabilities, intelligence and more. These perceptions are often incorrect, and are harmful to people with disabilities. Ableism is also harmful to non-disabled people."
The Economist is far from alone in worrying activists. Progressive media outlets like The Mary Sue and politicians like Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., (chair of the Congressional Black Caucus), expressed concern about the dialogue permeating the media about Biden after the debate. Ashley Glears, a chapter associate at The Arc, a nonprofit organization serving people with disabilities, said the coverage in general "has been raising alarm bells among disability advocates. It can inadvertently perpetuate harmful stereotypes about disability in politics. People should be mindful about how they may be reinforcing myths and stereotypes that hinder meaningful inclusion for the 61 million Americans living with disabilities."
The key to avoiding prejudice, according to Glears, is to focus on the candidates' policies and avoid assuming that traits associated with age and disability are automatically disqualifying.
"Criticizing President Biden for his speech or behavior can be seen as ableist if it targets perceived cognitive issues rather than his policies," Glears said. "Ableism involves discriminating against people based on disabilities, so focusing on his mental abilities can reinforce negative stereotypes about disabled individuals."
Yet despite these concerns with the discourse around Biden's age and disability, Dr. Louise Aronson, a professor at the University of California — San Francisco's Division of Geriatrics, said the current conversation about Biden has still been "partly beneficial."
"We should be having more discussions about aging and disability at all ages," Aronson said, before adding that the current dialogue is "mostly harmful since people have conflated old age with disability and disability with incompetence." Aronson argued that, going forward, the media should understand that "old age increases the risk for disability, but a person can be old and fully able; most elders are, although our abilities change as we age."
Even the word "disabled" can itself be problematic, according to Dr. S. Jay Olshansky, a sociologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Olshansky, who specializes in demographics and gerontology, warned that while many people see the term "disabled" as neutral, there is still a risk of it being unintentionally pejorative and stigmatizing.
Olshansky said Biden may not be disabled at all, but simply experiencing normal and innocuous signs of aging.
"It is not a definitive indication that there is a loss of judgment," Olshansky said. "It is not a definitive indication that there is dementia. The public is not capable of drawing definitive, accurate conclusions based on watching videotape of interviews. You have to actually have a physician review the patient and review the medical records, so neither I nor the general public is capable of rendering this judgment."
More broadly, experts are concerned that as the public reflexively jumps from seeing a person display infirmity or disability to accusing them of mental incompetence, they perpetuate stereotypes which harm everyone who has a disability or is elderly.
"It's not fair to disqualify someone from being president just because of traits like speech flubs or moments of distraction," Glears said. "The ability to be president should be judged on overall performance, including policies, experience and decision-making — not just on isolated traits."
Discrimination against people with disabilities or older people is often invisible, but "deeply harmful," Glears added. "Even if unintentional, the general public can reinforce the flawed belief that there's only one 'correct' way for bodies and minds to function. I hope that people will be vigilant about how their criticisms might suggest that disabled or older people are not qualified simply because they have a disability."
This does not mean that people cannot ask pertinent questions about a candidate's mental and physical fitness. The key is to determine whether a politician's disability is like that of Soviet Premier Vladimir Lenin, who became literally incompetent after suffering a series of strokes starting in 1922, or like that of Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who retained his intellectual abilities after his own stroke in 2022.
Olshansky's argument is that the way to both dispel prejudice and alleviate legitimate public concerns about competence is for candidates to be transparent about their medical histories. Without said medical histories, the public should "be reluctant to draw definitive conclusions. I would much prefer that those conclusions be drawn by professionals who are capable of evaluating in person."
Indeed, Aronson said no one can ethically or legally diagnose a person without seeing them as a patient and doing an appropriate work up.
"I am not qualified to judge competence for the presidency; that’s why we have a democratic process," Aronson said. When it comes to the behavior that Biden displayed during the debate, "they do concern me as an ordinary citizen and trained geriatrician because the presidency is a high-risk position and this degree of variability in function poses risks during the position's frequent need for optimal communication and negotiation."
At least one disability rights activist — Phyllis Vine, a historian and journalist who wrote the book "Fighting for Recovery: An Activists' History of Mental Health Reform" — does not feel Biden's traits during the debate are fair game. Instead, Vine told Salon that Biden's "record, his leadership, and his vision for the future are what he should be judged on."
"What he displayed was someone coming under attack as if on a battlefield," Vine said. "And his performance was not what it would have been had he been in conversation with a reasonable or qualified person who was as serious about learning, listening and governing on behalf of the American people."
Regardless of what Biden decides to do about his political future, activists seem to agree America has taken a step backward in its overall understanding of the facts that age and disability are not inherently disqualifying.
"It's far past time for a new national conversation about what we actually mean when we say someone is 'qualified' or 'not qualified' for a job," Town said. "There are lots of people who have perfect mobility and speech who would be terrible as president of the United States. I'm not here to say whether or not Joe Biden is the right person for the job right now, but what I can say is there is absolutely a less ableist, more accurate and meaningful way to conduct this conversation."
