Last week, Rep. Julia Carson of Indiana announced that she was battling lung cancer. The disease, thought to be in remission, returned with what the congresswomen described as “a terminal vengeance.”
The news, somber and personal, recalls the question of whether politicians struck by serious illness should resign from office or continue serving to the best of their ability.
Careful examination of this topic’s history and current implications reveals that even in cases where politicians’ attendance or performance may be effected, they should have the right to choose whether or not they are fit to fulfill their duties. .
This is especially true in a Congress where many healthy politicians regularly miss votes.
Granted, illnesses that directly affect one’s mental faculties must be seen in a different light when the patient is trusted with decisions affecting the public.
A claim of personal choice applies only to illnesses that affect one’s health in a manner that is mostly independent of psychological effects.
Arguably, America’s most prominent historical case of ailing leadership was the health of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The four-term president contracted a paralytic disease before he started his major political career but had to disguise his illness at every turn, taking care to never be seen in a wheelchair.
When he became president in 1933, few Americans knew that he was only walking because he had strapped metal braces to his legs and leaned on podiums.
Regardless of what he needed to do to stand, Roosevelt has been consistently ranked as one of the nation’s best presidents.
Had he allowed his illness (or public opinion of it) to affect his career, the nation may have suffered a far longer depression.
Since Roosevelt’s time, society has progressed to accept many once-taboo subjects into the realm of politically correct discussion.
Yet the health of politicians is still a taboo topic.
It seems as though no matter how many pacemakers Dick Cheney has replaced, America is still wary of electing or supporting any politicians who do not appear to be in strong physical form.
As the 2008 presidential race kicked off, John Edwards had to battle not questions of policy or even personal values, but of his wife’s health. Elizabeth Edwards faced news that her breast cancer had spread, leading to a maelstrom of calls for the former senator to drop out of the race in order to be with his family.
As if America or the media is big on concern for the families of political candidates.
And while Carson’s illness has affected her attendance at congressional votes, she is hardly the most truant in a field of notoriously absent colleagues.
According to CNN.com, Carson missed almost one third of the votes in 2004.
In the 109th Congress, she missed 8 percent of the votes, according to The Washington Post.
Compared to the truly astonishing attendance records of Reps. Jim Davis of Florida and Ted Strickland of Ohio ““ 24.8 and 22.3 percent, respectively ““ her health can hardly be limiting her performance more than the malaise of her healthy co-workers.
All this goes without mention of Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois, who has missed a shameful 43.2 percent of House votes this session.
As Roosevelt’s paralysis did not prevent him from being one of America’s best presidents, her illness has not hampered her performance.
Ultimately, Americans must grow comfortable with politicians facing issues that effect all people ““ regardless of their professions.
Carson should receive support, not an inquisition, in her struggle with cancer.
She should be given the dignity she has earned as Indianapolis’ first female and first black member of Congress. As such, she should be allowed to retire only when she sees fit.
After all, cancer cares little for the title on one’s business card, so neither should we.
Think a physical is more important than a platform? E-mail Makarechi at kmakarechi@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.