should FDR have come clean about his affliction?

[mopaul]

i've rephrased an earlier post of mine to explore the prospect of bush's mental state harming the nation. or the world.

FDR hid his affliction for various reasons, but if america had known, would they have forced him to step down? of course he was more beloved than bush and that was then. but if people really knew how fucked up in the head bush is, would they remove him from office?

just wondering.

[StClone]

1. Interestingly

CNN has "First Patient Care" on right now and they dealt with hidden Presidential illnesses.

[supernova]

2. probably not,

only because the culture hadn't changed into the more confessional, just be who you are, tell-all society we have now.

I don't believe people would have been receptive, so he was right to fudge it at that point in time.

It would take the 60s and 70s to open up society so that we could recieve such information about a person, esp a man, and not have it be seen as making the person less worthy.

Illness has for eons been seen as a kind of moral failing.

edit: think about it this way. IF * did up and decide to admit that he does have some kind of neurological problem as a result of all his heavy drinking, would you be kind to him about it? Perhaps more importantly, would his supporters?

[MUSTANG_2004]

3. Not necessarily

After all, everyone did know he was partially paralyzed, they just didn't know the extent.

But running for a 4th term when he was at death's door was irresponsible, and people should have been told his medical condition.

[madrchsod]

4. no- then look

at JFK`s medical problems and the amount of drugs he was taking and yet he saved our ass and backed down the soviet union. he was coherent,hell add Ronny ,who after being shot really started to go yet he was coherent and gave some incredible speeches,delivery wise that is, and could carry a consersation. no, george is just a small boy in a grown man`s body..we all know of people just like him.