The Tsongas problem

National Review, Dec 28, 1992

IN HIS RUN for the presidential nomination, Paul Tsongas seemed a good candidate. He put his economic proposals on the line in a substantial pamphlet; this had the merit of candor, even though it enabled Bill Clinton to assail Tsongas from the Left, charging him with being a tool of wealth and Wall Street. Tsongas's un-glamor also was attractive to some voters, encouraging them to consider him a candidate of substance rather than image. Tsongas was not "slick." He made no JFK arm gestures, did not intone, "We can do better," and did not talk about getting this country "moving again."

It turns out, however, that Tsongas was not altogether candid. He allowed us to suppose that his earlier lymphoma had been cured, and his TV ads featured his genuine swimming prowess. His doctors pronounced him fit. He glossed over (tacitly lied about) a subsequent recurrence of cancer. Now a perhaps unrelated cancer has occurred in his abdomen.

Suppose Mr. Tsongas had gone on from his victory in New Hampshire to win the Democratic nomination and, not implausibly, defeat George Bush. Today we would have as President-elect a man who apparently faces serious surgery and/or chemo- or radiation therapy. Such circumstances at the very least would be distracting and might well cloud his judgment. Would he remove himself as President-elect?

In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt was known to his inner circle to be dying of circulatory problems--hence the prudent substitution of Harry Truman for Henry Wallace as his running mate. In 1960, John Kennedy was known--but not to the voters--to be suffering from acute Addison's disease, a glandular failure that required drastic medication. His back pain appears to have required amphetamines. George Bush's use of the drug Halcion is not as serious as any of the above, but is cause for medical concern nonetheless. Bill Clinton has refused access to his medical records.

Full medical disclosure, and perhaps examination by a neutral committee of physicians, would certainly amount to an invasion of personal privacy. But a presidential candidate, in the role he aspires to, is not a private person.