New Year's Day Male Beauty

Why GOP Insiders Fear Beto and Biden Over Warren and Sanders

Yesterday Elizabeth Warren announced her intention to run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020 to the delight of her extreme supporters - and Donald Trump and GOP insiders who see her as the candidate most likely to set the stage for a Trump victory in 2020.  Right behind her in terms of who the GOP insiders view as most easily defeated is Bernie Sanders who isn't even a Democrat. Sadly, neither Warren nor Sanders supporters can see beyond their own ideology to realize that what plays in liberal circles in New England doesn't translate across the country the way they think it does.  Indeed, in Virginia's 2017 gubernatorial contest, efforts by Warren and Sanders to put their perceived minion at the head of the Democrat ticket likely would have handed victory to the GOP.  A piece in Vanity Fair reviews why the GOP insiders fear O'Rourke or Biden far more than Warren and Sanders who burned many bridges in Virginia.  Here are highlights;

[A]s I like to caution Republicans, you never know what might happen in 2020 if the Democratic Party nominates a presidential candidate who is likable, trustworthy, and . . . not under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Perhaps that is why, as Republicans sift through the wreckage of another Trump meltdown, the demolition of their House majority in the midterm elections two months prior, the ouster of James Mattis, and a holiday shutdown over the border wall, party operatives were spending the most wonderful time of the year trying to figure out what it’s going to take to avoid an even worse fate. For as much as some Republicans would like to see the president return to Trump Tower, they’re not willing to give up the presidency. And so, as the 2020 primary season begins, they are beginning to make a list of Democratic candidates that they think Trump can credibly beat. Without naming names, I asked several senior Republican insiders which Democrat, or Democrats, at the top of the opposition ticket would most reassure them about 2020. Without exception, Elizabeth Warren, the 69-year-old progressive senator from Massachusetts, topped every wish list. . . . . Close behind were Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who, technically, is not a member of the Democratic Party. There’s a theme here. For all of Trump’s faults—and Republicans who make a living trying to win elections tend to be honest about most of them, albeit privately—the United States is still a center-right country, at least according to the data the G.O.P. trusts . . . . . A lightweight Democratic contender too enthralled with, or captive to, leftist dogma is an opponent that even a politically pockmarked Trump can exploit. Republicans are happy to run against any progressive who tries to compete with Trump on Trump’s terms. Exchanging barbs on social media platforms; name-calling; questioning his capacity mentally, physically, and the like. As much as the Democratic base might be clamoring for a standard bearer to force-feed the president a dose of his own medicine, there is no beating the genuine article at the game he perfected. Trump is too quick and too shameless, and that approach offers little change to voters who want to turn the page from the chaos and anxiety that has characterized the current era. “A Democrat is not going to defeat Trump by being more brash, blustering, and strident. They will win over voters they need to retake the ‘blue wall’ states by connecting with those voters on substance but presenting an alternative to his leadership style,” a Republican consultant told me in an e-mail. Indeed, if there’s a key aspect to the fear Beto O’Rourke inspires in some Republicans, it’s the outgoing Texas congressman’s combination of sunny disposition and 21st-century social media agility. Sure, he’s unabashedly progressive, but to borrow a phrase from Vice President Mike Pence: He’s not angry about it. Nor, as it happens, does O’Rourke look down upon so-called heretics, or, if you prefer, “deplorables.”

Ignore the Beto mockery prevalent in Republican circles during O’Rourke’s near upset of Senator Ted Cruz this past November. Party insiders were taking notes, and taking the 46-year-old from El Paso far more seriously than suggested by the apparent delight they took in lampooning everything about a figure who has drawn comparisons to a onetime up-and-coming Democrat named of Barack Obama.

“A Democrat who can carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or North Carolina is problematic,” a Republican insider from a critical swing state said. “Someone like Beto, who can campaign on the fly, raise money, and excite young voters, could put those and other states in play.” The midterms marked a turning point in the Republican Party’s confidence in [Trump] the president. . . . . November 6 provoked a brutal reassessment. Republicans saw their coalition crack, and many senior strategists blame [Trump] the president. As a few well-placed strategists told me for reporting I did for the Washington Examiner, after-action polling and analysis made it clear that Trump drove away soft Republicans, college-educated Republicans, female Republicans, moderate Republicans, basically every category of Republican not firmly ensconced in Trump’s base, plus crucial independents, handing House Democrats a larger victory than most had predicted, and with it, the majority. The right Democratic presidential nominee could capitalize on that. And who is that? As often as Warren and her like-styled cohorts were mentioned as easy Trump foils, former Vice President Joe Biden was cited as among the few Democrats who many Republicans believe might dispatch the incumbent with relative ease. Is Biden progressive? Absolutely. Gaffe-prone? Duh. But he is the antithesis of Trump, with the added benefit that he’s been vetted before, and passed muster. “He wreaks calmness and normalcy, which I feel like people crave over the chaos of the Trump administration,” a Republican strategist headquartered in the Southwest said. “One of the main disasters to avoid is to think 2016 is like 2020,” the Republican strategist based in the Southwest explained. “Trump got lucky and people held their nose against Clinton. That’s not likely to happen this time.” The problem for Republicans, lamented a seasoned G.O.P. hand in Washington, is that despite the challenges the Democrats face heading into the next election—a crowded and divisive primary and a restless base not necessarily uninterested in nominating calm, competent, and normal—“is that the Trump apologists won’t put the blame where it belongs and are burying their heads in the sand.” [S]ome dismiss Senator Kamala Harris of California as another radical progressive who isn’t ready for Prime Time, even if she’s right out of central casting for Democratic presidential contenders. Others see in her a shrewd operator who could realistically win the nomination and put Trump on defense the same way House Democrats put House Republicans in a bind in the midterm elections. It’s much the same for Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire media mogul and former mayor of New York City. Here’s a politician with a large enough personal fortune to outspend Trump and the Republican National Committee put together, and the wiliness to overcome his shortcomings. But some Republicans are unimpressed, . . .
 Then there are those Republican power brokers who, amid fretting about what might happen down ticket in 2020, neither fear the formidable Democrats nor welcome the weaklings. “Fear is an interesting word because I fucking hate Trump so much,” a Republican consigliere said. “I certainly wouldn’t be sorry to see him lose.”

What Really Makes Trump Scary

Stocks Suffer Worst Year Since 2008 Banking Crisis.

Just hours ago Americans across the country welcomed in the new year with thoughts and wishes of peace, good health and happiness for the year ahead for themselves and others.  Yet at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the principal occupant cares nothing about the nation or its population.  Instead, it is all about him - protecting his corrupt business empire, milking his position to enrich himself, and stamping out investigations that could well expose him as a traitor. Trump is a metastasizing cancer on the USA and the future of millions of Americans is fraught with danger from the impulsive and dangerous actions of a malignant narcissist who cares nothing for anyone but himself.  If pushed, I suspected he'd throw his own children under the bus.  The question circles back to when and under what circumstances Congressional Republicans, particularly those in the U.S. Senate will belatedly decide that Trump is a danger that must be eliminated by whatever means necessary.  A piece at CNN looks at just a portion of the damage being wrought against Americans.  Here are excerpts:

And so it continues. With no end in sight to the government shutdown, President Donald Trump, who rightly said a government shutdown should be blamed on the White House, now seems unwilling to accept responsibility.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of innocent government workers -- Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- are being forced to go without the paychecks they need to feed, house and clothe their families. (These are government workers who, by the way, Trump decided will not receive any pay raise in 2019.) And millions of citizens nationwide are being forced to go without some of the government services on which they may depend. It increasingly appears he is acting in his own, putting America and Americans second.  Let's take a look at a few recent examples of this "Trump first" approach at play: Withdrawal of US troops from SyriaNo one likes the idea of putting US troops in harm's way, especially in the midst of what seems like an unwinnable war thousands of miles away. That said, our armed forces are in Syria for a good reason: to eradicate an avowed enemy that seeks to destroy us -- ISIS.  Trump made a unilateral choice, which shocked our political and military establishment, as well as our allies abroad -- but delighted our chief international adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin. Given that the threat of ISIS still remains, it appears Trump's decision is more motivated by a desire to fulfill a campaign promise than to ensure the safety of the American people at large. Also, if the United States leaves, ISIS could well be able to reactivate with few, if any, interruptions from enemy forces, and that certainly will not be in America's national security interests. Intentionally undermining pillars of democracy
Trump's incessant criticisms of the press and our system of justice are so frequent that some may be getting numb to their poisonous effects. But a democracy cannot exist without these two pillars.  Trump does not seem to care. A muzzled press and a corrupt justice system are hallmarks of authoritarian regimes. That Trump seeks to intimidate and corrode public confidence in these pillars of democracy is -- to use one of his favorite words -- a disgrace.
 But Donald Trump knows both institutions are devoted to pursuing the truth about him, his businesses and his presidential campaign. That seems to scare him, so his attacks are unlikely to let up any time soon. His personal interests are best served by a lack of public confidence in the press and in the justice system. The heck with what is best for the country.
 Endangering the smooth working of free marketsAdd Wall Street to the list of institutions Trump appears to no longer respect. In his sights is the very essence of our economic system: the stock market. He is making it virtually impossible for anyone to know in what to reliably invest.
 [H]e has taken the highly unusual step of publicly criticizing his hand-picked chairman of the independent Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, whom he appointed just last year -- saying he was "not even a little bit happy" with him. In fact, according to CNN sources, Trump has even asked about the legality of firing Powell, which only adds to instability and uncertainty in the marketplace. No one should be surprised at Trump putting himself first. After all, he campaigned on being a disruptor, and clearly much of the country welcomed that approach. He and his supporters seem to relish his eschewing of "presidential norms." But this pattern of Trump putting his interests before the country's could not be more at odds with what a president is supposed to do.  Indeed, the one norm to which every president must adhere is putting the American people first.
 That means supporting -- not seeking to destroy -- what makes our country great, even if doing so is at his own expense. Recent actions by Trump provide legitimate reason to question if, whenever the government comes back to full strength, that will be his priority. On that there can be no compromise. Ever. Our survival depends on it.

Former General’s New Broadside Against President Trump

There are a multitude of things to dislike - perhaps dislike is to mild a term - about Donald Trump, but one thing that flows through all of them is his blatant dishonestly and immorality. Dishonesty and immorality permeate everything the man does with anywhere between 7 to 15 lies per day which makes one have to question those who continue to support him be they so-called old school Republicans who engage in the fantasy that the GOP is still the political party that it once was or the evangelical Christians who seek to police everyone else's sex life, don't drink alcohol, don't dance and/or put on falsely pious airs (modern day Pharisees, in short) who embrace a sexual predator and pathological liar. Decent people don't support individuals like Trump, nor as a retired Army general noted, should they work for them.  The Atlantic looks at the latest denunciation of Trump by a former senior military officer (note he also blast service members who engage in partisan politics while deployed on active duty).  Here are excerpts: 

Stanley McChrystal has a history of speaking plainly about American presidents and their leadership. His military career ended in 2010 after a Rolling Stone profile quoted him and his aides as criticizing Obama-administration officials, mocking the civilian leaders and painting them as indecisive. McChrystal quickly offered his resignation, which President Barack Obama accepted.

But while the retired four-star Army general’s complaints about the Obama administration centered on its military strategy, his concerns about the current White House, which he articulated in an ABC News interview on Sunday, are rooted in President Donald Trump’s character.

McChrystal, whom Obama had selected to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said in the interview that he would not work for Trump. “I think it’s important for me to work for people who I think are basically honest, who tell the truth as best they know it,” McChrystal explained.

“Do you think he’s a liar?” asked Martha Raddatz, the co-host of ABC’s This Week. McChrystal raised his eyebrows, shook his head, and responded, “I don’t think he tells the truth.” When Raddatz asked whether McChrystal considers the president “immoral,” the former general replied, “I think he is.”

In the interview, McChrystal told Raddatz he hopes Mattis’s exit has caused the American public to “take a pause.”

“If we have someone who is as selfless and committed as Jim Mattis resigning his position, walking away from all the responsibility he feels for every service member in our forces, and he does so in a public way like that, we ought to stop and say, ‘Okay, why did he do it?’” McChrystal said. “We ought to ask what kind of commander in chief he had that Jim Mattis, ‘the good Marine,’ felt he had to walk away.”

McChrystal also echoed recent criticism of Trump’s holiday visit to troops serving in Iraq. . . . . “When leaders visit soldiers … there’s a sacred interaction that occurs,” McChrystal said. “You don’t use that as a time to tout your politics or your personal opinions. You use that as a time to reassure them that what they’re doing is appreciated.” He also chided service members who brought Trump paraphernalia to the event—including “Make America Great Again” hats and a Trump 2020 patch—saying that they at least “violated the spirit” of military rules against political activity while serving on active duty.

McChrystal is not the only ex-military leader to recently rebuke Trump. William McRaven, the retired admiral who oversaw special operations—including the raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed—criticized the president for attacking the media and pulling the security clearance of a former CIA chief who spoke out against him.

Given how [Trump] the president loves to spar, it’s possible a volley is still on the way. He has fodder to dismiss McChrystal as just another spiteful Democrat: In the fateful profile that cut the general’s career short, Rolling Stone reported that he voted for Obama in 2008.

Every day that individuals continue to support Trump is an indictment of their morality and decency - something the rest of us need to remember in our daily interactions with them.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

The Small-Town Cost of Trump’s Shortsighted Trade Wars

Midwest farmers are seeing an end of Chinese soybean purchases as China moves to Brazil as a new source of the commodity.  Automakers are decrying steel and aluminum tariffs that will increase auto prices by thousands of dollars and likely push auto manufacturers to look for savings through employee layoffs. And in numerous small towns important manufacturing concerns are facing economic turmoil and possible plant closings all so Der Trumpenführer can feel like a "tough guy" and stroke his sick ego.  A piece in The New Yorker looks at one small town in Arkansas - which voted heavily for Trump - which is now reaping the ill fruits of supporting an unfit malignant narcissist.  As noted before on this blog, while I worry about the children who will be adversely impacted, I hold no sympathy for the adults who voted for this malignant individual and now, in a form of divine justice, are being punished.  Here are article highlights:

In May, when President Trump announced new tariffs on steel and aluminum imported from Canada and Mexico, Chris Pratt, the plant manager at Mid-Continent Nail, the largest nail manufacturer in the U.S., was caught in a bind. Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Mid-Continent’s home, is a sprawling town of seventeen thousand on the eastern edge of the Ozarks, a two-and-a-half-hour drive south of St. Louis. It’s a quiet place and notably conservative. . . . . In 2016, nearly eighty per cent of the county went for Trump. “Did I like the slogan ‘Make America Great Again’?” Pratt said to me. “I sure did.”

And yet the President’s shoot-first, ask-questions-later economic policies have already cost the town hundreds of jobs. Since the tariffs were implemented, in June, the price of imported steel has risen by twenty-five per cent. Mid-Continent, which had to raise its prices on nails nearly as much, soon lost half of its orders and had to let go of almost half its workforce. If they don’t get any relief, Pratt has said, the factory will likely close.

Mid-Continent’s unexpected role in Trump’s trade wars highlights the tangled knots of the global economy. Before 2012, the firm was owned by two local brothers, who sold it to Deacero, a Mexican steel manufacturer (also owned by brothers), which now supplies Mid-Continent with the wire needed to make nails. When Pratt learned of the sale, he worried that the Mexican firm would close the Poplar Bluff factory and move the jobs there south of the border. But the new owners made a commitment to continue making nails in the U.S. In the next six years, the number of employees at Mid-Continent more than doubled, from two hundred and forty-seven to five hundred and seven. Last December, at the factory’s Christmas party, Pratt was feeling so optimistic about the future that he announced hopes to grow to a thousand employees.

Pratt’s effort to save his company—and the jobs of his employees, many of whom are friends—has prompted appearances on NPR, Fox News, and other media outlets. In July, he told a reporter for the Washington Post, “We’re in a situation where we’re fighting against our own country.” He has also met with members of Congress, U.S. senators, and even the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross.

Unfortunate, yes.  But these people who voted for Trump brought this economic disaster on themselves when they embraced Trump's racist and xenophobic agenda.

More Sunday Male Beauty

The Problem of Ageism in the Gay Community

Ageism is a problem in American society as a whole which puts so much emphasis on youth and beauty and slim and toned bodies.  This can be multiplied ten fold in much of the gay community outside of the so-called "bear" community where ageism remains but some of the other fixation on body perfection is diminished (in my view).  Coming out in mid-life, this was a reality that hit me head on since in the minds of younger gays anyone my age was already a has been. Two things bring the issue to mind.  First, a friend's birthday party on Friday night where we had attendees ranging in age from their twenties to one in their early 70's - something not always witnessed in the gay community.  Second, a piece in Gay Star News that looks at the issue which is gaining more attention as more "out" gays are aging and suggest that many in the the younger generations are missing out by summarily dismissing their elders.  Many of the issues/views translate over to the straight world as well.  Here are article excerpts:

Over the last two years, getting older has started to scare me. . . . . . maybe it’s because I’ve always associated getting older with being written off; with being tossed out by society and not being able to enjoy a healthy, active social life anymore.

The other night whilst out I met an older man. He’d hidden himself in the shadowy corner of the club, swaying awkwardly while nursing his drink, trying to avoid being seen. I recognized these traits as the hallmarks of social anxiety. It’s an affliction I’ve battled with more times than I care to admit. Never one to see someone standing alone, I wandered over and struck up conversation.

A few minutes into the basic chit-chat and he tells me his age. ‘I’m 62’, he says sheepishly. He then goes on to express worry that he ‘feels too old’ to be here.  I shrug off this comment and try to soothe his concerns off by assuring him that he has the same right as anyone else to be here. He goes on tell me that he’s new to the city and that, when younger, he never had the opportunity to do ‘this’ (clubbing.)

However, a moment later, the conversation stopped mid-sentence when a younger gay (whose face was so smoothed over he resembled a malnourished Ken doll) shot a disparaging glare over towards the man. The look said it all; he was judging this man based purely on his age.

I’ve seen it so many times; judging glares from youthful gays at older gay men because they think it’s ‘weird’ or ‘creepy’ that they’re in the same bar.

What they fail to realize is that they’ll one day be that age. Ageism takes root in denial, in pretending that we’ll never get old. But everyone wakes up a day older.  You don’t hit 40 and find the urge to visit a bar suddenly eradicated. Nor do you have to retire your social life and commit to a hermit lifestyle.

We are a community composed of all ages, genders and races. We should not be complicit in our further marginalization.

The best people I’ve ever met are the ones who follow the mantra ‘age is just a number.’ Eighteen or 85, you can go to a gay bar or club and have drinks. You should be able to let loose and dance in a joyous way; you aren’t dead yet, so why the hell not?  We need to beat back that ‘you’re too old’ and ‘that guy is creepy because he’s older’ mentality like the medieval dragon it is.

But what I feel is more important is that we realize what we can learn from each other. After talking to that older man, I gained perspective and a better understanding of the struggles his generation battled – and he also bought me a drink, so it was a double win! You can find common ground with anyone, so don’t write people off because of their age. We are all a part of the same community.

What is lost on too many younger gays is the fact that the rights and social acceptance they enjoy is largely due to the efforts of the older generation they look down on or dismiss.  Locally, it is us "old guys" and "old gals" who continue to do much of the work raising funding for the annual pride event, support Equality Virginia financially, and who blaze trails of acceptance in social organizations and settings that once excluded gays. 

A friend has an interesting piece here on the issue as well.

Is Something Neurologically Wrong With Donald Trump?

Trump and Wilson: mentally incapacitated occupants of the White House?

Many mental health professionals believe Donald Trump suffers from mental illness - e.g., malignant narcissism disorder - including Virginia's governor who is a neurologist by profession.  A recent post , in fact, set out the attributes of this mental disorder all of which appear to apply to Trump in every detail.  But a very lengthy piece in The Atlantic suggests that Trump may have other mental health impairments and looks at the USA's shocking lack of any mandatory system to evaluate the mental health of a sitting occupant of the White House, something that is important in any would be application of the 25th Amendment as a means to protect the nation.  The issue is one of long standing and goes back 100 years to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who suffered a serious stroke which left he largely incapacitated and caused many to believe that his wife Edith came to function as almost de facto president.  A century later, we still have no method to determine a president's mental competence and Trump has brought the need for such a system back front and center.  Here are lengthy higligts from the article (read the entire piece): 

Donald Trump’s decision to brag in a tweet about the size of his “nuclear button” compared with North Korea’s was widely condemned as bellicose and reckless. The comments are also part of a larger pattern of odd and often alarming behavior for a person in the nation’s highest office.

Trump’s grandiosity and impulsivity have made him a constant subject of speculation among those concerned with his mental health. But after more than a year of talking to doctors and researchers about whether and how the cognitive sciences could offer a lens to explain Trump’s behavior, I’ve come to believe there should be a role for professional evaluation beyond speculating from afar.

I’m not alone. Viewers of Trump’s recent speeches have begun noticing minor abnormalities in his movements. In November, he used his free hand to steady a small Fiji bottle as he brought it to his mouth. Onlookers described the movement as “awkward” and made jokes about hand size.

Then, in December, speaking about his national-security plan in Washington, D.C., Trump reached under his podium and grabbed a glass with both hands. This time he kept them on the glass the entire time he drank, and as he put down the glass. This drew even more attention. The gesture was like that of an extremely cold person cradling a mug of cocoa. Some viewers likened Trump to a child just learning to handle a cup.

Then there was an incident of slurred speech. Announcing the relocation of the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—a dramatic foreign-policy move—Trump became difficult to understand at a phonetic level, which did little to reassure many observers of the soundness of his decision.

The neurosurgeon Sanjay Gupta described it as “clearly some abnormalities of his speech.” This sort of slurring could result from anything from a dry mouth to a displaced denture to an acute stroke.

Though these moments could be inconsequential, they call attention to the alarming absence of a system to evaluate elected officials’ fitness for office—to reassure concerned citizens that the “leader of the free world” is not cognitively impaired, and on a path of continuous decline.

Proposals for such a system have been made in the past, but never implemented. The job of the presidency is not what it used to be. For most of America’s history, it was not possible for the commander in chief to unilaterally destroy a continent, or the entire planet, with one quick decision.

Today even the country’s missileers—whose job is to sit in bunkers and await a signal—are tested three times per month on their ability to execute protocols. They are required to score at least 90 percent. Testing is not required for their commander in chief to be able to execute a protocol, much less testing to execute the sort of high-level decision that would set this process in motion.

The lack of a system to evaluate presidential fitness only stands to become more consequential as the average age of leaders increases. The Constitution sets finite lower limits on age but gives no hint of an upper limit.

After age 40, the brain decreases in volume by about 5 percent every decade. The most noticeable loss is in the frontal lobes. These control motor functioning of the sort that would direct a hand to a cup and a cup to the mouth in one fluid motion—in most cases, without even looking at the cup. These lobes also control much more important processes, from language to judgment to impulsivity.

An annual presidential physical exam at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is customary, and Trump’s is set for January 12. But the utility of a standard physical exam—knowing a president’s blood pressure and weight and the like—is meager compared with the value of comprehensive neurological, psychological, and psychiatric evaluations. These are not part of a standard physical.

Even if they were voluntarily undertaken, there would be no requirement to disclose the results. A president could be actively hallucinating, threatening to launch a nuclear attack based on intelligence he had just obtained from David Bowie, and the medical community could be relegated to speculation from afar.

With declining support for fact-based discourse and trust in expert assessments, would there be any way of convincing Americans that these doctors weren’t simply lying, treasonous “liberals”—globalist snowflakes who got triggered?

The downplaying of a president’s compromised neurological status would not be without precedent. Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously disguised his paralysis from polio to avoid appearing “weak or helpless.” He staged public appearances to give the impression that he could walk . . . .

Unfortunately, the public medical record available to assuage global concerns about the current president’s neurological status is the attestation of Harold Bornstein, America’s most famous Upper Manhattan gastroenterologist, whose initial doctor’s note described the 71-year-old Trump as “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”  The phrasing was so peculiar for a medical record that some suggested that Trump had written or dictated the letter himself.

The frontal lobes also control speech, and over the years, Donald Trump’s fluency has regressed, and his vocabulary contracted. In May of last year, the journalist Sharon Begley at Stat analyzed changes in his speech patterns during interviews over the years. . . . He also more frequently finished sentences and thoughts.

Ben Michaelis, a psychologist who analyzes speech as part of cognitive assessments in court cases, told Begley that although some decline in cognitive functioning would be expected, Trump has exhibited a “clear reduction in linguistic sophistication over time” with “simpler word choices and sentence structure.”

[T]hough it is not possible to diagnose a person with dementia based on speech patterns alone, these are the sorts of changes that appear in early stages of Alzheimer’s. Trump has likened himself to Ronald Reagan, and the changes in Trump’s speech evoke those seen in the late president. Reagan announced his Alzheimer’s diagnosis in 1994, but there was evidence of linguistic change over the course of his presidency that experts have argued was indicative of early decline.

[A]fter Reagan’s diagnosis, former President Jimmy Carter sounded an alarm over the lack of a system to detect this sort of cognitive impairment earlier on. “Many people have called to my attention the continuing danger to our nation from the possibility of a U.S. president becoming disabled, particularly by a neurologic illness,” Carter wrote in 1994 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “The great weakness of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is its provision for determining disability in the event that the president is unable or unwilling to certify to impairment or disability.” 

[I]t generally assumed that the president would be willing to undergo diagnostic testing and be forthcoming about any limitations.  This might not happen with a person who has come to be known for denying any hint of weakness or inability. Nor would it happen if a president had a psychiatric disorder that impaired judgment—especially if it was one defined by grandiosity, obsession with status, and intense aversion to being perceived as weak.

It was for these reasons that in 1994, Carter called for a system that could independently evaluate a president’s health and capacity to serve. At many companies, even where no missiles are involved, entry-level jobs require a physical exam. A president, it would follow, should be more rigorously cleared. Carter called on “the medical community” to take leadership in creating an objective, minimally biased process—to “awaken the public and political leaders of our nation to the importance of this problem.”

[Q]uestions and concern around Trump’s psychiatric status have spurred proposals anew. In December, also in the Journal of the American Medical Association, mental-health professionals proposed a seven-member expert panel “to evaluate presidential fitness.” Last April, Representative Jamie Raskin introduced a bill that would create an 11-member “presidential capacity” commission.

The real-world application of one of these systems is complicated by the fact that the frontal lobes also control things like judgment, problem-solving, and impulse control. These metrics, which fall under the purview of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, can be dismissed as opinion. In a hospital or doctor’s office, a neurologist may describe a patient with Parkinson’s disease as having “impaired impulse control.” The National Institute on Aging lists among the symptoms of Alzheimer’s “poor judgment leading to bad decisions.”

[T]housands of mental-health professionals have mobilized and signed petitions attesting to Trump’s unfitness to hold office. Some believe Trump should carry a label of narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or both. The largest such petition has more than 68,000 signatures—though there is no vetting of the signatories’ credentials. Its author, the psychologist John Gartner, told me last year that in his 35 years of practicing and teaching, “this is absolutely the worst case of malignant narcissism I’ve ever seen.”

A presidential-fitness committee—of the sort that Carter and others propose, consisting of nonpartisan medical and psychological experts—could exist in a capacity similar to the Congressional Budget Office. It could regularly assess the president’s neurological status and give a battery of cognitive tests to assess judgment, recall, decision making, attention—the sorts of tests that might help a school system assess whether a child is suited to a particular grade level or classroom—and make the results available.

That math and polling can be ignored or disputed, or the CBO can be attacked as a secretly subversive entity, but at least some attempt at a transparent analysis is made. The same cannot be said of the president’s cognitive processes. We are left only with the shouts of experts from the sidelines, demeaning the profession and the presidency.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty