In what seems to be a tacit admission of relative weakness, Kamala Harris’ doctor has decided to go on record declaring her health ‘excellent’. While this might be seen as a normal campaign activity, given the limited transparency regarding Donald Trump’s health reports over the years, it might be an attempt to draw a potentially unnecessary contrast. The declaration came out on October 12, when the White House issued a medical report authored by the vice president’s physician, Dr. Joshua Simmons.
Dr. Simmons’ report, sprawling over a couple of pages, touched upon Harris’ personal health history and specific statistics from her latest physical examination conducted in April 2024. This might raise questions about why such extensive details are being foregrounded. According to him, Harris ‘possesses the physical and mental resiliency required to successfully execute the Presidency’ – a statement that makes one wonder why such a validation is needed in the first place.
Another curious detail emphasized by Harris’ physician was her active lifestyle. Again, one may wonder if this statement was made to preempt criticisms about her stamina, a factor that has never bothered former President Trump who had always maintained an active lifestyle, even under the most stressful situations. Indeed, the focus placed on Harris’ healthy eating habits, non-reliance on tobacco, and moderate alcohol consumption give an impression of excessive justification.
In sum, the report concludes that Harris has excellent health. While this assertion might be reassuring for some voters, it highlights potential doubts hovering around her capability to execute presidential duties, including those as Chief Executive, Head of State, and Commander in Chief. If Simmons’ letter meant to quell these doubts, it might have unwittingly bolstered them further.
Interestingly, by publicizing the detailed health report, Harris’ campaign adds a new element to the presidential race – a focus on physical health. Could this be a strategy to create chatter about Trump’s fitness to serve another term as president, considering his age, and draw away from issues of real national concern?
Former President Trump, at 78, could become the oldest president in U.S. history if he were to be re-elected. Despite his age, he has been an energetic and active campaigner, unlike Harris, who’s needed to assert her physical health through reports. While Trump has shared some aspects of his health records over the years, his decision to withhold further details during the 2024 campaign could also be viewed as his confidence in his fitness and stamina.
Trump’s campaign reacted promptly to the move by Harris’ campaign, issuing a statement shortly after the White House shared her health report. Trump’s representative said, ‘President Trump has voluntarily released updates from his personal physician, as well as detailed reports from Dr. Ronny Jackson who treated him after the first assassination attempt. It is universally agreed he is perfectly fit to be Commander in Chief.’
In a rather unavoidable comparison, Trump’s representative further stated that the former president ‘has maintained an extremely busy and active campaign schedule unlike any other in political history, whereas Kamala Harris is unable to keep pace.’ This spokesperson’s comment makes one wonder about Harris’ stamina, or lack thereof, and if the exhaustive health report was indeed a preemptive measure.
Remarks were made concerning the alleged layoffs in Harris’ campaign activities, suggesting she lacks the stamina possessed by Trump. The representative drew attention to the fact that her campaign schedule is relatively lighter and linked it to a supposed decline in public support reflected in the polls. Such comments certainly give one a lot to ponder about the reasons behind Harris’ decelerating momentum.
Harris has been invested in an aggressive campaign since she decided to run for the presidential race. Speculations, however, have risen about her mental and physical state of being, given her unprecedented release of a detailed health report. It is well known that Trump has never shied away from challenging the stamina and mental fitness of his opponents since he first ran for the presidency.
One might wonder if all this clouding around Harris’ health report might indeed serve to show a stronger, more resilient Trump in comparison. This is particularly noticeable given the ex-president’s consistent campaign energy, even though he is significantly older than Harris. Interestingly, sections of the report obliquely touch upon medical issues Harris has had to deal with, namely seasonal allergies and hives, which have been supposedly remedied through allergy immunotherapy.
Nonetheless, it is not clear whether these aspects have any substantial relevance to her candidacy or if they add value to voters’ assessment of her capability to hold office. The mention of Harris’ mild nearsightedness, managed via contact lenses, might be an attempt to humanize her or a sign of overreach in detailing her personal health.
Dr. Simmons also offered up some personal family medical history, revealing that Harris’ mother passed away due to colon cancer in 2009. The inclusion of such personal details raises concerns about the norms of privacy and the extent to which personal health history must factor into a political campaign.
It feels overly detailed and potentially invasive – begging the question: is it really necessary for public evaluation of a political candidate? Or is it just an effort to divert voters’ attention from important performance and policy aspects?
In the end, while the public assessment of Harris’ capabilities should focus on her political stance and leadership abilities, her health report has now taken center stage. Whether this move will increase her appeal or backfire is something only the upcoming polls can tell.
This incident serves as a stark reminder of how personal health records can be weaponized and become central to political campaigns, distorting the actual focus – a candidate’s accomplishments, abilities, and positions on critical issues.