Trump in strife again over call to take away guns
Platitudes galore as a populist politician meets a populist physician.
On Thursday, Donald Trump appeared on the Dr Oz show to discuss his fitness – literally – to be the leader of the free world.
Before a live studio audience comprised entirely of Trump’s friends and family, he waxed and waned about trying to lose 10 kilograms, and about his love of junk food.
Trump explained that his exercise programme is addressing rallies in hot auditoriums. ‘‘When I’m speaking in front of 15 and 20,000 people and I’m up there using a lot of motion, I guess in its own way, it’s a pretty healthy act.’’
Dr Oz asked: ‘‘Why not share your medical records?’’
Trump replied: ‘‘I have really no problem in doing it. I have it right here. Should I do it? I don’t care.’’
And just like that, he pulled a set of papers from his breast pocket – the numbers from his recent physical examination.
Dr Oz had telegraphed ahead of the show that he wasn’t going to ask any questions that Trump didn’t want to answer. And there is no question that Trump knew his test results ahead of filming. So the rollout of some fairly useless medical information, known to and controlled by the candidate, got the stamp of authenticity from a TV doctor known to millions, and watched in large part by women – a voting bloc Trump is losing badly to Hillary Clinton.
With that, all of my nightmares about the race to elect the leader of the free world descending into the cheap sloganism and faux ‘‘gotchas’’ of reality TV finally came true.
For context, the candidates’ health has loomed large this week.
Clinton’s stumble (or collapse, depending on who you’re talking to) at a 9/11 memorial event in New York City has divided Americans into two camps.
On the one hand, her campaign’s failure to disclose her pneumonia was criticised as another example of Clinton’s lack of transparency. The media seemed particularly peeved, as Clinton had managed to quietly exit the service without the press, and delayed explaining both her absence and her diagnosis.
On the other hand, Clinton’s fitness for office has been continually undermined by Trump and his surrogates.
In the past few weeks, for example, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has been doing the rounds of the cable news shows, suggesting that Clinton has a serious illness. Giuliani has no proof, just a handful of internet compilations and a great wish.
In light of this, some say she was right not to discuss her diagnosis, for fear of adding legitimacy to the otherwise baseless smears.
Americans expect extreme medical vetting of presidential candidates, for fear they will elect someone who is unfit to hold office. It wasn’t always this way.
Medical transparency for presidential candidates became an essential part of the race only in the early 1980s. Before then, presidents (and candidates) regularly hid what ailed them from the public.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was famously in a wheelchair but rarely photographed in it. John F Kennedy hid his debilitating back pain and the multitude of drugs he took daily to combat it.
Trump’s Dr Oz appearance is the second public discussion of his health.
The first, a letter from Harold Bornstein, who claimed to have been Trump’s doctor for 30 years, was released in December. In it, Bornstein claimed that Trump’s laboratory test results were ‘‘astonishingly excellent’’ and that Trump would be ‘‘unequivocally . . . the healthiest individual elected to the presidency.’’
The letter read like it was written by Dr Seuss rather than an actual medical doctor. The same doctor performed the tests revealed on the Dr Oz show.
For me, as a close observer of US politics, Dr Oz was a defining moment.
The most concerning elements of reality TV – which propelled Trump’s primary campaign – came crashing into the election of the leader of the free world. Feeding an audience shallow platitudes (with cliffhangers) to keep us watching through the next episode.
Anti-intellectualism, a cult of personality – this is the Trump campaign. To see it unfold in real time, I wonder if we’ll ever go back to a place where getting to be president isn’t just the result of a big ol’ popularity contest. Donald Trump made another sarcastic call yesterday for Hillary Clinton’s Secret Service agents to be stripped of their firearms — and then added, ‘‘Let’s see what happens to her’’.
Trump has long incorrectly suggested that his Democratic opponent wants to overturn the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and take away Americans’ right to own guns. At a rally in Miami, he again riffed about confiscating the agents’ guns, and then went further.
‘‘I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm, right?’’ Trump asked the crowd. ‘‘Take their guns away, she doesn’t want guns. Take their — and let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK, it would be very dangerous.’’
Trump’s meaning was not immediately clear. A campaign spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for an elaboration.
The Clinton campaign had a quick reaction. Spokesman Robby Mook released a statement saying Trump ‘‘has a pattern of inciting people to violence’’.
‘‘Whether this is done to provoke protesters at a rally or casually or even as a joke, it is an unacceptable quality in anyone seeking the job of Commander in Chief. This kind of talk should be out of bounds for a presidential candidate.’’
A spokeswoman for the Secret Service declined to comment.
The seemingly ominous comment evoked a remark Trump made last month that many Democrats condemned as a call for Clinton’s assassination.
Speaking at a rally in North Carolina, the Republican nominee erroneously said Clinton wanted to ‘‘abolish, essentially, the Second Amendment’’.
He continued: ‘‘By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.’’
Within minutes, the Clinton campaign condemned the remark. Trump disputed the criticism, saying everyone in his audience knew he was referring to the power of voters and ‘‘there can be no other interpretation’’.
Trump, who has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, eventually took to Twitter to say the Secret Service had not contacted him about the remarks.
While campaigning in South Florida, which has a large CubanAmerican population, Trump also said that if elected president, he would reverse US President Barack Obama’s efforts to normalise relations with Cuba unless the communist island abided by certain ‘‘demands’’. Among those, he said, would be religious and political freedom for the Cuban people and the freeing of all political prisoners.
The comment marks yet another reversal for the GOP candidate, who previously said he supported the idea of normalided relations but wished the US had negotiated a better deal.