On Saturday, someone who aspired to be the oldest man ever elected president of the United States nearly met his maker. Fortunately, the would-be assassin’s bullet only severed the ear of 78-year-old Donald J. Trump.
And the victim could be heard giving a clear order to the group of Secret Service agents urging him on: “We have to move, we have to move.” “Hold on,” Trump said.
He was determined to seize the opportunity. He stood up and began punching the air hard, creating an image — bloodied but upright, with the Stars and Stripes in the background — that could, by itself, guarantee that, in November, he would be elected president (again).
That means Trump, during his second term in the White House, would be older than Biden (81 years old). However, no one expresses concern that he is “too old.” If anything, the fear of Trump’s opponents is that he is too dominant and acts with demonic energy.
The question of age has cast a shadow over the presidential race since Biden’s performance in the first debate between the two candidates. The current White House occupant stunned viewers with his confusion, passages of gibberish and, at times, a glassy look and a slack jaw that suggested senility.
Determined to seize the moment, Trump began punching the air with force, creating an image that alone could ensure he is elected president this November, writes DOMINIC LAWSON
For Biden, it’s not just about age, even though that’s the word everyone uses. It’s about illness and acute mental degeneration.
On the other hand, Donald Trump said countless things that were completely false, but he lied with unwavering vigor.
It was too much for Biden’s defender in the Hollywood elite, George Clooney. Last week, he wrote a devastating article in the New York Times titled: “I love Joe Biden. But we need a new candidate.”
Clooney described how, at a recent fundraiser he attended, “he wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same guy we all saw at the debate… Is it fair to point these things out? It has to be. This is an age thing. Nothing more.”
Not so. It’s not just about age, even though that’s the word everyone uses. It’s about a disease, an acute mental degeneration. There are, or have been, many Biden-age people who remain vigorous and intellectually focused, even in the political sphere.
To give a personal example: I just looked up footage of my late father, Nigel Lawson, speaking at an Oxford Union debate in 2013, when he was the same age as Biden is now.
First of all, my father didn’t have a single grey hair (I promise, it was completely natural, unlike Trump’s hairstyle) and he delivered a flawless speech in the House of Representatives, only occasionally looking at his notes.
My father was always in good health; I don’t think he spent a single day in the hospital before he was nine. This is very different from Joe Biden.
In February 1988, the then senator from Delaware suffered a near-catastrophic brain aneurysm. He was given last rites and underwent a nine-hour operation.
He made it, against all odds; but three months later, Biden suffered a second aneurysm (on the other side of his brain) that required another major surgery.
As a result, the President has metal clips on his brain arteries, meaning he cannot undergo an MRI scan, as the magnetic field could move the clips, with potentially fatal consequences.
Although Trump would be older than Biden at the end of a second term, concerns are being expressed not that he will be “too old” but too dominant.
More than two years ago I wrote about this medical story here. What I wanted to say, after Vladimir Putin sent his tanks into kyiv, was that the fashionable comments about the Russian president’s alleged mental state or “illness” were absurd, when the real concern should focus on Biden’s capabilities.
And I quoted a statement from a year earlier, in 2021, by Dr. Greg Ganske, a former congressman who had compared Biden’s mental state to that of the man who had sat next to him at a luncheon in 1997: “Witty and charming, no stutters or incomplete thoughts. It pains me greatly to see President Biden decline and concerns me.”
Dr. Ganske quoted a neurosurgeon friend who referred to the two brain incidents and Biden’s 1988 surgery: “It takes its toll and it can show up later.” Of Trump, Dr. Ganske observed: “He is not senile and his brain is relatively alert, whether he likes it or not.” That remains true for Donald Trump, at 78.
Incidentally, this obsession with “age” rather than ability is what lies behind the Labour manifesto promise to make members of the House of Lords retire during the parliament in which they turn 80.
Some of the most valuable members of the Upper House are over 80. The fact that Sir Keir Starmer recently appointed the 81-year-old former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett (very sharp) as a life peer shows how absurd this policy is.
As events in the United States are now demonstrating, it is acumen, not age, that counts.
Enjoy the honeymoon, Sir Keir, while it lasts
Reading the press reports accompanying Sir Keir Starmer on his trip to the Nato party in Washington DC, you would think it was a resounding triumph for the new Prime Minister.
They were also encouraged by President Zelensky’s reaction after his meeting with Starmer: the Ukrainian leader posted on Twitter/X that he had learned of the permission (from Great Britain) to use Storm Shadow missiles against military targets on Russian territory.
“We had the opportunity to discuss the practical implementation of this decision… I am grateful to the UK.” In his own comments, Starmer said the missiles were “for Ukraine to decide how to deploy them.”
Despite reports that Starmer was strengthening our country’s engagement with Ukraine, there has been no change from policy under Rishi Sunak.
Under the previous government, kyiv was obliged to use them only on Ukrainian territory (including Crimea), so several experts praised Starmer’s reinforcement of our country’s commitment to the fight for Ukraine.
But then… there was a sudden change. It turned out that there had been no change from policy under Rishi Sunak: British defence officials reported that Zelensky would have to “seek assurances elsewhere” – presumably including Washington – before Ukraine could fire such missiles into Russian territory, even for defensive purposes.
It is not clear what happened in that case, whether Starmer failed to grasp the true situation or whether Zelensky had misinterpreted the British prime minister’s words. But it was a disaster, in terms of clarity of message, on a critical issue.
If something like this had happened in the final days of Sunak’s government, the media would have harshly criticised “the confusion within the government”. Now: nothing.
This is the political honeymoon period for the new Prime Minister, so there is no appetite for criticism. That is normal in such circumstances. Sir Keir should enjoy it while it lasts.
