Concerns about Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman’s cognitive abilities, according to political hacks, amateur flacks, campaign managers, and media professionals, are both gross and useless.
Even mentioning Fetterman’s post-stroke auditory processing impairments is “appalling,” tantamount to showing hatred for the crippled. The idea that being unable to talk and comprehend information—two tasks high on the list of senatorial responsibilities—is a barrier is akin to criticizing “Tammy Duckworth or Madison Cawthorn” for “needing a wheelchair.” It’s a “intentional diversion” from the genuine challenges in this election season. In any case, the Senate “has not been a deliberative body for decades.”
NBC News reporter Dasha Burns has come under fire from her own profession for securing an interview with Fetterman and discussing her views regarding the candidate’s infirmities. Fetterman’s wife even suggested in an interview that the reporter should suffer “consequences” for her “ableism.” It’s unclear if this perilous assault on journalistic liberty is a direct strike on the motor of American democracy.
The candidate’s condition, we’re told, may even be a net plus. “Fetterman has become even more familiar to voters,” Rebecca Traister’s New York Magazine profile of the him read, “not because of his Everyman toughness but because of his struggles.” After all, swing voters “haven’t always listened to their doctors,” either.
In an age before the ever-present threat posed by mean tweets, all this frenetic activity would serve as an indication that Fetterman’s health issues aren’t a distraction at all. Indeed, the number of gaskets blowing simultaneously gives you some idea of the degree to which this issue has consumed Fetterman’s campaign at the worst possible moment. These journalists are panicked, and the campaign seems to share their anxiety.
In late September, Democrats began convening focus groups to assess just how relevant Fetterman’s faculties are to persuadable voters. According to the rosy picture Democrats painted for reporters, the candidate’s cognitive impairments are a sideshow. Not only do “persuadable voters believe Fetterman is fit to serve,” NBC News reported, they think he’s “getting sharper.” But not two weeks later, the Fetterman campaign produced a 30-second spot—short enough to suggest it will be backed by a significant ad buy—that addresses the issue head-on.
“After my stroke,” Fetterman opens, “I was just grateful to see Giselle and my kids.” In the soft-focus spot, Fetterman denounces “politicians” who “spend so much time fighting about the things that don’t matter.” What does matter, says Fetterman, is having the economic security to be able to spend time with loved ones because we never know how much time we have.
It’s a touching message, but it hardly allays concerns about Fetterman’s ailments. The point of an ad like this is to “hang a lantern” on the candidate’s negatives, thereby reframing the issue in more favorable terms. That’s a workable strategy, but it comes at the cost of conceding that the negative in question is a real and pressing concern for voters.
