Book Review: Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

This book is well-written, compelling, and—most notably—largely uncontested. I’ve read and heard very little pushback on the specific facts or episodes it reveals, which suggests that authors Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper did their journalistic homework. The anger it has generated seems not to concern the accuracy of its content, but rather the timing of its release—particularly among Biden loyalists, who view it as a betrayal during a time when the President is reportedly battling stage four colon cancer.

Others, more detached, wonder aloud why this information wasn’t brought to light sooner—why major media outlets, especially CNN, did not explore or disclose the full extent of President Biden’s physical and cognitive decline during his time in office. That is perhaps the most damning question of all.

This is an important book. It speaks to an uncomfortable truth that extends far beyond one man: the American political establishment, across all branches, has proven remarkably inept at addressing questions of age, health, and capacity among its senior-most officials. From the silent frailty of Dianne Feinstein to the vanished vigor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we’ve seen what happens when ego and denial—both personal and institutional—take precedence over public responsibility.

Perhaps the quintessential case of this phenomenon was Woodrow Wilson’s second term. After a debilitating stroke, Wilson was essentially incapacitated. His wife, Edith, barred access to him, managed his communications, and in effect acted as President. It was a quiet coup by pillow and teacup. The Republic endured, but barely.

There are shades of Edith Wilson in Jill Biden. She appears to have acted as her husband’s chief protector—controlling access, managing his schedule, shielding him from the press, and preserving the illusion of a functioning presidency. In her role as spouse, that’s understandable. In her unelected role as a shadow gatekeeper to the Commander-in-Chief, it is far more problematic. One might say she acted out of love; but in doing so, she may have done a grave disservice not just to Joe, but to the country.

The book should be read not as a political hit job, but as a cautionary tale—a sobering account of what happens when the reality of aging is denied, hidden, or downplayed in a role where vitality, decisiveness, and mental clarity are non-negotiable. The tragic erosion of strength and cognition in old age is painful to witness in any context. But when the individual in decline is the President of the United States, the stakes are exponentially higher.

Being President is not a part-time job. And yet, this administration’s inner circle seemed intent on turning it into a 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. desk duty—often with questionable results. The staff’s attempts to mask or manage the President’s decline weren’t just misguided; they were reckless. Shame on them. Shame on the senior Democrats who knew the truth and said nothing. And shame, too, on the partisans who savaged the few journalists who dared to report what millions of Americans could plainly see.

Modest Proposals for Reform

The republic deserves better than this. Here are a few modest proposals to restore some measure of honesty and responsibility to our political gerontocracy:

  • Mandatory retirement at 78 for all members of Congress and Supreme Court justices. This would mean the last year someone could run for the Senate would be age 73; for the House, age 76.
  • Presidential retirement at 78. If a sitting President reaches that age during their term, the Vice President should assume office.
  • Lower the minimum age to run for President to 32. Why 35, anyway? If you’re old enough to command a drone strike, you’re old enough to command the White House.
  • Annual cognitive testing starting at age 68 for any sitting President, Supreme Court justice, or member of Congress, with results made public. Transparency, like sunlight, is the best disinfectant.

And What of Donald Trump?

Let us not delude ourselves. The other septuagenarian (now octogenarian) candidate is not immune to the same questions. A similar book could be written—perhaps will be written—about Donald Trump’s own health, mental acuity, and fitness for office. The signs are there, albeit in a different key.

One would hope that, should Trump become clearly unfit for office due to health reasons, the wise and the decent would persuade him to step aside. But hoping for wise and decent behavior in American politics is a bit like hoping the Mississippi River will reverse course out of courtesy.

We are a nation now ruled by its elders, but without the wisdom such a gerontocracy is supposed to confer. Instead, we cling to figureheads and fictions, while truth sits ignored in the wings—sometimes until it’s too late. Original Sin may not be a comfortable read, but it is a necessary one.

Notes on Democracy by H.L. Mencken Still Relevant Today

H.L. Mencken’s Notes on Democracy was written about 100 years ago, yet the reader will be struck by how sharply his observations on 1920s politics and culture mirror the political landscape of today.

Mencken’s caustic style and biting sarcasm run throughout the book. He held little confidence in the judgment and wisdom of his fellow citizens, particularly regarding politics and voting, as evidenced by this remark:

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

Mencken’s disdain was not reserved solely for the electorate. He was equally unforgiving when it came to the judgment and competence of elected leaders, describing their primary motivation with brutal clarity:

“It is his business to get and hold his job at all costs. If he can hold it by lying, he will hold it by lying; if lying peters out, he will try to hold it by embracing new truths.

One quote in particular struck me—written a century ago, yet hauntingly apt in describing the Trump administration’s approach to governance:

“No man would want to be President of the United States in strict accordance with the Constitution. There is no sense of power in merely executing laws; it comes from evading or augmenting them.”

The relevance of Mencken’s skepticism and critique of American democracy is both startling and disheartening. His writing is a reminder that the flaws he saw in the democratic process and its leaders are not new—they are simply dressed in the colors of each era. We could certainly use more writers and journalists like Mencken today: fearless in their observations, unyielding in their criticism, and unafraid to expose the flaws in both our political culture and the electorate that sustains it.

Murder the Truth by David Enrich: Brief Review and Recommendation

There is little doubt that investigative reporting, journalism, and legacy media are under full-scale assault. When politicians or public figures are confronted with articles or reporting that challenge their narratives, they are quick to sneer, “fake news.” In Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful, David Enrich details the escalating legal and political efforts to undermine press freedoms in the United States. These efforts, he explains, are largely initiated and financed through right-wing groups and MAGA followers.

One glaring example of this shift is the recent resignation of Bill Owens, executive producer of 60 Minutes. Owens cited that “over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.” This resignation is symptomatic of a larger fear permeating newsrooms. Newspapers like The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have even become hesitant to make political endorsements. Fear of lawsuits, loss of subscriptions, and dwindling advertising revenue have left many media organizations wary of publishing anything that might stir controversy. As a result, crucial stories and investigations—those that expose government corruption, public official malfeasance, and corporate irresponsibility—often remain buried, locked away in the dead files of an editor’s desk drawer.

More than 2500 newspapers in the United States have stopped publishing in the past two decades, a rate of about two per week. Most counties in the United States are no longer home to any daily papers, and many surviving outlets have been gutted by layoffs and other cost-cutting. 70 million Americans live in what researchers have dubbed “news deserts.”

As staffing at local newspapers, declines, mayoral races, become less competitive, and voter turnout wins. Misinformation spreads. Politicians and other public figures are rarely held to account for lies and misdeeds. Today, state, legislators, city Council members, and small town mayors – – not to mention companies that pollute or mistreat workers or sell dangerous products – –are operating with a degree of invisibility and impunity that they have not enjoyed in a century

This book contains interesting stories and analysis of several free speech battles including:

Sarah Palin vs. The New York Times
Donald Trump’s Lawsuits Against Media Entities
Dominion Voting Systems vs. Fox News
Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker
Melania Trump vs Daily Mail

Enrich’s book may come too late to reverse this tide, but it serves as critical research for future historians who will undoubtedly question how a nation that once prided itself on free speech allowed censorship and political pressure to erode First Amendment guarantees.

An excellent read. Highly recommended for anyone who values a free and independent press.

More Notes and Asides

I can understand Trump’s desire to have the title of Pope. It would confirm at least in his own mind, his infallibility.

Recommend listening to Is the Sun Setting on America’s Financial Empire? | The Ezra Klein Show for an interesting discusssion between Ezra Klein and Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and a professor of economics at Harvard University on Trump’s tariff policy and its implications for the U.S. dollar and economy. Rogoff is rather blunt about how moronic the current economic path is.

Also suggest a listen to Where in the World Is Trump Taking Us? | TED Explains the World with Ian Bremmer. Bremmer is articulate, candid and very conservant about global affairs, the world economy, geopolitics and U.S. domestic policy. Like a professional referee, he calls them like he sees them.

I believe that our freedoms include the right to die with dignity. If an individual who is cogent and psychologically stable believes that she has lived life well, that her life is complete and that her future will not bring improvement or joy, she should have the right to make the decision to terminate her life. Period.
Joan Temko Anyon
San Francisco

Daniel Kahneman’s Decision: A Debate About Choice in Dying NYT

For those who have not seen it, I hardly recommend viewing Four Seasons, a romantic comedy movie from 1981 starring Alan Alda, Carol Burnett, Jack Weston and Rita Marino. I looked forward to the reprise of Four Seasons, 2025 Netflix version starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Will Forte and Kerri Kenney-Silver. However, I found the 2025 version to be dark, depressing and not very funny. The one bright spot in the movie was the acting of Steve Carell, whose character in the movie was most entertaining of the seven characters featured.

Maybe the most irritating commercials that I see on TV come from injury lawyers who probably boast of exorbitant cash settlements they get for their injured clients. Who winds up paying for these exorbitant cash settlements? The insurance companies? Not really. Consumers are on the hook for paying huge cash settlements as our annual auto insurance premiums continue to rise exponentially.

“Changing your mind once about a theory, an investment, or a person, is healthy. Changing your mind twice is not.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb