Presidents typically have access to a wide range of advisers, including the National Security Council, intelligence agencies, military officials, his cabinet and other experts. These advisers provide information, recommendations, and differing perspectives on national security matters. It is common for presidents to engage in deliberations and seek consensus among their advisers before making a decision.
Ronald Reagan exhibited signs of early cognitive decline well before the end of his second term. Some experts believe Reagan’s entire second term was marred by a progression from mild to severe cognitive decline. Ron Reagan Jr. has stated that his father was already battling Alzheimer’s disease in the White House. However, Reagan’s condition was covered-up by his closest advisers.
But Reagan who was accustomed to being scripted and directed was able to successfully complete his second term because he voluntarily relied on decisions made by his closest advisers on matters of national import. So this experience raises a critical question when it comes to an individual elected President for a first or second term, and who is beginning that 4-year term in his 80s.
The extent to which the United States president’s decision-making is made without consensus of his advisers, particularly in matters of national security, can vary depending on the president’s leadership style, personal beliefs, and ego, as well as the specific circumstances at hand. While presidents generally rely on advice and input from their advisers, they ultimately have the authority to make decisions based on their own judgment.
However, some presidents may lean more towards a unilateral decision-making approach, asserting their prerogative as the elected leader to make decisions. In such cases, presidents may prioritize their own judgment (i.e. “I alone can fix it”), thus making arbitrary decisions without reaching a consensus among their entire advisory team. Therefore, the exact balance between decisions made with and without consensus varies from president to president and from situation to situation.
Finally, it behooves us to ensure that if we are to support an elderly candidate for president that we ensure the individual is of good character and temperament, and devoid of ego-driven narcissistic and autocratic tendencies. A candidate who is honest with himself, his advisors, and the American people.
