Houck, Davis W. and Amos Kiewe. FDR's Body Politics: The Rhetoric of Disability. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2003. 9.74 X 6.42. 160 pgs. 6 photographs. Cloth 158544233X. $32.95.

Reviewed by Lou Thompson, Texas Woman's University

When in 1973 John Dean told Richard Nixon that the Watergate cover-up had put a "cancer on the presidency," he was drawing on an analogy that has historical precedence. Indeed, according to Houck and Kiewe, the use of imagery involving sickness and health was especially prevalent in the Depression era, and they maintain that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his campaign associates took full advantage of this semiotic zeitgeist to both attack the opposition and to deflect any charges that FDR was physically and (consequently) mentally unfit for the presidency.

The book, eighth in Texas A & M University Press's Presidential Rhetoric Series, begins with the infamous 1997 dedication of the FDR memorial in which the featured statue of FDR does not show the wheelchair that was his means of movement for the last 20-plus years of his life. Four years later, after much controversy and tireless efforts of disability advocates, President Clinton is once again called upon to rededicate the memorial, this time featuring a sculpture of FDR seated in his wheelchair.

The book then flashes back to the summer of 1921, when FDR, who was a robust, active man at the beginning of a promising political career, became ill with what was weeks later discovered to be polio, or infantile paralysis. The book then moves chronologically through FDR's campaign for governor of New York and ultimately to his first successful run for the presidency in 1932. The authors very clearly outline their main points: These include the fact that FDR's disability was concealed, not just from the public, but from his family members, and that this concealment had more to do with public perceptions of his disability rather than any real limitations of the disability. They also argue that FDR used visual rhetoric that depicted him as able to walk when he could not, and that he similarly used verbal imagery of health (and metaphors of illness in regards to his opponents) to counter rumors about his own health. Metaphors of illness and health were employed widely in the 1930s, they also maintain, and FDR took advantage of this.

As for the 1932 election itself, according to Houck and Kiewe, Hoover's campaign secretly wanted FDR to be the Democratic candidate, assuming that the exposure of his disability would guarantee another Republican victory. Finally, their boldest assertion is that FDRs rhetorical strategies were paramount in his political successes, and that without a reputation as a physically healthy man, Roosevelt would not have been successful in any of these elections.

Any complaints I have about the book (which I enjoyed immensely) all have to do with its length. At 160 pages (especially considering that the book includes reprints of three previous articles), the book too often stops shy of making its points clear and its arguments effective. Houck and Kiewe are both scholars in presidential rhetoric, and their research on FDR is impressive (including work culled from archival collections, of FDR as well as his speechwriters and other cronies), but a quick look at their citations show that their research is just a little light on the disability front. Intriguing concepts such as the link between notions of masculinity and disability are not developed, nor do the authors ever explain their terminology: why infantile paralysis, and not polio? Is it merely a matter of historical reference?

More striking an omission, however, is contextual. After stating that these metaphors of disease and health were part of the verbal landscape of the Depression era, the authors do not establish clearly the proportion of FDR's use of rhetoric of disability. Was his use of this terminology significantly more prevalent than that of others? If so, how much?

In sum, although the book is fascinating, it would be much improved if it were about twice its present length; however, it needs more depth rather than more breadth.