*The opinions expressed within the content are solely the author’s and do not reflect the website’s or its affiliates’ opinions and beliefs.*
Being a politician is arguably one of the most impactful jobs one can have. To be able to change the lives of thousands if not millions means that a politician carries a unique burden. So you’d at least want a mentally competent person handling situations imperative to the security of our country. That’s why the FBI engages in a five-phase psychological assessment measuring logic-based reasoning, personality, figural reasoning, preferences and interests and situational judgment. It’s also why passing a personality test is a prerequisite to becoming a CIA agent. You likely wouldn’t want a narcissist as your psychiatrist, so they must pass a psychological exam to get their license. If you’re a coach, you’d want your players to not only be physically fit but mentally fit as well so they can face the crowds and perform to their highest potential in high-pressure situations. This is why many athletes choose to take sports psychological exams measuring their anxiety specific to sports (SCAT), psychological coping skills (ACSI-28), or even their emotional intelligence as an athlete (AIQ). The higher the stakes, the more we risk and the more we have to lose not only as individuals but as a community, whether that be as a sports fan or a citizen of a country.
What about the people who create the legal guidelines by which agencies such as the CIA or FBI have to abide? Or the people who create the very laws and civil rights that the FBI protects? Representatives and senators have extremely high-stakes jobs. They represent constituent needs and interests in Congress, responding to and delivering those needs through casework, winning federal funding, and drafting and passing legislation. They can even amend the Constitution itself, determine who to tax if in the House, approve presidential nominations for the Supreme Court and declare war. Given that all these decisions could be life or death for a multitude of people, it may be safe to assume that there are at least a few prerequisites in place to ensure that this person is not only qualified but mentally fit. Additionally, there should be some type of system in place to ensure that throughout their terms of holding office, the congressperson doesn’t have any onset of or lasting mental conditions that could impair their judgment, competence, or coherence. But there isn’t. Given the high-stakes job of a member of Congress, there should not only be a required personality exam before a person takes office but also a psychological committee on staff to monitor the mental fitness of representatives over time.
This concept is especially relevant now given the recent attention to many prominent representatives, senators and even the president, whose actions are possibly indicative of cognitive decline. Many people, especially some Republican members of Congress, point to Biden’s instances of stuttering or searching for words as clear evidence of cognitive decline and thus he is unfit for office. But we all stumble over our words sometimes, none of which is as concerning as Mitch McConnell’s instances of “freezing up“ mid-press conference; despite the verdict of the congressional physician, many suspect to be mini-strokes. Other instances of representatives showing major signs of deteriorating mental health include: an aide whispering in late Republican Senator Orrin Hatch’s ear telling him what to say or a lawmaker having to “reintroduce themselves” to late Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein multiple times despite them working together for the past 15 years.
Ever since Reagan’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis, the question of age in Congress has been of big concern. While the minimum age for a representative and senator is 25 and 30, respectively, the average representative is 53 and the average senator is 64. Generally, incumbents are more likely to be reelected, so it’s likely that as these politicians continue to age, the chance of cognitive decline in the members is high. However, they’ll be tasked with devising imperative legislation that requires full attention to their rationale and judgment, something that inevitably weakens with age. An on-staff group of psychologists could at least assist in monitoring the mental behavior of congresspeople over time. The mental health of members of Congress interferes greatly with their job, so much so that it should not only be handled by the individual but by others as well. The health of members of congress should be taken seriously enough to have some course of action if there is a documented trend of mental decline over time.
That’s not to say that their medical records should be released to the public, or even released to their peers, nor is having psychologists on staff underestimating one’s capability to take care of themselves. But requiring psychological exams administered by a separate government committee would certainly be responsible, as it shouldn’t be just up to the person themselves to decide whether they should continue to work if they are showing signs of cognitive decline or with an official diagnosis. Perhaps the committee itself wouldn’t even administer exams, but instead require congresspeople to turn in updated psychological records every few years. Either way, regardless of age, members of Congress should be required to undergo psychological examinations and it shouldn’t just be up to them.
Not only should periodic psychological examination be a requirement, but a prerequisite. This concept gained popularity surrounding Trump’s presidency and his tendencies as a businessman beforehand. Before even running for president, many prominent psychologists labeled him as a “textbook narcissist,” archiving multiple clips showcasing either his selfishness, refusal to take responsibility for his actions, demeaning behavior, or his disagreeableness. It’s important to note that despite these assertions, all the psychologists cited haven’t formally diagnosed him with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or at least publicly declared that they have tested him, which is highly unlikely. Still, their observations as well as the people who have worked with him go to show that he has some undesirable traits that aren’t suitable for an efficient president. There are some aspects of the president that people can’t be deciphered from their campaign and mental aptitude is not truly shown until the president is working in the White House. It wouldn’t hurt to make a personality examination a prerequisite for a president and a member of Congress.
The 25th Amendment somewhat confronts the issue of a president being unfit for office. If a president resigns or dies, the vice president immediately takes over as president. Section 4 specifically states that if the vice president and a majority of the members of the president’s cabinet concur that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and send that statement in writing to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore, then the vice president immediately becomes “acting president.” The 25th Amendment has been invoked eight times, but never Section 4 itself. Still, if the cabinet were to “depose” the president under Section 4, they would need to document multiple instances that lead them to such a conclusion. If that’s the case, then a psychologist’s corroboration would only bolster the credibility of the document; even better if the psychologist is someone who’s watched the president’s actions alongside them inside the White House, rather than a psychologist who has no prior knowledge of the president. If the president is to resist this deposition, it is up to Congress to practically decide whether or not the president is unfit with a 2 ⁄ 3 majority in both chambers. Once again, the knowledge of a psychologist on staff would only help members of Congress in making a fully informed decision.
At the end of the day, I’m no political scientist. When it comes to the actual implementation of such a system, many issues, conflicts of interest and biases arise. In a perfect world, on-staff psychologists may be an effective tool to combat corruption and cognitive decline in Congress. In a system that’s inherently corrupt from every corner, who’s to say that the addition of a psychological committee would only feed into the corruption, used as a crutch for politicians to bolster their credibility by making false or at least questionable statements? But the fundamental idea of this still stands. If done correctly and with integrity, the answers we get from psychological exams can give us a powerful and convincing insight into ourselves. But at times, even convincing isn’t enough. It comes down to persuasion. What are you going to do with that information? How are you going to better yourself?
