Verified by 
Psychiatry
Why U.S. Presidents Should be Psychologically Vetted
Despite all their power, presidents are not psychologically screened for office.
Posted January 31, 2017
By some estimates, more than 90 percent of law enforcement agencies in the United States depend on psychological screening to help determine the fitness for duty of their applicants. Obviously, before giving someone a badge, a gun, and a license to use deadly force in the line of duty, we'd want to be as sure as possible that only people without dangerous psychiatric instability are selected for the job. (Of course, the current system is far from perfect as illustrated by the black lives matter and other law enforcement accountability and reform movements.)
What's more, many professions require applicants have a specific license of proficiency to obtain certain jobs. Thus, a huge array of working people have to pass a professional licensing exam to ply their trade, be they surgeons, pilots, attorneys, clinical psychologists, accountants, plumbers, cab drivers, or hair stylists (to name only a few). Of course, to obtain a professional license, one must undergo a course of training and demonstrate at least a minimal standard of competence.
Isn't it ironic, then, that the most powerful and responsible job in the world doesn't necessarily require any specific training or even competence to hold? Indeed, according to United States politics expert Tom Murse, a former contributing writer for About.com's U.S. Government Information section, "Presidents are not required to take psychological or psychiatric evaluations or pass a mental health examination before taking or while serving office in the United States."
Think about that... Before using a scalpel on a patient, flying a plane, filing a tax return, fixing a leaky faucet, driving a cab, or passing a comb through someone's hair, the job holder must first obtain a professional license that requires demonstrating an adequate degree of knowledge and ability. And as stated above, most law enforcement professionals must undergo and pass psychological vetting before they're deemed fit for duty.
But not the president of the United States.
It seems the only fitness for duty test a president need undergo is the campaigning, nomination, and election process. Probably a highly flawed and ineffective way to filter out unfit candidates who, if elected, will have the power to mobilize the full might of the armed forces, posses nuclear launch codes, appoint Supreme Court justices, and, with the stroke of a pen, strongly influence a huge amount of crucial national and international policies, programs, funding, and regulations. Actions that carry enormous and far reaching implications and consequences for literally millions, perhaps billions, of people.
Yet, it seems, no real fitness for duty test is required beyond having a large amount of money for campaigning, and either a strong likability factor, or a Svengali-like ability to convince enough electoral delegates and voters to cast their ballots his or her way.
But what if a President-elect, and ultimately a sitting president, has impaired judgment? What if he or she is highly irrational, or even delusional? One can argue that that's why we have the Twenty-fifth Amendment and impeachment procedures, to remove an unfit president from office. But many severe, mental disabilities can "fly under the radar," especially if the disturbed individual is manipulative and clever. That way, he or she can conceal a lot of his or her poor judgement with "spin doctoring," sophistry, bogus claims of national security, and outright deceit. Also, impeachment is an elaborate, lengthy and costly process during which the president can continue to preside over the nation and inflict further harm. What's more, the Twenty-fifth Amendment is near impossible to invoke when the president's political party has congressional control.
As Murse notes, "The idea of requiring presidential candidates to undergo psychological evaluation was not new, though. In the mid-1990s, former President Jimmy Carter pushed for the creation of a panel of physicians who would routinely evaluate the most powerful politician in the free world and decide whether [his or her] judgment was clouded by a mental disability."
Carter underscored in a December 1994 issue of the "Journal of the American Medical Association" the continuing danger to our nation from the possibility of a U.S. president being or becoming disabled, particularly by a neurologic or psychiatric illness.
The implications are beyond frightening. We have no real policy or procedure for determining whether or not a United States president is mentally fit for duty or is instead a clear and present danger to our country and the global community.
Perhaps it's time to take a closer look at President Carter's ideas and proposal?
Remember: Think well, Act well, Feel well, Be well!
Copyright 2017 Clifford N. Lazarus, Ph.D.
Dear Reader,
The advertisements contained in this post do not necessarily reflect my opinions nor are they endorsed by me.
Clifford
This post is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional assistance or personal mental health treatment by a qualified clinician.
