Axar.az presents an article “Mental Health And Politics” by John Samuel Tieman.

I admit it. I was wrong. When I saw Joe Biden give his last “State Of The Union” speech, I assumed this is how he always is. Meaning sharp and articulate. I simply dismissed folks who said he was suffering from cognitive decline. I was alarmed when I saw the debate. I was shocked when the “Wall Street Journal” reported that the president's staff worked to “adapt the White House around the needs of a diminished leader …”.

All this raises so many questions. But, if we are to learn anything from this episode, perhaps we need to narrow in on this question. How should we take into account the mental health of our civic leaders?

We know more about the mind today than we have ever known in history. We routinely take into account the physical health of someone running for office. We take note of the results of the president's annual physical. Perhaps it is time that we start taking into account a leader's mental health.

Think about the recent past in the United States. A routine mental examination would have saved us a lot of heartache with former Representatives Matt Gaetz and George Santos. Had Pres. Biden's decline been made clear much earlier, the last election would have looked very different. Likewise Donald Trump. It seems possible, some say likely, that Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist. That's something very different than a person who displays other forms of mental illness. Malignant narcissism is potentially dangerous.

How should we take into account the mental health of our civic leaders? It's well worth noting that mental health, like physical health, comes in many variations. I seem to recall that Abraham Maslow speculated that half the population goes to work each day while suffering from mental illness. Folks routinely suffer from anxiety and depression. It is possible to imagine someone who goes through life in perfect mental health. Reality, however, is different. Abraham Lincoln suffered overwhelming depression, but he was a pretty good president. James Madison, Franklin Pierce and Calvin Coolidge may also have suffered from depression. Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Woodrow Wilson seem to have suffered from anxiety disorders. Let's pause for John Quincy Adams. Throughout his life, he served in diplomatic roles, as a state senator, a U. S. senator, Secretary Of State, as president. He served almost 18 years in the U. S. House Of Representatives. Yet he suffered throughout his life from depression. It made him socially awkward. He also, as Secretary Of State, was the primary author of the Monroe Doctrine. Late in life, he argued and won before the Supreme Court the “Amistad” case of 1841, one of the most important anti-slavery cases in American history. Despite his depression, his life was extraordinary, his contributions significant. So let me be clear. There are many forms of mental illness. What is under consideration here are states of mental health such that the person is nonfunctional, anti-social, or even dangerous.

How should we take into account the mental health of our civic leaders? Many would argue that this is a private matter. However, when a person enters public office, that person forfeits a certain degree of privacy. For example, the public deserves to know if a candidate has cancer that will soon incapacitate him or her. Should the public know a candidate's state of mental health? Should we know if a candidate is a sociopath? A sexual predator? Should we know if a candidate suffers from paranoia? From alcoholism?

Mental illness should not be, by itself, disqualifying. John Quincy Adams fought slavery. He made us a better nation because of his fight. That said, should a constituency know that their representative suffers from chronic depression? From a borderline personality disorder? How should we take into account the mental health of our civic leaders?

In his "Republic", Plato says that the best outcome, for a politician, is that the office makes him or her a better person. While Plato doesn't explicitly say it, public office should enrich a person with understanding, insight, patience, humility, a sense of purpose. Our popular cynicism notwithstanding, this indeed is what happens to many.

But Plato's understanding is pre-Freudian. Plato's notion presumes that the public servant has a firmly built personality, a congruent self, that the person has a solid foundation upon which to build. But what if the person is damaged? What if the person is irregularly formed? What if the person is, say, a malignant narcissist, as Donald Trump probably is? Damaged people can do a lot of damage. As the Bard Of Avon puts it, “Madness, in great ones, must not unwatched go.”