Why We Should Psych Test Political Candidates

Would you vote for this guy?

It is inconceivable that a criminal psychopath such as Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson could ever be elected president of the United States. But maybe one of their less brazen siblings could. That scenario is not only conceivable, but probable-if not already a fait accompli. And this is why I propose an amendment to the Constitution that would require presidential candidates to undergo psychological testing, the results of which would be made public.

Just beneath our antiquated social radar is a thriving nest of subcriminal, or socialized, psychopaths. Though their deviancy is masked and their crimes less revolting, these psychopaths nonetheless pose grave dangers to our collective well-being.

In Without Conscience, Dr. Robert D. Hare, one of the world’s foremost authorities in the area of psychopathy, says that such psychopaths “appear to function reasonably well-as lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, academics, mercenaries, police officers, cult leaders, military personnel, businesspeople, writers, artists, entertainers and so forth-without breaking the law, or at least without being caught and convicted. These individuals are every bit as egocentric, callous, and manipulative as the average criminal psychopath; however, their intelligence, family background, social skills, and circumstances permit them to construct a façade of normalcy and to get what they want with relative impunity.”

What is a psychopath and why should we be concerned that such a person would become president of the United States? A checklist of emotional and interpersonal traits of such people would include: a grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, lack of remorse or guilt, shallow emotions, lack of empathy, poor behavioral controls, lack of realistic long-term plans, impulsivity, and irresponsibility. Hmmm, let’s see: do we really want a president whose core behavioral patterns include lying, cheating, cruelty, irresponsibility, lack of remorse, poor relationships, exploitation, manipulation, destructiveness, irritability, and aggressiveness?

Most alarming of all is the “frightful and perplexing theme that runs through the case histories of all psychopaths: a deeply disturbing inability to care about the pain and suffering experienced by others-in short, a complete lack of empathy, the prerequisite for love.” If this inability to experience or care about others’ pain and suffering marries compulsive lying in the Church of No Conscience, presided over by Impulsivity-well, good lord, that’s a train wreck for sure.

It is unconscionable to elect a president who lacks empathy and conscience, honesty and integrity, and mature impulse control. Shouldn’t these qualities represent the minimum standard of mental health for someone who is commander-in-chief of the largest military force in the world and who has virtually unlimited power to affect the lives of billions of people?

It’s not easy to know if candidates for president are mentally sound. At the moment, the only requirements for holding office are set forth in Article II, Section I of the Constitution. It specifies that, to be president or vice president, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. That’s it; nothing more-except tons of cash. I don’t like that the bar is set so low.

How can we, the citizens who are charged with making wise and considered choices about who becomes president, evaluate whether a candidate is mentally sound or suffering from mental illness? We do not have that kind of access to candidates, who we finally empower to set our national priorities, influence public policy, command the military, raise or lower taxes, establish budgets, maintain or violate treaties, assemble a cabinet, and so much more. We can only witness manufactured, media-based performances that are scripted and rehearsed to produce an effect. We need to get behind the curtain of smoke and mirrors, behind the misdirection antics of press secretaries and publicists, to see who is really pulling the levers. We need a way to ascertain the mental health of presidential candidates before they are granted world-shaking powers.

So, I propose a Constitutional Amendment calling for all candidates to submit to a battery of psychological tests to be administered and interpreted by eminent psychologists-and the results made public. I’m surprised this hasn’t already occurred. After all, psychological tests, along with drug and polygraph tests and background investigations, are routinely required in the public safety sector, including police officers, correctional officers, dispatchers, security guards, park rangers, SWAT teams, fire fighters, and emergency medical technicians. Military psychologists conduct psychological testing and applicant assessment for general fitness-for-duty and for highly sensitive jobs requiring security clearances. (It’s interesting to note that the Department of Defense employs more psychologists than any other organization or company in the world.) Courts may sometimes order a battery of psych tests to determine parental fitness. Work-related aptitude, ability, and personality trait testing, a billion dollar industry, is common practice in Fortune 500 companies. In a document entitled “Nuclear Security-Before and After September 11,” the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission “requires background checks for nuclear facility employees to ensure that they are trustworthy. Every employee who has access to safety equipment is required to pass background checks, including an examination of past employment, references, credit history, education history, military service history, an FBI criminal record check, as well as to undergo psychological testing. While on the job, each employee is also subject to random drug and alcohol testing.”

Granted, working in a nuclear facility is an important and sensitive job and I can understand the rigorous screening procedures intended to qualify a candidate’s worthiness to handle the job.
I’d like to have an equivalent screening process for candidates for president. I’d like to know that they have a human heart that can feel the pain and suffering of others. I’d like to know they have a conscience to hold their base instincts in check. I’d like to know if they can tell the truth or whether they are compulsive liars. I’d like to know they can work cooperatively with others. I’d like to know that they are not seeking to conquer the world as compensation for lovelessness. I’d like to know that they respect living things, that they have a sense of the sacred. I’d like to know that their soul moves toward peace, not war; toward forgiveness, not vengeance; toward freedom, not oppression; toward tolerance, not hatred. I’d like to know these things. This is where I want to set the bar.

As it is now, I don’t take any candidate at his or her word. I don’t trust any of them to represent their true motives and goals. A Constitutional Amendment requiring candidates to be evaluated for mental health is one way we can level the playing field in our search for the truth about candidates. In 1972, George McGovern initially selected Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri, as his running mate. What McGovern didn’t know at the time was that Eagleton had been treated for depression with electroshock treatments. In the eyes of many Americans, that meant Eagleton was not fit to be president, and as a result of the public disclosure of these facts, McGovern asked Eagleton to resign. My guess is that in the eyes of most Americans, a psychopath is not fit to be president.

There are a number of valid and reliable tests used to evaluate and assess a person’s personality traits and psychological health. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) can provide a comprehensive assessment of adult psychopathology and can help assess major symptoms of social and personal maladjustment.
With good reason, we already require firefighters and police officers and nuclear facility workers to be rigorously evaluated. With equal good sense and foresight, we should now apply the same standard to candidates for president.

© 2004/Robert Rabbin/All rights reserved Robert Rabbin is a writer and speaker whose twin passions of spiritual wisdom and social justice are expressed in his column of social commentary.

Excerpt from “Why We Should Psych Test Political Candidates” by Robert Rabbin, 11 January 2004

Photo courtesy NPR.org

 

Psychopath TEST Politicians

.

.

The Corporate Psychopath’s Arsenal

An adult having a childish tantrum = psychopathy

Psychopathy, often confused with sociopathy, is typically defined as a personality disorder with symptoms of persistent antisocial behaviour such as frequent violence; impaired or nil empathy and remorse, and brash, disinhibited, egotistical personas. Whilst the term is often used by the media to describe the psychotic and mentally ill, Professor Robert Hare, the creator of the ‘Psychopathy Checklist’, explains that psychopaths are not disorientated with reality and suffering from hallucinations or extreme distress but rather are very rational and have a high awareness of their behaviour and environment. All of their resulting actions are made out of choice and are freely exercised.

The Psychopathy Checklist, the most valid and reliable psychopathy measuring tool, points to three recurring observable characteristics of psychopathy: boldness, disinhibition and meanness. Psychopaths are well-known for their lack of empathy, coupled with predatory and parasitic behaviour. They are found in 1% of the general population but the number rises to 3.5% at the management level in corporate organisations.

The Corporate Psychopath’s Behaviour

Corporate Psychopaths are too often successful in organisations and the workplace. They are very career orientated but behaviourally they are ruthless, unethical, manipulative and extremely exploitative in order to quickly climb the corporate ladder. Some behavioural trademarks are:

• Superficial charisma
• Emotionally shallow
• Pathological lying and manipulation
• Lack of empathy, remorse or guilt
• Promiscuous sexual behaviour
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Constant impulsive and irresponsible behaviour
• Lack of realistic long term goals

Psychopathic behaviour differs when exposed in different environments. At an organisational level or within the workplace environment, these behaviours would typically result in scenarios such as:

• Frequent temper tantrums to cause high anxiety amongst peers
• Ridiculing or blaming others for bad work performance
• Intentionally spreading malicious lies for their benefit
• Stealing credit for the accomplishments of others or sabotaging others
• Refusing to take responsibility for behaviour or errors
• Doing whatever it takes to close a deal with no regards for ethics or legality
• Often taking the belongings of others without any intention of returning

Research shows that there are more instances of corporate psychopathic behaviour at the management level when compared to the general population, the reported scenarios are as such:

• Setting unrealistic and unachievable expectations to set employees up for failure
• Reluctance or refusal outright to attend meetings with more than one person
• Threatens perceived opponents with dismissal or discipline in order to taint employee profile
• Refusal to provide sufficient training or instructions to victim
• Invasion of personal privacy of employees
• Multiple sexual encounters with junior and/or senior employees
• Developing new ideas without real follow through
• Public humiliation of others and even encouraging of peers to torment or humiliate others

Havens for Corporate Psychopathy

Corporate Psychopaths are attracted to organisations and positions where they can easily gain power, influence, position, prestige and money typically in the financial services, media and legal sector. Other less known sectors include the civil services (e.g. the military, police, government and even the clergy). Clive Boddy’s paper on “The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis” comprehensively explains and illustrates how corporate psychopathy when left to flourish at the top hierarchy of companies, specifically Wall Street Banks, were the main culprits of the Financial Crisis of 2007-08 in America. None of the biggest culprits were prosecuted and they got away scot-free with their ill-gotten gains. What was most revealing was their behaviour: their total lack of empathy for the chaos and massive suffering they had caused to individuals, economies and countries.

There are measures to identify, prevent and monitor instances of corporate psychopathic behaviour in the workplace. The dilemma is the reluctance to use them due to company policies, data protection and confidentiality clauses. In our next article in this series, we will delve deeper into details concerning workplace norms, employment cases, legal implications and penalties of corporate psychopathy from a British perspective.

Excerpt from “The Corporate Psychopath’s Arsenal” By C.H.I. Talent Assessment, Nov 8 2016