The Hot Screen was startled to see news last week that the American Psychoanalytic Association had rescinded its rule about members offering psychological diagnoses of public figures they hadn’t examined. This restriction is known as the Goldwater Rule, so named as it was implemented after former senator and Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater successfully sued the organization in the 1960’s following a survey of members that had half of them calling Goldwater psychologically unfit to serve as president. But follow-up stories are reporting that this restriction actually remains in place for the American Psychoanalytic Association, though psychiatrists have been and still are allowed to offer more general opinions on a politician’s mental health. Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association still retains a stricter adherence to the Goldwater Rule for its members.
The context for this story was of course Donald Trump, and the wish of some mental health professionals to opine on his mental and emotional state — so why am I feeling relief that psychiatrists can’t diagnose the president? For starters, such a diagnosis would be unethical, based on something looser than the usual diagnostic procedures of the profession, and so ultimately not a real diagnosis at all. In unleashing its medical-professional firepower on Trump and other politicians, the psychiatry profession would simultaneously be loosening its claims to actually be a profession whose opinions are worth listening to in the first place.
Offering authoritative opinions on the psychological health of politicians would also weaponize for partisan purposes the tools of a medical profession officially dedicated to healing, not hurting; after all, “do no harm” is the motto of doctors everywhere. What would be the limits? It is not hard to imagine a situation in which politicians began to solicit the opinions of psychiatrists in order to “objectively” deny electoral legitimacy to their opponents. And what conditions could be disqualifying? That someone has “attachment issues”? That someone seems to have obsessive-compulsive disorder? How about obsessive-compulsive syndrome? Or what if someone was "diagnosed" as a sociopath?
In the case of our current president, it would be misguided to channel opposition to Donald Trump into a psychological bill of particulars as to his unfitness for office. One of the things that’s deeply striking to me (though not just me!) is how the president channels the anger and resentment of so many Americans; how he gives voice and legitimacy (by dint of being a public figure willing to say such things) to the darkest and most dangerous currents of the American character. Clearly there is a story to be told by future biographers of how the president’s psychology intersects with not just mass psychology but such profound currents of American history. Impulses to pathologize Donald Trump’s individual character have the side effect of downplaying the profound ways he embodies pathologies of the American character; he becomes something of a scapegoat, and the secret desire to put all of America’s sins on Donald Trump’s head (or inside his head, to throw in a psychology pun!) is itself a psychological impulse worth taking a closer look at.
Donald Trump is a powerful example of how redundant it would be to introduce faux-authoritative opinions into evaluating his fitness for office. Whatever ails Donald Trump’s mind and emotions is not subtle, and though much surely lies below the surface, what is visible is more than enough for an average citizen to make the sort of judgments as to mental state and character that we all make constantly, day in and day out, as human beings interacting with other human beings. For instance, we don’t need a professional to tell us that Donald Trump has rage issues: these are as plain as day for anyone willing to see them, based on countless tweets, speeches, and news stories. These are characteristics that a child can see. I personally think Donald Trump is a deeply damaged individual, but I also think this is something that every citizen can figure out for themselves.
I think the much more important question than whether Donald Trump suffers from some sort of disqualifying psychological condition is why so many people continue to support him, not simply in the face of the psychological evidence, but in the face of his actual actions. I guess this is a fancy of way of saying that for anyone who opposes Trump and supports a truly progressive vision for the United States, the basic question is why so many people would support a man, and policies, that are alternately economically regressive, anti-democratic, racist, and religiously chauvinist. We can criticize Donald Trump for his lack of empathy; but we would also do well to cultivate our own, regarding our fellow citizens across the political divide. A democracy should not be simply about closed minds, righteousness, and red versus blue; it should also be about mutual understanding, persuasion, and finding common ground. Politicians like Donald Trump divide us against each other, make us believe our divides are unbridgeable. Psychological understanding, it turns out, is an important part of renewing our political life — not when used as a weapon, but as a tool for crossing the inevitable divides between one citizen and another.
