Should nominees for the US Presidency be forced to submit to psychological profiling?

Question

Surely this would weed out any would-be sexual scoundrels (Bill 'cigar' Clinton) and any warmongering rednecks with the IQ of a fruit fly (George W.)
Maybe the FBI could do the profiling. What do you think?

Answer 1

It's a good idea but if all they have to choose from are fellow americans then i don't think they have much hope in finding one suitable.
and
please don't insult fruit flies!

"FBI" and associated "american intelligence" are conflicting statements.

Answer 2

I think that the psychological profiling is supposed to be done by the voter. Don't you think this would tend to put a lot of power into the hands of whatever group was responsible for the profiling? The FBI could become like the Praetorian Guard, upon whoms favor ever President's existence would depend. Also, I think you may place a little too much faith in what a psychological profile can tell us - considering both the fact that there are many unanswered questions in psychology, and that we have no idea of what the best psychological traits for a great leader are (as an example, Lincoln was frequently depressed). I think the news media already does enough to trash the candidates, which prevents any decent human being from running, leaving us with only the scoundrels who are so intent on gaining power that they will go through anything to achieve it. Adding one more public humiliation like you suggest would only worsen the process.

Answer 3

Although most would agree with you that some sort of psychological check should be done, it is unlikely that the selection system would dare include such testing. Cynics would say that it would be pointless, since too many candidates would fail; and others would argue that profiling would infringe some sort of 'human right'!

Re the answerer who pointed out that the current incumbent went to an Ivy League 'school'... Well, in all nations, the offspring of the rich, powerful and influential often attend top universities purely because they are who they are, rather than because they are intellectually superior in any way.

[Perhaps a simple test for all nominees would be of their ability to think on their feet by answering questions on a wide range of foreign policy and general political issues, in a cogent and lucid way. Now that might eliminate all the less thoughtful, politically naive and myopic candidates!]

Answer 4

I thought that debates and primary elections provided that service. The electorate is supposed to be able to make an informed decision but sadly the electorate is uninformed and has made poor choices. Even if Bush and Clinton's Psych. profile were available it would only give the spinsters an opportunity to disparage the opponent. Obviously Bush's learning disability and lack of cognitive skills would be great cannon fodder. Clinton's hypersexuality would spin into his sensitivity, understanding and depth of feeling for women. Maybe voters should be given a Psych Evaluation before they are allowed to vote!

Answer 5

Who says a "sexual scoundrel" can't be a great leader? So Bush has a squeaky clean sexual background, right? And he's doing a great job.......right?? I don't think so. I couldn't care less what your / my / our leaders do in the bedroom (and that includes infidelities - it's still their own personal life and you can't assume it's going to mean they won't be a good leader) it's what they do in the office that counts. Any profiling would have to be completely independent anyway. Nice idea, but a bit impractical. Oh, and one other thing no-one seems to have mentioned is the money factor. You could be the most honorable person in the USA and a FANTASTIC potential leader, but if you don't have the money to wage a campaign and "advertise" yourself (or make promises to banks and other large companies that you'll pass laws favourable to them if they put up the money for you) then it's simply impossible.

Answer 6

By default anyone who seeks a position of power is unsuitable to hold that position, any presidential nominee who got through the screaning process would only serve to highlight inadaquacies in the profiling system

if you piss into a water filter what comes out the other side is still piss

Answer 7

Good idea...but would you trust the FBI to really tell the truth..?...
Money talks mate ,,,, that's why the US have "Monkey-Boy Bush"

Putting the FBI in charge of Profiling would be like asking Count Dracula to look after a Blood Bank..! ... nuff Said.

Answer 8

Sure but then that would have to go for all public jobs.

Do you think there are enough that could pass to even begin to fill the jobs.

Not a good idea.

Answer 9

It would have been a mistake to "weed out" Bill Clinton. He was one of the best Presidents we've ever had.

I need to feel in awe of our next President, I need to feel that he or she is brilliant, a genius and a humanitarian.

Answer 10

but surely it would take a power hungry megalomaniac with serious mental problems to actually want to take on the job.
All the nice kind normal human being would of been trodden on already in the crazed rush for power by freaks like gw bush.