Steve Bainbridge wonders about presidents and their issues (not the policy kind, but the personal kind). Specifically he notes that both the current president and the immediate past president had serious “issues”–to wit:

Bill Clinton’s stepfather was a violent alcoholic. Children of alcoholics frequently have difficulty growing in developmentally healthy ways, which can impact them as adults. Clinton’s rages, womanizing and risktaking to an extent suggesting sexual addiction, impatience, lack of self-discipline as illustrated by his infamous time management problems, hubris, and self-centeredness all are consistent with a highly dysfunctional family environment during his youth.

Then we have George Bush. Can there be any doubt that W has been working through unconscious Oedipal issues at our expense? Or, perhaps more precisely, not working through them? Even if you don’t buy the argument that Bush has daddy issues, moreover, there is clear evidence of a highly dysfunctional personality in history of alcohol and drug abuse.

The lack of success of the presidents in question leads Steve to wonder if we need a president who has issues about his racial identity¹.

This question leads me less to fear any unique “issues” that the current crop of candidates may or may not have, but to wonder about the mental state of anyone who runs for the presidency of the United States.

Consider what it means to run for the presidency. One has to have an enormous ego. One has to be willing to listen to oneself say the say the same things over and over and over again or a daily (if not hourly) basis. ² One has to be willing to endure inane event after inane event (think pancake flipping and diner hopping). One has to be willing to use stupid arguments and simplistic slogans (that one knows are stupid and simplistic, but can’t admit it) against one’s opponents over and over and over again in the quest for votes. One has to expose oneself (and one’s family and associates) to a great deal of scrutiny, often of the mist humiliating type. Indeed, there is a great deal of self-humiliation that one is required to engage in to run for the presidency.

Beyond that, one has to go through an ever-lengthening, physically grinding process which requires a great deal of time to pursue that means little leisure time and limited contact with family and friends. The campaigning itself is not productive work (i.e., in and of itself it produces nothing tangible), but rather is a tedious means to an end.

As such, forget what specific “issues” a given candidate might have–what does it say about a person in general that they are willing to run for the office in the first place?

All this brings several thoughts to the fore.

The first is that all of it reminds me of Churchill’s famous quip: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”³ Really, this is a pretty remarkable (and at times depressing) way to pick a chief executive, although I really can’t think of a better one.⁴ Indeed, the problems extend well beyond that of presidential candidates. I have met a number of politicians, candidates and elected officials alike, and, on balance, I haven’t found them to be an overly impressive lot (especially when in campaign mode).

The second is an extended quote from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (that I have noted before):

one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. to summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. to summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

Indeed.

Third, I also always think of Plato’s Republic (book II):⁵

Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot help –not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling to any one who is better than themselves, or indeed as good.

Of course, I think of that passage not because I think most politicians are drawn to office for the reasons cited above, but rather often just the opposite (i.e., they are in it for the honor and the money).

So again, I am thinking that anybody who runs for president has “issues” just by dint of the fact that they are running (validation issues, ego issues, you name it).

Any thoughts?

1. And he doesn’t mean McCain [↩]
2. Sure, I repeat myself in my job, but usually it is a semester, a year, or even two before I teach the same class again, and even then I don’t have canned lectures. Of course, one of the reasons I couldn’t bear a job at a community college teaching the same five courses every semester is that I couldn’t bear to listen to myself give the same lecture over and over. I would go mad giving a stump speech multiple times a day, every day, as the candidates often have to do. [↩]
3. I am, in truth, a fervent supporter of democracy, but it isn’t difficult to see its flaws. [↩]
4. By that I mean democratically–not our electoral system. Indeed, I would reform the actual electoral rules, given the choice. Of course, even then the basic problems noted above would be in place, especially the egomania. I can think of institutional reforms that would affect the structure of campaigning, but none that would get rid of the egos. [↩]
5. Parially because Adam’s solution to the problem above strikes me as the most radical version of Plato’s philosopher-king, who governs for neither glory nor treasure, that one could conjure. [↩]