Extra

Dear Jagjit Singh:

You have brought up an interesting point and a valid concern in your call for a cognitive test for lawmakers and judges. And I have given thought to the subject in the past. It is important that we have leaders who are fit to lead. However, I believe implementation of cognitive tests would undermine democracy and not shore it up.

A mental fitness test would convert a selected group of psychologists, neurologists, and psychiatrists into a political body. If some of them believed Trump is too extremist, it might cause those panelists to disqualify him. But extremism and the extreme effort to remain in power probably would not rule out Trump, because it doesn't show up on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. (I'm guessing that; write to me if I'm wrong about that.)

But who will select these mental health professionals who are to sit in judgment of our future leaders? Would the voters choose them? Would they need to run for elections themselves? Would they be appointed by someone or some part of the government? 

Selection of examiners is important, because we need to have adequate checks and balances within the subsystem that we're creating which is intended to decide whether a candidate is neurologically fit to lead. 

Selection of panelists might need to be done in similar manner to selection for jury duty. Any person receiving a mental health or neurology related license would need to be in the pool of persons who would need to be chosen randomly. And Mr. Singh, there are more bugs than that to work out of the system. 

If we look at California, there must be several million doctors, and hundreds of thousands of neurologists. But there are also many thousands running for public offices and running to be elected judges. 

Whatever way you slice it (or in this case, perform surgery) we are spawning a new branch of government. A large percentage of licensed practitioners (neurologists, psychologists) would serve on fitness committees, and this would cause the collective of them to have considerable political power. 

When you do psychological and neurological testing to potentially disqualify politicians, it is dangerous for democracy. Instead, it has to be entirely up to the voters. The voters need to decide whether a politician is fit to lead, and not a psychologist, neurologist, or psychiatrist. 

Additionally, the mental health field is badly flawed. That's why Patients' Rights came into existence--to give some pushback against psychiatric cruelty and abuse. Mental health professionals can be some of the most abusive persons that exist. 

Mental health professionals will give "a professional opinion." Don't count on that being unbiased or objective. Mental health professionals are constantly getting it wrong. 

Mr. Singh, it seems as though your opinion piece is an indirect endorsement to put Trump back into office. Trump is a few years younger and comes off as much more energetic. Biden doesn't speak in a loud, in-your-face tone. Biden comes off as older, and this is a cause of concern. Trump could potentially beat Biden easily, just by calling Biden too old, and doing so in every speech Trump makes. 

Biden's campaign would be well advised to adopt a counter strategy. 

Mr. Singh, thank you for bringing this up, and I hope that the Biden campaign gets a look at this essay. 

Jack Bragen writes and lives in Martinez, California.