Is Psychoanalyzing Our Politicians Fair Game?

Introduction

Psychiatry imposes on itself a unique kind of self-censorship. It's called the "Goldwater rule," because it came about after a 1964 magazine poll of psychiatrists about the Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. The basic idea is that psychiatrists shouldn't give clinical opinions about politicians. The rule makes sense in some ways, but not in others. In this article, I'm going to suggest where it's helpful and where it only adds to the problem of inappropriate and discriminatory psychologizing.

At the outset, let's be clear about one thing: Much of this debate is rooted in discrimination against psychiatric disease, a bias that is not only immoral but also false. What if having a psychiatric condition made you more fit to lead, rather than unfit? Think of Abraham Lincoln's melancholy and Winston Churchill's manic-depression.[1]

By emphasizing how dangerous it is for psychiatrists to diagnose public figures, and rendering it "unethical," we psychiatrists are accepting and feeding into the public's discrimination against psychiatric illness. In fact, research[1] shows that manic symptoms enhance creativity and resilience, and depressive conditions increase realism and empathy. Manic-depressive leaders, I've argued, can be our best leaders. But risks also exist.

Thus, the debate about the Goldwater rule needs to happen, I would suggest, in the context of being clear that having a psychiatric diagnosis is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can have positive aspects.

More