Why empathy should be a requirement for those seeking public office

Like many Americans the recent events in Washington have caused me to contemplate on the nature of public service, and specifically the qualifications that politicians should be required to demonstrate before being allowed to hold office. It has always struck me that in outlining the requirements to hold public office our founding father were remarkably generous in their assumptions about the character of individuals who might assume. Our founding fathers assume that those who held office would be individuals of character and sound judgment. Men like Jefferson took it for granted that a principled approach to governance would the standard by which all office holders conducted themselves. The creation of an ethical Republic was psychological firewall and political firewall, protecting citizens from the worst impulses of the mob. Their blind belief in the innate qualities of those who might assume public office was reflected in the language of the constitution, which requires the barest of qualifications for those seeking public office.

If recent events have proven anything it is that the qualification outlined by the constitution are no longer sufficient to ensure that those who hold public office are fit to do so. The limitations imposed on our founding fathers as a result of their historical circumstances may such considerations moot. A sitting Senator or President did not possess the kind of power that is now wielded in Washington daily. A sitting President or member of Congress did not have the power to deny precipitate the kind of national crisis that now seems to plague our Republic daily. Even America’s civil war required the sustained actions of several states before Lincoln found himself forced to declare war to save the Republic.

The actions of individuals like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor have shown that the question of Congressional qualifications for office holders is not merely an exercise in existential debate. Not when America’s office holders can provoke armed insurrections through a single tweet. If the integrity of America’s Republic is to endure qualifications for holding office must involve more than proving one residency or age. Such qualifications represent a bare minimum that is no longer sufficient in an age where the exercise of political power impacts millions of Americans.

The question of what qualifications should be added to the constitution to ensure that office holders govern in a principled fashion has generous numerous suggestions. Some have suggested that potential politicians be required to undergo psychological testing to ensure that do not possess the kind of character traits that might lead them to govern in an unethical fashion. Such suggestions have merit, but unless defined in more exact terms are unlikely to be effective in screening out individuals who are unfit to hold public office. What specific qualities should such test seek to establish as a baseline for those seeking political office. Cognition, compassion, and decisiveness are all useful and arguably necessary attributes for those seeking public office but guaranteeing that every candidate possesses such intrinsic traits in equal measure is impossible ensure. Should the attempt to revise qualifications for those seeking public office be abandoned because of the limitations associated with psychological testing. I would argue not. Psychological testing may be subjective, but it has consistently demonstrated the ability to identity one trait that is abundantly absent in both the rhetoric and actions of individuals like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor. We refer to this common trait as empathy, the ability to instinctively sympathize with individuals whose situation is dramatically different than our own. It is a quality that is missing in not only individuals like Trump and Marjorie Taylor but in the actions of large sections of the Republican leadership that has consistently minimized the suffering of working Americans.

In support of my argument, I would offer the observations of those historians who followed the Nuremburg war trials to define the nature of evil. Their conclusions ultimately focused not on missing skills sets amongst those who committed atrocities, but on qualitative traits that were consistently lacking in the individuals who were found guilty of war crimes. Foremost amongst these missing traits was the absence of empathy, allowing the individuals in question to see their victims as less than human. If for no other reason than this, the presence of empathy should be a standard requirement of every office holder in America. The sooner a standard test for every holder office is developed, the sooner our nation can begin to develop political leaders who are worthy of our support.