In the March 2 issue of the Collegian, Eleanor Whitaker argued to, “establish mental capacity tests for politicians over the age of 75.” She delivered a timely argument in favor of amending the Constitution to require politicians 75 and older to pass a mental competency test before taking office. Her editorial pointed out that numerous politicians are within the age range where concerns arise about cognitive disorders. According to Whitaker, requiring older politicians to pass a mental competency test would prove that they are mentally fit to perform their jobs.
Though I believe that Whitaker is well intentioned, ultimately her proposal is contrary to the principles upon which America was founded, as well as politically unwise.
Core to the principles of the Founding is political equality amongst naturally unequal individuals, which necessitates a consent-based political system. One facet of this was the elimination of institutional barriers in government which may lead to the rise of artificial aristocracies, such as hereditary aristocracies or oligarchic aristocracies. The goal was to allow the people to vote for whichever candidate they believed was best for the office.
The mental competency of politicians was not something that slipped the Founders’ minds. Though they never doubted that unfit politicians would fill some of these offices, they hoped that certain mechanisms and structures of the government would reduce the number of unfit politicians while enabling the election of the greatest possible number of fit ones. Ultimately the Founders rested their faith on the American people to elect fit individuals.
So, why did the Founders not create institutional barriers to guarantee that mentally competent individuals are elected? Partly because they recognized that it is difficult to know for certain what someone else’s mental competency is. Primarily, though, it was because they believed in political equality, and the principle of consent means that the system has to be as democratic as prudence allows. The citizens need to have their choice of representatives, regardless of whether those individuals are truly competent for the job or not.
Mental competency tests would violate these principles by erecting a barrier that would unduly prevent people from voting for their preferred candidate. Further, mandating these tests to older politicians creates a discriminatory barrier which younger politicians running for the same offices would not face.
Moving to more practical matters, mental competency tests would be politically unwise because they would be another area of partisan dispute over candidates, rather than providing faith in a candidate’s mental competency, as Whitaker suggests. One or both parties would undoubtedly dispute the test results of opposing candidates. Further, just because the politician took the test at the beginning of his term in office, does not mean that he will continue to be mentally competent throughout his term.
Rather than relying upon mental competency tests, the American people need to rely on themselves to make the decisions about the mental competency of candidates for political offices. No other means is compatible with American principles and today’s political realities.
