How unfit for the presidency is Donald Trump? The term “unfit” has been bandied about quite a lot since January 2017, when Trump was sworn in to office. But how, exactly, do we define “unfit”  as the term applies specifically to the presidency of the United States? We can look to the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but it lacks a clear definition, stating only that the President can be removed if he “is unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office.

We all know that Trump ran for president by saying that he was a great CEO and that he’d run the country like a business. I have my doubts about his effectiveness as a business leader. But even if he is somehow as good as he has bragged about, a president is not a CEO [he has yet to figure this out], nor is the White House a mob-family compound. Presidents of the United States need a completely different set of skills and personality traits from presidents of family owned real-estate conglomerates with no accountability, bosses of crime syndicates and “Dear Leaders” of authoritarian regimes.

But what are those skills? In a recent Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, psychiatrist Prudence L. Gourguechon describes her search through professional literature for definitions of leadership – a search that led to many descriptions of business leadership, but few that defined the characteristics needed to carry out  the “powers and duties” of the presidency.

She finally found what she was looking for in a most intriguing place: The U.S. Army’s Field Manual , which contains a 135-page subsection [FM 6-22, published in 2015] entitled, “Leader Development.” After studying the document [so we don’t have to], Gorguechon distilled the Army’s criteria for high-level, strategic leadership into the five categories quoted below.

While it’s tempting to cite examples of Trump’s unfit behaviors regarding each of these traits, there are simply too many to list — and even the most casual observer of the man’s words and actions knows what we’re talking about here. So, I’m going to quote Gorguechon without comment and let you remember your own favorite, illustrative moments from the Trump presidency so far.

Trust

According to the Army, trust is fundamental to the functioning of a team or alliance in any setting: “Leaders shape the ethical climate of their organization while developing the trust and relationships that enable proper leadership.” A leader who is deficient in the capacity for trust makes little effort to support others, may be isolated and aloof, may be apathetic about discrimination, allows distrustful behaviors to persist among team members, makes unrealistic promises and focuses on self-promotion.”

Discipline and self-control

The manual requires that a leader demonstrate control over his behavior and align his behavior with core Army values: “Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.” The disciplined leader does not have emotional outbursts or act impulsively, and he maintains composure in stressful or adverse situations. Without discipline and self-control, a leader may not be able to resist temptation, to stay focused despite distractions, to avoid impulsive action or to think before jumping to a conclusion. The leader who fails to demonstrate discipline reacts “viscerally or angrily when receiving bad news or conflicting information,” and he “allows personal emotions to drive decisions or guide responses to emotionally charged situations.”

Judgment and critical thinking

These are complex, high-level mental functions that include the abilities to discriminate, assess, plan, decide, anticipate, prioritize and compare. A leader with the capacity for critical thinking “seeks to obtain the most thorough and accurate understanding possible,” the manual says, and he anticipates “first, second and third consequences of multiple courses of action.” A leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking demonstrates rigid and inflexible thinking.

Self-awareness

Self-awareness requires the capacity to reflect and an interest in doing so. “Self-aware leaders know themselves, including their traits, feelings, and behaviors,” the manual says. “They employ self-understanding and recognize their effect on others.” When a leader lacks self-awareness, the manual notes, he “unfairly blames subordinates when failures are experienced” and “rejects or lacks interest in feedback.”

Empathy

Perhaps surprisingly, the field manual repeatedly stresses the importance of empathy as an essential attribute for Army leadership. A good leader “demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view” and “identifies with others’ feelings and emotions.” The manual’s description of inadequacy in this area: “Shows a lack of concern for others’ emotional distress” and “displays an inability to take another’s perspective.”

In a political and cultural environment in which the military is revered nearly to the point of worship, the U.S. Army’s take on leadership is especially relevant, and it’s worthy of serious consideration. You have to wonder what the people who wrote this section of the Field Manual are thinking when they evaluate their current commander-in-chief against these principles, and as they try to instill these values into up-and-coming leaders. If they really believe in what they have written, the irony must be very, very painful.

The post Trump flunks US Army’s own leadership checklist appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Everything is political. Our long-running series of political quotes proves that–we think. We’re always on the lookout for quotes–contemporary and historical–that are pertinent to the current political environment.

Our illustrator is Christopher Burke, whose unique, quirky cartoons add a touch of whimsy–which we really, really need in today’s political realm

Ironically, the person who said this was John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, who was ousted in 2015 by the right-wing of his own party.

The post Political quotes: “Leaders” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Which two of the following characteristics best describes the kind of leader that you would want for the country? [You must select two]:

1. A warrior, fearless and strong
2. An intellectual who is knowledgeable and who reasons well
3. A person who is thoughtful and caring with who he or she is
4. Someone who will not back down to anyone.

Once you’ve selected your answers, then think about which two Donald Trump might select. Then try Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

In Occasional Planet’s on-line survey of 550 respondents*, the answers came out like this:

Our thinking was that the top and the bottom choices would be more Trump-like; in fact, more reflective of the Republican Party. Similarly, our hypothesis was that the middle two options would be more representative of progressive thinking. These two characteristics seem to characterize several recent Democratic presidents, most particularly John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama.

There are six different pairs of combinations that any one respondent could choose. We wanted to see what the difference was between what Republicans and Democrats chose. Figure 2 shows the percentages of different groups that selected the pair of “comfortable with self” and “reasons well:”

Democrats (in blue) selected these two options 81% of the time; five times as often as random selection would be. Republicans (in red) selected them only 30% of the time. Republicans generally favored at least one of the two more “macho” choices.

As you look at the current debate among 2016 presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seem to focus much more on issues than do the Republicans. Clinton and Sanders both come across as “thoughtful and caring; comfortable with themselves” as well as “knowledgeable and capable of reasoning well.” The GOP candidates reflect more of the warrior mentality (particularly with Rand Paul having dropped out) and as individuals who will not back down, especially Donald Trump and Marco Rubio.

We asked respondents the same questions about what characteristics they would like in their boss. The graph below shows the comparisons of different groups in terms of what they want for a leader of the country vs. a boss. The red bar reflects what they want in a leader; the blue bars are what they want in a boss.

When it comes to the “thoughtful, rational, caring, comfortable” options, all groups think that is more important in their boss than in a leader for their nation. But the biggest spread among them is with members of the GOP. Republicans seem to want what might be called the “integrated personality” for their boss, but not nearly as much in their national leader.

What do we learn from this? This is very subjective, but there are a few takeaways:

1. Democrats favor more a person who is “comfortable with who he or she is.” This is why Democrats generally have the good sense to reject uncomfortable individuals for president like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. The question remains, do Republicans seem to prefer someone who is not comfortable with him or herself, or do they just not notice?
2. Democrats seem to reject the one-dimensional thinking of “someone who will not back down” or a “warrior, fearless and strong.” Does this mean that they have favored “weak presidents?’ It is interesting that during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, no American soldiers were killed in combat. and during Bill Clinton’s presidency, only one American soldier was killed in combat. Were they weak? Doubtful. But they were judicious.

*Occasional Planet interviewed 550 Americans on January 14-15, 2016, using the services of the online-site Survey Monkey. The sample size is reliable +/- 4.5%, 95% of the time. It is demographically balanced by gender, ethnicity, age, income and geographic region.

The post Survey: Democrats and Republicans want different kinds of leaders appeared first on Occasional Planet.