The President as Physician

Back when George W. Bush was President, it seemed to me that his Christian fundamentalist supporters wanted and expected him to act like a “Pastor-in-Chief,” someone who spoke for and enforced the country’s “traditional” religious standards.

I objected to that conception of the Presidency. First, why would anyone look to a politician for spiritual leadership? Second, I hate the stench of theocracy.

I didn’t think again about the metaphorical role of the President until I read the following comment concerning President Obama’s approach to governance:

“While acknowledging public outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid by a financial firm that just months earlier had turned to taxpayers for aid, the administration's economic advisers said President Barack Obama wouldn't ‘govern out of anger’."

What a beautiful expression of wisdom and maturity! What a difference from the Republican philosophy of government! Indeed, anger is not helpful in solving problems. It is a hindrance. A President should not govern on the basis of emotional reactions. A President should govern on the basis of knowledge, reasoning and counsel.

As I thought about it more, I realized that my ideal for the role of a democratic leader would be that of a “Physician-in-Chief.” Ideally, like a good doctor, a democratic leader would:
• use all currently available resources to assess a problem;
• consider the problem based on the latest knowledge and from a variety of perspectives;
• consult with peers and specialists regarding the problem and possible responses;
• evaluate the possible responses without ego, emotionalism, or presumption;
• apply responses on a case-by-case basis; and
• favor the least destructive response whenever possible.

I am happy to see that this is President Obama’s ideal, as well. I do not want my President, or my doctor, to take actions based on selective information-gathering, dogmatism, prejudice, or emotionalism. Only Republicans can look at Bush’s mess and fail to see the lesson.