George H. Stewart, MD, of Portland is an adult, adolescent and child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.

When we think of a “character,” we might imagine Falstaff or Hannibal Lecter, Peter Pan or Huey Long. Character refers to those relatively immutable ways of thinking and behaving that distinguish each of us throughout our adult life.

A detailed definition of character would refer to specific qualities of kindness or cruelty, honesty or its opposite, concern for others versus self-serving, and so forth.

As an adult, adolescent and child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, I think character is an expression of our accumulated life experiences, particularly formed within our families and communities when we are children and young adults. Blame for bad character is irrelevant; a tiger is a tiger and those in its proximity had best beware or be eaten.

We have a tiger in the White House. He obeys a morality of only his self-interest. He cannot seriously consider the often-compelling needs of others and regularly ignores all barriers to his desires, including the laws and the Constitution.

Just one of many examples of the above is the destruction of USAID, which is estimated to have saved 92 million lives in 21 years, all for only $24 of the average taxpayer’s $15,000 annual federal tax payment. That is a remarkable return on our investment, as good as wastewater processing, begun in the mid-19th century, was for radically decreasing the spread of typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and other infectious diseases.  

It is predicted that the demise of USAID will result in the death of an estimated 14 million people, including 4.5 million under the age of 5, by 2030. President Trump’s wealthy hatchet man callously joked, “We fed USAID into the woodchipper over the weekend. Could have gone to some great parties. But didn’t.” This reflects yet another powerful person lacking important character traits.

Experts all agree that some alterations in funding sources and toward greater efficiency would have been useful for USAID. However, none who understood its successes would have advocated for its erasure.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers, stockbrokers, contractors, Realtors — the list goes on of those who must train and pass examinations to be certified or licensed in order to exercise their particular skills. But those with the potential to do the most harm to our country — the president, vice president, senators and congressmen/women — have no such requirements.

The qualifications for assuming arguably the most powerful position in the world, the U.S. presidency, include merely: being native-born, being over 35 years old and having lived in the U.S. continuously for the preceding 14 years. It is a very low bar, leaving the American public vulnerable to demagogues, people who are clever at being popular, despite lacking good character.

Our president can hire the most skilled people in the country to advise him. But if he lacks the ability to act other than in his self-interest, the people and our country suffer.

Psychological testing, combined with a history of past behaviors, can easily distinguish between a person with good character and a person with bad character.

I propose that any candidate for the above-noted national public offices must have a confidential character assessment prior to standing for nomination.  Professor emeritus at Stanford University Phillip Zimbardo, Ph.D., recently advocated a similar approach in an essay in “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” 

Imagine an unskilled surgeon operating on our loved one. We need our highest elected officials to be able to set aside their personal greed and grievances, obey the law, work within the Constitution and direct their actions in the best interests of all of the people in our country. A character assessment is an efficient process and could weed out the most morally unqualified invasives seeking national office. It is an idea whose time has come.