When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The Declaration of Independence
There comes a time when we owe allegiance to God and country that requires us to take a stand. That time has come.
There comes a time when men and women of good conscience must speak up to defend the principles and liberties on which this nation was founded. That time has come.
The President of the United States, Donald Trump, is a clear and immanent threat to the foundational principles of the United States and its national security. The time has come for all Americans of true conscience to speak up.
Donald Trump is uniquely unfit to be President of the United States. He is dangerous to fundamental American values. He is dangerous to our well-being as a country. He is dangerous to our peace and national security.
To remain silent at this moment in American history is unacceptable.
Responsibilities
Something is not right with the psychology of Donald Trump. You see it, and I see it. Because I am a licensed clinical psychologist, I know what it is. And it scares me. It immensely scares me.
However, I am prohibited by the standards of professional psychology from telling you what scares me. As a licensed clinical psychologist, I am prohibited by Standard 9.01b of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association from providing “opinions on the psychological characteristics of individuals” unless I have conducted an “examination” adequate to support my statements and conclusions.
I have not conducted a personal “examination” of the President, so I cannot tell you about what terrifies me surrounding the psychological characteristics clearly on public display by our President of the United States. But I am terrified by what I see.
Something is not right with the psychology of Donald Trump. You see it, and I see it. I know what it is, and I understand the depth of what it is. I know where it comes from, and I know what its implications are for potentially distorting perceptions and decision-making. And it terrifies me to the point that I must speak out as a faithful and loyal American. I cannot remain silent in the face of this threat to the institutions of our democracy and our national security.
Yet the standards of my profession prohibit me from speaking, and if I speak about what I know I could potentially face retaliation from the President through my professional organization for disclosing the depth and implications of psychological characteristics clearly on public display by the President of the United States.
What should I do? Remain silent on what could be a clear and present danger facing our nation? Or speak out and describe what I know, and face the retaliation of my government acting through my professional organization for speaking out?
Free Speech in Political Discourse
My position with regard to free speech in the political sphere is that Standard 9.01b of the APA ethics code represents a fundamental violation of my First Amendment right of free speech in political discourse, a pillar of American democracy.
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.
The First Amendment to the Constitution
The question becomes whether a professional organization can strip me of my rights of citizenship and restrict my right of free speech regarding a political figure? Can the APA compel my silence in political discourse? And what happens when silence becomes complicity?
- Since I am a clinical psychologist, am I prohibited from saying that the President is arrogant, since arrogance is a “psychological characteristic” and I have not conducted an examination of the President?
- Since I am a clinical psychologist, am I prohibited from saying that the President is thin-skinned in response to criticism, since being thin-skinned in response to criticism is a “psychological characteristic” and I have not conducted an examination of the President?
- Since I am a clinical psychologist, am I prohibited from saying that the President has poor judgement, since having poor judgement is a “psychological characteristic” and I have not conducted an examination of the President?
- Since I am a clinical psychologist, am I prohibited from saying that the President has exhibited signs of loose associations, tangential, and non-linear thinking in press conferences, debates, and speaking engagements, since loose associations, tangentiality, and non-linear thought are “psychological characteristics” and I have not conducted an examination of the President?
The “psych0logical characteristics” of the President bear directly on his performance as President. The statements and behavior of the President in the public arena appear belligerent and arrogant. His behavior and statements made in the public arena appear to evidence ideosyncratic thinking and a subjectively defined reality that has only a loose connection to objective facts, and he appears to display an obsessive self-absorption in his public statements and behavior. These are all factors that bear directly on his performance as the President. Are these factors then outside the boundaries of reasoned political discourse?
And in merely forming my argument, have I violated Standard 9.01b by expressing an opinion that the President appears belligerent and arrogant, that he seemingly holds a subjectively constructed reality that has only a loose connection to objective facts, and that he displays an obsessive self-absorption in his public statements and behavior? Are these opinions about the “psychological characteristics” displayed by the President in public statements and behavior in violation of Standard 9.01b because I have not conducted a personal “examination” of the President?
Have I, by reason of my having knowledge about psychological characteristics, then lost my rights of citizenship to observe the psychological characteristics on display by the President and form opinions that are then rendered in the public political discourse through reasoned arguments designed to persuade? A vibrant democracy requires active dialogue, dispute, and argument among its citizenship – ALL of its citizenship. Each citizen brings a valuable contribution to the discourse, and NO citizen should be excluded.
By what authority, then, and by what right does the APA strip psychologists of our rights of citizenship? I have knowledge. Does having knowledge then nullify my rights of citizenship, my rights and obligations of citizenship to participate in the public political discourse regarding our country. I am a citizen of the United States, yet I am compelled to remain silent in the political discourse surrounding the psychological characteristics of our President.
I cannot offer an opinion regarding the President’s potential dishonesty, since dishonesty is a psychological characteristic. I cannot offer an opinion regarding the President’s judgement in decision making, since judgement is a psychological characteristic. I cannot offer an opinion regarding the seemingly erratic, unstable, and belligerent temperament of the President, since temperament is a psychological characteristic. I have been stripped of my rights of citizenship by reason of my knowledge.
Can a whole category of people be stripped of our First Amendment rights and our rights of citizenship simply because we have knowledge? Are architects not allowed to express opinions on the structural integrity of the World Trade Center after 911 because architects know about the structural integrity of buildings? Are plumbers prohibited from expressing opinions about the lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan because plumbers know about the piping of water? Why then are psychologists prohibited from expressing opinions regarding the psychological characteristics of the President simply because we know about psychological characteristics?
If the answer returns that the opinions of psychologists might influence people, that is exactly the point. The opinions of plumbers and architects might influence people as well. Is the standard then to become that anyone with knowledge in an area that might influence others is prohibited from expressing an opinion in the area of their knowledge? Contractors cannot engage in political discussions about the legitimacy and cost of construction projects. Teachers cannot engage in political discussions about plans for revising the education system. Knowledge in an area prohibits the expression of an opinion regarding that area of knowledge.
My opinions regarding the psychological characteristics and stability of a political figure, such as their honesty, temperament, and judgement, represent the reasons for my political opinions, and I should be allowed to present these opinions in reasoned argument designed to persuade. If I am prohibited from voicing the reasons for my political opinions to my American fellows, then I am restricted from applying the full persuasive power of reasoned argument to political discourse. This fundamentally undermines the freedom of speech that is deemed so essential to the functioning of a vibrant democracy that the freedom of speech is enshrined as a foundational right of citizenship in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
By what authority is a professional organization empowered to restrict its members from expressing full persuasive argument in their political discourse when not acting in their professional capacity? I am not Donald Trump’s psychologist. In expressing an opinion regarding the psychological characteristics of the President, I am not acting in a professional capacity. If I were acting in my professional capacity, I would interview Donald Trump and I would then be bound by patient confidentiality from publicly expressing an opinion about the psychological characteristics of Donald Trump.
But I have not examined Donald Trump and I am not bound by patient confidentiality issues because I am not acting in my professional capacity. I am an American citizen acting as an American citizen, who has formed an opinion regarding the psychological characteristics of the President based on the President’s public statements and behavior and the knowledge I have acquired across my life applied to the President’s public statements and behavior. Among the life-knowledge I apply is the knowledge of psychology that I have acquired relative to my career. I also apply knowledge derived from my study of history, and knowledge from my personal life experience.
Am I applying professional-level knowledge? Of course. Because I possess professional-level knowledge. That’s what reasoned argument does, it applies knowledge to argument. But I am not Donald Trump’s psychologist. I am not operating in my professional capacity as a psychologist. I am a citizen of the United States expressing an opinion in reasoned political argument and discourse about the psychological characteristics evidenced by the President.
Silence as Complicity
“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.” – Mahatma Gandhi
The APA prohibits me from speaking. The APA compels my silence regarding the “psychological characteristics” on display by the President of the United States, psychological characteristics that affect his judgement and decision-making.
According to the APA, I am prohibited from the exercise of my free speech right in political discourse because I have not conducted an “examination” of the President. No other American is required to conduct a personal “examination” of the President in order to voice an opinion regarding the “psychological characteristics” of the President. No other American is required to conduct a personal examination of the President in order to voice an opinion about the President’s apparent belligerence, arrogance, and truthfulness displayed in his public statements and behavior.
Only psychologists are stripped of our rights of citizenship in a free democracy – because we have knowledge.
The APA compels my silence.
“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.” – Albert Einstein
What happens when silence becomes complicity? What happens when our silence conflicts with our moral obligation in a free society to speak out?
What happens when the distortions to truth and reality characteristic of personality pathology threaten our freedoms and institutions of democracy? Do we remain silent about what we know? Or is our obligation to speak?
In a CNN opinion article by Frida Ghitis (Donald Trump is “gaslighting” America), Ms. Ghitis charts the course of “gaslighting” in undermining our grounding in truth and reality, linking the practice to both the narcissistic personalty and the emergence of totalitarian political regimes.
According to Ms. Ghitis:
“Mental health professionals have made much of the practice, said to be a favorite of narcissists and abusive spouses. But more recently the tactical tampering with the truth has become a preferred method of strongmen around the world. Gaslighting by other means was always a common feature of dictatorships, but it has found new vogue as a more subtle form of domestic political control even in countries with varying degrees of democracy.” (CNN, 1/10/17)
Ms. Ghitas cites numerous specific examples of “gaslighting” by the President. As a clinical psychologist with direct knowledge of the psychological processes responsible for “gaslighting,” I am prohibited from speaking to the issues raised by Ms. Ghitis in reasoned political discourse because that would entail my rendering an opinion on the “psychological characteristics” of the President.
But what happens when remaining silent is complicity? What happens when remaining silent when the “occasion demands speaking out the whole truth” becomes complicit with the undermining of our freedoms and institutions of democracy? What is our obligation as faithful and loyal citizens within the free political discourse of our times to speak what we know, to speak what we see?
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” – Elie Wiesel
The psychological characteristics of the President of the United States are directly relevant to free and open political discourse central to the vibrancy of our democratic institutions. The psychological characteristics of the President of the United States that affect his judgement and decision making are not a matter on which people of conscience can remain silent. Knowledge must speak.
Reasoned Political Argument
In a recent twitter post, the political commentator Keith Olbermann advanced the argument that there is something fundamentally wrong with the psychological processes being evidenced by the President. I could speak directly to the features noted by Mr. Olbermann, and more, but I am prohibited from engaging in the full public political discourse by the requirement that I must first conduct an “examination” of the President that would serve as the foundation for my opinion.
Yet, as a faithful and loyal American, I cannot remain silent during this potentially clear and present threat. I believe that, as an American, I have a fundamental right and an obligation to participate in the political discourse within my guaranteed First Amendment rights of free speech.
My reasons for my political views regarding the President of the United States are directly germane to the political discourse and to my ability to make make reasoned persuasive argument regarding my views. To restrict me from providing the reasons for my political views is to restrict my rights of free speech within democratic political discourse and my rights to apply the full power of reasoned rhetorical argument to political persuasion.
I recognize my professional responsibilities as a clinical psychologist that require me to temper my statements about others, and to base those statements on solid data.
My question to my professional colleagues is whether the public actions and statements of the President of the United States represent a form of public “examination” in which the President, as a clearly public figure, has voluntarily exposed his psychological characteristics for public scrutiny and comment as a condition of the presidency. Am I then released from Standard 9.01b due to the “public display as examination” available from the public statements and public behavior evidenced by the President of the United States which would then allow me to form and express an opinion as a citizen of the United States on the “psychological characteristics” of the President?
My question to the American Civil Liberties Union, is whether my rights as a citizen of the United States to engage fully in free and public political discourse with reasoned argument designed to persuade can be abrogated and restricted by a professional organization, so that I am unable to bring fully reasoned argument of persuasion to political discourse?
Defending Our Liberties
There comes a time when all faithful and free citizens of a democracy must take a stand to speak for the freedoms of the democracy. Freedoms purchased and won on the fields of Concord and Lexington, at Gettysburg and Antietam, and on the beaches of Normandy and Tarawa. In the defense of our freedoms, our rights, and our national security, we must bring full persuasive power to the arguments we offer.
There are times when we are required by the course of events to declare the causes which impel us to take action. There are times when silence is complicity, when “occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly” (Gandhi).
For me, that time for a fully voiced defense of our foundational liberties and our national security has come.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857
Sons of Liberty is a blog intended to promote reasoned political discourse. The opinions expressed by Dr. Childress on this blog are his personal opinions. They do not represent his professional judgements or diagnoses of any person. These opinions are based on the entirety of the knowledge available to Dr. Childress applied to reasoned arguments intended for political persuasion.
Sons of Liberty 