Last month, 50 former national security officials who had served at high levels in US Republican administrations from former US presidents Richard Nixon to George W. Bush published a letter saying they would not vote for their party’s presidential nominee, Donald Trump.
In their words: “A president must be disciplined, control emotions and act only after reflection and careful deliberation.”
Simply put: “Trump lacks the temperament to be president.”
In the terminology of modern leadership theory, Trump is deficient in emotional intelligence — the self-mastery, discipline and empathic capacity that allows leaders to channel their personal passions and attract others. Contrary to the view that feelings interfere with thinking, emotional intelligence — which includes two major components, mastery of the self and outreach to others — suggests that the ability to understand and regulate emotions can make overall thinking more effective.
While the concept is modern, the idea is not new. Practical people have long understood its importance in leadership.
In the 1930s, former US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a crusty old veteran of the US Civil War, was taken to meet then-US president Franklin Roosevelt, a fellow Harvard graduate, but one who had not been a distinguished student.
Asked later about his impressions of the new president, Holmes famously quipped: “Second-class intellect; first-class temperament.”
Most historians would agree that Roosevelt’s success as a leader rested more on his emotional than his analytical intelligence.
Psychologists have tried to measure intelligence for more than a century. General intelligence quotient (IQ) tests measure dimensions of intelligence such as verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning, but IQ scores predict only about 10 percent to 20 percent of variation in life success. The 80 percent that remains unexplained is the product of hundreds of factors playing out over time. Emotional intelligence is one of them.
Some experts argue that emotional intelligence is twice as important as technical or cognitive skills. Others suggest it plays a more modest role. Moreover, psychologists differ about how the two dimensions of emotional intelligence — self-control and empathy — relate to each other.
For example, former US president Bill Clinton scored low on the first, but high on the second. Nonetheless, they agree that emotional intelligence is an important component of leadership. Former US president Richard Nixon probably had a higher IQ than Roosevelt, but much lower emotional intelligence.
Leaders use emotional intelligence to manage their “charisma,” or personal magnetism, across changing contexts. Everyone presents themselves to others in a variety of ways in order to manage impressions made: For example, we “dress for success.”
Politicians, too, “dress” differently for different audiences. Former US president Ronald Reagan’s staff was famous for its effectiveness in managing impressions. Even a tough general like George Patton used to practice his scowl in front of a mirror.
Successful management of personal impressions requires some of the same emotional discipline and skill possessed by good actors.
Acting and leadership have a great deal in common. Both combine self-control with the ability to project. Reagan’s prior experience as a Hollywood actor served him well in this regard, and Roosevelt was a consummate actor, as well. Despite his pain and difficulty in moving on his polio-crippled legs, Roosevelt maintained a smiling exterior and was careful to avoid being photographed in his wheelchair.
Humans, like other primate groups, focus their attention on the leader. Whether chief executives and presidents realize it or not, the signals they convey are always closely watched. Emotional intelligence involves awareness and control of such signals and the self-discipline that prevents personal psychological needs from distorting policy.
For example, Nixon could strategize effectively on foreign policy, but he was less able to manage the personal insecurities that caused him to create an “enemies list” and eventually led to his downfall.
Trump has some of the skills of emotional intelligence. He is an actor whose experience hosting a reality TV show enabled him to dominate the crowded Republican primary field and attract considerable media attention.
Dressing for the occasion in his signature red baseball cap with the slogan “Make America Great Again,” he appeared to have gamed the system with a winning strategy of using “politically incorrect” statements to focus attention on himself and gain enormous free publicity.
However, Trump has proven deficient in terms of self-control, leaving him unable to move toward the center for the general election. Likewise, he has failed to display the discipline needed to master the details of foreign policy, with the result that, unlike Nixon, he comes across as naive about world affairs.
Trump has a reputation as a bully in interactions with peers, but that is not bad per se. As Stanford psychologist Roderick Kramer has pointed out, former US president Lyndon Johnson was a bully, and many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have a bullying style. However, Kramer calls such figures bullies with a vision that inspires others to want to follow them.
Trump’s narcissism has led him to overreact, often counterproductively, to criticism and affronts. For example, he became embroiled in a dispute with an American Muslim couple whose son, a US soldier, was killed in Iraq, and in a petty feud with US House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan after Trump felt slighted. In such cases, Trump stepped on his own message.
It is this deficiency in his emotional intelligence that has cost Trump the support of some of the most distinguished foreign policy experts in his party and in the country.
In their words: “He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate criticism.”
Or, as Holmes might say, Trump has been disqualified by his second-class temperament.
Joseph Nye Jr, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University.copyright:Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with