Can you think of a sadder thing than the mental decline of anybody? Certainly it’s far worse for a person about whom you care, but really when it happens to literally anyone, it’s very hard to watch.

If the person was particularly sharp prior to it occurring, the contrast can be dramatic.

Now imagine that person were someone who runs a department of a company, or worse yet, the company itself.

There can be no doubt that ultimately, unless the person remains at a high level of competency, he or she should be asked to step down from the role.

Even more startling would be somebody in charge of the executive function for a country.

To be sure, there are Constitutional qualifications for someone even considering running for that office. That is, the office of the President of the United States. That said, those requirements do not present a particularly high bar.

For the most part, they exist to ensure his or her loyalties lie with the United States, and that the person is sufficiently mature and experienced to hold the office.

That said, there are some others I think we should all consider.

Among them is obviously truthfulness. The person in question should generally be expected to tell the truth. In order to know that’s the case, each person considering a given candidate should be expected to do his or her due diligence.

At present, both people being fronted for the office, have been called liars by somebody. The question is, “Is it true for either?”

I know what I think my answer to be, but that’s not something I intend to divulge in this article—that’s not what this piece is about.

The next question in my mind would be platform. If a person supports things you can’t, it might be reasonable to look at someone else.

That said, if the individual in question is closer to what you believe than any other candidate, yet also holds positions with which you can’t agree, from a pragmatic viewpoint, you may still be better off to assume that one to be your choice.

But in this little essay, I wanted to take the time to discuss another thing I count a pretty important need for what many consider the highest political office in the land.

That need would be solid ability to reason, speak, and relate.

Of all the people in government, there are a couple who must deal with foreign leaders and other dignitaries on an ongoing basis, based on the fact that they’re the linchpins of foreign policy.

Those two are the President and the Secretary of State.

It’s fair to say that many decisions come to our relations with other nations, are made at far lower levels, but how these two interact with leaders and other officials from outside the U. S., tend to set the tone for activities at those levels.

Further, all such relationships should be maintained essentially at the behest of the Secretary of State, who in turn, gets his or her marching orders from the Chief Executive.

The result is, the mental state, and keenness of the head of state here in America, is of paramount importance to those relationships.

On top of that, the leader of the country is often responsible for the final stage of congressional bills being enacted as legislation. It’s his or her signature that mostly makes that possible.

The reality then is, the person filling that office must either be at or very near the top of his or her game. Otherwise, that individual will be at the mercy of those around. That can’t be a good thing when it comes to things like meeting with foreign heads of state.

Your weakness, particularly your lack of mental acumen, is something that will assuredly be obvious to that leader.

If you cannot discuss matters of state with such a person in a cogent, meaningful way, it’s pretty certain in the best case, one can assume your actions towards them will likely be in disarray.

Worse yet, the head of an adversarial entity is very likely to take advantage of such a relationship, realizing that certain types of deceit can be employed, to win victories that are definitely not advantageous to the U. S.

Likewise, dealing with Congress in attempting to agree on various types of policy, among them fiscal direction, can obviously be disastrous if the person is not acutely aware of what’s being discussed.

Though failure on the part of that party may not be the end of the world, at the very least, it will make things that much harder on all who must come behind and work to forge alliances with foreign nations and between the executive and other branches of government.

Sadly, there’s a possibility at home as well as abroad, for people to take advantage where domestic policy is concerned as well.

In all cases, there’s meant to be a balance between the chief executive and those with whom he or she must work.

Not having that, can result in nothing but a dysfunctional government.

This is why, regardless the political affiliation of a person seeking to fill the office in question, those vetting him or her, must be certain he or she has the requisite cognitive ability to handle the position in which he or she is seeking to be placed. Any failure on their part to gain that assurance would be obvious malfeasance.

I’m not here to argue that one person or another currently seeking to fill that office is lacking in this regard. My interest is simply to ensure those considering the situation are taking the stated needs strongly into consideration

If those supposedly responsible for confirming the person put up for office, fail in their duties and it’s obvious they’ve done so, it’s your responsibility when you vote, to ensure the unqualified person does not enter office. And that’s not just true for the President either.

So keep in mind cognitive decline that will affect the person’s ability to sit in the Office of the President of the United States, is one of many possible qualification failures that may mean they never should be allowed to ascend to that office.

Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.