Article content continued

This is not a rhetorical question. In recent days, as Trump’s behaviour has seemed to deteriorate further — retweeting anti-Muslim propaganda posted by a British far-right party, suggesting that TV commentator Joe Scarborough had murdered his intern — the possibility has been raised with increasing urgency in political and media circles that Trump is, in fact, suffering from some form of mental illness: anything from a personality disorder to progressive dementia.

This has provoked some considerable criticism in its turn, and not only from Trump supporters. The thrust of it has been less to do with the accuracy of the speculation as to whether it was a fit matter to discuss in public. It’s not my purpose here to weigh in on the president’s mental health, but rather to defend the notion that this a permissible line of inquiry.

The first objection has to do with its relevance. What does it matter whether the president is actually unwell: isn’t it enough to know he behaves as if he is? We know that he is a rampant narcissist, a compulsive liar, that he has zero impulse control, does the opposite of whatever he is told, and so on. Who cares whether the explanation for this is clinical, or just bad parenting?

But it is always relevant for a democratic society to understand the motives and thinking of its leaders, if only to anticipate how they will behave in future. To give a small example: there is a competing school of thought that Trump is a strategic genius, his Twitter outbursts revealing not the ramblings of a disordered mind but a talent for changing the subject from whatever other controversy is engulfing his presidency. It is surely important to know which it is.