Time To Revisit Nikki Haley's Cognitive Testing Idea?
On Thursday, the NY Post reported that DiFi “has relinquished power of attorney to her daughter” but didn't mention that she relinquished power of making Senate decisions to Pelosi's daughter almost a year ago. “Feinstein handed over power of attorney to her daughter, 66-year-old Katherine Feinstein, in part to help handle legal battles over her late husband Richard Blum’s estate… In one dispute, Katherine, Feinstein’s only child, is at odds with Blum’s three daughters over the ownership of a luxury beach house owned by Feinstein. In a separate lawsuit, the two families are feuding over Blum’s life insurance, which Feinstein claims she needs to cover her increasing medical costs.”
Feinstein turned 90 in June and has been noticeably debilitated for several years. Her rapidly deteriorating mental condition was hidden from the voters in 2018 when she last ran for reelection and she managed to beat Kevin de León, 6,019,422 (54.2%) to 5,093,942 (45.8%), crushing him in Democratic strongholds like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco. She didn’t debate or campaign. Her team raised a massive $16,092,233 from a system riven with corruption compared to de León’s grassroots $1,793,396. The California Democratic Party refused to endorse her and, much to the embarrassment of the party establishment, voted to endorse de León instead. Still all the corrupt garbage that makes the Democratic Party almost as bad as the Republican Party endorsed her: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Pete Aguilar, Gavin Newsom, Alex Padilla, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and, of course, EMILY’s List. The L.A. Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Fresno Bee, etc all endorsed Feinstein and helped hide her feeble condition from the voters.
Even in the Post story on Thursday, the word “senile” is never used— just phrases like “seemed confused” and “has appeared frail and has had a number of public mental lapses.” Doesn’t sound that serious, does it. A well-trained monkey could carry out senatorial functions exactly as well as Feinstein has. Last week she “had to be prompted several times by a colleague [and staffer] to say ‘aye’ when it was her turn to cast her vote on the $831.781 billion Defense Appropriations Bill during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.”
The closest The Post came to telling the truth about her incapacity was to note that “Feinstein relies on staffers to push her wheelchair, remind her how and when she should vote and explain what is happening when she becomes confused.”
Does Feinstein own that Senate seat? Shouldn’t she— and her handlers and enablers— be told, sweetly but in no uncertain terms, it’s time to say goodbye? A few months ago, Nikki Haley— in a swipe at Biden, anymore subtle swipe at Trump— suggested the use of cognitive testing for… for who? People when they reach a certain age? All candidates for office? People demonstrating cognitive decline? It’s an interesting idea… but no one ever mentioned it again after Haley tried introducing it into the national discussion.
It’s not really a bad idea. After all, administering cognitive tests can provide voters with reassurance that the elected leader or candidate is mentally fit for the responsibilities of their position and the transparency would help maintain trust in the government and its decision-making processes. If standardized and properly conducted, cognitive tests would provide an objective way to assess an individual's mental abilities, ensuring a fair evaluation for all aging leaders, regardless of their political affiliations. Leaders who pass cognitive tests with flying colors— think Bernie, Pelosi or Harold Rogers, for example— can use the results as evidence of their competence and continue their work with confidence, preserving their legacy and avoiding unnecessary speculation about their abilities, while giving characters like McConnell, Trump, Biden, Grassley respectable off-ramps.
Some members of Congress have come to the conclusion on their own and gracefully decide to retire and move on to the next phase in their lives even before they’re a complete wreck. Right now we see that in play with Grace Napolitano (D-CA- 86), Ben Cardin (D-MD- 79), and Richard Durbin (D-IL- 78)— while Maxine Waters (D-CA- 84), Steny Hoyer (D-MD- 83), Jim Clyburn (D-SC- 82), Danny Davis (D-IL- 81), John Carter (R-TX- 81), Anna Eshoo (D-CA- 80), Frederica Wilson (D-FL- 80), Virginia Foxx (R-NC- 79), Kay Granger (R-TX- 79), David Scott (D-GA- 77) refuse to step down despite significant impairment.
The problems with cognitive testing though are not insignificant. For one thing, implementing mandatory cognitive tests exclusively for aging leaders will certainly be resisted and be seen as age discrimination, implying— erroneously— that aging automatically correlates with cognitive decline. Cognitive abilities are complex and multifaceted, so the accuracy, validity and reliability of cognitive tests might be questionable. Imagine how Trump— and Biden— would both be resisting now, arguing that the emphasis on cognitive tests can distract from more critical issues affecting the nation, such as policy decisions, social and economic challenges, and environmental concerns.
Many politicians get the idea that they are indispensable, even when it is absurd. They imagine themselves to be essential and crucial to the function of government and even irreplaceable. Sometimes their charisma, vision, perhaps some unique leadership qualities lead supporters and followers to see them as indispensable, leading to a perception that the success of the party or country hinges entirely on their presence. This is certainly the case with Biden and Trump. But it is also true down the food chain. Delusional politicians like Frederica Wilson, David Scott and Danny Davis should have retired long ago but all of them think they’re too important to leave their positions. This kind of delusional belief in indispensability always prevents politicians from adapting to changing circumstances or acknowledging when it is time to step aside for new leadership.
More often than not, this delusional belief in indispensability leads to decisions that prioritize personal interests and ego over the well-being of their constituents or the nation and these delusional politicians are always less receptive to criticism and feedback, leading to a lack of self-awareness and an unwillingness to acknowledge their shortcomings or mistakes. Believing that they’re “indispensable” causes such leaders to reject collaboration and consensus-building, hindering progress and effective governance. The best example: Mitch McConnell.
Another way of looking at this is the concept of mutual self-perpetuation in which members of Congress engage in behaviors or support practices that perpetuate their own positions of power and influence, often at the expense of transparency, accountability or fair competition. This idea is often associated with incumbent advantage, seniority and the reluctance of existing members to implement reforms that could limit their own tenure or influence. Manifestations include the perpetuation of gerrymandering, corrupt campaign finance laws that always favor incumbents, seniority in committee assignments and chairmanships— a case where the Democrats are fair worse than the Republicans— resistance to reasonable term limits and the perpetuation of lobbyist power. Congressional mutual self-perpetuation creates a political environment that benefits incumbents and established politicians and hinders healthy democratic practices. It also leads to a lack of fresh ideas, a disconnect between representatives and their constituents and reduced opportunities for new voices and diverse perspectives in the political arena.
On top of that, this kind of delusional behavior erodes public trust and confidence in the political system, when voters catch on that their leaders are disconnected from reality and self-serving. As we have often seen, this kind of clinging to power due to a delusional sense of indispensability has long-term negative consequences for the country, impeding reforms and progress. It’s essential for societies to have mechanisms and checks in place to address these situations. Ideally, transparent and fair electoral processes, term limits, strong institutions, an independent media and an engaged and informed electorate are all vital components of a healthy democratic system that can help prevent the consolidation of power in delusional or self-serving politicians. Short of that… Nikki Haley’s idea.
I think it’s a lousy discriminatory idea and could be badly used. How about getting to the real problem and solution? Term limits. That would be the democratic way. No one in a democracy should be in office for ages let for all life, like judges. Younger people are critical.
we cant replace her with a democrat and her absence leaves the Judiciary Committee split along party lines, and dems can't push through President Biden's judicial nominees without Republican support. but remember, Moscow just had a huge meltdown and he is the minority leader . (Di Fi is a great example why we need someone like Katie Porter as a senator in California. Unlike DiFi , she is a progressive , takes no shit or PAC money and is only 49 years old.). id love to see her and sen Whitehouse run Whitehouse/Whiteboard 2028.
oops: "all the corrupt garbage that makes the Democratic Party almost as bad as the (nazi party)"
prolly didn't mean to say THAT! but it's true.
so... tell us/US... if difi is replaced by a duly vetted (by the "corrupt garbage that makes the democraps almost as bad as the nazis") alternative... how will that change how the democrap party acts? As you should have observed for decades, whenever one is swapped out by another, EVEN by someone worshipped as a progressive champion like AOC, your side remains the hapless worthless feckless lying CORRUPT neoliberal fascist pussy party, that continues to get worser, that y'all keep electing without regard to what they do and what they refuse to do.
might…