A First-Rate Madness
By Nassir Ghaemi
(Penguin Press, 349 pages, $32.50)
Is Barack Obama too sane to lead the United States in times of crisis? Reading Tufts University psychiatry professor Nassir Ghaemi’s provocative new book, A First-Rate Madness, after watching the emotionally controlled President struggle in his leadership role, raises this question. This book also should lead us to consider our own mental equilibrium, and what it says about our leadership capacity.
Prof. Ghaemi presents the inverse law of sanity: In times of crisis, we are better led by mentally ill leaders than by mentally normal ones. In times of non-crisis, however, mentally ill leaders will get us in trouble, and mentally stable leaders will fare better.
He backs this with a comprehensive look at a litany of political leaders, including Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., all of whom soared in crisis because of their mental instability, while others such as Neville Chamberlain, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair failed in crisis because they were too normal. The jury is still out, of course, on Mr. Obama, but the author notes that he won the presidency in part because he seemed so calm, steady, and unemotional, particularly when contrasted with the perceived volatility of Republican candidate John McCain.
Prof. Ghaemi stresses that mental illness does not mean someone is insane – that is, out of touch with reality or psychotic. “The most common mental disorders usually have nothing to do with thinking at all, but rather abnormal moods: depression and mania. Those moods aren’t constant. People with manic-depressive illness aren’t always manic or depressed. Thus they aren’t always insane; in fact, they are usually sane,” he explains.
And when they are suffering from their abnormal moods, they are helped through crisis. Four key elements associated with mania or depression that can promote better leadership in crisis are realism, resilience, empathy, and creativity. All four accompany depression, and creativity and resilience can be found in manic illness.
“Depression makes leaders more realistic and empathetic, and mania makes them more creative and resilient. Depression can occur by itself, and can provide some of the benefits. When it occurs along with mania – bipolar disorder – even more leadership skills can ensure,” he observes.
Prof. Ghaemi applies these ideas to historical leaders with rigour, often uncovering facets of their lives passed over by other biographers. A psychiatrist evaluates a patient by studying symptoms, family history and genetics, course of illness, and treatment. He similarly uses the historical records to develop his psychiatric evaluation of the various leaders.
Churchill, for example, was not particularly influential in the 1920s and 1930s, arguably stable times. He was isolated from power and depressed, considering suicide. But he was realistic about the threat Hitler posed – a realism that came, Prof. Ghaemi argues, out of his depression. Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister before Great Britain turned to Churchill, on the other hand, was unrealistic about Hitler – and mentally healthy.
Abraham Lincoln also suffered from depression, and was often suicidal. That contributed to the empathy that allowed him initially to understand those who insisted on maintaining slavery, and be cautious about change, before his realism about the situation and his empathy for the slaves led him into the Civil War. But depression need not be equated with wartime leaders. Prof. Ghaemi shows that depressive realism led Ghandi and King to reject violence, and lead through other means.
