The Myth of Presidential Temperament

What Is Presidential Temperament?

The phrase "presidential temperament" emerged as a buzzword during Donald Trump’s presidency, often wielded by detractors as evidence of his supposed unfitness for office. He was criticized as unstable, reckless in decision-making, and intolerant of criticism. But beneath the surface, these critiques pointed to something else: he wasn’t part of the political elite. He wasn’t a career politician, not even a lawyer. He was an outsider, a businessman who dared step into the most powerful office in the world with no conventional political background.

This outsider status unsettled the global elite—the powerbrokers of other nations, organizations, and economic echelons who had grown accustomed to leaders shaped in their mold. How could such a man, unrefined by Washington’s norms and traditions, dismantle their carefully constructed global systems and reverse the decades-long erosion of American sovereignty?

Yet, for those among us less familiar with the interconnected world of the elite, it’s worth taking a closer look at the idea of presidential temperament. By exploring America’s past and the conduct of our Founding Fathers, we see how today’s rigid ideals don’t align with the messy—but meaningful—history of leadership in this country.

A Nation Open to Any Man

From the start, America’s Founding Fathers designed our government to allow any citizen the opportunity to run for office. This was intentional. Many of our founders, formerly British subjects, had witnessed how the monarchy’s entitlement created a deep divide between rulers and the “common” people. To ensure a more inclusive system, they built a democracy where the judgment of whether someone deserved to lead fell squarely in the hands of voters—not in adherence to elite standards of sophistication.

Presidential temperament, as we see it today, was not part of this picture. The true test of a leader’s merit happened at the polls.

Conduct Unbecoming … Yet Entirely Normal

If we look back on our shared history, instances of elected officials behaving “unpresidentially” abound—and some of these actions would make today’s scandals look tame.

Take, for example, the 1856 caning of Senator Charles Sumner. After Sen. Sumner delivered an anti-slavery speech that criticized slaveholders, including a relative of Representative Preston Brooks, Brooks stormed into the Senate Chamber and brutally beat Sumner with a cane. This shocking outburst of violence unfolded in the halls of government, and yet, such behavior, appalling as it was, didn’t disqualify Brooks from office in the eyes of many voters of his time.

Another instance is the 1824 presidential election. With no candidate securing a majority in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives determined the outcome. Andrew Jackson accused John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay of orchestrating a “corrupt bargain” to ensure Adams' presidency. While we might view this as underhanded now, political maneuvering of this kind was a normal part of the landscape then.

Even modern examples abound. Consider Lyndon B. Johnson, whose abrasive and crude behavior—including famously dropping his pants in front of his staff—would certainly tarnish the image of a president today. But in his era, his bold personality and forthrightness were seen as key to his political effectiveness.

These examples show a pattern that’s consistent throughout our history. Standards of “presidential conduct” evolve, often reflecting contemporary ideas of civility and respectability.

A Lady’s Touch in Congress

On the topic of decorum, consider the formal terminology in Congress. Today, members address each other respectfully as “gentleman” or “gentlewoman.” Interestingly, this tradition only emerged after the first woman was elected to Congress. Before women’s involvement, the environment was far more unruly—violence, shouting matches, and bitter rivalries were common. It’s ironic that it took a lady’s presence to temper the tempers of those self-described “gentlemen.”

The Consequences of “Presidential Temperament”

For all the emphasis on presidential temperament, what has it brought us? A closer look at presidents deemed “presidential” reveals a sobering pattern. Many were warmongers, some staggeringly ignorant of basic economics. Others abused their position of power for personal gain, while a few even sullied the White House with their lack of basic morality.

The phrase “presidential temperament” should reflect a leader’s capacity to guide, make sound decisions, and handle intense pressure—not their ability to dazzle the public with empty promises or polished speeches. Joe Biden, for instance, eloquently pledged unity to the American people in his 2020 victory speech, yet his presidency has mirrored the same divisive and traditional political behavior Americans have seen for decades.

At Cogent, we believe that what makes a leader presidential is their policy, their ability to follow through on their promises, their aptitude for the job, and their commitment to decisive action that benefits Americans—not their gender, charisma, or history in politics.

Preserving What Makes America Special

We’ve come a long way as a nation. While members of Congress no longer cane one another in chambers, and most political gaffes happen behind closed doors, we face a new challenge—defending the principles that make the United States unique.

The myth of presidential temperament has become a tool for gatekeeping, used to undermine the legitimacy of outsiders or unconventional candidates. But this country was built on the belief that any citizen, regardless of background, can aspire to lead it. That’s what drives the elites mad—not the lack of polish or pedigree, but the recognition that power is not exclusively theirs to wield.

Perhaps it’s time to move beyond the myth of temperament and start valuing what really matters in a leader—integrity, effectiveness, and a fierce loyalty to the principles on which this nation was built.