It is the foundation—a combination of integrity, honesty, and moral courage. Is this someone you would want as a moral example for your children; someone that you would want your children to emulate?

This is the result of consistent, trustworthy behavior over time. It's the currency of leadership; without it, a leader cannot govern effectively. Can you believe what they say?

This not just years in office, but an understanding of policy, history, and diplomacy. To use an analogy: you wouldn't hire a plumber who has only read about pipes; you want one who has fixed them.

I have to ask about the President’s Cabinet at this juncture. Did he select professionals with extensive experience in their field (e.g. Department of Defense or Intelligence, Health, etc) or individuals who would follow orders, without questions, Constitution be damned?

This is not about being argumentative, but having the courage to speak truth to power, challenge flawed ideas (even within one's own party), and prioritize principles over political convenience. This is a sign of strength, not disloyalty.

‍ ‍A leader who lacks character often demands personal loyalty above allegiance to the Constitution. They may exhibit a casual disregard for objective truth, preferring self-serving narratives over factual reality. For such individuals, relationships are purely transactional, valued only for their immediate benefit. This approach, combined with an unwillingness to ever admit error, erodes the public trust essential for a functioning democracy and reveals a focus on self-preservation rather than selfless public service.

The ultimate test of political character is applying the same standards to everyone, starting with oneself. Hypocrisy shatters this ideal when leaders publicly denounce behaviors in opponents that they excuse in their own conduct. When this verbal double standard is then enforced with legal power—prosecuting rivals while allies act freely—it transforms principle into mere political weaponry and dissolves the citizen's faith in the rule of law.

A narcissistic leader views public office not as a duty, but as a stage for personal validation. Their insatiable need for admiration overshadows any genuine concern for the public good. Policy is often filtered through the lens of personal grievance, and any criticism is met not with reflection but with rage. This self-obsession fosters a government of loyalists, not experts, where the nation’s interests become secondary to the leader's fragile ego.

A leader who resorts to bullying tactics governs by intimidation, not persuasion. They substitute reasoned debate with derisive nicknames and personal ridicule, aiming to demean rather than defeat an opponent's arguments. This behavior is not a display of strength but a strategy to silence dissent and demand conformity. It creates a political environment where fear replaces respect and policy is subordinated to the crude spectacle of personal domination, coarsening the national dialogue.

When a leader is driven by personal vengeance, the machinery of government risks becoming a tool for settling scores. The pursuit of vendettas against political rivals and perceived enemies replaces the pursuit of the common good. Loyalty is prized over competence, and the impartial application of justice is threatened. Governance devolves into a series of retaliatory actions, where state power is wielded not to uphold the law, but to punish those who have fallen out of favor.