Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trust Trump?
Shortly before the Indiana primary, The Wall Street Journal’s “Notable and Quotable” published a brief squib lifted from the Mayo Clinic’s online entry regarding narcissistic personality disorder:
If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement—and when you don’t receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having “the best” of everything—for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care.
At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection. . . .
[The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5] . . . criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:
Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerating your achievements and talents
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate . . .
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
If there was no commentary, it was because there was, in fact, no need – for it was self-evident whom the editors of that daily had in mind. It is nonetheless worth noting that, had they published the same squib at any time between April, 2009 and January, 2015, everyone would have recognized that the target was Barack Obama. Never in the history of the American Republic has there been a President as devoted to self-referential pronouncements and to self-praise. Nor have we ever had a President before who supposed that his knowledge and ability was superior in every particular to that of the experts whom he had hired to advise him. The self-confidence of Barack Obama knows no bounds.
There is, to be sure, this difference between our current President and the aspirant targeted by The Wall Street Journal. The latter is deficient in self-discipline. Incontinence ought to be his middle name. He is incapable of marital fidelity, and he has long advertised the fact. He is a model of indiscretion, and he responds to criticism with uncontrollable rage. By way of contrast, the former exercises iron self-control. Rarely if ever does he let the mask drop. He is discreet to the point of being secretive. If he is guilty of infidelity, he has kept the thing under wraps, and his every move is choreographed and calculated.
That the Mayo Clinic description fits is nonetheless obvious. A few years back, David Maraniss published a volume on Barack Obama’s early life titled Barack Obama: The Making of the Man. Although Maraniss was among the President’s most unabashed admirers, the book was informative, and it conveyed just how strange a fellow he was. There was a chapter entitled “The Moviegoer” that demonstrated how, from early on, Obama conceived of his life as a film or novel and of himself as its author. As he acted, he was always standing two or three steps back, in the shadows, watching with delight as his performance unfolded on stage.
In a sense, everything about Barack Obama is fiction. It is telling that, early on in his Presidency, he was always fretting that he might be losing what he called “the narrative.” More recently, as David Samuels has shown in detail in the most recent issue of The New York Times Magazine, Obama managed — with the help of his advisor and alter ego, the aspiring novelist Ben Rhodes – to play an elaborate con on the journalists on the foreign affairs beat and through them to mislead the country with regard to the deal his minions negotiated with Iran. If there are any “moderates” in the Iranian government, they have no leverage, and he and his close advisors knew that all along. He wanted his way, and he got it — as always by lying to us.
One might respond to what I have said here by noting that all aspiring politicians think highly of themselves. Vanity is simply a part of the picture – and this is true. But very few of them are as vain as Barack Obama, and no one before him supposed that words trumped deeds, that everything is ultimately fictional, and that saying that something is so is good enough to make it so.
The crisis that is rapidly approaching – in domestic and in foreign affairs – is a function of the fact that we have a President who sees us as pawns in a work of fiction designed to demonstrate his greatness. Most politicians think of themselves as public servants. Most suppose that any glory they will achieve will be a function of the actual service they perform. In Barack Obama’s world, those of us who make up the public are simply extras, and he is the impresario, staging a drama for his own adulation. If he has been careless in a thousand ways, it is because he really does not care at all about our welfare.
I have belabored this because we face a similar prospect with Donald Trump. Like Barack Obama, he is an accomplished actor, and he has one remarkable gift. He can spin a tale of his own greatness, and he can make the credulous believe it. Furthermore, like Barack Obama, he has devoted his life to aggrandizement. He is not a promise-keeper; he is a promise-breaker. He seduces others, uses them, and dumps them. Look at the women in his life; look also at his record as a businessman. In business, when he fails, his partners are always left holding the bag. When he speaks of “the art of the deal,” he has in mind “the art of the steal.” It is not clear that he has ever cared – really cared — for another human being: apart, perhaps, for his children whom he considers extensions of himself. It is all about winning, all about humiliating opponents, all about showing off, all about commanding the stage.
I can see why those who recoil in horror at the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming President (as I do) are inclined to suppose that The Donald would be better. He might be. He just might be. But if he is elected, it will be The Donald Show, just as we have lived through The Barack Show. The chief difference will be that Trump will be erratic – driven this way and that by his anger at perceived slights. The man has no principles whatsoever, and he has no self-control. Barack Obama has systematically exploited us in support of the narrative he is intent on constructing. There will be no system to what Donald Trump does. Under his direction, our government will be as chaotic as his romantic life, and we will once again be extras in a drama staged by and on behalf of someone else.
Can we trust the man? If you think so, I believe that you are deluding yourself. His record in affairs both public and private shows that he does not keep his word. He will make a commitment for the purpose of getting what he wants, and he will break that commitment the moment he has what he desired. In the end, he will betray everyone who relies on him. He always has.
Published in General
The disappointment of having waited so long to bring the country back to sanity and now to be faced with this ridiculous choice is maddening. Dr. Rahe, as usual, you have painted a clear, sharply defined, and irrefutable picture of the place we find ourselves.
From the very beginning of the primaries I have been pointing out the remarkable similarities between Donald Trump and Barack Obama. But what I have seen and heard is something that Ben Shapiro points out in his latest podcast, the meaninglessness of words. We have been lied to for the last 7 years on a scale totally new in American history. Many simply don’t care about what someone says, so long as somewhere in that barrage of words he can find something that appeals to his desires. So Trump says he will build a wall. He says he will bring jobs back to the U.S. It doesn’t matter that those claims are surrounded by lies and evasions. All that matters is that he thinks Trump is going to reverse the insanity. In truth, he is just going to add to it, but nobody wants to hear that. I will never be able to vote for Trump as long as I cannot clear the image of him imitating the disabled reporter during his speech. That is Trump unmasked, an arrested adolescent, stupid, cruel, and arrogant.
First, Goldwater’s case around unconscious motives is qualitatively different from the behavioral descriptors used in the DSM. Second, psychiatrists have different ethics around diagnosing of public figures than psychologists or other mental health professionals do. And publishing pseudo pop analysis is frowned on, but generally not considered libel. Often word play like “behaviors like (insert here) are often seen with (insert diagnosis)” The focus usually shifts to the damage caused.
Lastly, taking a diagnostics list and saying here are some similar patterns I see is neither the practice of medicine or putting one’s self forward as a medical professional. Thus, Dr. Rahe is in the clear as are those people who do badly designed research that says conservatives are (insert negative characterization here).
Edit added: why do I try to post from my phone when I can’t see well enough to edit effectively?
No there aren’t because the lib photographers freeze the unflattering instants, which could be done with anyone making a speech. But they only do it with Trump.
He did laugh and smile at the debates–quite a feat, if u ask me….
Oh, what a relief. I was…so…..worried.
What if you think they will be equally bad? What do we do then? How do we express that? Other than by not voting and letting fate decide or doom. What vile New Yorker will ruin our nation?
I think he looks very worried. As we should all be.
I would be more concerned with a politician that exhibits a psychosis like a Delusional Disorder. For example showing up on the day of two primary races announcing their availability to reenter the race if they were to win WV & Nebraska later that night.
A politician that is narcissistic fails to impress me as dangerous. The GOP had 17 of them several months ago.
Go Hillary! Thanks, Doc. Used to read and enjoy your entire post…
I can’t even imagine adding to Hypatia’s thoughtful screed; it was perfect.
After a quiet 24 hours, we were sorry to see a flag-flurry on this page. We enjoin members to abide by the Code of Conduct, address each other in good faith, and to not escalate debate with personal invective.
This is a “forced momentous issue.”
There are three choices on offer, you must pick one:
In answer to he question Mr. Meyer poses (“And if you think they’re both unacceptable — albeit for different reasons — and think it’s impossible to say who would to greater damage?”) it would mean, I suppose, that you are utterly indifferent as to who wins.
In which case go ahead and take choice #3. Neither. Realizing that you then own a “half-vote’s” share of whoever wins.
Think long and hard about the consequences of The Clinton Crime Family™ being in control of the Department of Justice, IRS, Department of Defense, and making Supreme Court appointments before you choose #3.
I’m not happy about this either, but we need to get over the bruised feelings and live in Realville.
Yes, we should be worried. The 2016 election cycle should have us all very worried. That part I agree with.
How “far” did he get in business? He runs a sales and marketing organization and is a heck of a salesman. Plenty of good salesmen have been untrustworthy. From what I can gather, he didn’t exactly keep his word with Trump Unversity. A person with integrity wouldn’t use their celebrity to con people out of their money.
We’re both living in Realville, we just come to very different conclusions about what to do about it. I think you’re making the wrong decision, but you’re in very good company in doing so. Likewise, you think I’m making the wrong one, but I’ve also got plenty of good people on my side. We simply disagree on this.
Fortunately, there’s no shortage of ways to expose on Hillary Clinton’s mendacity, which I intend to do while supporting conservatives for congress.
Superb piece. Trump’s narcissism is exceeded only by BHO’s.
The irony is that Trump would be a President without a party. And some of his appeal is of the old Patriot King sort.
On the Mr. Trump v. Mrs. Clinton question: the bureaucracy would not be on his side, and would be more than happy to oppose him. He will want to fire those who disobey. He can’t. If Mrs. C is President, they will probably work with her in lawlessness–always in the name of what they claim to be law, perhaps a reinterpreted law.
Right, my point about “Realville” is not that “Trump” or “Neither” is obviously, or even arguably, the least worst choice. Although I do happen to think Trump is the least worst choice, and Clinton is by far the worst. “Neither” is in the middle in that it will help elect Clinton.
It is that the idea of a third party that some have advanced is plain and simple folly. I don’t doubt that if it gains traction many people will invest a lot of time and energy in it. I am just highly suspicious of the motives of the people who yell the loudest for it (e.g. Bill Kristol, although of course there are others). My suspicion is that what really chaps them is that the majority of Republican primary voters rejected their sage opinions (“You’re not listening to Meeeeeee!!!”). They seem to me to be more interested in their own personal aggrandizement than accomplishing something worthwhile. Further, if a third party gains traction, there will be members of the consulting class who will fundraise it for all its worth to enrich themselves, and talk it up for all its worth to get themselves face time on TV.
FWIW my own thinking leads me inevitably to vote for Mark Kirk, stinky candidate as he is, because his opponent, Tammy Duckworth, has the makings of a worse demagogue and Leftist than Dick Durbin.
End story. Yes, I would trust Hillary more with that arsenal. She will be a terrible president. But her personality is hyper-controlled. She thinks very carefully about her every single gesture, word, and action. She would not impulsively walk the world off the cliff to the first use of nuclear weapons since the Second World War. And the world is, right now, closer to the edge of that kind of conflict than I ever dreamt it could be.
Two of our last three Presidents have had Narcissistic Personality Disorder so severe that it creeps right up to (or crosses) the line into sociopathy. And now the GOP voters want another such. I weep. But I would offer a couple of thoughts.
First, it only increases my admiration for Bush 43, who came nowhere near to narcissism. At times it was incredibly frustrating that Bush would allow false narratives to be established as “received truth” by the media and the lefties, without fighting back. Bush always seemed ready to allow history to judge him, rather than striking out at his enemies in a fit of rage. Frustrating, yes, but compared to the narcissists it is really quite admirable. The man had character – a trait that is so foreign to Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump that they had might as well be from different planets.
Second, Bill Clinton’s brand of narcissism was far less dangerous than that of Obama and Trump. All three think of themselves as being smart beyond ordinary humans, but Clinton actually was smart while Obama and Trump are both patently stupid. Which leads to another difference – Clinton had smart advisers and listened to them. Obama has mediocre advisers, and ignores them. Trump has almost no advisers, and wouldn’t listen to them if he did. Personally, I think that there ought to be some intelligence floating around the West Wing, and that someone ought to be paying attention to it. Apparently the voters disagree.
As my dog’s vet says, it’s all fun and games until an anal gland ruptures. Trying to predict the future is what voters are being asked to do. I’ll wait until just before election day. I don’t know why we have to declare at this time.
It is a sobering thought.
If he wins it might be an un-sobering thought for me.
Where’s Jeeves when we need him?
OMG!!! Trump will run off half-cocked and start nuclear Armageddon. Kinda like Reagan did. Sorry, I’m not convinced. I think the people he would surround himself with would temper that potential impulse (which I don’t believe is there to begin with).
Flip the scenario. North Korea or Iran touch off a nuke somewhere over the West or East coast. An electro-magnetic pulse time machine transports half the continent back to 1850. Stipulate ad arguendo we know who did it. Could we count on Clinton to respond, or dither?
Or the Russians decide they want to resorb Ukraine? We’ve already seen how Clinton reset the Russians.
Pretty sensible. Obama might just decide to kneecap Clinton after the Democratic Convention (at which point the nominee would be selected by the party nomenklatura, his people).
That’s certainly my expectation. Anyone with a little bit of street experience (which I’m sure Trump never had) knows that the best way to start a fistfight or a knife fight with the bad boys is to mouth off with whatever pops into your head.
If you don’t see the difference between Trump and Reagan, then I suppose you really wouldn’t be convinced.
Who are these “people” and what is your evidence that Trump would find anyone decent to advise him, or would listen to them if he did? Certainly there has been no evidence of it during the campaign.
I’m far from an unalloyed Trump enthusiast. I think it’s a pretty stinky choice.
A good way to get mugged is to project weakness.
My point being that it was said of Reagan “He’ll get us into a nuclear war.” The letters in “Ronald Wilson Reagan” were rearranged into “A Long Insane Warlord.” Ha ha.
Reagan joked: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” Of course (some) people went nuts.
“Hand me the football, I’m going to nuke Moscow.” I don’t think that’s how it works.
Might loose talk (Trump) precipitate a crisis? Yes. Same as craven cowardice and a criminal mindset (Clinton). In either event there’s a Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs, chain of command, etc.
Get a grip folks.
It was said of Reagan by leftist cranks. In contrast, it has been said of Trump by most GOP foreign policy experts.
When and if the US ever uses nukes again, it will be some solemn, self- important Omega clone, someone like Clinton, purposefully striding out of the White House like a headmaster about to announce someone’s expulsion, who will first acknowledge the nation’s fears (ya think?!) but then gravely explain, in Rhodespeak, why we are destroying the Capitol of some other country; it’s because we have certain relationships, and the American people must just accept retaliatory destruction of our homeland, because that’s “who we are”.
Trump has said nothing to make you believe he would lightly or impulsively use nukes. He rebuilt west Manhattan–you think he wants to see it reduced to rubble? You think the candidate with the most children and grandchildren has no stake in the future?
He talked about “bombing” ISIS, but Prez Omega is already doing that, tho not with nukes–no reason to think Trump means nukes, either.
So, uh, who do you think he’s gonna impulsively nuke?
Russia? I thought your beef about that was that he acknowledges the possibility of getting along w/Putin.
China? He hasn’t indicated any hostility to China except in an economic context.
You think he might , I don’t know, have a bad Indian meal and go home and obliterate Calcutta? A bad cuppa tea, and poof! There goes London!
All this garbage about him being so “impulsive”, the “raging id”, is the equivalent of the famous “daisy” ad which was so effective against Goldwater in 1964. Almost everybody on Ricochet agrees with it–but I don’t think it’s going to work as well today as it did then. Sure wish Goldwater had won–fewer Americans woulda died in Vietnam.
Clearly, nothing that’s convinced you (and others), but plenty that’s convinced me (and others). I’m not sure it’s worth re-hashing, given that the disagreement runs pretty deep.
I’m not sure I buy the OP’s “diagnosis,” but the comparison with Obama is compelling. Dr. Rahe’s conclusion that if Trump is elected, it “will be The Donald Show,” which “might just be better” than a Clinton presidency is reasonable.
The “Trump will start a nuclear war because he’s crazy” comments are sophomoric.