Freak Out Friday – April 6, 2018

As I said last week, I have been reading “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” in which 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts sound off on the case of the President.

You should understand that this is an unusual situation, because psychiatrists operate under a guideline called the Goldwater rule. This stems from the 1970s when psychiatrists dissected presidential candidate Barry Goldwater so savagely that he sued them for libel and won. Which means, I suppose, that Trump could turn around and sue them as well. But that will never happen because everyone knows Trump isn’t the least bit litigious.

Edited by Doctor Bandy Lee, the book is divided into three sections. The first is “The Trump Phenomenon,” which is described by Lee as “describing Mr. Trump, with an understanding that no definitive diagnosis will be possible.” Part two is “The Trump Dilemma,” which “addresses the dilemmas that mental health professionals face in observing what they do and speaking out when they feel they must.” The third part is “The Trump Effect” which “Speaks to the societal effects Mr. Trump has had, represents, and could cause in the future.”

Now many of us have been saying for ages that Trump is nuts. The thing is, our opinions are based on comparing him with both the behavior of previous presidents and also ourselves. It is fairly normal to claim that someone is insane when he is routinely acting outside of all the norms that we have learned and acquired through being raised like typical people and with no parent issues. This is as opposed to Trump who, in eulogizing his dead father at Fred Trump’s funeral, used the opportunity to lead off with a promotion of a new real estate deal.

The thing is, our assessment remains simply the opinions of laymen. Most of us do not have the knowledge or skill to attribute genuine terminology to Trump’s condition. But the folks who put this book together know a thing or two.

Most of them seem to believe he is either a narcissist or some other form of antisocial personality disorder. In Lance Dode’s essay “Sociopathy,” he states that such a disorder is defined by three or more of the following:

1). Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors;

2). Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying…or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;

3). Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;

4). Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

5). Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

6). Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

7). Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another; and

8) Evidence of conduct disorder [impulsive, aggressive, callous, or deceitful behavior that is persistent and difficult to deter with threats or punishment] with onset before age fifteen years.

The only one that doesn’t necessarily apply to Trump from our observation is number 4, except he’s boasted about hitting people in the past. Otherwise every single one describes Trump as he has behaved at press conferences, meetings, on Twitter, on the phone or whenever and wherever he has interacted with other people. He is someone so completely bereft of normal human empathy that his handlers had to write “I hear you” on an index card as a prompt when he met with the kids from Parkland.

On the other hand, Doctor Henry J. Friedman in “On Seeing What You See and Saying What You Know,”

asserts that Trump is full blown paranoid. He says:

Paranoid thinking, when persistent, is indicative of a paranoid character structure. This means that an individual with such a basic character will consistently produce ideas and responses that find exaggerated danger and malevolent intent in others and in the situations he encounters.

That is unquestionably Trump. Whereas other presidents have, for instance, considered the news media to be irritating, Trump insists on calling it “fake news,” shouts about shutting down NBC news, verbally assaults the owner of “The Washington Post,” boycotts the Correspondents Dinner, and only approves of right wing media such as Fox News or the Washington Examiner. He also picks fights with the leaders of other countries while praising and befriending dictators, who are beginning to follow his “fake news” mantra.

People also love comparing Trump to Hitler. While this may seem an example of Godwin’s law, Friedman puts forward a convincing case that there isn’t much daylight between Trump and Hitler.

He writes:

When attention is called to the resemblance between Hitler and Trump, it tends to elicit a veritable storm of objections. Those who object so strongly are, in effect, calling attention to Hitler’s actions in immediately taking over the press and arresting or killing his opposition. While it is true that the restraints operating in our country have prevented Trump from moving as swiftly as Hitler did, this can be attributed to the balance of powers and the greater strength of our democratic traditions rather than any sense that Trump’s patterns of emotional thinking are greatly different from those that motivated Hitler.

. . .

The insistence that grave danger exists in reality because it exists in one’s mind is the hallmark of the dictator. For Hitler, the Jews represented an existential threat; for Trump, it is illegal immigrants and Mexicans in particular. Also, the disregard for facts, the denial that “factualization” is a necessity before making an assertion of danger or insisting on the nefarious intent of a large group (i.e., the Jews for Hitler, the Muslims for Trump) is typical of paranoid characters who need an enemy against whom to focus group hate.

That is Trump to a T. From the very beginning of his race, he characterized Mexicans as drug users and rapists. Meanwhile, as Trump psychotically tries to shut down access to the United States, farmers are frustrated because they no longer have migrant farm hands to help them with harvesting or picking things off trees.

The notion that we may have a paranoid narcissist with access to a couple thousand nuclear warheads is truly terrifying. Imagine what would have happened if a paranoid narcissist had been in the White House when JFK faced the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK surrounded himself with smart people who disagreed with him. Trump insists on surrounding himself with people who agree with him or are related to him and if any of them refuses to take an oath of loyalty, he fires them. There is no question that Trump, who repeatedly demands to know what is the purpose of having nuclear weapons if you don’t use them, would likely have rained nuclear bombs on Cuba in order to get rid of the Russian rockets. JFK’s handling of the situation required restraint and diplomacy, two characteristics that are totally absent in Trump.

Doctor Thomas Singer, in his essay “Trump and the American Collective Psyche,” wrote:

What most frightens me about Trump is his masterful skill at invading and groping the national psyche. Many tired of the Clintons, taking up permanent residence in our national psyche. Trump will soon put the Clintons to shame in his capacity to dwell in and stink up our collective inner space, like the proverbial houseguest who overstays his welcome. And many of us never invited Trump into our psychic houses in the first place.

Doctors Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher, in their essay, “He’s Got the World in his Hands and his Finger on the Trigger,” go so far as to suggest something that will likely never happen: a non-partisan council of psychiatrists and medically trained individual would be tasked with evaluating everyone who wants the job of president and deciding whether they are mentally fit to run or not.

On one hand, it seems to make perfect sense. There are many positions which are considered so critical that a psych evaluation is required. Why not for what is arguably the most important position in the world? Perhaps the problem is that getting a bipartisan group of shrinks together might be problematic since most psychiatrists are Democrats because they are concerned about mental health, women’s rights, children’s welfare and such, whereas the GOP only brings up mental health when they’re trying to deflect discussions about gun control.

As far as I’m concerned, this book is a must read for anyone who has Trump set up in his head, which is pretty much all of us.

I would also recommend an editorial in the NY Times by Madeleine Albright in which she asks the question we’re all considering: Is it possible to stop Trump before it’s too late. You can read it here.

Read it for as long as Trump decides not to shut down the press except for conservative outlets.

PAD