An Authoritarian or a Madman?

 Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s WaPo opinion piece from Nov. 30, No, Trump is not a madman — because he knows exactly what he’s doing,  posits that Trump’s not a madman but an authoritarian. She says that  the historical framework of authoritarianism, rather than psychology and  psychopathology, is best used to explicate the Trump/ism phenomenon.    

•  RSS. Epeak Daily   

We would like to add that this framework, although useful and  necessary, is incomplete without understanding the psychology and  psychopathology of the strongmen, their followers, and societies that  enable their rise. Even though the question of strongmen/tyrants’  “madness” keeps coming up with cyclical regularity in discussions about  tyrants past and present, it has never received a satisfactory response.  It also has never been fully applied to an American leader until now  (for good reasons). One of us, Dr. Burkle, is a psychiatrist by training (among other  specialties) and has a long and distinguished record of working the  world over for humanitarian and peace causes, which involved diplomatic  dealings with various strongmen in power, including Saddam Hussein. He  has studied the psychology of strongmen and written a seminal paper  about it, noting the increase in their numbers since the Cold War,  which, not surprisingly, corresponds to the spread of fascistic  ideologies all over the world today. The co-author, raised under an  oppressive political system in Eastern Europe and trained as a clinical  psychologist, has authored a chapter on Tyranny as a Triumph of Narcissism in the recently published NYT bestseller, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” We maintain that the knowledge of psychology, and specifically  psychopathology of the autocrats/tyrants and their followers, is crucial  to grasping the rise, development, and inevitable fall of tyrants and  the socio-political movements they inspire and lead. This knowledge is  also necessary to create the shared understanding of conditions that  give rise to fascism and other oppressive political movements, as they  are all built on the same fundamental individual and collective  psychopathology, fueled by specific socio-political factors. Such  understanding, we hope, will help prevent development of these movements  in our future and make the world a safer, better place.     Studying  biographies of strongmen/tyrants shows that they all share the same  essential character structure, or more accurately a character defect  (disorder): a severely impaired conscience — which makes them unable to  experience pro-social emotions like empathy, guilt and shame, and  understand higher human values — combined with an insatiable drive for  power and adulation. A clinical name for this specific character  structure, which is not mental illness, is narcissistic psychopathy,  also known in its extreme form as malignant narcissism (which is  comprised of paranoia, sadism and Machiavellianism, in addition to  narcissism and psychopathy). Neither term is included as a diagnostic  category in DSM, and there are some mental health experts who don’t  believe that narcissistic psychopathy or malignant narcissism constitute  pathological conditions. Some see them as just garden-variety  “badness.” Nevertheless,  it is a specific character disorder with well described symptomatology  and prognosis, which allow us to recognize it and predict its  progression inevitably leading to dire outcomes for the afflicted  individual’s behaviors, those around him and the society at large. In  fact, understanding the psychology or rather psychopathology of the  strongman/tyrant-wannabe and that of his supporters has allowed us to  correctly predict Trump’s presidential win, along with the subsequent  general political developments, in early 2016.     Strongmen differ in their individual personality characteristics, but  they share essential easily recognizable core features, specifically  the aforementioned deficits of conscience and an abiding and insatiable  desire for power and adulation. Not all strongmen turn tyrants; those who do exhibit unusually  high levels of narcissism of the malignant type characterized by sadism  and paranoia. Once the strongman/tyrant-wannabe achieves the ultimate  position of power, these malignant characteristics intensify, leading to  what we call psychological decompensation. His grandiose expectations  balloon, along with his sense of aggrieved entitlement and rage when  they are frustrated, which happens sooner or later. The rage fuels his  paranoid distrust of others and the compulsive (sadistic) need to hurt  them. With time and progressing decompensation, no one is immune to the  tyrant’s escalating rage. This is when his pathology becomes most  apparent, although his sycophants and enablers are the last ones to  notice it (or at least to admit it), invested as they are in placating  him and protecting their privileged positions or even lives. Bereft of a conscience and driven by the insatiable need to  dominate others and avenge their non-ending humiliations, real and  imagined, strongmen/tyrants are compulsively and sadistically  vindictive. This assures that whenever they achieve ultimate power, a  destruction of democratic institutions will follow, leading to chaos,  disorder, oppression and eventually bloody conflicts. It’s not a matter  of if it happens, but how soon.     We have delineated the specifics of the narcissistic psychopath’s psychological functioning elsewhere. Dr. Burkle’s seminal 2016 paper on Antisocial Personality Disorder and Pathological Narcissism in Prolonged Conflicts and Wars of the 21st Century  talks about political leaders with this character pathology and notes  the increase in their numbers since the Cold War. Not coincidentally,  this increase corresponds to the current rise in fascistic movements  world over. Prof. Ben-Ghiat goes on to describe the main features of the  authoritarian strongman’s pathology — his disruptiveness,  shape-shifting, a proclivity toward violence, and disregard for norms  and values– which in the right socio-political context, that of  widespread inequality and growing social unrest, as well as shared  narcissistic woundedness that stems from frustrated expectations of  collective and individual greatness, become his assets. The strongman/tyrant-wannabe’s withdrawal from our shared reality  into his own version of it, suffused with a grandiose sense of  entitlement and eternal victimhood, and seasoned with dreams of  redemptive glory and punishment for his manufactured enemies, appeals to  the segment of the population that feels similarly aggrieved and  looking for scapegoats onto which they can unload their misery. The  tyrant-in-the-making would not amount to much if it weren’t for his  supporters who see in him the embodiment of their own hopes for the  settling of scores, avenging their humiliations and restoring their  personal power. This is the case where narcissistic pathology of an individual  colludes with the needs of his similarly afflicted supporters. This  process of narcissistic collusion is what fuels the growth of  anti-democratic parties as well as cults and other destructive social  movements. Such movements eventually fall, as do their leaders, crippled  by their own pathology, specifically by unchecked grandiosity and  paranoia that drive them to commit acts of political suicide and /or  destruction evoking pushback and rebellion. Ben-Ghiat is right that the behavior of strongmen in general is  methodical in that it is designed to achieve a specific goal: maximize  power and adulation, and minimize resistance and personal humiliations.  It is not quite rational, however, as the needs for power and adulation  driving it are insatiable and because of that ultimately lead to  destruction of others and usually himself as well. His behaviors, even  though purposeful and effective in helping him achieve his goals,  something that renders the label of “madness” questionable in many  observers’ eyes, are not normal, and certainly not healthy. While such  adjectives like mad and crazy, strictly indicating a  psychotic break with reality driven by delusions and hallucinations, may  not necessarily apply to the strongman’s functioning, certainly not at  all times, his incurable character defect makes him not only mentally  unhealthy but also dangerous. Where “madness” is concerned, it is crucial to note that one can  be abnormal without being mentally ill. Not having a conscience — a main  feature of psychopathy — is not an illness but a defect, still an  abnormality, just like not having a limb would be considered an  abnormality but not an illness. Psychopaths are not “mad” in the  colloquial (or even clinical) sense of the word — their reality testing  is intact and they are capable of effective, goal-oriented functioning  in the world. Being free of scruples and treating other people as  objects to exploit turns out to be an asset in the world that champions  greed and the pursuit of power. There is logic, consistency, and  predictability in their actions, and they can be seen as reasonable from  the point of view of realization of their personal objectives and an  effective adjustment to — and/or exploitation of — a society where  primitive goals rule. It is important to remember, as difficult as it may be to accept,  that the problematic behavior of a narcissistic psychopath in a  position of ultimate power will not change for the better, but will most  certainly grow worse with time. We know that he will be destructive. We  know that he will sow chaos, legitimize and incite violence, and quite  likely start wars. We know that with the help of his always eager  sycophants and supporters, he will dismantle anything that stands in his  way to power, and that includes institutions, norms and values that  support human civilization. Eventually this destruction will also reach  many, if not most of his supporters, especially if they fail to provide  him with the adulation and obedience he craves. The debate about mental un/health of the current occupant of the  White House as well as strongmen/tyrants in general is a good  opportunity for educating our society about still poorly recognized  dangers of conscience-impairing character defects like narcissistic  psychopathy and malignant narcissism. If there is one lesson that we  should be able to learn already, based on our historical and  psychological knowledge, it is that of the necessity of keeping  individuals with these defective characters away from power. That is  because once they achieve a position of ultimate power, there isn’t much  that can be done to prevent the predictable destruction they unleash  on society.
Read more