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
• 
Minor correction; Goldwater was the Republican candidate for President in 1964, so the Goldwater rule came about in the 1960s, not the 1970s.
I’d agree with you if you were right. I was referring to the rule itself which first came into effect in 1973.
.
PAD
Man, a news cycle measured in weeks/months. I can’t even imagine what that was like. I was born in 77.
Not quite THAT long. There were generally two news periods: the evening news and the 11 o’clock news. That was it.
.
Furthermore, newsmen were–as Jeff Daniels said in the first episode of “Newsroom”–revered. Trump’s lines about “fake news” would have fallen completely flat if he was trying to dismiss Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley. Cronkite was the most trusted man in America; he could have turned the entire country against Trump with a word if he had chosen to. But he never would have because he was too good a newsman.
.
PAD
Re: Cronkite. I loved “Uncle Walter” when I was a kid…probably at least in part because I was a space geek. The CBS evening News left the editorial comment to Eric Sevareid (and, on occasion, Daniel Schorr, if I remember correctly.) That made it all the more powerful on the rare, rare occasions where Cronkite did give his opinion, as famously on the Vietnam War. Nowadays, the notion that a TV newsperson would clearly distinguish between reportage and editorials pieces seems almost quaint.
Dude – I’m pretty disappointed to be reading your book that I just purchased (Writing 4 Comics..), looking your website up and getting a “rant” on politics.
I’m loving the book so far but will have to read with more scrutiny.
What politician, public figure, “human being” do you know that doesn’t exhibit 3 of these traits? You state:
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.
Give me a break…
That’s a very strange response. I’m not sure why you need to read “with more scrutiny.” Are you under the impression that I can’t separate my politics from my writing? Perhaps that’s because you can’t separate your politics from your reading and assume I suffer from a similar problem.
.
Who doesn’t exhibit three of these traits? Pretty sure I don’t. My wife, my kids, my friends. Am I claiming that no pr3sident prior to Trump had mental issues? Of course not. Lincoln suffered from depression. Nor would I say my article was a rant. It was simply a review of 27 professionals saying that the man who could launch nuclear missiles is nuts. JFK surrounded himself with smart people who disagreed with him. Trump only accepts people who don’t gain say him. That’s extremely dangerous. And if the reaction of his supporters such as you is to contend that everyone is a dangerous sociopath, then you really need to either actually read the book or find better people to hang out with.
.
PAD
Kennedy surrounded himself with like minded thinkers which was dangerous. Schlesinger was odd man out and admits he was there to give the pretense of diversity but never taken seriously. I believe it was Schlesinger who finally wrote a dissertation and coined the term Group Think based on his experiences with Kennedy
Also I would note that Kennedy traded our nukes in Turkey for Russia’s in Cuba but Kennedy kept this quite secret because he didn’t want America to think he compromised. Rather , he stood down the USSR. This deliberate conceit has hurt US foreign policy ever since because Kennedy showed us to not negotiate/ compromise.
And he also banged Marilyn Monroe. Yet for all that, JFK was better on his worst day than Trump is on his best day.
.
PAD
No, the term groupthink was coined by Irving Janis in an article titled “Groupthink” published in the November 1971 issue of Psychology Today and in his book Victims of Groupthink published in 1972.
In the book Janis gives several historical examples of groupthink and the poor decisions it led to. One example he offers of groupthink is indeed from the Kennedy administration — but it’s not Cuban Missile crisis, the Bay of Pigs.
Janis does talk about the Cuban Missile crisis as well, but it’s an example of just the opposite: good decision-making as a result of avoiding groupthink. JFK learned from the Bay of Pigs how disastrous it could be to have people trying to say only what they thought he wanted to hear and self-censoring their disagreements, so in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs he encouraged people to express what they actually thought even if — especially if — they disagreed with what he or the majority of others were saying. This led, in Janis’ opinion, to very good handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Janis offers it as an example of how decision-making should be handled, as opposed to the Bay of Pigs as an example of how it should not.
I highly recommend both the article and the book. The book is not that easy to find nowadays, but the Psychology Today article can likely be located on microfilm or bound volume at a good university library. (Jay Hall’s “Decisions, Decisions, Decisions”, in the same issue, is also well worth reading.)
I will certainly not argue the point you are making. That said, Prez Bonespur had yet to drag the USA into a war that will kill a million [Vietnamese.]
… yet.
If he drags us into a war, the death toll will be over a million within minutes.
.
PAD
I am not a fan of Kennedy’s foreign policy. But if you’re going to compare Kennedy with Trump you need to do a better job of getting your facts straight.
~
The US got involved in the Vietnam conflict in the long before Kennedy became president. Our initial involvement began under Truman in 1950, when we sent in “military advisors” to assist the French (who were trying to maintain their colonial occupation of Vietnam). Our role became larger under Eisenhower when we took over from the French after the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu and withdrew.
~
Kennedy did increase the number of “advisors” we were sending, but they were still called advisors as we had not officially declared war or admitted we were fighting a war. A much more major escalation occurred in 1965 under Johnson, and the war continued to be a much more major conflict for the following decade under Johnson and then Nixon.
~
So putting all the casualties of the 25 year US involvement in Vietnam onto Kennedy in order to create an unfavorable comparison to Trump is deceptive spin.
~
Trump, like Kennedy, is continuing US military involvement in conflicts the US was involved in before he took office. Trump, like Kennedy, is escalating these conflicts. But Trump is worse already.
~
Six months after Trump took office the number of civilian casualties in Syria and Lybia had risen from 80 a month under Obama to 360 a month under Trump. More than 2,000 civilians were killed by US actions in Trump’s first 6 months alone. That’s more civilian casualties in Trump’s first 6 months as president than during Kennedy’s entire 34 months as president.
~
Kennedy’s decision to continue and increase the US military presence in Vietnam was bad policy with bad results. But Trump’s actions and threats of actions regarding Syria, Lybia, Korea, and numerous other hot spots are far worse, and threaten to have much more disastrous consequences.
Hi Nova, I do need to do a bit of fact checking ,lol, as I am going on memory of my MBA studies from 25 years ago. I won’t defend Kennedy’s foreign policy either nor Trump’s. And good catch about my references to Group Think. I am merely saying that if Trump doesn’t blow up the world or kill 1,000,000 people then his foreign policy might not be the worst we’ll see?
Kennedy and his group, with just a little bit of curiosity could have looked at France’s disastrous wars in Indochina and more importantly in Algeria and just maybe discerned something about national movements and guerrilla warfare? I mean even George W Bush had enough brains to read “A Savage War of Peace” and apparently learn from France’s mistakes in Algeria where they killed 1,000,000 Algerians about 1/9 of the nonEuropean population and lost the war? Bush and book are two words most would not link?
Hi Nova,
Also if I may rely on your expertise (I don’t have a deep knowledge of JFK, just a few odds / ends).
Is it fair to say that JFK secretly traded our nukes in Turkey for Russia’s nukes in Cuba and that was the crux of the Cuban Missile Crisis resolution thus creating a gross distortion in how the Crisis was resolved? B/c of that distortion it has become part of our national identity that the USA does not negotiate with the “bad guys” though that is exactly what JFK did and that it could be political suicide for a president to suggest negotiating (with Taliban, Iran, Assad, whomever)? I know that is a very leading question and don’t mean to tie you up for hours writing a reply. But just curious if you have some general thoughts. Thanks!
The basic point of this Freak Out Friday posting is that Trump appears to be seriously mentally unstable to a number of professionals in the mental health field, which presents a serious danger to all of us.
~
Trump’s actions to date lend a good bit of credibility to that assessment. He has done a great deal of harm already, both in domestic matters and foreign policy matters. With the powers of the presidency in his hands, he could do a great deal more, up to and including starting World War III.
~
JFK was imperfect (who isn’t?) but he was sane and he was competent. Those are two extremely important qualifications for a president to have. It’s pretty clear Trump is not competent and it’s quite possible he is not sane.
~
If you want to learn more about JFK’s presidency, there are many good books you can read. There’s also a lot of junk, both in print and on the web, so you’d do well to choose wisely and avoid sensationalist stuff and CT junk.
~
If you have a good amount of time to spend on this, what I’d suggest is going to a university library and going through their microfilm collection of newspapers and magazines from 1960 to 1963 to read the news coverage, editorials, and letters to the editor of the times. That will give you a much better picture of what the times were like and what JFK’s presidency was like, and will help you form a more informed opinion of how good or bad a president JFK was.