Donald Trump has inhabited the White House for less than two months, but he is already the most psychoanalyzed president in history. A Google search of “Trump narcissism” turns up 449,000 entries. Here is a quick sampling: “Coping with Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the White House”, “Donald Trump, Narcissist-In-Chief”, “Trump is an Extreme Narcissist, and it Only Gets Worse From Here”. There are scholarly treatises portraying Trump as a posterchild for narcissism. There are letters from psychiatrists suggesting that the president undergo immediate treatment for the personality disorder. There is a ponderous analysis of whether narcissism could lead to impeachment.
Diagnosing a mental disorder is far beyond the reaches of this blog. Yet, there is a piece of this Narcissus stuff that is politically compelling, particularly as it relates to predicting the future of the Trump Administration. It is that aspect of the phenomenon that I want to explore here.
Although narcissism at its extreme is a recognized mental disorder, Sigmund Freud originally used the term to describe a personality type. He saw narcissists as emotionally isolated, very distrustful, poor listeners, lacking in empathy, dependent on adulation of others and likely to react to perceived threats with rage.
However, Freud also noted, according to a paper written in 2000 by the noted psychoanalyst and anthropologist Michael Maccoby, that “people of this type impress others as being ‘personalities.’ They are especially suited to act as a support for others, to take on the role of leaders, and to give a fresh stimulus to cultural development or damage the established state of affairs.”
Over the past 20 years, experts like Maccoby, and Sacramento psychologist Mark Ettensohn, have taken a close look at how narcissists perform as leaders. Despite their self-involvement, Ettensohn notes that narcissistic leaders can be very tuned in to what people are thinking or feeling, more so than their non-narcissistic counterparts. “Because narcissists spend so much time trying to manage deeply felt insecurities and trying to read other people for whether or not they’re liked,” Ettensohn said, “they tend to get pretty good at knowing what’s going on inside of others.”
Trump, more than any other player on the national political stage, picked up on the intensity of the dissatisfaction and frustration of a large segment of left-behind working class voters. They became his rally crowds, forming a perfect symbiotic relationship between those who wanted to pound the system to smithereens and the crazy, larger-than-life narcissist who spoke loudly and carried a large sledgehammer. Daniel Bober, a clinical psychiatry professor at Yale University School of Medicine, said narcissistic leaders project far more self-confidence than they have and “people tend to follow them because of that confidence.” Think about it: How many times, before and after the election, did we read comments like this one, from a Wisconsin woman quoted by the Washington Post?: “. . . he’s got this crazy character, he’s very flamboyant and irrational. (We) supported him not because of his character, but because he represented substantial change.”
The professionals who study the dynamics of narcissistic leaders have identified two key causes of their downfall, both well worth keeping in mind as we watch Trump in the days ahead. One of them, identified by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a business psychology professor at London’s University College, is that the seductive charisma of inflated promises burns off when they aren’t fulfilled. Losing the adulation of the masses is as frightening to a narcissist as a crucifix is to a vampire.
That kind of rain has just started to fall on Trump’s parade. The Washington Post reported yesterday that many of his true believers are mortified over his backing of a health care bill that would take away their insurance. It’s a classic breakdown between a narcissist’s grandiose promise and the disappointment of his followers who believed in them. After all, it was just a month ago when his fans cheered the president’s words: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. (You) can expect to have great health care. Much less expensive and much better.” Earlier this week, Trump threw his support behind the House Republican plan that will leave an estimated 24 million Americans without insurance, including many hard core Trump backers who would lose their Medicaid coverage.
Maccoby, the psychoanalyst and anthropologist who has written extensively about narcissistic leaders, says they can succeed for the long haul only if they have an effective lieutenant by their side, helping them avoid the most destructive behavior. In Trump’s case, that would include taking control of the Twitter account. Maccoby used the late Steve Jobs and Apple as an example. Jobs’ narcissistic style got him fired when he tried to run the company by himself. He later succeeded, Maccoby noted, when he came back and partnered with Tim Cook in operations and Jony Ive in design. Maccoby also said Napoleon fit the narcissistic mold and was functioning quite well until he discharged his close adviser, Talleyrand, leading to Napoleon’s disastrous invasion of Russia since there was no one there to talk him out of it.
If Maccoby’s theory that narcissists can succeed only with the wise guidance of an able assistant, Trump is doomed. After all, Stephen Bannon, his chief strategist and bomb thrower, was writing racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic screeds for a far right wing website before he ended up in the west wing. Nobody else on the White House staff has yet shown any promise at being able to save Trump from Trump. If the psychological experts are right, the drama of the Trump presidency will grow even more dark and dreary in the days to come. As his fans grow disillusioned and withhold their love, the president will respond with more rage, furor and desperation. And there seems to be no adult in sight capable of holding him back. That means only one thing: the ending of this reality show is not likely to be pretty.
Fascinating stuff.
That’s how I see it. Thanks for an insightful piece Bruce.