Reblogged:Is Donald Trump a Narcissist?

[Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.]

A narcissist is someone who wants to have a self, i.e., to pursue self-interest, but not respecting the need and right of others to do the same. The narcissist rarely admits this, but from regular dealings with such a person, you can easily infer that it’s true.

By definition, nearly all politicians in today’s world are narcissists. Unlike the men who founded the United States, the vast majority of today’s politicians want to impose their will on others for their own sake; in the pursuit of power, fame and other perks that naturally come from sacrificing the rights of some for the sake of others (who will vote for you).

Hillary Clinton is a blatant and self-evident narcissist. And many who vote for her will agree with that. Barack Obama is just as much a narcissist. He wants to usurp the rights of some – e.g., anyone who wants to be left alone, and anyone who does not agree with his policies on health care, free speech, gun rights, Internet connectivity, private property, literally anything – for the sake of others.

One might infer from this that Donald Trump, who wants to become president, is just as much a narcissist as anyone else. But compared to the career politicians who dominate today’s government (and act based on who gives them the most money), Trump deserves some benefit of the doubt. Unlike so many of our lifelong politicians, he did have to persuade customers to buy his properties and products voluntarily. Politicians, on the other hand, have force and “pull” on their side so they can get what they want. For example, Obama’s pouty and petulant use of “executive orders” when he must circumvent the desires of Congress or of the voters. While proponents of unhampered free-market capitalism criticize Trump for his use of “pull” in the art of his legendary dealmaking, he still had to keep businesses profitable and react to his customers’ opinions. Hillary Clinton, like any career politician, never worked an honest day in her life. So others’ opinions simply don’t matter to her.

So, why do so many find Donald Trump appealing? Win or lose in November, this man’s political achievements are unprecedented. He singlehandedly defeated, and probably wiped out for all time, the Republican Party — including the seemingly endless circus parade of Bushes. History may record that the Republican Party began with Lincoln and ended, at least technically, with George W. Bush. But once Trump came along, it was all over. Even if he loses to Hillary Clinton, the Republican Party as we knew it will never be the same. Whatever might rise up from the ashes will be something that Donald Trump helped to create. And it will be something quite different.

What makes Trump’s supporters tick? To better understand this, we have to do a bit of analysis. Dan P. McAdams is a professor and chair of the Department of Psychology at Northwestern University. In the June 2016 issue of The Atlantic magazine, McAdams wrote a commentary on Donald Trump’s personality, along with the thoughts of some mental health professionals that Trump is a textbook narcissist. McAdams writes, “Narcissus wanted, more than anything else, to love himself. People with strong narcissistic needs want to love themselves, and they desperately want others to love them too — or at least admire them, see them as brilliant and powerful and beautiful, even just see them, period. It’s healthy and rational to admire confidence. Whether Trump’s overt, self-congratulatory style is an example of real confidence or a grandiose sense of hyperbole and humor is a matter of debate.”

In spite of the shrill keening of the Marxists and leftists, Trump’s brash, confident approach is alluring to many, many voters. Remember that though it’s the Republican voters to whom Trump has most appealed, the established, career  so-called “Republicans” such as the Bushes, the Romneys, the Bob Doles and the John McCains (who survive on the good-ol’-boy network of handouts and favors), see him as a far worse creature than Hillary Clinton. Of course they do, and this tells you something about these poseurs’ true loyalty to massive Big Government and all its pocket-lining perks. But Republican voters are the ones who chose Trump over all these career politicians. Interestingly, only Ted Cruz had a chance of beating Trump for the nomination, and Cruz is just as anti-establishment as Trump.

To put it bluntly, Republican voters are sick of weenies. They’re sick of Mitt Romney, who ran on a highly conservative platform, but after his defeat admitted to believing in global warming, and conceding that Obamacare did a lot of good. The voters are just as sick of George W. Bush, who, by contributing to the real estate bubble, helped to enable the welfare-regulatory state he claimed to dislike. He massively expanded Medicare and squandered unprecedented amounts (for a Republican, at least) on domestic spending. Amusingly, when his policies blew up, he morphed into FDR — the Democratic icon — rather than Ronald Reagan, whom he claimed was his hero. He bailed out failing companies rather than working to get government out of the economy, spending and doing less before the 2007-08 debacle and after. And then, in the elections of 2010 and 2014, Republicans defeated Democrats in landslides by running on unequivocal opposition to Obamacare, big government, and everything Obama stands for. But, surprise, surprise: Once these uber-weenies were in office, Obama got everything he wanted, and more – so much so that at times even Obama himself seemed stunned.

When you consider the magnitude of evasion, cowardice and the Republican politicians’ betrayal of their conservative and libertarian-leaning voters, it’s no wonder that someone like Donald Trump came along to steal the voters’ hearts. I’m surprised it took so long.

Trump’s at-times caricature-like portrayal of brash self-confidence represents a reaction, particularly among Republicans and many Independents, against the loathsome, mewling spinelessness of Republican politicians and so-called “leaders.” Donald Trump’s actual or alleged narcissism is not news. American politics is littered with narcissists, of whom Obama and Hillary are two of the greatest examples. Trump’s possible narcissism is nothing new. What IS new is that true Republicans want someone whom they perceive as strong. Say what you will, but he certainly comes across as someone who doesn’t represent the hapless spinelessness of George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the tearful John Boehner and all the other losers who are the most responsible for the demise of the Republican Party.

Dan McAdams continues, “The renowned psychoanalytic theorist Heinz Kohut argued that narcissism stems from a deficiency in early-life mirroring: i.e., the parents fail to lovingly reflect back the young boy’s (or girl’s) budding grandiosity, leaving the child in desperate need of affirmation from others. But others argue that there is nothing necessarily compensatory, or even immature, about certain forms of narcissism. Consistent with this view, I can find no evidence in the biographical record to suggest that Donald Trump experienced anything but a loving relationship with his mother and father. Narcissistic people may seek glorification over and over, but not necessarily because they suffered from negative family dynamics as children. Rather, they simply cannot get enough. The parental praise and strong encouragement that might reinforce a sense of security for most boys and young men may instead have added fuel to Donald Trump’s hot ambitions.”

The essence of narcissism, i.e., a false sense of entitlement,  is the underlying theme of many psychological disorders. But Donald Trump achieved his business success in the context of a waning free market system. He defends his use of political pull as a requirement for achievement in today’s economy. And he’s arguably right. But when all was said and done, he still suffered losses when he failed to deliver the desired product to customers or investors. He gained profits only when he built or delivered a product (e.g., his hit television show) to satisfied viewers and advertisers. This is not something that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could have ever done. Everything these two second handers “achieved,” they achieved through coercion.

Donald Trump’s popularity, at least among Republicans, appears to be less for what he is than for what he is NOT. In addition to NOT being a career politician, he’s also NOT politically correct. One of the most nauseating examples of political correctness came not from Barack Obama, but actually George W. Bush. Just days after 9/11 – of all days! – Bush rushed into public to declare that “Islam is peace.” Neither the liberal nor the conservative media ever gave Bush the full treatment he deserved for this appalling proclamation. Liberals are correct in their assertion that Bush was largely a hypocrite, for no other reason that anyone who truly believed that would not have initiated war in the Islamic-dominated Middle East. When future historians look back on the West and America’s war against Islam — an ideology which America must either defeat or be destroyed by — they will have to mark the insipid and self-congratulatory ignorance of George W. Bush as a low point. Just as Neville Chamberlin, British prime minister who called for “peace in our time” as Hitler proceeded to invade country after country, George W. Bush deserves a similarly enduring infamy by referring to Islam as “peaceful” mere days after that very ideology launched the worst attack ever on American civilization and values.

McAdams says, “Ever since grade school, Trump has wanted to be No. 1. Attending New York Military Academy for high school, he was relatively popular among his peers and with the faculty, but he did not have any close confidants. As both a coach and an admiring classmate recall in ‘The Trumps’, Donald stood out for being the most competitive young man in a very competitive environment. His need to excel — to be the best athlete in school, for example, and to chart out the most ambitious future career — may have crowded out intense friendships by making it impossible for him to show the kind of weakness and vulnerability that true intimacy typically requires.”

Trump’s career reminds true Americans that the business of America is not pocket-lining politics and government, but business and achievement. Republicans and Democrats have alienated many of those Americans because both parties represent careerism only in government. Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Hillary Clinton and most of the Congress represent government and power for its own sake and nothing more. Inexplicably, millions of Americans still admire this idea, but there are increasing numbers of people who do not. This is the divide within the Republican Party: Those who clamor for a Republican “establishment” candidate with his (or her) hands outstretched for donations are not so concerned with Trump’s character or proposed policies as they are with the idea that someone who has never held a career in politics could rise to become the most powerful person in the world. This goes against their treasured admiration of government power for its own sake.

“When individuals with authoritarian proclivities fear that their way of life is being threatened,” says McAdams, “they may turn to strong leaders who promise to keep them safe — leaders like Donald Trump. In a national poll conducted recently by the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams, high levels of authoritarianism emerged as the single strongest predictor of expressing political support for Donald Trump. Trump’s promise to build a wall on the Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants out, and his railing against Muslims and other outsiders have presumably fed that dynamic.

“As president, Donald Trump promises he would make America great again. In [his book] Crippled America, he says that a first step toward victory is building up the Armed Forces: ‘Everything begins with a strong military. Everything.’ The enemies facing the United States are more terrifying than those the hero has confronted in Queens and Manhattan. ‘There has never been a more dangerous time,’ Trump says. Members of ISIS ‘are medieval barbarians’ who must be pursued ‘relentlessly wherever they are, without stopping, until every one of them is dead.’ Less frightening but no less belligerent are our economic competitors, like the Chinese. They keep beating us. We have to beat them.”

America has lost its spine and is spectacularly vulnerable to those medieval barbarians. Part of the reason America lost its spine was the economic stagnation spawned by decades of government meddling, over-involvement in and subsequent mismanagement of, the economy. Not to mention the false sense of security and lack of vision generated by dangerous political correctness.

One thing is for sure: Trump stands for decisiveness and a love of American values as nobody has since Ronald Reagan. His brash and sometimes offensive style will always turn some people off. But that is certainly not the same as the soft dictatorship we now endure. Confidence is not, in and of itself, narcissism.

America can only rise again if economic prosperity and free markets return, and when the military is rebuilt with the strongest weaponry ever known. That’s how America experienced a (sadly temporary) resurgence in the 1980s, and that’s the only answer today. If Trump’s classically narcissistic, dishonest and power-hungry opponent wins, we can be absolutely sure that America’s spiral into decline and eventual ruin will continue. The crossroads at which we now stand, and the dangers perpetrated by our current politicians, will touch everyone’s future. And they run deeper than any psychiatric pathology.

 

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!

The post Is Donald Trump a Narcissist? appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.

View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

[DonAthos]

Goodness.

Hurd's stealth campaign for Trump has been fascinating to watch. Mostly it seems to boil down to a supposition that Hillary Clinton is so beyond-the-bounds EVIL that a proto-Mussolini is actually preferable. I don't think I can buy that, but let's take a brief look at this interminable and discursive post for a moment...

3 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

Politicians, on the other hand, have force and “pull” on their side so they can get what they want. For example, Obama’s pouty and petulant use of “executive orders” when he must circumvent the desires of Congress or of the voters. While proponents of unhampered free-market capitalism criticize Trump for his use of “pull” in the art of his legendary dealmaking, he still had to keep businesses profitable and react to his customers’ opinions. Hillary Clinton, like any career politician, never worked an honest day in her life. So others’ opinions simply don’t matter to her.

Hillary Clinton "never worked an honest day in her life"? Not in law, not as a college professor -- nothing? Trump's efforts, with say, "Trump Steaks" compare favorably? Okay...

3 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

So, why do so many find Donald Trump appealing? Win or lose in November, this man’s political achievements are unprecedented. He singlehandedly defeated, and probably wiped out for all time, the Republican Party — including the seemingly endless circus parade of Bushes. History may record that the Republican Party began with Lincoln and ended, at least technically, with George W. Bush. But once Trump came along, it was all over. Even if he loses to Hillary Clinton, the Republican Party as we knew it will never be the same. Whatever might rise up from the ashes will be something that Donald Trump helped to create. And it will be something quite different.

LOL, such subtle, non-committal use of language. "This man's political achievements are unprecedented." Yes, that's true. What Trump has done to destabilize our political scene is seemingly without precedent -- at least in my lifetime. But in what way is this a good thing?

Is the Republican Party under Trump currently, or whatever monster we expect to stumble out of "the ashes" over the next several years, expected to be a better guardian of liberty, or a better curb against the excesses of the Democrats?

I cannot see how. Not if it draws upon any of the platforms which have defined Trump in discourse: anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, etc. Not if it draws upon his hostile, thuggish, xenophobic rhetoric.

The implosion of the Republican Party is a colossal disaster for advocates of liberty, not a cause for celebration.

3 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

To put it bluntly, Republican voters are sick of weenies.

Playing up the "strong man" aspect of Trump is fascinating in its own respect. I see that Hurd has a Ph.D. I assume that means something substantial, in terms of the education he has received (so long as he did not get his degree from "Trump University," at least).

But over the course of his education, did he ever study European politics in the 1920s - 30s, I wonder? "Strong" nationalist demagogues who play on xenophobic fears, and who promise to restore their countries to (real or imagined) past glories... while remaining non-committal, or even hostile, to civil liberties, does have some memorable precedent.

3 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

He gained profits only when he built or delivered a product (e.g., his hit television show) to satisfied viewers and advertisers.

And then there is Trump's success as a businessman. I do hope that we do not conflate success as a businessman with morality. Use of eminent domain, political pull, lawsuits, possible fraud, and other shady tactics aside, "delivering a product to satisfied viewers and advertisers" is not in itself a stamp of virtue. Gail Wynand and Peter Keating both delivered what their respective audiences craved, but I don't think that makes them particularly laudable.

If nothing else, nothing else at all, Trump is a vulgarian and a panderer to the lowest common denominator.

3 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

“When individuals with authoritarian proclivities fear that their way of life is being threatened,” says McAdams, “they may turn to strong leaders who promise to keep them safe — leaders like Donald Trump. In a national poll conducted recently by the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams, high levels of authoritarianism emerged as the single strongest predictor of expressing political support for Donald Trump...."

Hurd quotes this without comment. Does he understand what it is saying?

3 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

One thing is for sure: Trump stands for decisiveness and a love of American values as nobody has since Ronald Reagan.

Which American values, exactly? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? The quote that really forced me to start thinking about Trump and his political proclivities (because usually I try my hardest to avoid all of this soul-draining crap), was this, from Yahoo:

Quote

Yahoo News asked Trump whether his push for increased surveillance of American Muslims could include warrantless searches. He suggested he would consider a series of drastic measures.

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

This vague patter is not the kind of thing somebody says when they are committed to principles of individual rights. This is the kind of thing someone says when they see individual rights as an obstacle to their agenda, and something to be overcome.

3 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

His brash and sometimes offensive style will always turn some people off. But that is certainly not the same as the soft dictatorship we now endure.

A "soft dictatorship" is only preferable, I would suppose, to a hard one.

[Reidy]

Hurd has let me down. His presumptuous mind-reading is every bit as low-class as a judge's butting into politics. For physicians, sounding off publicly on a patient one hasn't examined is a breach of ethics (as is sounding off publicly on a patient one has examined).

(even when the therapist or judge is right)

Edited July 14, 2016 by Reidy

[softwareNerd]

Quote

So, why do so many find Donald Trump appealing? Win or lose in November, this man’s political achievements are unprecedented. He singlehandedly defeated, and probably wiped out for all time, the Republican Party ...

So, people find him appealing because people find him appealing. That's circular.

[Nicky]

To me, the oddest thing is the claim itself, in the loaded question: that "so many people" find him appealing.  Polls say that 33% view him favorably (that's weaker language than "find him appealing", btw.), vs. 60% who view him unfavorably. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

To put that into perspective, Romney's favorable/unfavorable split, four years ago, was 49-44.

So a more accurate way to phrase the question would be: Why do so few people find Trump appealing? Why is it that even people in the party he's running for find him unappealing?

18 hours ago, Reidy said:

For physicians, sounding off publicly on a patient one hasn't examined is a breach of ethics.

I'm not particularly impressed by the argument (I'm not impressed by any argument trying to get people to vote for Trump, and this one is especially weak), but why is it a breach of ethics? He's not these people's doctor. What ethical obligation could he possibly have to them?

Edited July 15, 2016 by Nicky

[Reidy]

10 hours ago, Nicky said:

[W]hy is [a physician's pronouncing publicly on a patient he hasn't seen] a breach of ethics?

I don't know how this rule came about historically, but I can tell you why I think it's a good rule. Professional diagnoses invariably touch on private, normally confidential matters. Right or wrong, the pronouncement says something about the subject's personal life. That goes double if the doctor is right.

[Nicky]

11 hours ago, Reidy said:

I don't know how this rule came about historically, but I can tell you why I think it's a good rule.

I never hears of this rule. What I have heard is doctors talking about public figures' health on live television. No one ever said it's unethical before.

 

And if a presidential candidate is mentally (or physically) ill, it's definitely not a good thing for the public not to know about it.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Nicky

[Eiuol]

On 7/14/2016 at 3:47 PM, Reidy said:

Hurd has let me down. His presumptuous mind-reading is every bit as low-class as a judge's butting into politics. For physicians, sounding off publicly on a patient one hasn't examined is a breach of ethics (as is sounding off publicly on a patient one has examined).

All blog posts he makes are this way, largely, except maybe posts dedicated to his expertise. (It's worse in the past 2 weeks or so). Narcissism here is used in a non-diagnostic way, which is fine. It's not a diagnosis, just a way to speak of loose character traits. Except Hurd is still failing on that level, and asserting that Trump's "decisiveness" is a sign of his confidence. In fact, there is no sign of confidence because Trump lacks the virtue of rationality - exactly what'd make some a narcissist in the sense used here. Don's post was a pretty good response to Hurd.