I just read an article blasting Trump for wearing more makeup than Kamala and was reminded about how Jennifer Senior first called him a preening narcissist, by Hal M. Brown, MSW

I just read this in RawStory: 

'He's not actually masculine': Trump blasted for 'wearing more make-up' than Kamala Harris

That article begins:

Donald Trump isn't actually masculine, but he is using men's fears against them in his presidential campaign, an expert said.

Liz Plank, the author of the book For the Love of Men: A Vision for Mindful Masculinity, appeared on MSNBC on Saturday to discuss the gender gap in the current presidential election and how men are looking at the candidates.

It goes on to say:

"Can we talk about masculinity, right? Trump is putting on a performance of masculinity. Because he's not actually masculine. This is a guy who spends more time with his make-up artists than with his own advisors. But even setting aside that he probably wears more make-up than Kamala Harris, masculine men aren't afraid of women. They're not afraid to debate women. Masculine men don't have meltdowns on stage because a woman that they didn't like asked them a question that they didn't like. Masculine men aren't manipulated by people who give them compliments." 

This reminded me of Jennifer Senior writing a column on April 5, 2020 when she was still at The New York Times. She's now at The Atlantic.

I added Bart and Homer to the illiustration below. Read on to see why.

This Is What Happens When a Narcissist Runs a Crisis — Trump’s catastrophic performance has as much to do with psychology as ideology.

This was the first time I'd seen the term "preening narcissist" applied t0 Donald Trump:

“That news conference was, to me, the most frightening moment of the Trump presidency. His preening narcissism, his compulsive lying, his vindictiveness, his terror of germs and his terrifying inability to grasp basic science — all of it eclipsed his primary responsibilities to us as Americans, which was to provide urgent care, namely in the form of leadership.

She begins with a link to the website started by Dr. John Gartner, the founder of Duty to Warn who was producing a documentary about Trump (right) at the time.

Since the early days of the Trump administration, an impassioned group of mental health professionals have warned the public about the president’s cramped and disordered mind, a darkened attic of fluttering bats. Their assessments have been controversial. The American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics expressly forbids its members from diagnosing a public figure from afar.

Here are the excerpts specifically addressing how Trump’s psychopathology manifests itself and is endangering human life and the institutions of society. I’ve bullet-pointed them:

• First: Narcissistic personalities like Trump harbor skyscraping delusions about their own capabilities. They exaggerate their accomplishments, focus obsessively on projecting power, and wish desperately to win.
• Second: The grandiosity of narcissist personalities belies an extreme fragility, their egos as delicate as foam. They live in terror of being upstaged. They’re too thin skinned to be told they’re wrong.
• What that means, during this pandemic: Narcissistic leaders never have, as Trump likes to say, the best people. They have galleries of sycophants. With the exceptions of Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, Trump has surrounded himself with a Z-team of dangerously inexperienced toadies and flunkies — the bargain-bin rejects from Filene’s Basement — at a time when we require the brightest and most imaginative minds in the country.
• Meanwhile, Fauci and Birx measure every word they say like old-time apothecaries, hoping not to humiliate the narcissist — never humiliate a narcissist — while discreetly correcting his false hopes and falsehoods.

That OpEd was the second time Jennifer Senior used a reference to Trump’s narcissism in a title: President Trump Is Unfit for This Crisis. Period. His narcissism is a grave danger to our health.

• But every aspect of Trump’s crisis management has been annexed by his psychopathology. 
• But it is true that all eyes are on him. He’s got a captive audience, an attention-addict’s dream come to life. It’s just that he, like all narcissistic personalities, has no clue how disgracefully — how shamefully, how deplorably — he’ll be enshrined in memory.

Jennifer Senior came up with another gem which applies to Donald Trump’s personality.

Unfortunately she had to demean the bumbling but basically good hearted Homer Simpson who is nothing like the evil malignant narcissist Donald Trump by referencing one of his classic aphorisms. 

This (blaming others) sounds an awful lot like one of the three sentences that Homer Simpson swears will get you through life: “It was like that when I got here.”

Not all pathological grandiose narcissists are preening narcissists obsessed with how physically attractive they are, or want to believe they are and think others envy them for their good looks. This is more like Narcissus from the Greek myth. Trump combines the characteristics of Narcissus being obsessed with his appearance with believing he is not only the best looking but the greatest in everything he does.

Earlier today I posted this blog:

LA Times and Wash. Post endorsement of Harris would have made no difference, their non-endorsement helps Trump,

.

Yesterday's blog: It's getting down to the wire and you've bet everything you have on one horse

Also these recent blogs:

"A LETTER FROM MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ON TRUMP’S DANGEROUS PSYCHOPATHOLOGY" was published as an ad in The NY Times,

Yesterday: Fox News - Don't call this dignified wonderful gentleman a fascist because it may provoke another assassination attempt,

.About Hal M. Brown

Read all previous blogs.

I originally posted versions of this blog on Daily Kos.

LA Times and Wash. Post endorsement of Harris would have made no difference, their non-endorsement helps Trump, by Hal M. Brown, MSW

 

In stark contrast to these papers, The New York Times has laid out the reasons in detail for their endorsing Kamala Harris (read editorial here, subscrption required). Scroll down to bottom of page for excepts.

Never-Trumpers are enraged that the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post owners overrode their editorial boards and wouldn't let them endorse Kamala Harris for president. Staff members on both papers are expressing both outrage and dismay. 

For example this is a portion of what Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote:

I love The Washington Post, deep in my bones. Last month marked my 40th year of proud work for the institution, in the newsroom and in the Opinions section. I have never been more disappointed in the newspaper than I am today, with the tragically flawed decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential race.

You can read what she had to say without a subscription here.

Columnist Karen Tumulty, who joined the staff of the Post in 2010, wrote "Refusing to endorse a candidate, The Post wounds itself" She begins by noting the irony that "At a ceremony Thursday night in New York City, two of our Post Opinions colleagues received their Pulitzer Prizes for their courageous and tenacious work spotlighting the dangers of authoritarianism. 

She concludes with the following:

Editorial boards exist to make judgments and to speak for the institution. If this change in policy regarding presidential endorsements was a stand on some long-ignored principle of our past, why did the newspaper wait until just 11 days before the election to announce it?

Our current owner has emblazoned “Democracy Dies in Darkness” on the front page of every edition of The Washington Post. With this decision, those words now stand as an indictment of ourselves.

When I read about this at first I thought "so what" because the vast majority people that read these publications are voting for Kamala anyway.

Then I changed my mind. While an endorsement of Harris wouldn't have changed a vote this decision accrues to Trump's benefit. If he hasn't already done so he can spin it his way by saying that even the liberal press won't endorse "Came-a-la" because she's too liberal for them. He can rant on about how they see she's a communist and a fascist who will destroy our beloved American Democracy.

Ali Velshi just now on MSNBC in discussing this noted that Tim Snyder, the author of "On Tyranny"  calls what they did "anticipatory obedience"... I looked it up here.

Do not obey in advance.

Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy. Perhaps rulers did not initially know that citizens were willing to compromise this value or that principle. Perhaps a new regime did not at first have the direct means of influencing citizens one way or another. After the German elections of 1932, which brought Nazis into government, or the Czechoslovak elections of 1946, where communists were victorious, the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience. Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change. The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed.

It appears that the owner of the LA Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, may be a Trump supporter. We do know that he's friends with Elon Musk who like him was born in South Africa. The owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos (who also owns Amazon) may or may not be a Trump supporter but he is clearly hedging his bets.

Both of them have given Trump more than a boost. They have given him a gift which, unlike a financial donation, doesn't have to be reported. 

If Trump wins look for him to try to exert pressure on them to "Murdochize" their papers. He could try to get them to squash unfavorable coverage of him or even fire staff who don't tow the line of his MAGAzation of the country. Could we see Tucker Carlson as the new editor-in-chief of The Washington Post? Their editor-at-large has already resigned over this. The editor of the LA Times and two other editors also resigned.

I have no doubt that Trump wants to control the media and that if he's president he will attempt to do this. These decisions have only served to whet his appetite. The dictator wannabe who admires Hitler for having loyal generals (even though some tried to kill him) if he knows anything about NAZI history is aware that there was no free press in NAZI Germany or the countries they controlled.

Who knows what the Supreme Court which gave the president immunity might do to reinterpret and the gut protections of the press granted in the First Amendment? 

Here's a review of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Some have raised the question of whether the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause are coextensive, with respect to protections for the media. A number of Supreme Court decisions considering the regulation of media outlets analyzed the relevant constitutional protections without significantly differentiating between the two clauses. In one 1978 ruling, the Court expressly considered whether the institutional press is entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulations or restrictions than are non-press individuals, groups, or associations. Justice Potter Stewart argued in a concurring opinion: That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.But, in a plurality opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: The Court has not yet squarely resolved whether the Press Clause confers upon the ‘institutional press’ any freedom from government restraint not enjoyed by all others. The plurality ultimately concluded that the First Amendment did not grant media the privilege of special access to prisons.

Several Supreme Court holdings firmly point to the conclusion that the Free Press Clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or otherwise give the press access to information that the public generally does not have. Nor, in many respects, is the press entitled to treatment different in kind from the treatment to which any other member of the public may be subjected. The Court has ruled that [g]enerally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects. At the same time, the Court has recognized that laws targeting the press, or treating different subsets of media outlets differently, may sometimes violate the First Amendment. 

Further, it does seem clear that, to some extent, the press, because of its role in disseminating news and information, is entitled to heightened constitutional protections—that its role constitutionally entitles it to governmental sensitivity, to use Justice Potter Stewart’s word. 

Reference.

Why stop there? The Supreme Court could decide that a president has the right to interpret the Constitution any way they want to if Trump wins. They could also say he can suspend the entire Constitution. After all having a dictatorship is not compatible with having  a working Constitution. Does anybody think Trump wants the Constitution to restrain his dictatorial ambitions?

Excerpts from NY Times endorsement which begins as follows:

It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.

Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.

This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.

The endrocement concludes:

In 2020 this board made the strongest case it could against the re-election of Mr. Trump. Four years later, many Americans have put his excesses out of their minds. We urge them and those who may look back at that period with nostalgia or feel that their lives are not much better now than they were three years ago to recognize that his first term was a warning and that a second Trump term would be much more damaging and divisive than the first.

Kamala Harris is the only choice.

 

Yesterday's blog: It's getting down to the wire and you've bet everything you have on one horse

Also these recent blogs:

"A LETTER FROM MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ON TRUMP’S DANGEROUS PSYCHOPATHOLOGY" was published as an ad in The NY Times,

Fox News - Don't call this dignified wonderful gentleman a fascist because it may provoke another assassination attempt,

.About Hal M. Brown

Read all previous blogs.

Hal Brown

It's getting down to the wire and you've bet everything you have on one horse, by Hal M. Brown, MSW

 

It's getting down to the wire. We all know what I mean by this but where did that saying come from? Gary Martin, a writer and researcher on the origins of phrases and the creator of the Phrase Finder website looked into this here.

He wrote:

‘Down to the wire’ is a commonly used expression these days, but whenever I hear it I think ‘what wire?’, so I thought I’d look into it.

Which wire is that?

The earliest examples that I can find of ‘down to the wire’ in print are from educative pieces about viniculture, in which gardeners are advised to tie their vines ‘down to the wire’. I’ve also heard it used to describe car tyres that were on their last legs and had the underlying canvas and wire thread showing. Those aren’t of course the source of the phrase, which it turns out has more to do with horses than horsepower.

People have bet on horse races for centuries and the outcome of these has always been of close interest to punters. Before the days of electronic measurement and photo finishes the method adopted in the 19th century to decide the winner of a close race was to string a wire across the track above the finishing line.

Let's take this horserace analogy further. Say you were forced to bet every cent you had, that you mortgaged your house, emptied the college fund meant for your children, and  had to bet it all on one particular horse or another. If your horse loses you and your children would be homeless.

Let's say further that the odds on each horse winning were 50/50.

Let's also say that despite these odds you know that one horse has been given outlawed performance enhancing drugs. 

Going beyond this I'll add that the bookies are involved in a mob that is betting heavily on the other horse.

Not only that, suspicious looking people were seen hanging around the racetrack stables.

How I feel....

I live in a continuing care retirement community where the residents are almost all very liberal have taken to wearing simple name badges imprinted with drawings showing what they are interested in like cats or books. I had a special one made to show how I am feeling. I will wear it until the election. If Kamala wins I may have a little ceremony and use my heat gun to melt it. If Trump wins I am afraid I will keep wearing it.

You probably recognize the figure. It's the man in the famous Edvard Munch paintings and prints "The Scream."

If Kamala wins I'll go back to wearing my badge with the background of Dali's famous painting The Persistence of Memory, often called the melting clocks painting.

From Wikipedia:

The well-known surrealist piece introduced the image of the soft melting pocket watch.It epitomizes Dalí's theory of "softness" and "hardness", which was central to his thinking at the time. As Dawn Adès wrote, "The soft watches are an unconscious symbol of the relativity of space and time, a Surrealist meditation on the collapse of our notions of a fixed cosmic order". This interpretation suggests that Dalí was incorporating an understanding of the world introduced by Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. Asked by Ilya Prigogine whether this was the case, Dalí replied that the soft watches were not inspired by the theory of relativity, but by the surrealist perception of a Camembert melting in the sun.

I had a Zoom discussion with a columnist for a well known progressive website last night for his upcoming podcast (I'll post a blog about that when it is available) and one of the things I talked with him about was what both of us will write about if Kamala wins. I suggested I might try science fiction short stories but noted that I find writing good fiction far more difficult than writing (hopefully) good essays. In a way this is like painting a good abstract or surreal picture as opposed to painting a realistic one which while taking talent I don't think takes that much creativity.

About Hal M. Brown

Read previous blogs.