Trump and his malignant narcissim revisited: by Hal M. Brown, MSW

 

Click image to enlarge.

This image was posted on the private Duty 2 Warn Facebook page. It was started on Feb. 1, 2017 by Dr. John D. Gartner.

I gave my own check to a less obvious characteristic Trump exhibits. I don't think Trump confides his true deeper feelings to others because he represses them. Trump is a shallow and superficial person who never looks inward and has no insight, let alone curiosity, about what makes him tick. This may seem less noxious, but people like Trump rarely if ever want to delve into their innermost feelings because if they did they might understand the reasons for their behaviors and begin to change those that hurt other people

I give Dr. John D Gartner the credit he is due for enlightening me and thousands of others to the combinations of severe psychopathologies which combine to give us what (as we all by now probably know) was coined by the esteemed psychoanalyst Erich Fromm. Fromm was a Holocaust survivor. He said it is a severe and destructive pathology that is at the heart of the inhumane acts exhibited by people such as Hitler and Stalin. 

Gartner was the first mental health expert to describe Trump as a malignant narcissist. This was in a May, 2017 USA Today article.

 

I think it is worth posting the link to Gartner's opinion essay (here) as I have done in previous blogs. This is because if I use the staging categories of cancer as a metaphor the Trump of 2017 had a stage 2 malignancy in 2017. Now is well into stage 4. It has not only spread in him, but unlike cancer, it is contagious and has spread and become more dangerous because a large percentage of the population has been infected. 

The cancer of Trump's malignant narcissism won't kill him, but will result in the death of democracy if he is elected president again.

Sinclair Lewis (in his dystoican 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here" predicted the Nazis,  and of course Orwell wrote about authoritarian dictatorship in "1984." I hate to think that a year or two from now people like me will be writing about how John Gartner predicted a Trump second term dictatorship in 2017.

Excerpt from Gartner's USA Today article:

Much has been written about Trump having narcissistic personality disorder. As critics have pointed out, merely saying a leader is narcissistic is hardly disqualifying. But malignant narcissism is like a malignant tumor: toxic.

Psychoanalyst and Holocaust survivor Erich Fromm, who invented the diagnosis of malignant narcissism, argues that it “lies on the borderline between sanity and insanity.” Otto Kernberg, a psychoanalyst specializing in borderline personalities, defined malignant narcissism as having four components: narcissism, paranoia, antisocial personality and sadism. Trump exhibits all four.

I wish I could go back to 2017 and do a Google search for Trump and malignant narcissism. I doubt it would come up with more than links to the Gartner article. Here's what comes up with the Google search today.

Gartner makes the progressive media on a regular basis, for example in "Perfectly predictable": Dr. John Gartner on why "a malignant narcissist like Trump" sells Bibles in Salon for example and so do many other mental health professionals including myself.   I'm the clincial social worker in this title: Clinical social worker: "With the Trump Bible, one must consider dementia" in a Chauncey DeVega Salon column.

It isn't just mental health professionals who have learned about maligant narcissism. Back in 2019 it wasn't a surprise that George Conway realized that Trump had the disorder: "George Conway Says Trump Is a 'Malignant Narcissist': He's 'Both Mentally Disordered and Evil' "- Newsweek. 

John Gartner and his colleague Dr. Harry Segal has done podcasts with George Conway (here's one of them).

It is perhaps surprising one of Trump's lawyers recognized this in him: "Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis turns on ‘malignant narcissist’ ex-president" from The Guardian.

Trump is very different from Hitler and Stalin who were psychopaths, but not particularly flamboyant grandiose narcissists. It is very significant that this characteristic of Trump has served him well. This is because his most psychopathic tendencies and aspirations as shown by his cruel and vengeful statements can be written off as simply Trump the unhinged braggart being Trump the unhinged braggart.  Trump hides his evil behind his bloviating narcissitic persona.

Addendum:

In searching the web for articles about Trump and malignant narcissim I came across this piece which I forgot about writing. I'd posted it on Medium in March of 2023:

This also included a link to Gartner's USA Today essay.

Here's an excerpt about the character in the Luther episode.

This is from Wikipedia (emphasis added):

Alice Morgan, played by Ruth Wilson,is a research scientist with a genius-level IQ. When we first meet her, Alice has murdered her parents — and their dog — in such a calculated fashion, that not even Luther is able to prove her guilt, of which he is absolutely certain. Alice’s core belief, that nothing in life ultimately matters, comes into direct conflict with Luther’s own beliefs. She frequently insinuates herself into Luther’s professional and personal life, both as an enemy and ally, with behaviours ranging from stalking him and those close to him, to helping him avoid criminal prosecution. She also provides Luther with a unique insight into the criminal mind. Luther describes Alice as a malignant narcissist.

Yesterday's blog:

Other recent blogs:

If Trump ends up going to trial and is convicted is he capable of saying he's sorry?

Will the drip-drip-drip of Trump being Trump overflow his bucket and ruin his chance of winning?

It can’t happen here. Some people “get it” and want it. Some people don’t “get it”, don’t want it, and may vote for it. 

“On the initiative of the vice president” should be on the top of the page story today.

 

Read all previous blogs here.

Why is Joe Scarborough surprised that Trump blames the assassination attempts on Democrats? By Hal M. Brown, MSW

 

Above: An alarmed Joe Scarborough created by Perchance Photo AI

This is being discussed with gravity and alarm on MSNBC as I write this. 

(Update: RawStory summarized the panel discussion in 'Table is being set' for post-election chaos by Trump's 'vile' lies: Morning Joe panelist.)

Why is the Morning Joe crew surprised? I understand them being horrified. However, this shouldn't have surprised them.

My reaction wasn't "OMG! Trump and his surrogates are telling their rally crowds that the Democrats want to destroy democracy and they are even trying to kill me."

Trump is saying that we don't have to fear enemies from outside because they are less dangerous than his poltical opponents. He'll deal with China, Russia, and North Korea, which he names in his sing-songy voice, because unlike stupid Kamala he will deal with them. Easy-peasy for Trump with his big brain. He will protect us from the evil empires. He is saying that it is the internal enemies, the (socialist, Marxist, communist, whatever) Democrats who we have to fear.

The names of the so-called Democrat operatives who tried to kill Turmp will largely be lost to history. They may have aspired to be as familiar as John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, but few people will remember the names Ryan Wesley Routh and Thomas Mathew Crooks.

Their true motivations (laid out as far as we know them in this Newsweek article) are not clear. This doesn't matter to Trump. He may not even be able to name or identify them from photos today. In fact he owes so much to them he should have framed pictures of them at Mar-a-Lago because their actions may make the difference between him winning and losing the election.

Sorry "Morning Joe" crew, but of course Trump is portraying them as Democrat assassins. I'm surprised Trump hasn't already compared them to John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald.

For that matter, I am surprised he hasn't compared Kamala Harris to Benedict Arnold.

Yesterday's blog:

More recent blogs:

If Trump ends up going to trial and is convicted is he capable of saying he's sorry?

Will the drip-drip-drip of Trump being Trump overflow his bucket and ruin his chance of winning?

It can’t happen here. Some people “get it” and want it. Some people don’t “get it”, don’t want it, and may vote for it. 

“On the initiative of the vice president” should be on the top of the page story today.

Previous blogs.

If we have President Trump, President Vance, or both, in the future we'll be living in "1984" on steroids, by Hal M. Brown, MSW

 

Well known promo picture for 1984 colorized by Kolorize.cc Click image to enlarge

There's no real need to go chapter and verse through George Orwell's 1949 novel "1984" to understand why referencing it here (as is done elsewhere) describes what Trump and Vance want the United States to become. Each hopes to become Big Brother. Vance anticipates that within a year or two he will assume the position of president.

Project 2025 isn't a novel, but like "1984 it describes a totalitarian country run by a dictator whose government uses mass surveillance of citizens and repressive regimentation to control the behavior of the population.

Consider that in 1949 when "1984" was written the cyber capacity to track the social media habits and the physical location of people didn't exist. In 1949 there was no National Security Agency (NSA) with its vast satellite network:

Today you can be tracked by your car and cell phone GPS, but this is child's play for law enforcement agencies. Survellience cameras are ubiquitous. Police can monitor your driving and send you tickets for infractions. Banks, ATMs, and stores have cameras. Facial recognition can be used to identify you and, I assume if not now eventually, will be used to find out where you are. 

Are you really sure that when you read a website like this some hacker hasn't turned on your device's camera and microphone?

Another novel that is being written about as a warning about what could happen in American under Trump and Vance is Margaret Atwood's 1985 "The Handmaids Tale." Consider that Covid can be tracked by analysis of wastewater and ask yourself whether the government could decide to determine whether residents of a given area were using mifepristone (half of the so-called abortion pill) or any kind of banned birth control. Federal funds could be withheld from the community. Worse than that government agents could interogate all the females of child bearing age living there to make sure that if they are pregnant they don't have an abortion.

In 2025 under a Trump and Vance Americans could try to run from a repressive government but they wouldn't be able to hide.

I couldn't figure out a way to illustrate this blog until I realized that an app I just bought to colorize a batch of old black and white paper photos from my childhood could also be used to intensify what 2025 and beyond could look like.

Some images from the movie, like this one, look more foreboding than the colorized version.

In "1984" we had Winston Smith as the protagonist. He worked in a mid-level job at the Ministry of Truth. He kept his hatred for the Party secret. When he discovered that there was a resistance group called the Brotherhood he and his girlfriend Julia joined it.  However, they were betrayed by a Party spy and arrested by the Thought Police. He was sent to be "reeducated" through torture by his worst fear, rats, and through mind manipulation by the Ministry of Love. Eventually he betrayed Julia and realized he loved Big Brother and was released. The end of the book tells what happens after he is happily sitting in a cafe after he is a "free" man:

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Those last four words are consider by some to be among the most devasting and heartbreaking words in literature (read article).

In the Big Brother world of Trump and Vance I doubt a Winston could survive as long as he did let alone there being a Brotherhood undergound resistance standing a chance of being effective. I doubt it could be organized in the first place.

Whichever of my illustrations you think suggests what our country could look like, imagine Trump or Vance in the pictures as Big Brother.  If you value freedom, democracy, and a tolerant multi-ethnic pluralistic America, all of these images should scare the bejesus out of you. 

Watch the trailer for the movie "1984" here.

Addendum: 

Voters should assume that a vote for Trump is a vote for Vance. I wrote about this (here) several days ago and it is finally being covered in progressive media.

Recent blogs:

If Trump ends up going to trial and is convicted is he capable of saying he's sorry?

Will the drip-drip-drip of Trump being Trump overflow his bucket and ruin his chance of winning?

It can’t happen here. Some people “get it” and want it. Some people don’t “get it”, don’t want it, and may vote for it. 

“On the initiative of the vice president” should be on the top of the page story today.

Previous blogs.

If Trump ends up going to trial and is convicted is he capable of saying he's sorry? by Hal M. Brown, MSW

Digital illustration made by Perhance Photo AI

You can click these images to enlarge them. I made them to illustrate blogs I wrote in the past.

Trump got the king-making ruling from his Supreme Court and Jack Smith filed what hopefully will be a historic successful indictment trying to lay out alleged crimes that Trump committed which couldn't be considered part of presidential duties.

Most readers of this blog by and large probably want Trump to pay for what he did with the indignity of having to go to prison. The kind of heart may accept his having to serve a sentence walking around Mar-a-Lago with an ankle bracelet and no access to the internet and not being able to party with other felons.

The really, really kind of heart may want President Harris to pull a Gerald Ford and pardon him. This may actually be the politically savvy thing to do.

Not that it matters in the great scheme of things what my opinion is but I think that if Trump is convicted the consequences should depend on whether or not he expresses any remorse. This wouldn't be up to me and it wouldn't be up to the public. The sentence would be a decision made by the judge. Consider the journal article:

So You're Sorry? The Role of Remorse in Criminal Law

Here's the abstract:

The role of remorse in judicial decisions in the criminal justice system has been addressed in scholarship and remains controversial. The purpose of this qualitative research was to examine the views of sitting criminal judges on remorse, its assessment, and its relevance in their decision-making. After approval of the study design by the institutional review board, 23 judges were interviewed in an open-ended format. Transcriptions of these audio-recorded sessions were analyzed phenomenologically by the research team, using the method of narrative summary. The results showed that the judges varied widely in their opinions on the way remorse should be assessed and its relevance in judicial decision-making. They agreed that the relevance of remorse varied by type of crime and the stage of the proceedings. The indicators of remorse for some judges were the same as those that indicated the lack of remorse for others. All the judges recognized that assessment of remorse, as well as judicial decision-making in general, must be altered for defendants with mental illness. The judges varied in their views of the relevance of psychiatric assessments in determining remorse, although most acknowledged a role for forensic psychiatrists.

Legal scholars and courts appreciate the significance of remorse in criminal law. Remorse is held to be an appropriate consideration, particularly durin the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings.

 However, it remains a poorly formulated concept, lacking clarity and uniformity in both its definition and the characteristics that signal its presence or absence. The problem of remorse is further complicated in individuals with psychiatric illness because their behaviors and cognitions may deviate from the expectations that judges have. The purpose of this article is to present the results of a qualitative study that explored how some criminal court judges view remorse, its assessment, and its relevance in their adjudication of cases involving persons with and without psychiatric disorders.

We concern ourselves initially with the topic of remorse in general and then with its presence in the setting of mental illness in particular. Psychiatric symptoms can influence both the experience and expression of remorse. Furthermore, knowledge that a defendant has mental illness may color observers' interpretations of that person's behavior.

Think of it. Trump would probably be ordered to have a psychiatric assessment. What would happen if the assessment said that due to his psychiatric disorder he was mentally incapable of acknowledging remorse? 

Could Trump, who far far most therapists have concluded is a malignant narcissist, a sociopath, and/or delusional, be able lie to avoid going to prison and tell the judge and of course his supporters, that he was sorry?

Trump is an inveterate liar who makes up tales to his benefit, but could he lie when his future is at stake? Could he feign expressing the feeling of contrition?

Another digital Perchance Photo AI (because a real photo of Trump looking this way is impossible to find).

What, then, would happen if the judge gave due consideration to an expression of remorse, false as it was, in lessening what otherwise would be a harsh sentence. 

Just Trump saying the words "I did wrong and I am sorry" might be seen as partial punishment.

Does being crazy mean never having to say you're sorry... and meaning it? Maybe for Trump it will. Maybe for this rare psychological specimen it won't. 

If Trump loses the election there's a good chance we will find out the answer.

Recent blogs:

Will the drip-drip-drip of Trump being Trump overflow his bucket and ruin his chance of winning?

It can’t happen here. Some people “get it” and want it. Some people don’t “get it”, don’t want it, and may vote for it. 

“On the initiative of the vice president” should be on the top of the page story today,

Read other previous blogs here.

Will the drip-drip-drip of Trump being Trump overflow his bucket and ruin his chance of winning? By Hal M. Brown, MSW

Digital image created by Perchance Photo AI

You may read articles like this (above, subscription)  which is summarized in RawStory here:

‘Scores of people leave early’: Interviews reveal why Trump rallygoers bow out prematurely

Of those who leave and who were interviewed by far most of them will still vote for Trump. Here’s an example of why some people in this group left:

“Trump often runs late and goes long, prompting many to bow out because of other responsibilities, priorities or, sometimes, waning patience and interest,” the Post‘s reporters found through interviews and observing dozens of events. “Some said they wanted to beat traffic or had work the next day. Others complained about sound quality. One man wanted to go home to his French bulldog. Another needed to get home to his daughter. A third had a Yorkie with him that started acting out. A fourth man said his phone died.”

The Post reporters managed to find one person who decided to vote for Harris as a result of attending the rally:

“Anastasia Bennett, 22, quickly grew tired of the insults and was ready to leave,” the Post reported. “Bennett was undecided before attending the rally with her aunt, who supports Harris. But after hearing Trump speak, she said she planned to vote for Harris.”

“It was the insults and just being an hour late,” she told the newspaper.

The Post article featured an attendee named Linda Prescott. The article begins with her as follows:

Less than 25 minutes into Donald Trump’s remarks, Melissa Prescott walked out.

She arrived at the Linda Ronstadt Music Hall in Tucson at 8:30 a.m. on a hot September day, waited in line outside with her teen daughter for more than four hours, then waited another hour inside before Trump took the stage about 2:15 p.m. As Trump was complaining about 2016 exit polls and speaking about how he likes “the old people the best,” Prescott, along with dozens of others, started trickling out.

“I’m glad we got in. I wish I could stay to hear more,” said Prescott, 36, who explained that she needed to go pick up her disabled cousin.

It also ended with her:

Prescott said she was excited to see Trump, even if briefly, after driving for two hours in August to Glendale and waiting more than two more hours in line, only to be turned away because the rally was at capacity.

When she entered the Tucson event, Prescott was frustrated to learn that the concession stands were already closed, and she and her daughter were unable to get food.

I assume Linda Prescott still plans to vote for Trump.

Trump has shown no indication nor inclination to rein in his lunacy and juvenile rhetoric. Consider his recent Truth Social post promoted apparent by Liz Cheney speaking at a Wisconsin rally saying “I was a Republican even before Donald Trump started spray-tanning.”

“Liz Cheney lost her Congressional Seat by the largest margin in the history of Congress for a sitting Representative. The people of Wyoming are really smart! She is a low IQ War Hawk that, as a member of the J6 Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs, ILLEGALLY DESTROYED & DELETED all documents, information, and evidence.”

Whether one wants to use my drip-drip-drip metaphor or “the straw that breaks the camel’s back” metaphor, it is possible that in the few weeks leading up to the election enough people will decide that they’d been hoodwinked by Trump into thinking he was the stable genius he says he is who wants to make their lives better. I hope they either decide not to vote at all or to vote for Kamala Harris. She needs enough of a voting margin to prevent GOP shenanagins (like these) from allowing Trump to win despite her getting the most electoral college votes.

Yesterday:

It can’t happen here. Some people “get it” and want it. Some people don’t “get it”, don’t want it, and may vote for it. 

Wednesday:

“On the initiative of the vice president” should be on the top of the page story today,

Read other previous blogs here.