Making Sense of POTUS: Part V--Trait 7

This is the fifth in a six part series about Donald Trump's publicly visible traits. The current focus is:

7--Mr. Trump is neither insightful nor prone to guilt

Following the outline of the preceding parts, these elements will be treated individually. And, as has been the case so far, examples abound.

Insight Definitions of insight run from inaccurate colloquial ones, like simply understanding a situation or that a mistake was made, to the technical. Technical definitions of insight typically include the abilities to accurately describe: 

• current thoughts, emotion and behavior
• triggers for such experiences, psychological and social
• personality factors related to the triggers
• the genesis and development of these factors, including those that are biological, psychodynamic, and conditioned

Some psychoanalysts, like Otto Kernberg for example, have added to this list a desire for change. All of this assumes authenticity and not being too encumbered by one's defenses. 

The comprehensiveness of technical explanations makes them too unwieldy for application to public action. Instead, behavioral indicators should be considered, the best of which is guilt.

Guilt Setting aside the roles of biology and reinforcement in guilt production, the concept can be defined using the first two bullet points above, with the addition of the ability to contrast cognition, emotion and behavior with norms.  (This also means that a certain degree of insight is necessary for guilt to be generated, a topic to which we will return shortly.)

The question at hand is, how can it be observed?

In the present scenario, silence and a hang-dog facial expression -best illustrated by Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the revelation of his affair with Monica Lewinsky- are not approaches likely to be adopted by Mr. Trump because they are antithetical to one of his two raisons d'etre, wresting adulation from others. (The second is accruing more power.) The most reliable way left to observe guilt is to listen. In a nutshell, we must examine what Mr. Trump says for evidence that he is aware of, and bothered by, his thoughts, feelings and actions being outside normal limits. 

And... the evidence is mixed. 

It is clear that POTUS looks for triggers. But it is also clear that, at the same time, he sees only social ones. Simply put, blaming and projecting preclude the consideration of contributing psychological factors. 

Further, Mr. Trump is aware of his effect on people. Indeed, this seems to be one of his major foci. But he is also unperturbed by it. 

Lastly, there is no evidence in either direction that he is able to accurately describe his thoughts or emotions, or that he is able to contrast them with norms. His only apology on record is for his comments on the Billy Bush tapes. The apology drips with insincerity and reeks of contradiction. It is grossly illogical and nakedly manipulative. It is neither an apology nor proof of guilt.

In sum, mixed evidence of guilt does not insight make.

From Arse To Outhouse: Spinning Trump’s Shit-Hole Comment

On Thursday January 11th, President Trump met with a small, bipartisan group of lawmakers to discuss immigration. In that meeting, during a discussion of the merits of the country-quota based system currently in place, POTUS reportedly asked why the US allows immigration “from shit-hole countries’ like Haiti and those in Africa.

And the blowback began. Celebrities, activists, senators, congresspeople, heads of state, as well as unions of countries have condemned the statement, calling it racist in one way or another. Many have gone further and demanded an apology, as well. 

Worse yet for Donald Trump, the story won’t go away. It’s been on top of the news for 8 days. For contrast, within the past five years, former President Obama called Libya a “shit-show”, and Senator Lindsay Graham called Mexico a “hell-hole”. Both were in the news for a day (and most people don’t remember either comment at this point).

The waxing of this conflict, and his paper-thin skin, have unsurprisingly prompted Mr. Trump to respond, albeit in an unusually coordinated fashion. Four days after the remarks, the White House AND the two Trump supporters at the meeting (Senators David Purdue and Tom Cotton) simultaneously began suggesting that the other attendees misheard the President, who actually called the countries “shit-houses”. [This is an old slang word for out-houses.]

But, what was the calculation behind switching from holes to houses? Why make this distinction? Here’s my fantasy about what the Trump team considered as it mulled over potential responses to the blowback from his shitty commentary.

Option A: Deny the original comment.

Option B: Respond generally to the topic but don’t actively deny the comment. (Sarah Sanders would be an excellent point person for this approach.)

Option C: Act as if the words shithole and shithouse are synonyms. This would accomplish two things. First, changing the initial readout would create a distraction from the original comment. There would be a good deal of media attention paid to the seemingly baseless switch, but not necessarily to the comment itself. Second, and at the same time, it would dial down the intensity of the comment and, therefore, the reaction to it. Simply put, likening a country to an anus is a more highly charged declaration than making the same comparison to an out-house.

There is evidence that this strategy is working. The redefinition was endorsed by none other than former President Obama's National Security Council Spokesperson, Tommy Vietor, who is by no account Trump friendly. And this is but one of many examples.

We’re watching to see what happens, and what else POTUS has to say about Shit-Hole Gate, on Twitter...

Making Sense of POTUS: Part IV--Traits 5 and 6

On to the next two traits! They are:
5--POTUS feels entitled to special treatment and thus also feels victimized by others' criticism of him.

6--When Mr. Trump feels victimized, he becomes angry and publicly shames the object(s) of his ire.

 

Examples of these attributes are ubiquitous. So, let's use the ongoing Trump Campaign-Russian Influence scandal to illustrate them. To frame the discussion, the elements of each attribute will be treated individually.

Entitled to Special Treatment The President requested a loyalty oath from James Comey, former Director of the FBI. The former seems to define loyalty as willingness to publically defend his antics. It is unclear whether Trump includes in this antics that are also illegal.

Criticism Narcissists, like those with other personality disorders, think in black or white terms at a significantly higher rate than the general population. As such, declining to pledge his loyalty (however gracefully it was done) would be interpreted by Trump to mean that Mr. Comey was declaring himself an adversary. 

This was tolerable until two things became clear. First, evidence was mounting that Trump himself would be implicated in the Campaign-Russia scandal. Since then, there have been several unconfirmed reports that POTUS was formally notified that he is the target of a federal investigation. Here is the Department of Justice' general explanation of what that means: 

 

 

Second, it became clear that Director Comey would likely be testifying before congress and, potentially, a grand jury. Since then, he has agreed to publically testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Richard Burr (R-NC), and the House Oversight Committee led by the retiring Jason Chafetz (R-UT).

 

Victimization The combination of being investigated by Mr. Comey's FBI, and likely being publically implicated by Comey's testimony, was not tolerable to Mr. Trump. He concluded that the disloyal Director aimed to bring him down. And at that moment, Comey became President Trump's victimizer. 

So, he fired the Director.

Anger and Shaming Equally important is the way in which Mr. Comey was terminated--disrespectfully and publically. It was done by letter, a copy of which was released to reporters by the White House as the original was in transit. Consequently, the public learned of the termination before Mr. Comey, who then found out from news reports that came out while he was addressing his staff. This outcome was calculated by POTUS, who was obviously acting out anger in the form of public shaming.

Still not a pretty picture. 

The Healthcare Policy Debate: Part 1--Why Canceling The Vote Mattered

After the cancellation of the vote on the American Healthcare Act, it seemed that almost all of the reactions in the political sphere were overblown. I even tweeted about how absurd I thought they were.

I was wrong. Only some of them were absurd.

Atop the Still Absurd List sit the Democrat Party's elite, whose virtue-signaling responses were (generously speaking) poor form and vacant. According to TheHill.com, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) opined that Republicans were "so eager ... to be mean-spirited" on the anniversary of ObamaCare's passage. This, of course, implies: We would have done the kind and virtuous thing by celebrating it. Chuck Schumer, the Senate's top Democrat simultaneously announced that 24 million people were saved from being "thrown off" of their insurance policies (an oft used, albeit grossly exaggerated DNC talking point). Again, the implication is: We would have done the kind and virtuous thing, in the first place, by leaving it intact.

Then, as if seeking to ensure their spots on the Still Absurd List, a seemingly endless parade was started by hyperbolic, giddy, left-leaning politicians and pundits who declared this to be both a victory and the beginning of the end of the Trump era.

Republican reactions ranged from the Freedom Caucus' condescending condemnation of Trump to the Tuesday Groups' apprehensive analysis of his political position. In time, many thought provoking arguments rose through the din to the surface, prompting me to rethink the issue (and turn this into the Used To Be Absurd List).

So why was the pre-vote bill pull truly a big deal? There are three answers. The first is because of the forfeiture itself. The second is because of the way in which it happened. The third is because of its political consequences; and they are yuge, if you will.

Before each of these are treated in more, albeit overlapping, detail, here are the facts. The GOP currently controls the executive and the entire legislative branch. However the Party enjoys only a thin margin in the Senate. What seems like a 6 vote margin (52-46) is 

actually a 4 vote margin (52-48). This is because the Senate's 2 Independents usually caucus with the Democrats. In the House, the GOP has 237 seats versus the Democrats' 193. (There are also 5 vacancies. Most recently, these seats were held by 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat).

The current drama-surprisingly-played out in the House, where conventional wisdom was that a 44 vote margin would virtually ensure that the GOP would reach the 216 needed for wins across the legislative agenda. However, as has been shown so many times in the nascent life of the Trump Political Era, conventional wisdom is no longer in force.

Unpredicted was the opposition of both 31 of the 32 members of the Conservative Caucus, as well as a dozen or so moderate Republican ship jumpers like House Appropriations Committee Chair Rodney Frelinghuysenso of New Jersey. In other words, there existed NO certainty that the GOP would reach 216 votes. As this 

became clear, a cranky POTUS demanded that the issue be put to rest one way or another. So, the only reasonable option available to House Speaker Paul Ryan was to cancel the vote.

For any other president, the cancellation would be news for a day, and fodder for the pundit class until the Sunday talking heads had their say. Then it would be forgotten. But we're talking about President Donald J. Trump.

The first reason why the vote cancellation was a big deal for Mr. Trump is because it was a forfeiture. In other words, he failed at his first legislative effort. This flies squarely and, frankly, overwhelmingly in the face of the political brand that he methodically built over the past few years. The most notable, and painful, examples of this were found on the stump, where candidate Trump took every conceivable opportunity to show himself to be successful. 

As for being successful as President Trump? Not so much. 

The second reason why taking the vote off of the schedule was an important moment for POTUS is because of how it happened. By most counts, there were 44 Republicans who declared either their opposition to the bill, or that they were very likely to oppose it. Despite the public nature of this challenge to Mr. Trump, which was  politically  suicidal  in  the  GOP   primary,   he    was   proven

beatable. The standing narrative of Trump as always winning was obliterated at that moment. 

The third reason that pulling the bill was important is because of its political consequences. As I mentioned above, conventional wisdom was that a 44 vote cushion would guarantee GOP legislative victories. The new reality is that Trump failed and is beatable, making this path anything but certain. So, the strategies that were developed based on the old narratives have to be discarded. Leaders on both sides of the isle must now draw up new plans. 

A more visible political consequence of the forfeiture is an endless source of anti-GOP rhetoric being given to the Democrats. Just consider what they can now say has been proven.

• Trump's characterization of himself as always a winner is untrue
• Trump's characterization of himself as always successful is untrue
• Trump has shown himself to be absent the requisite skill for the job of President
• There are serious fractures in the GOP
• And, so on...

There hasn't been much of this sort of talk from the DNC... as of yet. I'm listening for it, and dying to find out what will trigger it!

Post Modern Political Honesty: Part V--The Rest of the Hacking Denial Story

In my last post, I detailed one of the central reasons why Donald Trump is denying that the Russians hacked the DNC's network during the election. Specifically, he appears to have adopted a neo-post World War II foreign relations approach. However, as is usually the case in seeking to understand the Donald, the explanation is multi-factorial. The other factors are that the President is:

• Apathetic about the potential implications of such a declaration, and 
• Subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin

Mr. Trump appears to both believe that no Russian hack of the DNC occurred, and not care about the possible consequences of saying so. Of course he should care, considering what those consequences could be. For instance, in Part IV of this series, I argued that the combination of Putin reading this sort of conciliatory gesture by POTUS-and there have been several-as a green light to expansionism, and Trump's disengagement from NATO, is a recipe for a third world war. But, even taking off the table the calamity of an unbridled Russia starting a global conflagration, we are left with unacceptable sequelae like the spread of communism, the restoration of the Soviet Union, and a bilateral nuclear war. 

The final piece of the explanation of Trump's denial that the DNC hacking was done by the Russians is that he is subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin. [For a more general discussion of his public narcissism, see my post on 02/20/16: To be, or not to be (surprised by Trump): Part II--On the Couch.] 

Vis a' vis the elections, were the President to admit that his campaign was helped by the dissemination of the information that came from the hack, he would also be implicitly admitting that his win was not gained by his effort alone. The Donald is just not capable of this; examples are ubiquitous. To him, success is an imperative as well as a zero-sum achievement. He can not share the spotlight with anyone but a subordinate; and even Trump doesn't see Putin as a subordinate. 

Mr. Putin is, however, serving another vital function for POTUS. That is, the Russian President is flattering him. Given that there is nothing more important to Mr. Trump than being successful and admired (see Nine Consistent Things About Donald Trump for more), positive commentary from one of the world's most important heads of state surely carries great weight in this regard. Otherwise put, President Putin's flattery is providing the perpetual adulation that the Donald's requires in order to maintain consistency in his ever-fragmenting self concept. As such, it would be inconceivable to him that Putin's praise was disingenuous. 


It'll be a cold day in hell before Trump ponies up this one.

To be, or not to be (surprised by Trump): Part VII--Trump, Daddy Issues & The Brave New World of Campaigning

Metaphorically, one might say that what Trump is "putting on" his supporters is a mirror. "I'm one of the guys" is the constant meta-and sometimes explicit-message. This facilitates two things. It prevents Trumpsters from feeling threatened which, in turn, enables their basic identification with him. Adding some substance (and I use the term loosely here), the Donald has unequivocally and repeatedly declared that he is pissed off, providing more tangible material with which his furious followers can identify. From a logician's point of view, the argument is, "You are strong. You are one of us. Therefore we are strong". Or, symbolically, "A=B. A=C. Therefore B=C".

All would agree that a fifty-something who's long been out of work, and has exhausted the limited vocational benefits of a high school diploma, is likely to be highly frustrated and quite angry. But, showing anger is generally socially proscribed. [Many psychologists have decried "venting" anger since he late 1970s when it was shown to be self-reinforcing. Indeed, the psychotherapy highway is littered with the casualties of earlier days. Primal Scream Therapy, of John Lennon-fame, is the most absurd example.] Instead, it grows internally because-as is the case with ire-the related thoughts are repeated so often. And it is the intensity of this anger that enhances Trumpsters' identification the most, supporting their wish to share his power to solve their problems. The hopefulness that this wish produces, even if unconscious, acts as a reward that reinforces the identification.

In summary, Trump projects power as a rule. This projection is being amplified by his symbiosis with his political supporters. As a group, Trumpsters desperately want relief both from their plights and the consequent rage. Their reinforced identification with the Donald supports the unconscious desire to partake of his power, bringing respite into view.

On a conscious level, Trump's supporters see him as an honest change agent, hardly enough to warrant forgiveness for his vaunted venomous verbage. Nor can they easily explain their exoneration of him. That is, of course, because the answer lies inaccessibly wedged deep in the unconscious. It is the place that this identification calls home. From another perspective, the presence of identification means-by definition-that Trumpsters' criticism of the Donald would also be self reflexive. That makes refraining from such critique a method of protecting oneself from the related pain, albeit unconscious.

So, they support him despite his unreserved contemptuousness because they are moved by profound and powerfully conditioned identification; and because they are utterly oblivious to it.

To be, or not to be: Part VI--Brand Meets Personality

 Here's the detailed explanation of of why Trumpsters tolerate the whimpering, mendacity, and Sibyl-like noxious theater that is the Donald. Projective identification and shaping will be taken up individually to answer the question.

Keep in mind my classmate's definition of projective identification (Part V--Psychology 601)-"buying into what other people put on you"-as we look at these questions: What is Trump putting on his supporters? What are they buying in to, and why?

It would be difficult not to notice that Trump projects "New Yorker". (And I say this as a former Brooklynite.)   What I mean, of course, is that he typically speaks in an unvarnished and fairly forward fashion. But the Donald has, of late, subtlely widened the scope of his presentation. His topics are far more frequently fodder for the working class now, and occasionally even prurient (see Musings on 3/4: Applied Clinton-Speak). Further, his delivery has become considerably more intense and forceful, just over the last year. (And I've been watching Trump since the 1980s.)

Why the change? Remember that the early exit poll data showed his typical supporter to be a first-time voter over age 45, with a high school diploma or less, who is politically independent, ideologically moderate to somewhat conservative, and quite angry (Part IV--The Composite). [Analyses of later contests have confirmed the accuracy of this amalgamation, though a male skew among Trumpsters has become apparent.] So, simply said, he is becoming who his supporters are. This far surpasses purposeful pandering, and is a manifestation of the lack of identity at the core of the narcissist (Part II--On the Couch).

Amassing more power fills the identity vacuum and, for now, his cheering minions are serving that purpose. Or, in jargon-ese, Trump's initial projection of "New York style" is being expanded and amplified because of his symbiotic orientation to his supporters.

Next, we'll take a look at what Trump's supporters are "buying into"...

To be, or not to be: Part IV--The Composite

The composite Trumpster is a man or woman over the age of 45, with a high school degree or less and, to lesser extent, having some college, an associates degree or a bachelor's degree. Most supporters are Independents and some are Republicans. In terms of ideology, they describe themselves as moderates, somewhat conservative and, at times, conservative. Trumpsters tend to be first time voters, or caucus goers, and like The Donald for three reasons. They view him as a political outsider who tells it like it is, and as the candidate most likely to bring change. What supporters want changed is primarily the immigration system, followed closely by the economy and terrorism risk. Trumpsters are angry at the government.

Now we can return to the question of the nature of the dynamic-between Trump and his minions-that results in their acceptance of his perpetually pestilential presentation. The simple answer is that they are being manipulated by a charismatic candidate who connects with voters by being one-of-the-guys, and by waving the Flag.

MUSSOLINI and HITLER (r)

Putting aside the topic of the incalculable risk inherent in being governed by someone who politics with a mixture of charisma, populism and nationalism (consider Adolph Hitler, as an extreme example), this answer needs significant elaboration to be complete.

So, let's look at how Trump's narcissism and an angry electorate interact...

To be, or not to be (surprised by Trump): Part III--Poll Data

The best, and most up to date, sources of demographic information about them are recent exit polls.

In Iowa, Trump won among those whose educational attainment was a high school diploma or less. He also won among first-time caucus goers, and those who identify as Independents, Moderates, and Somewhat Conservative. Trump bested his rivals among those who believe that immigration is currently the biggest issue facing the US, and those who value presidents who "tell it like it is" and are political outsiders. Lastly, he's seen as the candidate who would most likely bring change. 

In New Hampshire, the Donald won among male and female voters of all incomes, marital statuses, educational attainment levels and ages (although one poll showed that he only won among those under age 65). He won among moderates and all conservatives; first-time voters and those who've voted before; early and late deciders; Trump took the gold among registered Republicans and independents/undeclareds. He won among those who live in rural, suburban and urban settings, and attracted a whopping 61% of the vote among those looking for an outside candidate. Trump won among those who value presidents who "tell it like it is". He's seen as the candidate who would most likely bring change, and took first place among those who view immigration, jobs, government waste and terrorism as the nation's top issues. Trumpsters are very worried about terrorism and the economy.

In South Carolina, Trump won among men, women, and people over 44 years old. He also won among every educational attainment group, save those with graduate degrees. He won among evangelicals, non-evangelicals, Republicans, independents, moderates, conservatives, veterans, and early deciders. Trump was best in show among those who value presidents who "tell it like it is", and are political outsiders. He's seen as the candidate who would most likely bring change, and took first place among those who view immigration, jobs and terrorism as the nation's top issues. His supporters are angry at government and very worried about the economy.

So, here's the composite...

To be, or not to be: Part II--On the Couch

The answer starts with Trump's personality. His public behavior is that of a classic narcissist--grandiose and entitled; lacking empathy and interpersonally manipulative; endlessly seeking success ("winning"), power, control and adulation. 

Many of these can be quite easily seen. For instance, the sheer longevity of his complaining about having been "treated unfairly" by the media suggests that Trump believes himself entitled to questions at the level of, say, a twelfth grade class president debate. That he seems to believe he can lie with impunity also speaks to his over-inflated sense of entitlement. 

One only has to consider his comments about his ex-wives during his divorces, and more recently about Mexicans immigrating illegally, Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle, and Carly Fiorina's face, for just a bit of the nauseating proof of his lack of empathy that's out there. The wealth and empire that he's built over time more than adequately speak to his long pursuit of success and power. Similarly, Trump's incessant self-referential talk about winning, and being a winner, clearly illustrates his grandiosity and need for adulation. 

You might be wondering what all of this has to do with the reason Trump's supporters don't push back at his whining, skullduggery and offensive style. The answer continues with a look at who Trumpsters really are...