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.